Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/06/2025February 6, 2025 Page 1 of 75 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 6, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Joe Schmitt, Chairman Chuck Schumacher, Vice Chairman Paul Shea, Secretary Randy Sparrazza Michael Petscher Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Derek Perry, County Attorney's Office Kevin Summers, Manager - Technical Systems Operations Ashley Eoff, Administrative Support P R O C E E D I N G S February 6, 2025 Page 2 of 75 MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Good morning and welcome to today's Planning Commission, February 6th, 2024 -- 2025. Excuse me. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would ask staff, do you have anything before I tell -- ask Commissioner Shea to call the roll? MR. BOSI: No modifications to the agenda. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher? COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ms. Lockhart? MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We are all present, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Excellent. We have a full quorum. So no addenda to the agenda. Next meeting is February 20th, 2025. It's going to be another, I would think, a lengthy meeting. Do we have any planned absences? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see no signs, so everybody will be here. And I would ask, because that -- we know that we've already had speakers at the last meeting for that, so as soon as we can get some documentation on that so we can start preparing, it would be great. You know, because normally we get it on a, like, Thursday or Friday, but... MR. BOSI: And we will have it for you that Thursday, the week before the meeting. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. All right. Approval of minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. February 6, 2025 Page 3 of 75 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No? Thank you. And with that, BCC report, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Good morning. On January 28th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the AUIR, and that was approved 4-0 by the Board, and on the summary agenda, they approved the Tamiami Trail Greenway Mixed-Use PUD. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I did not watch the AUIR. Was there any -- any issues or concerns? I know we raised our concerns during the AUIR, and I just -- MR. BOSI: There was -- I mean, there -- I mean, the presentation and the $635 million shortfall was presented. They basically recognized it and said this is something we're going to have to deal with upcoming in February with their budgetary discussions and trying to allocate, you know, the necessary revenue. But that was -- it was a pretty quick item. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Good, thanks. Chairman's report, I have no comments. Consent agenda, there is nothing on the consent agenda. ***So we would go to the first public hearing, and that's the Ochopee Fire Control Station Communications Tower. With that, any disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see none. And the petitioner, if they would like to present. Oh, thank you. Take your oath. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. COPPER: Do you have our presentation? MR. BOSI: Do you have a presentation? MR. COPPER: Yeah, we e-mailed it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Pause here for -- we have a presentation. To be quite frank, this is pretty much noncontroversial. If you want to steal a successful petition and put it in the jaws of defeat, we can continue with the presentation. But just give us an overview, and we'll proceed. MR. COPPER: So this petition is seeking to install a 350-foot tower about 28 miles east of the Collier Boulevard/41 intersection down there just north of Everglades City. That's essentially it. This will support EMS as well as have support for potential cellular capabilities in the future. With that, I would seek approval based on the need for the community and the removal of an existing tower that the state has since -- or the federal government has since purchased, and it's scheduled to be demolished. Without going into much more detail, if you have any questions, I would welcome February 6, 2025 Page 4 of 75 them. We have a full staff. Our design team's here. That's all I have for you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My only question, it is not a guyed wire tower. The tower is designed to collapse in the space provided; is that correct? MR. COPPER: The tower's designed to fall within a 250-foot radius. It is not a guyed wire tower, no. It is a self-supported tower. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Self-supported tower. MR. COPPER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, with that, do we have any other questions from any other commissioners? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just a quick one. Where is the tower that they plan to demolish? It's not on that site now? MR. COPPER: No. It's -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's the one -- MR. COPPER: -- about five miles west at the intersection of 29 and 41, just north of Everglades City. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Gotcha. That one. Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know where that is. Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have one question. Why are they demolishing that tower? MR. COPPER: The federal government purchased the property, the National Park Service. And they have different plans for the property, so they want that removed and replaced. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's also fairly old, too, if I know right. MR. COPPER: There's the project location. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other questions or comments? If not, then I'm going to make a motion to approve. Oh, public comment. Thank you. Do we have any public comment? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: We do. This gentleman. MR. SUMMERS: We have one public comment from Jack Shealy. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Either one. State your name, please, and where you live, for the record. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. SHEALY: I do. Commissioners, thank you so much for hosting this meeting regarding the public comment for the EMS communications tower in Ochopee, Florida. My name's Jack Shealy. My grandfather founded Ochopee Fire Control District 1. He advocated for the Board of Commissioners to have land deeded to them. This was on February 15th at 3:42 in 1977. I know that's going way back. But if you look into this property, you'll see that it's actually to be used -- its conveyance was made for the purpose of the property to be used for fire protection and associated uses. And if the premises failed to be used for such purposes -- which they haven't been in 20 years -- are ever to be used for any other purpose -- and this is all listed on the deed. I'm reading with the warranty deed that you guys have on file here -- the land shall immediately revert to the grantor, his heirs, or assigns. February 6, 2025 Page 5 of 75 Chester and Esther Davidson were our neighbors for 40 years. When my grandfather started Ochopee Fire Control as a voluntary fire department, which is now part of Greater Naples, he advocated for that land to be donated, and they put a mechanism in place where -- one day if this situation presented itself. I think if you look into find who those grantors, heir, or assigns are, you might be surprised. They could be in this room. But we can determine that at a later date. I own Trail Lakes Campground. We work as a roadside attraction. Most of you guys might know our roadside shop as the Skunk Ape Headquarters, right? We were rated the number two roadside attraction in North America by USA Today last year, which was great. But as far as ecotourism and the cultural aesthetics of the area, we don't feel that the tower is a good fit. We're within the National Park Service. They have terms of things that are deemed necessary or appropriate, and this is actually neither because in talking with the local fire department this time, they don't have any problems with communications from Everglades City all the way to the county line. This forever changes the aesthetics of the Ochopee Fire Control District 1 property. And so at this time, we are not in favor of this. We own 30 acres of commercial property. We've generated a lot of tourist dollars and tax dollars, guiding, and being out in the Everglades City and bringing people from all over the world to see. We just don't feel like it's a good fit. We would be living right next to this tower. It would be on our property. Furthermore, we looked into a tower at another property that I own. I've had a couple of these tower leases throughout the country that I've managed on my own personal property. And we had one that was hung up in the environmental phase for, I think, about 18 months, which, honestly, my long-term gain wasn't actually to have a tower there. I just was trying to buy some time to see how things would go. But at this time, just due to the warranty deed for the property as it's listed with the county, I think as you look into who those grantors, the heir, or assigns are, you might find that really interesting, and that's -- I have no further comments. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Well, I'll have to defer to the -- (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll have to defer to the County Attorney as far as the deed and heirs. It has nothing to do with the zoning. That's a legal matter, correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Do you want to comment? MR. PERRY: It's our understanding that the Ochopee Fire Station No. 66 has been there on that property and there since 1977. So it's -- I don't know that it's vacant land. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, I'm very familiar with the area, so I mean, I know where it's at. It's the issue about the deed, though. If there's any issue with the deed, it's not -- it's not a zoning issue. It's a legal issue. They have to pursue that through the courts, correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. And at this time, with our office's review, we've deemed it legally sufficient to move forward. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Now, in regards to the tower, with the -- with the structure and the removal of the existing tower, for the record, we heard him state that February 6, 2025 Page 6 of 75 there's adequate service and connectivity with the rest of the county. But if they remove the existing tower, then there's nothing; is that correct? MR. DAVIDSON: That's correct. I'm Jeff Davidson with Davidson Engineering. And we were hired by Collier County EMS to work on this project to help them get through this process. And, yeah, the tower that -- in Carnestown, the red dot in that direction on that drawing -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. DAVIDSON: -- in front of you, that's the existing tower at Carnestown, and that tower was bought -- that property used to belong to the county, but now it's -- it was purchased by the park service, National Park Service. So they're requiring that tower to be removed. So in order to make up for that lost service, this tower -- the location -- the only location that's really viable for this tower to be moved is to this fire station, which is five miles towards Miami, and it's close to Mr. Shealy's property. In fact, I knew your grandfather, by the way, and I know your dad, so it's good to see you. MR. SHEALY: Thank you, sir. MR. DAVIDSON: Tell your dad I said hi. I grew up in Everglades City. But as far as -- I mean, we're told -- and, in fact, I know this for a fact, that fire station's still there. It's being used by the fire district. We met with the fire district on site to get their approval to put this tower in this location. So nothing's really changed as far as the use of the property. It will just have a tower on it if we get this approved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Now, Ochopee Fire is now still -- is actually Greater -- MR. DAVIDSON: Greater Naples. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Greater Naples Fire District. MR. DAVIDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do we have anybody here from the fire district? MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. COPPER: We do have Mr. Nathaniel Hinkle here from Collier County Department of Public Safety, and if need be, he can come and speak about the need of the tower in this area. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Please, put that on the record, yes, and we also have Commissioner Sparrazza. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. If I can ask the gentleman that came up, do you happen to have a copy of that deed -- MR. SHEALY: Yes, sir. I have it right here available. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- with you? Can we have counsel take a quick look? I'm concerned about legality of what is stated in the deed overriding the need. I mean, if it's listed in the deed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, Mr. Perry is pulling up the deed. We'll take a look at it. But the Ochopee Fire District is a special district of -- it's a dependent district to the Board of County Commissioners as a Municipal Service Taxing Unit. There are all sorts of contractual arrangements regarding who is reviewing plans and documents for the different fire districts, okay. But we'll take a quick look at the deed. February 6, 2025 Page 7 of 75 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: While they're doing that, can we have the gentleman from the county EMS? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the deed that I'm looking at does show that the ownership is in the Board of County Commissioners, so that is correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And the restrictions that were stated within the body of the deed basically do not apply because the county now owns it? I'm just making sure we don't -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So there's a whole litany of case law on this issue. I do believe Mr. Perry looked at it. But as a general rule, when the county takes a deed that has restrictions in it, there's case law that says the county is not subject to those restrictions in the deed unless the county voluntarily assumes or agrees to those restrictions. So I think that's all probably been reviewed. MR. PERRY: And with that said, the conveyance is made for the purposes of providing property to be used for fire protection and associated uses. The property is being used for fire protection and associated uses. So even if we assume that we are subject to these restrictions, they're not being violated. A radio tower for fire communications is -- any other interpretation would defy logic. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. And the tower is to be used for EMS with possible future cell service, correct? MR. HINKLE: That is correct. I'm Nathan Hinkle. I'm the telecommunications manager for the Department of Public Safety, Collier County. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. HINKLE: And the tower here is a -- it's a forestry location, is the reality of this. We're losing the Carnestown tower site, and with that loss, we'll have a severe loss of radio coverage for public-safety use in that area. And so this tower -- the new tower location at Station 66 really goes hand in hand with what we need to do to enhance fire departments' communications, Greater Naples Fire, Ochopee. CCSO, our Sheriff's Office, depends on this. The State of Florida depends on this, the highway patrol, and the federal government uses this, so the national parks. So we're really providing a service that is needed by 911, and it goes hand in hand with the exact property deed today. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right, and that's all I'm truly concerned with is the restrictions that were stated in that deed, for a simple term, are null and void because the property's been conveyed to the county; am I close? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I don't know if I would consider them null and void, because if the county sells the property again, they may, you know, be an issue. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, we've deemed it sufficient to proceed forward with the petition. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see no other questions or comments. Anybody have any questions? Would anybody like to make a motion? I was about to start. February 6, 2025 Page 8 of 75 MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chair? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. I'd like to move that we approve this petition pending the resolution of any potential legal challenges. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, legal challenges would be separate and distinct from any zoning issue. That's -- he would have to pursue that through the courts. That doesn't have any impact -- I'll defer to the County Attorney, but that doesn't have any impact on the rezoning application unless they -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct, correct. The Board is looking for your recommendation on the merits of the petition as presented. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I move we approve the petition as presented. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Chair, I believe we have another public comment. MR. SUMMERS: We had a last-minute submission, Connor Cardwell. MR. CARDWELL: If I may. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. CARDWELL: Yes, ma'am, I do. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name's Connor Cardwell. I work, obviously, for the Florida Highway Patrol. I serve as our communications commander to oversee our seven communication centers across the state. I also serve as a security manager for the State Law Enforcement Radio System or SLERS. And, basically, I put my name on the list before this nice gentleman here came up and stated, but basically just to reinforce some of what he stated, also on this tower, upon its approval -- and currently on the tower that's going to be removed is a State Law Enforcement Radio System operations. So without this tower, once that tower's removed, there is going to be a huge gap. The new tower will provide coverage from south of South Naples to Everglades City and south of Tamiami Trail into the Everglades City and east towards Miami-Dade County for the SLERS network, the State Law Enforcement Radio System. With that SLERS, obviously, we have the state law enforcement partners that are down here, the Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, alcoholic beverage, tobacco, state fire marshal, as well as I believe Collier County uses SLERS or has the ability to use SLERS, and some of the EMS and fire areas in times of need can jump onto SLERS. So I do see that it is a need and -- as far as public safety with regards to law enforcement plus I do believe that the fire will benefit from it as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you for -- thank you for your comments. MR. CARDWELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other questions from the commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff, your report, please. MR. BOSI: And staff is recommending approval. Just wanted to remind the Planning Commission that when you make the motion, you're making the motion, as well, February 6, 2025 Page 9 of 75 as the EAC because -- related to this petition. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct, thank you. Yeah. For the new commissioners, we serve also as EAC. I don't know if you are aware of that. We used to have what was called -- the Environmental Advisory Council's been gone for, like, 10 years now. So now we serve as that as well. So the motion -- can I ask the motion to amend and state that we're approving both as the Collier County Planning Commission and sitting as the Environmental Advisory Council, Chap? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah, I would endorse the change to the motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Any -- and we had a second? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes, unanimous. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: What was your name, sir? MR. COPPER: Brandon Copper. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Next. MR. DESEMONE: ***Next petition. Petition -- next petition is a companion item. It's a GMP amendment to include a PUDZ, The Hope Home II subdistrict and The Hope Home PUDZ. Can I ask that all stand, take the oath, all those who intend to speak. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Any disclosures, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and site visit. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Just staff materials. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich concerning this matter. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich concerning this matter. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Staff materials, and I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich concerning this matter. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Let's see. I visited the site, met with staff, met with the petitioner's agent, and then just to disclose, I was on the advisory board that created the first ever five-year strategic plan on mental health and substance use disorders, and I was on the coalition to execute the plan. February 6, 2025 Page 10 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And was that a county board or -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: The advisory board was. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the county? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me is my partner, Francesca Passidomo, who also worked on this petition. Mr. Mulhere is our planner. Mr. Burgess and Nancy are with David Lawrence Center and will be here to answer questions regarding operation of the facility. Mr. Kulicki is our architect; he's here as well. And Andrew Rath, our engineer, is here to answer questions you may have regarding the petition. As the record indicates, there's two petitions before you, and I'll get into them in another slide in a minute, both the Growth Management Plan amendment and a rezone from currently zoned Estates properties to a PUD. As I think most of you on the Planning Commission are familiar, Golden Gate Estates has a master plan that basically eliminates the ability for conditional uses to go forward without having to do a Growth Management Plan amendment. The Estates are broken into two categories: The Rural Estates, which is basically east of Collier Boulevard, and Urban Estates, which is basically west of Collier Boulevard. This property is almost four and a half acres. The minimum lot size in the Estates is two and a quarter acres, so it's basically twice the size of the minimum lot size in Golden Gate -- the required in Estates zoning district. It's located -- as you can see in the yellow, our neighbor to the west is a canal and the I-75 off-ramp. Mr. Mulhere will get into that in a little bit greater detail as he's taking you through the compatibility analysis. Our neighbor to the south is the State, and we have vacant land to the north, and we have some homes to the east. One of the things I want to point out as I go through my presentation, the current zoning is the Estates. We do have to amend the Growth Management Plan to be able to request the use we're asking for. You have correspondence in your backup material regarding putting -- what we have is a big home that's going to be occupied by men who are on their path to recovery from addiction. It will have their own bedrooms, their own bathrooms, but they will share a large great room/living room, large kitchen. They'll share washers and dryers. As Scott will take you through, this is going to be their family as they transition from in-residence recovery program to this home. And it's a home. You will see it looks like a home. It is a home. It operates like a home. It operates like a family. And then they will hopefully move on to a smaller home, an apartment, a house, wherever next for their road to recovery. There are -- as Commissioner LoCastro likes to say, we need to separate some rumors from what's the real facts about this home and how it will operate. And I want to start with the Estates zoning district is not a residential zoning district. The Estates zoning district is an agricultural zoning district. And in that agricultural zoning district, as Bob will show you later in the presentation, a care unit, which is what we are, is a conditional use. February 6, 2025 Page 11 of 75 What does a conditional use mean? A conditional use means it is an allowed use in that zoning district, but it's not an allowed use on every parcel of property in that zoning district. So you go through a much more limited analysis as to whether or not this use is appropriate on a particular piece of property. There are four criteria that you look at in the conditional-use process. It essentially is you look at the impact on facilities, roads, water and sewer, and you look at compatibility. We're going through a much more rigorous analysis because we're rezoning the property through a Planned Unit Development. And Bob will take you through that analysis of how we meet those criteria. So the first rumor is is that this use is not supposed to be in a residential zoning district. Estates is not a residential zoning district, and yes, this facility is a use that is permitted in the Estates zoning district. But if you want to treat it as a residential zoning district, every one of the residential single-family zoning districts and every one of the residential multifamily zoning districts in Collier County also allows what we're doing as a conditional use. So if you live in Pine Ridge Estates, which is RSF-1, this use is allowed through the conditional-use process. If you live in an RMF-16 zoning district in Collier County, this use is allowed through the conditional-use process. So the first rumor that this is not a use that is consistent with residential homes is not accurate. It is absolutely consistent with every one of your residential zoning districts in Collier County. And Bob will take you through how this particular site is, in fact, compatible with what is around us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, while you're on that topic, you did state, though, because -- this is approved through conditional use, but you said also that we have to come in for a GMP amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Because as you know -- you've been around a long time -- the Golden Gate Master Plan basically prohibits conditional uses but for very, very small limited situations. So if you're a church, you basically -- you've seen me here before on behalf of churches. I had to do a Growth Management Plan amendment in order to basically put a church in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just for the record, it's -- the requirement for the GMP amendment is because of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Not for the use specific. It's because of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If we were in, you know, Livingston Woods, south part of Livingston Woods is regular Estates-zoned property, I wouldn't be doing a Growth Management Plan amendment. I'd be simply in front of you under the conditional-use criteria. If I were out off Santa Barbara, there's Estates-zoned property there, south part of it, I would be simply here with a conditional-use petition. If I were in Golden -- if I were in Pine Ridge, I'd be here for -- just simply a conditional-use process. I wouldn't be doing -- I wouldn't have to do a Growth Management Plan amendment. Second thing I want to point out is addiction treatment is a specialty, not something that anybody can do. You have to have very specific training and very specific licensing. And the David Lawrence Center has those appropriate expertise. And you will hear from February 6, 2025 Page 12 of 75 the experts about how this home operates and how this home will help people on their journey to sobriety. There is some information from people in the record that are not experts. And I think when you look at that information, you need to focus on this is something that requires expertise, and we have the expertise. And there's comments from -- in one of the letters it talks about how do we know that the operational standards that we're setting for this home will, in fact, be there? You just simply need to look at the David Lawrence Center, and I think it's 50 years. MR. BURGESS: Fifty-six. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fifty-six years in Collier County. The David Lawrence Center's not going anywhere. The David Lawrence Center will operate this 100 percent on their dime. There's no public money coming towards this home, no Collier County public money coming towards this home. And it will be operated by the David Lawrence Center. And the David Lawrence Center has been the mental health provider for Collier County for almost my entire lifetime. Some of you it's been your entire lifetime. But for me, not quite. There's comments about crime and what's going to happen if you put 26 men on a private -- on a parcel of property or 20 men in one home. That's simply not supported by any testimony or evidence that putting 20 men in a home is going to result in something poor happening to the neighborhood or the residents around that neighborhood. That's a scare tactic that was in the letter written to you, and we have the Sheriff's Office here if you want to ask questions regarding what really occurs in that neighborhood with regard to our existing home. Now, keep in mind, we have an existing home with six people living in that home on this piece of property operating today. There are five residents and a senior resident. That senior resident is further along in their journey to sobriety and is helping others as they go along. There's a lot of supervision that occurs and a lot of support that occurs in the current home and will occur in the new home that will be constructed on the property. The reality is when you look at our operational standards -- and Scott will take you through that in a little bit greater detail -- we do criminal background checks. If you committed a violent crime or you were a sexual predator, you cannot live in our home. So the reality is we will do more to assure that this home is safe than what will happen to anybody in any other home in that neighborhood, because you do not know who's going to buy the house next door to you. You do not know who is going to live next door to you. And anybody can look up in the public records -- there's a registry for sex offenders. I hesitate to say what I'm going to say now because I truly believe that people are allowed to rehabilitate themselves, but there is already a sexual predator living in that neighborhood. They won't be living in our house. But they're living in that neighborhood. And -- so what I'm trying to say is we're being -- the people are concerned about the quality of people who are going to live in our home and what might happen if they somehow relapse and somehow it's going to be unsafe. Well, that's not factually correct. And Scott will take you through the selection process and how they pick people to live in the home and how the people who live in the home have a say in who's going to live in the home, because they're all concerned about success. These are people who are February 6, 2025 Page 13 of 75 coming to this house because they want to recover. And I think we've lost some humanity in some of the documents that are in your backup material and some of the statements that were said at the neighborhood information meeting. The next thing I want to address -- and we'll get into this. Scott will get into this. But briefly, I want to discuss the size of this home. It's basically a 15,000-square-foot home. They will have separate bedrooms for everybody who lives there, and I've already talked about the shared facilities. It's a big house. And there will be 20 men living in this house with two -- of the 20 men, two will be resident -- a senior resident helping with this process. It is not unusual in the Estates or anywhere else in Collier County to have a 15,000-square-foot house. That's not unusual. The number of people is probably on the higher end, and -- but there are some rather large families that probably have seven-, 10-bedroom homes in Collier County. That's not unusual. So what is unusual is what we're doing as far as working with these individuals, but it's a use that is consistent with residential zoning in Collier County. So the size is -- the size is not a deterrent to success. There are other homes throughout the state that are of similar size. And, guess what, they're in residential neighborhoods. And, guess what, they're not a problem for those residential neighborhoods. So statements as to the size are not supported by the actual evidence that you will hear from us as we provide testimony today. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich, can I interrupt you again? MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please, just, again, for the record, it's 26 total, but the existing -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The existing home will stay -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Stays. How many residents -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and there will be a new home. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- in the existing home? MR. YOVANOVICH: Six. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Six. That includes the supervisory staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: So there's five -- five people who are going through the process, and one supervisory resident. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And then the remainder in the other. MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be 18 and two supervisory residents in the other one. I've already kind of hit the highlights of what we're asking for as far as the Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD rezone. We are -- we've had two neighborhood information meetings on this project. We made some revisions to the project as a result of the first neighborhood information meeting. There were concerns about the fact that we were going to have a two-story residence and people were concerned as to their privacy if somebody was living on the second floor looking into the backyards of the neighbors. You'll see the master plan. We have a 220-foot vegetated area, plus we're set back a little bit further from that 220 feet. But we agreed to limit it to one story. So we made that revision as part of this process of getting neighborhood impact -- input. February 6, 2025 Page 14 of 75 We originally were asking for 30 residents. We went down to 26. We don't think this is necessary, but we committed to a 10-foot-high non-climbable opaque barrier, basically a 10-foot wall, again, to provide further privacy commitments in this project. I don't want that to come back and bite us like it did when we were talking about the project across the street. We don't believe this is necessary for safety or any other reason. This was purely an accommodation to the residents because I'm fairly certain none of us are able to peer over or look over a 10-foot wall, again, to address concerns about privacy. We agreed to the no residential use and no passive uses in that 220-foot area that Bob will take you through in our presentation. And we incorporated significant operational commitments into the PUD. So there is a mechanism for enforcement by the county if for some reason the David Lawrence Center doesn't do its job. But as I said, they've been here for 56 years, and they are going to make sure, to the best of their ability, that everybody who lives in that home has an opportunity for success in their journey to sobriety. This is a home. It's a big home, but it's a home that's appropriate in every residential zoning district in Collier County through the conditional-use process. I'm going to turn it over to Scott to take you through David Lawrence Center's credentials, plans for operating this home. He'll then turn it over to Bob, who will take you through the planning analysis, and then we're available to answer any questions you may have. And, of course, you can ask questions now, if you prefer, before we get further in our presentation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioners have any questions of -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick one, Rich. Do residents typically have their own vehicles, or are they all there without vehicles? MR. YOVANOVICH: They have the ability to bring their vehicles; not all of them do. And we did our transportation analysis as if everybody did have a vehicle, but the reality is everybody does not have a vehicle. But there are some that do. I think roughly half. Roughly 50 percent will have their own vehicle. Others will take -- there's a bus stop up the road on Golden Gate Parkway. So there's public transportation nearby. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they would walk down 62nd to the Parkway. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we'll get through this when we show -- when we go back -- and I'll let Bob take you through the actual access to the site. It's not through 60th. It's through 62nd. We're not getting -- our cars are not going near our neighbors to the east. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So it sounds to me that this is what I would call a halfway house. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that's a pretty good terminology, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: And the residents have the ability to come and go as they please; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to get -- we're going to get into the operational characteristics. There's curfews. There's drug screening. There's random tests. There's very limited visitation. So they're not coming and going as they please. There are expectation as jobs -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: A limited coming and going? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, absolutely, because they're going to work. February 6, 2025 Page 15 of 75 COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Because it's a halfway house. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because they're going to work. They're going to reintroduce themselves back into society after their residential treatment program. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: That's a good thing. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Randy. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Rich, if I may ask, as you stated, the conditional use is basically a blanket use almost anywhere or possibly anywhere within Collier County in a residential district for something like this? MR. YOVANOVICH: This care unit use is allowed anywhere in Collier County residential zoning districts and the Estates zoning district except for areas covered by the Golden Gate Master Plan. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Allowed with a conditional use. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: With a conditional use. MR. YOVANOVICH: With a conditional use, correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Flipping that around, then what could stop a conditional use for a care unit? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have to go through a review process as to compatibility, which is the primary criteria. So we would put -- the burden's on me when we get into a quasi-judicial hearing; you know that. We come in, we put up our expert testimony as to why this is compatible with the neighborhood. Is it going to unnecessarily impact infrastructure, roads, water, sewer, et cetera? We'll go through that analysis. And if we meet the criteria, we should be approved. If we don't meet the criteria, then you should deny us. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have a couple of questions. Given the size of the building, have you gone through any type of preliminary reviews, Building Department, otherwise? My question -- MR. YOVANOVICH: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- does the size trigger the requirement for fire suppression? MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as -- we have our architect here, but no. Have we submitted our building permit plans yet, no, but obviously, we will be required to go through that process. And if fire suppression is required, we're going to have to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sprinkler system at that size building. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It may trigger it. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't usually get into -- as you know, we don't usually get into that at Comp Plan and Zoning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know, but it's important -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is yes, we're looking at those issues, and we're going to meet -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For water use, I wanted to know that. Okay. But the second thing -- and you and I talked about this third bullet, non-climbable. February 6, 2025 Page 16 of 75 That is an interpretive term. Maybe in my younger days, it could be -- you know, as a paratrooper, I may have been able to climb 10 foot, but I don't know about now. But we'll try it. But I asked staff just to remove that. It's a 10-foot wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Non-climbable is to be interpreted. I know what they meant, but it's -- I just don't want somebody to hang on that term "non-climbable." MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, that's fine, because I think back in my younger days, I did probably climb over a few chain-link fences, but never -- never a 10-foot wall because, frankly, I couldn't drive up, jump that high. I never was strong enough. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll ask staff to cover it during their presentation, but -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: What is an opaque barrier? MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't see through it. It's a wall. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: A wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: A wall. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Solid wall. All right. Well, we'll probably have more questions -- I'll have -- but next is you're going to have -- any other commissioners have questions before -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I've just got a couple quick questions. The existing home looks like it's going to -- it's on septic, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And well. Septic and well. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: I'm sorry? MR. YOVANOVICH: Septic and well for water. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Yeah. And the new structure's going to be on city? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have the ability to do either/or. We -- if we do a septic, we would be required to go through the Health Department to show that it's adequately sized and it can function properly for the number of people in this residence, and same thing with the well. We have looked at the ability to connect to both central water and sewer, and that ability is there. It's expensive, but the ability is there to connect to both water and sewer if -- should that be required. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: If it was required, would you also retrofit the other existing building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm sure we could connect that, too, yeah. Yes, sorry. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: That was my only question. MR. YOVANOVICH: I never thought about that, but sure. I don't know why we couldn't. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thanks. Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Scott. MR. BURGESS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Scott Burgess. I'm the CEO of the David Lawrence Centers. I appreciate being here today and presenting February 6, 2025 Page 17 of 75 this important project to you for Collier County. There's been question already regarding what exactly this type of residence, this home is going to be, and it's a recovery residence. And you see here on the screen the terminology defining that. Recovery residence is a broad term, and it describes a sober, safe, healthy living environment that promotes recovery from alcohol or other substance use associated challenges. There are thousands of recovery residences that are already in existence in the United States, and they vary in size and target population. Most recovery residences do offer peer-to-peer recovery support, which ours does as well, with some -- also providing evidence-based professionally delivered clinical services, which ours does as well, to promote long-term recovery. Hope Home, our current Hope Home -- which I'll talk to you about, that's been in existence now for almost five years -- is defined by the Florida Association of Recovery Residences as a Level II recovery residence. A Level II is a monitored level, meaning that there are specific policies and procedures in place, and there's also a resident hierarchy which may include and does include, in our model, a senior resident. The Level II includes house rules that provide a lot of structure, peer-run groups, and involvement in self-help groups. There are random drug and alcohol screenings that happen with great frequency weekly, and the house meetings occur weekly, and attendance is required, and there's no medical treatment that's provided in this home. And as we've tried to continue to reiterate, this is a big home. This is a family community. We're not providing medical treatment there. We're just providing other forms of support. It's important to note that recovery residences are vital to offering support to individuals and a community and helping them thrive, and they're in very short supply here in Collier County. Commissioner McLeod has already referenced the fact that the Collier County Commission has unanimously supported a five-year mental health and addiction strategic plan that incorporates as its second highest ranking need the need for developing more affordable supportive housing such as this type of residence. DLC has a 56-year demonstrated history of providing effective behavioral health care in Collier County. We're blessed to have amazing -- amazingly skilled, highly experienced, and dedicated staff with exemplary expertise leading our treatment and service provision. Just the top two medical doctors listed on our staff list here that are -- this is the list of individuals that are directly involved with our substance-use continuum support services, which Hope Home includes, but just these two top medical doctors listed together share over 70 years of specialized psychiatric service expertise, Dr. Castro additionally being a highly recognized addictionologist nationally. The executive, clinical, and operations team share close to 100 years of experience in the field, and our direct-care team over Hope Home, led by Maggie Baldwin, have the highest licenses and credentials the field has to offer, and their experience and dedication to our residents is undeniable. So you see here all the various staff that are active in this -- in our screening process and in our involvement with a provision of support for those that are receiving services -- substance-use disorder services, including this is an important element of our ongoing treatment that are listed there. February 6, 2025 Page 18 of 75 So a little bit about the existing Hope Home. That's a picture there on the left of the current Hope Home on the property that we're talking about. So, again, we have, you know, almost the five acres there. This is on a portion of that. And as you can see, that we've been operating Hope Home since June of 2020. So, again, we are coming up on five years of support there. Again, it is credentialed through the Florida Association of Recovery Residences, which is the -- is the recommended association and certification through the State of Florida. Again, I've spoken about what it offers as far as a safe and sober environment with peer support and a lot of guidance that's available to the individuals that are seeking a living experience that supports their pathway to maintaining successful sobriety and recovery. Residents are intended, as we've reiterated, to be a family. It's an intentional community. It's a home environment for those that are living in recovery, people who desire change and seek support in the recovery process and beyond. As has already been referenced, we have five residents in this current home, one of which is a senior resident who acts almost as a residence assistant, if you will, kind of putting it in that kind of analogy term. We have an approved recovery residence administrator that oversees the home. That's a person with specialized training and credentials in order to do this specific type of service. The current Hope Home is a five-bedroom, three-bathroom residence. There were some questions already in regards to the curfews and other types of elements of participants/residents in Hope Home. We do have curfews in place. Curfews are Sunday through Thursday, 10:30 to 5:00 a.m., and Friday and Saturday, midnight to 5:00 a.m. Of course, people, you know, work and have other things that they do during the day, which is a really important part of the project, and the recovery process is for people to have positive day structure, including work, volunteerism, going to groups, getting, you know, mentor support and other types of support. So people are away from the home during the day quite frequently. We have had 26 residents that have gone through Hope Home in the time period that we have owned it and have operated it. And the average length of stay is 209 days, so that's about seven months. And the clients -- the residents that are there do pay a fee in order to participate in the programming. So there -- just to go through a little bit more depth and detail in regards to the selection criteria and the screening process, there have been ill-informed and irresponsible accusations levied towards the residents that we support further stigmatizing these community members that could be our brothers, our sons, our cousins, who simply seek to thrive again. So I want to be very clear that we have a robust, lengthy process of resident selection conducted by our professional staff to ensure high levels of success for each potential candidate, the home, and our community. To give you a little bit more depth on that, we have a screening process of potential Hope Home residents. The process takes weeks, if not months, for potential candidates to go through. It is a seven-step process. Each of the processes within those steps have multiple elements that need to be checked "positive" that the person meets the criteria in order to continue to move forward in that process. This includes everybody receiving a thorough criminal background check, as Rich mentioned. And, of course, he already February 6, 2025 Page 19 of 75 reiterated the exclusionary criterias as well, which are no violent criminal history, no sexual predator history. In addition to the criminal background check, as part of the process, there are many -- several interviews and assessments that are conducted with our professional staff, which is also clinically reviewed by licensed staff members and our clinical recovery residence administrator. So all along the process, individuals are going through interviews, assessments, screenings, and they have to continue to meet every one of the criterias in order to move forward in the process. After the person goes through all of those processes, then they also -- we have a process also of having our residents interview the potential new residents. Again, this is a person that will be coming into a family, coming into a community, all of which have invested [sic] interest in making sure that that home thrives. So they are actively involved in the selection process as well. So after somebody goes through all of the professional review, the residents also have to interview and review, and then there's a final determination that is made related to whether the person is accepted into Hope Home. Just from a high-note level, we've indicated, you know, just a few of the criteria that are important in that selection process as well, that the person needs to display a strong willingness and desire to maintain sobriety and a healthy lifestyle. Everybody, of course, has to remain alcohol and drug free, and we do all of that random testing to ensure that that is in place. Everybody has to commit to being in the home for a minimum of three months. And as I mentioned before, the average length in the home is actually closer to seven to eight months. A person has to commit to putting together, with support, a personal recovery plan and to work that plan aggressively. They need to find a recovery mentor, which all are required to do. They have to be active participants in the home to be helpful in the home and to assist with the home groups, and they also need to commit to having participation in groups outside of the home as well, participating regularly in those meetings, accepting responsibility, and sustaining friends that are going to be helpful to them in their recovery pathway moving forward as well, building up that network of recovery support. So again, accountability is a huge element, and people have to be willing to commit to that accountability. So they need to abide by all of the rules. Our handbook that we have, which we either can -- have provided or can provide, is 36 pages. Every one of the residents, as part of process of coming in, have to be -- have to review that as part of one of their interviews, and they have to sign off on every expectation that is in that handbook. That handbook also includes a good-neighbor policy. So, again, we spell out from point -- the first point that we're having conversation with individuals how important it is for us to be good neighbors and what that specifically means in the way that we define it. And to date, since we've had this current home, we've not had problems at all with neighbors. Again, they have to abide by the rules of the residence. They need to participate with their recovery family. We need to -- they need to participate with their peer support. They have to demonstrate respect for themself, respect for others, including the community within they live in and the neighborhood that they live in. They have to attend the house and the community meetings, which we discussed. And importantly, as I mentioned before, it's critical that they become involved with February 6, 2025 Page 20 of 75 positive day structure in order to help them thrive again, and oftentimes that's work, and we do have -- the members of Hope Home have had great success with getting back to work, and that's helping, and they're thriving again and their ability to be able to not only maintain and sustain but to move forward in life. So what do we provide in the home? I mentioned a lot of the peer support. So of course, through the senior resident, they're getting a lot of peer support. They're also getting a lot of peer support that comes to wrap around them while they're in the home. So we have peer support specialists and resident expert -- residential experts that assist and support individuals. If they have need for any additional support, treatment-related support, they can receive that at David Lawrence Center or in other places in the community. And so that's not provided directly there, but it is available to every individual to help support them in whatever way they need additional support. The accountability is a huge factor that the -- just like in a home, everybody has to be held accountable to doing their chores and making sure that they're positively, you know, commuting with each other, and that accountability is heightened and really important. A part of that accountability, as I mentioned before, are those random drug and alcohol testing that take place there, and that, again, is an important part of the accountability mechanism in ensuring people thrive. And, of course, we've got that dedicated peer support, and we have tailored case management and recovery plans for each individual. Every individual is exactly that, an individual. Their issues might be a little bit different, their opportunities for moving forward, their interest in their recovery plan as far as what that looks like, it needs to be customized for every individual, and everybody's got a plan. Everybody's got to work that plan as part of their participation in Hope Home. And with that, I'll turn it over to Bob, unless you have any specific questions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have -- I have some questions, but, Randy, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you. Yes, thank you for your presentation. Appreciate hearing some more details as to what the goals are and the structure of this program. I'm sure there's no one in Collier County that's going to say this is a bad program. No one's going to say it's not needed. Two questions regarding that. First of all, where is the closest RR home to us in Collier County right now; do you know? MR. BURGESS: The closest one to where we're at right now? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Well, yeah. MR. BURGESS: I'd have to defer to Maggie, she may know, or Nancy. MS. BALDWIN: It would be Naples Recovery Network. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If you want to make a statement, for the record, to these questions, please. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: State your name for the record. MS. BALDWIN: Good morning. Maggie Baldwin. The closest recovery residence would probably be Naples Recovery Network owned by Phil Hummel. I don't have the address. I want to say it's off of Pine Ridge February 6, 2025 Page 21 of 75 Road. And he owns a few properties in that area. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Do you know roughly the size -- the head count, the heartbeat per home? Is it 10? Twenty-five? MS. BALDWIN: I think he has between six to 10 male residents in his houses. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: In his house -- in multiple houses. Okay, great. And maybe you can answer this: A couple of times during the presentation it was stated "random drug and alcohol testing." MS. BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Can you give us a feeling of what "random" is? MS. BALDWIN: So the residents are tested once a week. They don't know who's up or what day of the week, but it's once-a-week testing. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Oh, it is, once a week. MS. BALDWIN: Once a week. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MS. BALDWIN: And there's also Breathalyzer testing at the house. And if needed, we have drug testing kits in the home if the senior resident has any concerns. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Great. Thank you for that. MS. BALDWIN: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: How many halfway houses are there in Collier County? MS. BALDWIN: I don't have that information off the top of my head. I would have to research that for you, sir. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Can you take a guess or an estimate or -- MS. BALDWIN: As far as FARR certified recovery residences, there are not that many. There's Naples Recovery Network, which is owned by Phil Hummel. There's Art of Living Homes. There's Hope Home. There's also a home called Primary Purpose that's here in Golden Gate Estates, but that's not a FARR certified recovery residence. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So I'm guessing that within the FARR certified residences, there may be 50 residents in the -- for the county? MS. BALDWIN: How many -- MR. BURGESS: So you're asking about individuals? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah, people. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please speak into the mic so we can make sure we have a recording. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: We have very few of these -- MS. BALDWIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: -- FARR certified residences. MS. BALDWIN: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I'm just curious as to how many residents these certified residences might have. Fifty? MS. BALDWIN: Possibly 50, maybe a little bit less. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: For the whole county? MS. BALDWIN: For the whole county. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: What's the population of Collier County? February 6, 2025 Page 22 of 75 MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Four hundred and fifteen thousand permanent population with the seasonal increase of 20 percent. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Seasonal increase, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Oh, God. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask the commissioners please use your buttons when you're going to speak so I can keep track. Thanks. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, I'll press my button and say thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Scott, I have some questions. Again, I'm looking at the demand primarily on water and sewer. There's no food service on site; is that correct? MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Each resident prepares their own meals? MR. BURGESS: Each resident, yes, prepares their own meals, that's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So they purchase their own food. It's not a communal thing, but -- MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There's one kitchen, but they prepare their own meals. MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Laundry service, they do their own laundry service? MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There's no linen exchange? Is there a linen exchange? MR. BURGESS: There's linens that are provided when a person comes in, obviously, and then they're -- you know, they wash their own linens and -- yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Again, these are all demands on water. Housekeeping services? Do you have -- do they have maid service, housekeeping services? They maintain their own -- MR. BURGESS: They maintain their own property, and then we have, you know, people come in periodically. But no, for the most part, they are required to maintain the property. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And as far as the communal living facilities, meaning the shared facilities, that's -- there's some kind of chore -- MR. BURGESS: Correct. Shared responsibility -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Shared responsibilities, correct. MR. BURGESS: Yep, yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Medical staff is only on call, then? MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Again, I want to talk to your architect at some time as well because I want -- I want the architect, between now and when I ask -- because the size of this building, he should know -- he or she should know whether there's going to be requirements for a separate sprinkler system because, again, I'm looking at demand on water and whether it can be serviced. And ingress/egress with that size population of the building, so... MR. BURGESS: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But I'll reserve that, and that person can prepare. But just so you know where I'm going on this, I've already talked to Rich Yovanovich about February 6, 2025 Page 23 of 75 this. The size of the building, the population demand -- and I'm going to ask the county staff as well because I know we had discussions during the last meeting about septic. But this is within the Water/Sewer District, and I'm going to require that it be connected to the public services, Collier County water service. I just don't see how a building of this size with this population on the items I just talked about can be serviced by a septic tank system unless you have an engineer that can describe it to me. But I just don't believe that -- to put that type of demand on a septic and well -- we're close enough, and I'll reserve when county staff -- I want to reserve to -- our representative from the Collier County Water/Sewer District come up and explain as well what they think the requirements would be for this facility and whether it can be connected. I realize it's a cost. I realize you're going to have to pay the impact fees and related to the connection. But if you're looking for my support, this will have to have connection to the Water/Sewer District. So I'll defer to any other commissioners. Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I agree. Because I live in the Estates, I have a well and I have a septic. I also have two high schoolers, so I know how much water I go through. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Does that mean the washing machine every day? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Every day. One of them in wrestling, the other one in cheer, forget it. It smells like a locker room half the time. But on top of that, running a reverse osmosis system on the whole house, you're burning two to three gallons to make one gallon. So it's a tremendous -- a tremendous amount of water gets used. But I did want to address -- because in the opposition letters -- and then I want to call it an elephant in the room. One of the letters -- this other mental health professional who's against this project stated you had 14 visits in 20 months from the Sheriff's Office specifically at that site. Now, if that's not correct, then obviously I want to address that. And, Rich, you -- I know you said you had somebody here from the Sheriff's Office. But I'd really love to get on top of that and clarify this, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's deal with that elephant in the room right now if this is okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll have -- I'll have the sheriff's department -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Perfect. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- deal with that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you, sir. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Good morning. Leslie Weidenhammer from the Sheriff's Office. I'm a lieutenant at the Behavioral Health Bureau. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Good morning. Thank you for coming. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So just try to clarify this. I mean, there's lots of reasons that the Sheriff's Office show up to your house. You could have an EMT call. You could have a number of different things. But there was a letter that stated that the police have been there 14 times in 20 months, and then -- and that's only on X amount of individuals, and they put a math February 6, 2025 Page 24 of 75 equation in there that I can't remember, but it showed to be going a whole lot higher than what's there now. So we see that everybody has to be screened to get into this. You do background checks. You have predator checks. You have screenings, and all these things. I think it's a selected group that would able to use this recovery tool. But if you could expand on whatever you possibly can on these visits to try to push down this negative tone. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Sure. During that time, they've been in existence for about four and a half years, which takes us to 2019, somewhere around there. Looking at that, there have been calls for service on that road. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: On that road, okay. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: That does not mean that those calls were necessarily for that residence or individuals at that residence. As a matter of fact, when we looked at those, many of those were folks who were fishing in the canal, folks who were there by the canal that were not associated to the home that were making noise. There was a call for service for a brushfire. So not all the calls on that road or at that residence were necessarily due to that home or those individuals in that home. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Correct. So that would be an incorrect statement to say there's been this many calls specific to that residence in '20 [sic]. When you -- exactly as you put, there's been calls for that road due to anybody fishing in the canal or a brushfire, so on and so forth. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: And what happens is, because there's not a whole -- as you've seen on the aerials that they've shown, there's not a whole lot of residents right there on that particular road. So a lot of times, from our dispatch, we will go in and look for -- or even somebody who calls in will say, "Well, it's near that address," and it doesn't always mean that there's something occurring at that address. That is something that occurs throughout the county. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Thank you. That's what I would like the clarification on. Thank you very much for that. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul, before I get to you, let me just finish. Scott, I have a couple other questions. This is a male-only facility. MR. BURGESS: This is a male-only facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it's strictly voluntary, so any resident can self-enroll or disenroll at any time? MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Says, "I'm no longer putting up with this," and -- MR. BURGESS: Absolutely. If they -- if they have no longer an interest in following the rules and all of the policies that they're subject to as being a resident of the home, they can opt to voluntarily leave at any time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And then when Bob speaks, I'll have some questions for Bob. But, Paul, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This is more for the officer. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just to follow up to the question on the calls, what February 6, 2025 Page 25 of 75 would a typical call look like that you would associate with the existing facility look like? LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Are you speaking directly -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I mean, what kind of calls are you getting? Noise? Are you getting -- that you might associate with the facility? Because it sounds like you've got a certain number of calls. You've said they're not all related, but some are. So what would it look like for the ones that you would say were related to the facility? LT. WEIDENHAMMER: And you're speaking directly of that facility, that address? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, yes, ma'am. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Yes, sir, Commissioner. What we've seen there, there was a medical call there, somebody who was having a medical issue; there has been a call there for deputies helping one of the individuals deliver their bicycle to the home. Criminal activity, that is not the case. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other questions? Go ahead, Mike. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: My question is, what about friends or guests of these individuals? Are they allowed to just come and go as they please? MR. BURGESS: No. They have to be approved by the house manager. We have very strict rules as far as -- I mean, certainly there's no overnight guests at all, and they have to have approval from the senior resident in order to have guests. And quite frankly, there's not a lot of guests that come by. When people visit with family or visit with friends, they typically will do that away from the premises. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: And there's no, like, medical staff that goes there every day? There's not a David Lawrence staff member that goes there every day or anything? MR. BURGESS: Well, there's pretty typically a staff member that goes there. That would be one of our peer support specialists. So that wouldn't necessarily be a medical doctor, but it would be somebody that is actively involved in wrapping support around the individuals in the home. So there is pretty regular, almost daily, if not daily, contact from one of the staff of David Lawrence Center. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Thank you. MR. BURGESS: If I might, I'd like to just speak to the demand and the need for the program like this and why it was ranked the second highest priority in the strategic plan was because it was recognized at that time -- and it's been a consistent number -- is that there's a need for about 100 of these types of housing availability on a daily basis in Collier County. So we know that the demand is quite high; the supply is very, very low. And that's why we're trying to attend to that need as best we can one step at a time by believing -- bringing forward these projects such as affordable supportive housing through recovery residences. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see no other questions -- oh, sorry. Mike, you already got yours. I see no other questions. Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Mulhere's up. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Mulhere. Bob. MR. MULHERE: I didn't know if it was breaktime. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Bob. February 6, 2025 Page 26 of 75 MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Bowman. I am a certified planner who has worked in land-use planning for 37 years now. Been certified as an expert. So bear with me. While some of this may seem a little repetitive, from my perspective, it's important that I get some stuff on the record. That's just a picture of the backyard. So you know the location and that it's 4.47 acres in size. This is the text from the Growth Management Plan which establishes The Hope Home II institutional subdistrict. It allows for the recovery residences that we've been speaking of. Also single-family dwelling and family care facility as defined in the LDC. Two and three are already allowed in under the Estates zoning. And this is a snippet from the Golden Gate Area Master Plan with the subdistrict identified in yellow. Let's -- going to the Planned Unit Development, the zoning, that's where we really have the opportunity to talk about compatibility. And these are the permitted uses there; very specific. A total of 26 residents inclusive of 23 residents and three senior residents. And again, single-family dwellings, family care facility -- there's a typo there, but care -- and any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing, which is standard language typically put in any of the zoning districts. Just to reiterate, medical and commercial uses aren't permitted. The site can only be used as a residential style recovery residence. No other treatment facility or function of the David Lawrence Center will occur in this location. And these are just accessory uses typical of any residential zoning district or agricultural zoning district except that we have allowed for a fence or wall up to 10 feet in height. You've already seen the location. This slide depicts the uses that surround us. Rich went over those. We have a canal and I-75, you know, to the west, and to the south is owned by the State of Florida. I don't know what their intended use is with that. Perhaps if the roadway is widened, they may have some stormwater use or something like that. But anyway, that's owned by the state. To the north is a vacant lot, and to the east there are single-family estates zoned residential lots. You already know this, but we've had two neighborhood meetings. So neighbors have been contacted via letter, and we had those two meetings. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Bob, if I may, the lot to the north, the vacant land, is that owned by an individual? Corporation? Do you happen to know? MR. MULHERE: I don't. MR. BURGESS: Individual. MR. MULHERE: Individual. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Individual, okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So I think Rich mentioned, but conditional uses, generally in the Estates zoning, allow a number of uses that are very different than single-family and that would generate impacts other than -- atypical to a single-family home. Those are churches, social and fraternal organizations, childcare centers, and adult daycare centers, private schools. And then if you look at the Conditional Use No. 5, you'll notice that that structured -- that each of these uses are separated from another one by a semicolon which means that those are -- that is a list of uses. Group care facilities, Category 1. Care units February 6, 2025 Page 27 of 75 subject to the provisions of the LDC Subparagraph, basically, 6, which is directly below 5, and then also nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities. So care units are a permitted -- are an allowable conditional use in the Estates. As Rich mentioned, they happen to also be a conditional use in residential single-family zoning districts and multifamily zoning districts. And there's the residential zoning district. You can see that, basically, the same language exists under No. 7 here under conditional uses for residential zoning districts, care units, and the same provision, in this case, No. 8 below has restrictions on those -- on those uses. So let's talk about some definitions. The very first phrase under the definition of care unit is significant. It says, "A residential treatment facility." Moving through that definition, care units shall contain 15 or more persons under care, plus resident supervisors. It also says right here that a care unit shall permit all of the list of uses as permitted by group care facilities Category 1 and 2, and here it listed substance abuse. If we look at a group housing unit definition, these are housing structures designed to meet specific needs of certain segments of the population and refers to the following types of structures: Family care facilities; group care facilities, Category 1 and 2; and care units. So we fall also under the definition of group housing. A group housing unit is defined as rooms, or rooms connect together constituting a separate independent housekeeping establishment which may be in the same structure with or without complete kitchen facilities, and then it lists the types of group housing units which, again, care units fall under that definition. So then you go into these group care facilities, Categories 1 and 2. And again, if we go back up to the definition of a care unit, I'll just repeat, it says, "Shall permit all of the list of uses as permitted by group care facilities, Category 1 and 2." And if you look at the list of uses permitted under group care facilities, Category 1 and 2, you see that one of those uses is a residence for persons recovering from alcohol or drug use. It's recorded slightly different in B but same intent. So as we've said, a care unit is a conditional use in both "E" Estates, generally, which is an agricultural zoning district by definition, and in the RSF zoning district. Now, this is really important, a group housing unit such as Hope Home II constitutes single dwelling unit. I saw some correspondence that related it to 26 units and even higher. This is a single dwelling unit. It's defined as a single residential dwelling unit. Yes, it's big and, yes, there are more bedrooms than you may typically see in a single family residence, but it is a single dwelling unit, not multiple dwelling units. By the way, when we looked at the traffic, we did the most conservative assessment looking at how many trips could be generated based on the number of residents and not just as a single-family dwelling unit. I think this is also a little bit important when we talk about compatibility and we talk about what the neighborhood contains. This is the zoning map from -- of Golden Gate Parkway from I-75 down to Santa Barbara Boulevard. I-75 here; Santa Barbara here. Highlighted in yellow are existing conditional uses. Provisional use was -- you see a PU. That was the name of a conditional use probably 25, 30 years ago. Since then it's been called a conditional. February 6, 2025 Page 28 of 75 And you have a number of different types of -- and then you do have some nonresidential uses that aren't conditional uses. For example, the CFPUD that is the David Lawrence Center. You have a bridge center. You have -- I'm very familiar with it. I live just around the corner. You have the Colonnade PUD right here. It is undeveloped, but it is a commercial PUD. There are at least three churches. There's a private school right here -- or excuse me -- right here, and there's another private school along the Parkway. There's a childcare facility; I think it's called Kid Care. And then there's the Knights of Columbus facility. The point is, there are quite a few approved conditional uses along Golden Gate between I-75 and Santa Barbara. And all of those have been deemed to be compatible and consistent with Policy 5.6, which is the policy that basically says that a use has to be compatible with the surrounding uses. I saw a correspondence addressing that as well. So I'm not suggesting that these locations infer that this use is compatible. I'm suggesting that there is an analysis that has to be conducted. These have been deemed to be compatible, or they could not have been approved, and it's our job, as Rich indicated, to show you why the use we're requesting is also compatible. So let's talk about that a little bit. Specifically, Policy 5.6 says, "New developments shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code." Compatibility is defined as a condition -- by the Land Development Code is defined as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." And I think Rich mentioned that a conditional use is a use that, due to special circumstances, is not permissible in all -- in a zoning district but may be appropriate if controlled as to number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood. So we already talked about the commitments. We already talked about the operational -- the design standards and the operational commitments implemented to achieve compatibility, but I'll just repeat them briefly. Originally, we had a two-story structure planned. Based on comments from the neighborhood, we've reduced that to a limit to a single-story, 30 feet in height, which is the same height that's allowed in Golden Gate Estates. We have a minimum approximately 295-foot setback from the nearest residence. The parcel is fairly large at 4.47 acres. I'm not going to go over these. Scott already talked about these, but these operational commitments are in place to ensure that not only are the residents safe in achieving their goals and objectives, but the surrounding community as well. This shows you -- this is the Master Concept Plan. It shows the proposed building footprint. I point out that here is the access off of 62nd Street. This is the existing building. And again, the total of 26. This area to the east -- excuse me. I think that's to the north. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's to the east. MR. MULHERE: It's to the east, okay. Yeah. There is a 220-foot open space buffer. There's a preserve here, but you can see that there's native vegetation in here throughout. And this buffer is not even from the edge of the structure, so there's this additional area here that technically would meet the February 6, 2025 Page 29 of 75 definition of a setback. But let's just use the 220 feet. No activities can occur in this area. So no accessory structures or anything like that, and that's the way that that PUD is written. This shows you the distances from the edge of the improvement area, this driveway, to nearby structures. That's 575 feet. The closest one is 450 feet. And again, you have a vegetated buffer here and, I didn't mention it, but obviously we've talked about a 10-foot wall as well. So there's significant design standards to minimize any impacts on our neighbors. And this just shows you the perimeter buffers: 15-foot Type B landscape buffer to the north, 15-foot Type B landscape buffer to the south. What's required to the east would be 15-foot, but what we have is a 220-foot retained native vegetation area there and a Type D buffer along the roadway. Of course, these -- these buffers would include, if it's approved the way it's written, a 10-foot wall within that buffer. Architectural design, I know you had some specific questions, Mr. Chairman, and maybe others do as well. We'll go to those questions. I just wanted to point out you can see that this is an attractively designed building, low profile. Yes, it's large, but it's also on a four -- almost a four-and-a-half-acre parcel, which you really won't even see because of all the vegetation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have several questions, but let me -- Bob, let's finish, and then we'll take a break, and then we'll go to the questions. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm almost done. This is my last comment. And Norm is here, so if you have specific transportation questions. But I did want to point out that his analysis indicated 15 two-way p.m. peak hour net trips. And again, the access is off 62nd Street, so we're not going further into the neighborhood to access this. So in conclusion, this proposed Hope Home II is a care unit. It's got greater than 15 residents. It's presently an allowed conditional use in both the Estates and RSF zoning districts generally. Yes, it's restricted in Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, which is why we're doing the Comp Plan amendment and the PUD. It is a single-family dwelling unit, not multiple dwelling units. There are two -- there are two units on that four-and-a-half-acre property, the existing and the proposed. The operational commitments, coupled with the design standards, result in compatibility with the adjacent or nearby estates lots, and we do have a recommendation of approval of both -- of the small-scale GMPA and the PUD rezone from staff. So that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just before we take a break, can you go back to the slide just to make sure everybody understands where the fence will be and the buffer. MR. MULHERE: So I'm assuming -- and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. Pink, okay, good. So here, here, here, there. I don't think it's going up over the lake. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The fence will not be to the south, just a buffer? Because the lands to the south -- MR. MULHERE: No, there's a fence here, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There will be fence all the way around? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's the existing fence. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. February 6, 2025 Page 30 of 75 MR. MULHERE: Let's make sure. Where did the wall -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's around the entire -- it's around the entire property, the fence -- the wall. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The wall. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Basically, at the lot line? MR. MULHERE: Within the buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Typically, you put it inside because you plant both sides of the -- you plant both sides of the wall. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll take a -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: My question will only -- and he'll be done. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please, go ahead, then. Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's an easy question. I just wanted to understand the seven to 14 on the previous ones. MR. MULHERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Explain that a little bit. Now all of a sudden we're up to 26, and everything you showed us -- and I didn't read every word -- said "up to seven to 14." MR. YOVANOVICH: The difference is, if you look under the definition of a care unit, it requires that we be 15 or more. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So what it says is a care unit, you can have -- the number seven to 14 goes away because we're allowed Category 1 and Category 2 type uses. And the last thing I wanted to point out is if you look back at that slide -- whoops, wrong way. Yeah. No, I think we're going the right way. Sorry. As far as the setback of our nearest corner of the existing home, when you look at that number, that's 270. The corner of the home, right here, is 270 feet. Our neighbor has a required minimum setback of 75 feet. So the closest we're going to be is 345 feet from another structure, and we have not allowed our residents to utilize the 220 feet green space area. We can't put benches in there to, you know, further assure [sic] human noise or discussions from our neighbors. And then we're done with planning and everything else. I know you'll have more questions after the break. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have several questions. But let's take a break. I'll go to 15 minutes; 10:50 we'll say. That's 16 minutes. (A brief recess was had from 10:34 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) (Commissioner Schumacher has left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Can we please all take our seats. And we were on questions. I believe we have commissioners who had questions. And I do want to note that Commissioner Schumacher had to depart, so note for the record that he has departed. But I still have the County Attorney showing. Do we want something to add? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to comment that as presented as a single-family residence, there's nothing in the PUD that limits it to that type of visual because the reference to the statute February 6, 2025 Page 31 of 75 doesn't deal with the form of the residence and different levels. You could have apartment. You could have townhouse. So if you want it to have a certain appearance, then it needs to be limited in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're fine with adding a condition that it be constructed to appear, because it is, a single-family residence. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Well, as we typically -- for the county, we don't get into architectural standards, but we do -- can define that, as stated for the record, that this would be a single-family home and state it for the record that it would be approximately 15,000 square feet, as was stated by Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's under air, right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I think we can make -- we can add that as a condition of -- if we vote to approve, we can so identify. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be for the new home. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the new home. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Before we go into more questions, can I just address a few comments that were already made, because I think maybe -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- it will not -- there was a question about whether or not we were going to have to sprinkler the building in the first place, and the answer is yes. And then the next question was, and I think by the nod of the heads, septic and well were an issue for everybody. We will -- we will commit to connecting to central water and central sewer and retrofitting the existing home to central water and central sewer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I just need to clarify, then, from staff, is that within the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's available. We have an availability letter -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is it within the existing Collier County Water/Sewer District, or will the Board have to expand the Water/Sewer District to accommodate the hookup? MR. BOSI: The location is within the existing Water/Sewer District. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And the -- it's fairly close on 62nd Street, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- it's far enough away for it to be expensive. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I understand. Well, I know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, we're talking -- we're talking a force main here probably. We're talking possibly even a lift station, if not two. But that's not part of the zoning, but the criteria, as stated -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and you've already stated that you will consent to agree to hook to the Water/Sewer District, which would also include the existing facility, if you're going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That was correct, yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Petscher wanted that. That's okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So I think we covered the Water/Sewer District. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was -- so that -- I mean, we're done with our presentation. All of the experts are here to answer any questions you might have February 6, 2025 Page 32 of 75 regarding our presentation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff presentation? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. We have Nancy Gundlach and Parker Klopf who did the individual reviews for current planning and Comp Planning. I can just provide a summary. Staff is recommending approval of both the GMP and the PUD request. We originally had some concern about the size of the location. It originally came in with a 30 head count, and we had suggested it down to 26. We think that the way that -- the setbacks and the restrictions of the use of the property and the location of this parcel in relationship to the existing neighborhood, that the focus and the intensity of this project will be directed to the west and to the canal and to the I-75 off-ramp. And with that and with the restrictions, we really think that it will be on the outskirts of the individual neighborhood and not provide a negative detrimental effect, can be found to be compliant with the additional -- with the additional buffering and setback requirements. And we think that because it will be utilizing 62nd, and 62nd Street only has 10 total parcels that could be developed, the impact to the transportation system is clearly de minimis. For those reasons, we are supporting it. And one of the other aspects that I checked when I was speaking to Commissioner McLeod, there is a bus stop at the -- at Golden Gate Parkway and 62nd Street. So access to public transit is something that is extremely important within these recovery residences because of, as you've said, the population, not the entire population, will have cars. Some will be having to utilize public transit, and public transit is, you know, a thousand mile -- or a thousand feet to the north at Golden Gate Parkway and just a little bit to the -- a little bit to the east at the location of 60th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where's the bus stop? Is it right at -- I go up 62nd Street -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, are you sure? MR. BOSI: Right about here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's what I'm talking about. So -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's a couple thousand feet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they've got to -- if they were walking, they would walk up 62nd Street north. They'd go right on 62nd Street. Is there a way to take that foot traffic out to the sidewalk so they don't have to walk down 62nd Street? MR. BOSI: What I wanted to show you here on this, this is from the CAT system. That location right there is the bus stop. And I would go back to their PowerPoint. And their PowerPoint, you can see -- you can see 62nd Street here. There's a 10- to 15-foot buffer between 62nd Street and Golden Gate Parkway. Where the sidewalk is, they can just walk over the grass to access the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I jump in on that question also? We will have to get permission from DOT because we're -- we're in the I-75. They have limitations of what you can do. We can commit to a connection assuming we can get the permit from DOT; otherwise, I'm sure what people will do, as Mike suggested, they'll just walk across the February 6, 2025 Page 33 of 75 grass. COMMISSIONER SHEA: They'll make one shortly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It would be good to guide them that way so they -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If we -- but it needs to be subject to our being able to get the permits from the appropriate permitting agencies. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mike, I have one question in regards to -- if this was not a drug rehabilitation facility, if it was, let's say, a fraternal organization or a college dorm of some sort that they wanted to -- you know, a fraternity house or whatever, what would that require to have 26 people? Would that just be a conditional use? MR. BOSI: I believe it would be a conditional use as the -- as a care -- as a care facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it wouldn't be a care facility. I'm talking about a living quarters or living house -- a fraternity house for college kids. Could I build it on the site? I'm thinking of the same type of building, the same -- everything, but not a drug rehabilitation center. I would believe that it would be far more of an impact on the neighboring property if it were kids going to FGCU and all wanted to share living expenses in the 15,000-square-foot house. MR. BOSI: And I guess let me couch the response -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- in the sense that dorm rooms -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- are not a use that I'm very familiar with within our LDC in terms of how we treat those. I know -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But that would be a group living facility rather than a care facility, I believe. I'm just trying to -- I'm just trying to understand, because I think the opposition's going to be more so with the residents than with -- and so that's why I'm -- I want to hear. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think, Commissioner Schmitt, we would still need to go through the same process we're going through today. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I thought so. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I could do that as a matter of right. I could have a really big family and live in the house. I mean, there's nothing that says I can't build a big house, have my kids, my wife's kids, you know, all come and live in, you know, the Yovanovich family compound with each of them having their own car and enjoying just a one big family living arrangement. MR. BOSI: And what I needed to do was just look at Estates zoning district conditional use, and I would agree that the same process would be required, because a conditional use, we do have a conditional use for social or fraternal organization, and a dorm would fit within that umbrella. So that's -- so this process would be required if it was, like I said, a dormitory. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Commissioners, do we see any need to hear from staff, Collier County Water/Sewer District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We're good with that, so no other questions. Okay. With that, staff presentation complete? Thank you. February 6, 2025 Page 34 of 75 MR. BOSI: Unless there's any further questions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have none. Then we'll go to registered speakers. How many registered speakers do we have? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. We have five individual speakers. We also have two speakers that have been ceded time by -- one individual that's been ceded time by three others and one individual that's been ceded time by 10 individuals. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: By 10, all right. We're going to call the public speakers. I would ask -- Mr. Yovanovich, are you up and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to make sure that those 10 people -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- those others are actually in the room to cede their time? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. I will ask them to raise their hand at the appropriate time. And considering that we have five, two that have already -- are going to cede time and another 10 that are going to cede to one individual, that's -- I'm going to try and hold to three minutes per public speaker. If we need to go more, we'll consider at that time and go further. But I would ask each of the public speakers to begin to position themselves, as we announce the names, to be prepared to go to each podium so that we can certainly keep the proceedings going without having to wait for the speakers to come up to the podium or the lectern. With that, the first public speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: Yes. We will start with Laurie Van Zant, and then the next speaker will be Mia Sceusa. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And these are the individual speakers? MR. SUMMERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So we will ensure that when they speak, if we don't -- we don't get them -- to count them again. I mean, I'm trying to be fair. So, go ahead, please. MS. VAN ZANT: My name is Laurie Van Zant, and I live on a property that abuts the property in question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Which side? The east? MS. VAN ZANT: It's directly behind me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: The north? Pardon me? MS. VAN ZANT: It abuts my backyard. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But are you on the east? MS. VAN ZANT: I'm on 60th Street. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's only on the east. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Hmm? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's only east. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Well, I'm wondering if she's the north resident. MS. VAN ZANT: No. I have to question when they continuously say that this is a family residence how you individually would feel -- if the home next to you had 26 rotating men with serious mental health, addiction, and criminal histories inside would feel. The mental health of the residents of this community are every bit as important as February 6, 2025 Page 35 of 75 what David Lawrence Center does. Their mental health facility is on the opposite side of the highway, and they're wanting to put this facility -- it's not a home. It's a facility that is unstaffed. Yes, it has senior residents, but it's unstaffed. And they're wanting to put that in our residential neighborhood. Consider if you had children or grandchildren or parents or sons or daughters who had to live next door to that. Think that one through. I am not without empathy, but also consider this: Is it right to put 26 people together in one house that have these serious concerns? Is it good for them? If you had a son or a daughter with serious concerns, would you want them living 24 hours a day in a residence like this? Mr. Burgess, would you like to live next door to 26 rotating men, perhaps 50 throughout the year, with serious health concerns like this mental health, criminal backgrounds, serious addictions? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Please address your comments to the members up here. Mr. Burgess is not on trial here, and -- MS. VAN ZANT: Neither am I. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- he is not required to answer any questions. That could have been done during the neighborhood information meeting. We're the ones up here who are going to make a decision. Can you wrap up your comments, please. MS. VAN ZANT: Yes. I was an EMT-B volunteer in the state of Iowa, and at one point we had a statewide meeting, because at that time something new was happening in the state of Iowa that had never been reported before, and they had -- they had meth labs that had just started popping up throughout the county -- or throughout the state. These in-home meth labs they traced back to the very first time that it ever happened. And it was a group of people in a group situation at a recovery center that had met together, and that's how it was -- one individual from out of state came in, and they sat down and talked about it and told other people how to cook meth in their home. And they went back to their own individual places, and it spiraled out of control. Not every time that people meet in group situations something good occurs. Mental health and addiction, these are things that can be lifelong, not just people in recovery somehow recovering. Look at Matthew Perry. His addictions were ongoing, continual problem. I know somebody else -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I understand. MS. VAN ZANT: My last comment is I know -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wrap it up, please. MS. VAN ZANT: I know one other person that went into a recovery center, met somebody, and the two, after they left, also ended up burning down a home cooking meth in their home. I'm not saying meth anymore. I'm just saying any kind of addiction problem doesn't disappear when you're suddenly in a home with other people like that. Please consider what I've had to say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. VAN ZANT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Next speaker, please. And you can name the following speaker so we have them both ready to speak. February 6, 2025 Page 36 of 75 MR. SUMMERS: Next is Mia Sceusa, and then we have Chris Vernon. He can take the next podium. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And while she's coming up -- and I would ask either Scott or Rich, based on the comments, I would prefer -- would like for you at rebuttal to discuss some of those -- how you deal with some of those concerns. Thank you. MR. BURGESS: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please. MS. SCEUSA: I'm regretting having this on my phone. I wish I had it on paper printed a little bit bigger, so bear with me while I -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're fine. MS. SCEUSA: Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, thank you so much for your time today and for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mia Sceusa. As you can see, I'm a fairly young woman with a family who's chosen to make 60th Street my home. I love living there because it feels like a safe place, a place where I can go for walks outside without fear and where my family with thrive. If this proposed Hope Home moves forward, the sense of security will be taken from me and from countless others who call this neighborhood home. I understand that rehabilitation is important, but the reality is that no one, including the David Lawrence Center, can guarantee zero risk to our community. They cannot promise that the residents won't relapse, they cannot promise that residents with violent histories won't end up in our neighborhoods, and they cannot promise that we won't see an increase in crime, drug use, or disturbances that make it unsafe for families like mine. Studies have shown that halfway houses often bring increased crime to their surrounding neighborhoods. A study examining the impact of community-based correctional facilities found significant increases in reported crimes, including assaults, robberies including firearms, and burglaries in areas surrounding these establishments. Notably, closure of halfway houses -- your terms, not mine -- reported a subsequent decrease in reporting crimes suggesting a direct link between such facilities and elevated crime levels in their vicinity. Furthermore, relapse rates among individuals residing in halfway houses remains concerning. Studies have shown that approximately 55 percent of sober living house residences reported substance use within six months of entry. This statistic underscores the challenges these facilities face in maintaining a drug-free environment, potentially leading to safety risks for the surrounding community. And as we heard earlier, there would only be random screening once a week at random to 27 men. So then if you take the math of 55 percent, 27 men once a week, there's a risk here. Earlier we heard the Sheriff's Office claim that the calls to their current facility were for medical-related issues, and I would pose the question, how many of those were drug-related relapses? What happens when those relapses occur outside of the facility, in our parks, in front of our homes, or on the same sidewalks where I currently as a -- as a lone female walk my dog? It's not about lacking compassion for those in recovery. It's about the safety of the law-abiding families who already live here, families like mine. We should not have to sacrifice our security and peace of mind for a facility that February 6, 2025 Page 37 of 75 practically admits that they cannot ensure zero risk to our community by these proposed changes. And let me be very clear, if you approve this change despite our warnings that are now on the record, despite data, and despite the concerns of the people who actually live here and something terrible does happen in our neighborhood, that will be on your hands. There will be no excuses and no way to justify it, and we will not forget it. I urge you to make the right choice and protect the families who are already here and call Golden Gate home. Thank you again for your time and for -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you for your comments. Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they've been there a while. Have you experienced any issues in the last four or five years? That's how long the existing home's been there. So I'm wondering what the neighborhood experiences. I mean, that's a little bit of a pilot plant. MS. SCEUSA: Yeah, it is. Well, I mean, it's six people compared to 27 people. And yes, as I -- I walk bravely. I have a husky, and I fear nobody. So I will walk down that area, and I've actually had neighbors who are kind of walking behind me like and then they, like, look out for me. I mean, I'm from Philadelphia. It doesn't scare me as much as it will scare the other young families on the block. I mean, I've seen some questionable behavior. I'm not sure if I can point it at that facility. I don't think that that would be fair to say. But, you know, around that area I saw somebody pull down their pants and defecate, so I don't know if that counts. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. MS. SCEUSA: Which I have a photo, if you are curious. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I just wanted to make a general statement to the audience. Just as a reminder, we are an advisory committee to the Board of County Commissioners. As I was chatting with two young ladies out in the hallway, you've kind of been through this before with what took place with the David Lawrence Center before, but please keep in mind, while we give our best opinions and our suggestion to the Board of County Commissioners, they are the ones that make the final decision. We are here to hear and listen to all of your comments, but please keep that in mind, as we are advisory only. MS. SCEUSA: Are you passing the buck? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: No, ma'am. I'm stating that as we have seen, we make a recommendation to BCC. They may go along with it, and they can go in the other direction. But we have done our homework. This packet is over 800 pages long that we have read, not every page but a good portion of them that we have that done on our time to help come up with a conclusion as we hear the rest of the information, and then we, quote, advise BCC, but they make the final decision. I just wanted everybody -- to make sure they understood those points of what happens as the information flows. MS. SCEUSA: Yes, we're aware. I think it's the March 20-something date. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Making sure. MS. SCEUSA: But yes, we are aware, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. February 6, 2025 Page 38 of 75 Next speaker, please. Mr. Vernon. And next speaker following Chris? MR. SUMMERS: The next will be Dean Sarns. MR. VERNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Chris Vernon. My background, I've been in town for probably 30-years-plus. I've been involved in a number of things. Most recently, I am currently on the David Lawrence Center board. I'm speaking individually but I wanted to disclose that. I'm very much in favor of this project. I'm very much in favor of the community not passing the buck and dealing with these mental health issues, so that is super important. Also, as I think everybody now knows, because the few of you I didn't know, I just rolled off the Planning Commission, so I sat for four years where Charles is sitting right now. What I tried to do, because there was 800 pages to every one of our agendas, and because I'm a trial lawyer, I took the position -- and I have a full-time job -- that I was not able to always read through everything. I was not always -- I didn't -- I had a practice of not meeting with the applicants, but I focused really hard on what came out during the hearing just as though it's a trial. You know, what's the credible evidence we see here? And I saw two themes, and I think everybody saw it. The first theme, I think most people knew -- Randy has said it. I think there's been comments around the room that David Lawrence Center's a fabulously run organization. The David Lawrence Center is critical to the mental health of this community. This is a fantastic idea. You know, I think Randy commented on that. This is a great idea, these homes. I mean, it's helping mental health in our community. So that was the number one theme I saw. Good team, good project, good idea. The second theme, and focusing on what is the most credible evidence, when you saw a lieutenant -- the lieutenant from the sheriff's department not come up and advocate but answer questions -- Chuck said, "The elephant in the room." Let's talk about the incidents. And it showed what had the Sheriff -- when he -- when the lieutenant answered those questions, what it showed was that there's no evidence of a problem here. In fact, Paul took it one step further and said, "Well, let's talk about the few that were there and drill down on that," and you got the answer. And the answer shows, the evidence shows that the current home there is not a problem. So I think those are the two big themes that come out here. So I would urge you to vote in favor of this project. And I really appreciate your time and, because I sat up there for four years, I really appreciate your unpaid service to this community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you, Chris. Next speaker, please, and then following this speaker, that would be -- MR. SUMMERS: Following this speaker, we believe we have Martha Rojas, if she wanted to speak individually or if she was ceding her time, we were unsure of that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We'll deal with that speaker, please. Go ahead. Your name, please? MR. SARNS: I'm Dean Sarns. I live at 3211 58th Street Southwest. I'm against it, and this morning I talked to a neighbor walking her dog. Her name -- last name was Lindy, and she said she was against it, but she went to the dentist because -- she couldn't come here. February 6, 2025 Page 39 of 75 And most of the Estates in this specific area are owned by business owners. And as a business owner, I was too busy to oppose the CFPUD of the David Lawrence when that happened, and David Lawrence said, "Oh, you didn't oppose it back when." And other busy owners are scared to speak up about projects in the area because of problems with their business that might happen in permitting if you're building, things like that. And somewhere I read in the Florida Statutes, but I just couldn't find it, there's supposed to be, like, a two-mile separation of these group homes, and I just couldn't find it. And the Estates are an arbitrary zoning mess. Like, one of my lot lines, my neighbor can build within seven and a half feet. In fact, he was eight feet from the line, and I have to stay 30 feet from the line because he has a nonconforming lot. I have a conforming lot. So somehow when you have a nonconforming lot you benefit. It just seems arbitrary. We don't need to add more arbitrary cutouts. And also, we're only allowed to clear one acre, but obviously, this facility has to have more than one acre cleared. I mean, you clear more than one acre, you get a call from Code Enforcement, and it's a big mess. And there is a doctor on the next -- on 60th Street who got nailed, and they had him planting all kinds of stuff. But he had llamas and all kinds of nice farm animals. And it just -- we need conformity in the zoning, you know. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dean, I don't argue with what you're saying. As far as Estates, the Estates, as you heard, is clearly -- it goes back, what, 40 years. It has essentially an ag zoning. MR. SARNS: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Estates lots. And we can get into great detail about that. But you brought up a lot of issues that have been play -- plagued [sic] with the Estates for years, but a lot of people enjoy living there, so... MR. SARNS: Well, yes, but if you're going to remove the one-acre restriction for this facility, remove it for the rest of us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, you could -- I would suggest if that's the move you want to make, that the Estates -- and as part of the Golden Gate Estates -- or civic association, that you present those petitions to the county staff so they can look at how the Estates want to rule themselves in the future. But that's way beyond the scope of this rezoning. But I appreciate your comments. Next speaker. Is this a speaker that has ceded -- three people have ceded to or -- MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chair, we believe this person to be an individual speaker. Martha Rojas? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Martha? MR. SUMMERS: Or was it Maria? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't see that person. Next speaker, please. MR. SUMMERS: All right. So now we're going to deal with Luis Serna who has been ceded time by two other individuals. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I please -- the two other individuals raise their hand who ceded time. MR. SUMMERS: Cheryl and Kelly Turner. February 6, 2025 Page 40 of 75 (Cheryl Zickler and Kelly Turner raised their hands.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SERNA: Good afternoon, planning commissioners. I'm Luis Serna of Calvin, Giordano & Associates, 311 Park Place Boulevard in Clearwater. I'm a land planner with over 35 years of experience, and I am certified through the American Institute of Certified Planners. I've also served as a county planning director, so I'm well aware of the requirements for conditional uses, well aware of the requirements for rezonings and PUDs. I was asked by a nearby residence to review this application for compliance with the county's Land Development Code. There are very specific criteria in your code that this board has to consider and that the staff has to consider, and so I've done that. And I've prepared an analysis that is in your package. I know it's 800 pages, but I hope you've had time to look at that. I will just hit the highlights of it. One important note I want you to be aware of is that I was not asked to look at the merits of the facility or the type of work that they do. That would not be appropriate, in my opinion, for a land-use analysis, but at the same time I don't think it's appropriate for you to look at the merits and say, yes, it's -- they do good work; therefore, it should be allowed at this location. The applicants have correctly stated that you can request a conditional use anywhere in the county, and they've also correctly stated that it doesn't mean that they're allowed everywhere in the county, and so that is the consideration that I took when I reviewed this. I'd also note that one of their own exhibits showed the conditional uses in the area. All of those were located along Golden Gate Parkway or fronted on Santa Barbara. So there is a huge difference between what's being proposed at this location, which backs directly up to a single-family large-lot residential neighborhood and these other uses. And again, there's also a difference between a family care facility, which is supposed to be incorporated into a neighborhood, act like a single-family home, and limited to six units, to a total of 26 units. So we're looking at 26 units on 4.47 acres. If you do the math, that's a density of 5.82 units per acre. The area adjacent to this where most of the complaints I imagine are coming from is a neighborhood of one -- they're restricted to one dwelling unit per 2.25 acres. So there's a great increase, great difference in density by this proposed facility. A lot of the lot sizes in the Golden Gate's neighborhood are much larger as well, so there is the issue of compatibility, and I think that's really -- when you go through the criteria in the code and the criteria in my report and my findings, it really does come down to an issue of, primarily, compatibility. So yeah, just to -- I won't read the entire report, because you do have it, but as I indicated, 5.82 units per acre is what's being proposed. The lot sizes adjacent to this, which I don't think the county really did much consideration of. I think there was consideration of the uses along the road that it's fronting on 62nd Street, but it does back directly up to a neighborhood, a well-established neighborhood of lots of 1.59 acres and 6.04 acres in size. So I think when you're talking compatibility, I think the neighbors have a legitimate concern, and I would have a legitimate concern that this facility is not compatible at this February 6, 2025 Page 41 of 75 location. There are other locations in the county where something like this could be appropriate. But again, this is -- this use does not front on a major road, and it does back up to single-family residences. So I would be very concerned about the impacts of a stable -- on a stable single-family residential neighborhood. These will be transient accommodations. And by "transient," I don't mean to disparage anyone. But they're not going to be residents who live there, grow up there, raise families there. They're going to be in and out. They're going to be different residents, you know, monthly. And, you know, that does have a destabilizing effect on a neighborhood that is single-family residents where people know each other, where people have raised kids together. So I think there is that compatibility issue. Section -- I'd like to cite Section 10.02.13.B.5.b, which is one of the criterias that you need to consider. It's adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments or for amendments to those proposed, particularly as they relate to arrangement or provisions to be made for the continued operation and maintenance of such areas. Basically what that is saying is that that needs to be considered. And one thing I've heard time and time again from speaking with the neighborhood is they said that, well, this facility has made commitments to serve certain type of residents. They have limitations on length of stay, number of visitors, screening -- and screening, but who is going to enforce that? Who does a neighbor call when they do not -- when they have a feeling that none of that is being enforced? Is it a Code Enforcement issue? So that -- you know, that's a very real concern of the neighbors. I'd also like to point out from your criteria, conformity of the PUD with goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. This Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element states that new development shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. I think there was -- I would have a hard time making an argument that this facility of 26 units adjacent to a residential subdivision is compatible or complementary. So again, that's from the county's own criteria. I'd like to note also I think we stated in the report that the density of 5.82 units per acre, the 26 residents, that's a 1,223 percent increase on this site. So that's quite an increase, and it's quite a difference than the family care residents of six units on the property. And then, of course, there is the rezoning criteria. Again, it's all about language about compatibility. The proposed rezoning would increase the allowable density on this site from one dwelling unit to -- per 2.25 acres to 5.82 units per acre. Again, compatibility. And again, as the applicants have acknowledged, and I think county staff would knowledge, care units are -- they do have their place, and they're -- they do have their place in the county, and these -- facilities such as these have their place if you take what they say on face value. I think the question that you have to look at is, does it meet the criteria of your Land Development Code? You have a lot of neighbors who are concerned, and I think that very much demonstrates the issue -- the important criteria of compatibility that your own Land Development Code requires that you consider. We're just -- I think the conclusion is this: That this use would be better suited in February 6, 2025 Page 42 of 75 an area of higher density residential and other similar nonresidential uses and institutional uses with access to a collector or an arterial roadway. And I think based on the exhibit provided by the applicant, those are where those -- these type of uses tend to end up. We don't want this going here just because the land is available, because it does not meet the criteria. And with that, I'll just conclude and ask you if you have any questions. Hopefully you've had a chance to review my analysis. But again, it's not my criteria. It's the criteria in your Land Development Code that I looked at. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I have several questions, because I read your document. But, Randy, you have a question. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes, please. Quick for Mr. Mike Bosi. If on the adjacent properties, when they went for permitting, if they wanted to build a 15-, 16,000-square-foot home, would there have been any limitations if it fit within the setback restrictions? MR. BOSI: Any -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Any development that would go within the individual neighborhood would have to meet the setback standards of the Estates zoning district, 75 foot in the front, 75 foot in the back, 30 feet on the side, and also there is a restriction in terms of the amount that you can clear. But you can fit a 15,000-square-foot home within that one acre. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So that would be equivalent to what is proposed to go on this site? It's not, quote, "units" -- and with no disrespect. It's not individual buildings. It is a building -- a home, a building, similar, with a whole bunch of bedrooms in it, and bathrooms, versus a home with reduced number of bedrooms and bathrooms. There's no restriction on that, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. It's considered a care unit. And the way that the current facility, The Hope Home facility, sits is it's not classified as six individual units within one structure. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. MR. BOSI: It's one structure with six unrelated folks that live there, yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Very good. MR. BOSI: And this is proposing utilization of that six -- the existing single-family home, adding an additional facility that's going to add an additional 20 individual people. So it's not 26 individual -- individual units, but it's 26 individuals living in one care facility. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. That's -- I just wanted to make that clear. Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That was kind of my same question. I'll ask it a little differently. A speaker used the analogy to me as if every person was a dwelling unit as opposed to -- so how do you deal with a density? He tried to relate it to a density. If you're allowed one home per five acres, now you've got five because he's counting each of the residents as a home, a dwelling unit. How do you deal with density within the Growth Management Plan? You just take this off the table and put it into a different category? MR. BOSI: It is a different category. As we said -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. February 6, 2025 Page 43 of 75 MR. BOSI: -- it's a group care facility. And the current facility is one unit. It's one dwelling unit. It houses six individual unrelated people. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to follow up on the same question. You made a statement on the record, "This is equivalent to 5.82 units per acre." How did you come to that conclusion, or what is your premise that this is 5.82 units an acre? MR. SERNA: Yeah. And we're talking -- we are talking residents; 26 units on 4.47 acres. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm not talking residents. I'm talking units. MR. SERNA: Yeah. And that was our understanding. CHAIRMAN SCHMIT: So you equated residents to units? MR. SERNA: Yes, we did. And again, it's -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And you're a professional planner. And have you done this in the past? MR. SERNA: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: In your county, you looked at number of persons staying in a home, and you equated that to units per acre? MR. SERNA: Well -- and as the attorney indicated, there was no commitment that this would be 26 residents and not units in the PUD plans that I saw. Whether or not that makes a difference -- I think the huge difference is this is a treatment facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to, again, dispute this, because you're a professional planner, and somehow you equated persons to units. And you're still sticking with that premise? MR. SERNA: Yes. I mean -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SERNA: -- if they were here asking for a 26-bedroom single-family home, we wouldn't be here. But the difference is this is a treatment facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it's a treatment -- you used the term in your document -- and again, I'm just trying to clarify -- "institutional group care facility." Is this, in your terms, an institutional care facility, or is it a group facility, group home? MR. SERNA: By the -- by the county's definitions, it's a group care facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you use the term "institutional group facility." You're saying that this is an institutional facility? MR. SERNA: It is a -- yeah, I would classify it as institutional -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then you stated that -- MR. SERNA: By the definitions, it's a group care facility. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then you stated that the transient nature of this use will have a negative destabilizing impact on the surrounding low-density single-family neighborhood. It's a single-family neighborhood Estates zoning. MR. SERNA: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So it's Estates zoning. Base zoning is ag, Estates zoning, but it is in -- a single family. So your premise again is based -- destabilizing based on what? How did you make that determination that it was destabilizing? MR. SERNA: Well, it's an established single-family neighborhood, very large lots. And introducing this type of use, you know, frankly, adjacent to the neighborhood is -- yeah, would, in my opinion, be destabilizing. February 6, 2025 Page 44 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, in your professional opinion you stated that it's destabilizing based on what criteria? MR. SERNA: Well, based on the huge increases in number of residents. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Not on impact, not on sheriff's calls or anything else? You're just saying that the size of the unit, the number of residents is destabilizing? MR. SERNA: Yes, exactly. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SERNA: I did not look at sheriff's calls or anything like that, but it's just the number of residents at that location. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And you also stated -- again, I'm just trying to clarify this. MR. SERNA: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The proposed facility is not compatible with the rural character of the area, which is predominately low-density single-family residential. Then you stated this would be far better in a high-density environment. I don't understand. You're saying this type of care facility would be better in a high-density area, say an apartment complex or some other high-density, let's say along 951 or some other area of the county where we have 20 -- 15 or 20 units per acre? Your intent is -- your belief -- professional opinion that this would be better suited in that type of environment than where they're proposing right now? MR. SERNA: Correct. You know, just like the other conditional uses that have been approved in those areas, they're all along major arterials or collector roadways. That is where the impacts to those facilities are minimized. But when you put it -- for example, if you try to put this in the middle of the neighborhood, I don't see how you could argue that it wouldn't have destabilizing impacts. I think the proximity of the rear of this site to several lots directly abutting and, you know, within the same neighborhood would be destabilizing and incompatible. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, considering you're here in your professional capacity -- and I'm going to allow -- I want -- I want to give the petitioner the time to qualify and have you state for the record. MR. SERNA: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because again, I'm not -- you're not here as a -- you were hired as a professional reviewer. And I would ask if the petitioner has any comments. But also, you basically said the proposed amendment will permit the development of a site that is clearly out of character with the Estates neighborhood. Now, you heard the petition when they stated it was certainly within the character of the Estates neighborhood, but your professional opinion is it's not. Based on what criteria? Again, is it size? MR. SERNA: Yeah. Again, based on the size of the lots, quiet residential streets that abut this property. Yeah, it's not a stretch to say that it would be out of character. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I just want it for the record to clarify. But, Mr. Yovanovich -- and this is unusual, but the fact that he's here as a -- basically as a professional refuting the statements you made on the record, I would ask if you would like to rebut in any way. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to ask questions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. February 6, 2025 Page 45 of 75 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do rebuttal later. But I just want to make sure I understand your qualifications. You're not a traffic expert, correct? MR. SERNA: No, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not an expert in criminology? MR. SERNA: No, no, and I've made no statements on either of those. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you talked about the number of people and how this somehow was going to destabilize the neighborhood, correct? MR. SERNA: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's purely 26 people on a five -- almost five-acre lot is somehow destabilizing? MR. SERNA: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to understand the basis of that. So you're not a traffic consultant? MR. SERNA: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you can't testify as to how little traffic will actually occur as a part of our proposed petition? MR. SERNA: I've read the numbers, 160-some trips, yes, and that does concern me on that quiet street. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fifteen peak-hour trips concerns you? MR. SERNA: It does, yes, on that street. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was an analysis assuming that everybody had a car, correct? MR. SERNA: I don't know. That's -- I'm using your own analysis, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just trying to understand how you got troubled. So that analysis assumed everybody had a car, correct? MR. SERNA: I don't know. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, then I don't know how you came to the conclusion it was destabilizing. MR. SERNA: I'm just using the peak number that was cited. MR. YOVANOVICH: Peak hour, it was 15 trips assuming everybody had a car. I'm telling you. Are you still troubled with 15 people in a peak hour assuming everybody in that unit had a car? MR. SERNA: I am, I am, and I think that's up to this board and the Commission to decide. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're troubled but you have no expertise in why you're troubled? MR. SERNA: Yeah, exactly. I'm not citing that I have a definitive, you know, threshold answer, but yes, that does -- that does concern me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. If I were to do a residence that had 16 units per acre next to a residence that has one unit per acre, are you still troubled? MR. SERNA: Sixteen units per acre? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, towards -- next to a project that's one unit per acre. Are you still troubled? MR. SERNA: It just -- it depends on the site, it really does -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So it would depend on setbacks? February 6, 2025 Page 46 of 75 MR. SERNA: The sites and uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would it depend on setbacks? MR. SERNA: Somewhat. But yeah. I mean -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. SERNA: -- it just depends on whether or not it's a homogenous neighborhood or -- there's a lot of factors to be considered, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you -- is it your testimony that this piece of property is in a homogenous neighborhood? MR. SERNA: The neighborhood next to it is a homogenous single-family neighborhood, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would agree that there are single-family residences next to our lot. But I'm asking you, is this neighborhood a homogenous neighborhood? MR. SERNA: Yes. Well, I'd say -- I'm not saying the site itself, but it's next to a homogenous neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. SERNA: And stable. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want to define the neighborhood as the immediate homes adjacent to this lot? MR. SERNA: Well, the immediate streets and blocks, yes, immediately to the east. MR. YOVANOVICH: What street are we coming in off of Golden Gate Parkway on? MR. SERNA: 62nd Street. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And what street is next door? MR. SERNA: I believe it's 60th. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we agree that traffic that goes on 62nd and stays on 62nd is not driving through the residences on 60th? MR. SERNA: Well, yes, and I never made that -- I never made that statement. It's just a matter of the density differences. MR. YOVANOVICH: So 26 units -- five units per acre, using your math, next to another home on one per two and a quarter is roughly equal to 16 units per acre next to one unit per acre, if you do the math? I'm a lawyer. I'm not really great on math, but I think I'm pretty close. So you would agree with me that the compatibility would be determined based upon height of the structures, correct? MR. SERNA: That's a -- that's one factor, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that it would be based upon setbacks, correct? MR. SERNA: That's another factor, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me it would be based upon buffers, correct? MR. SERNA: That's another factor, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Is it your testimony that a one-story residence adjacent to a two-story residence is incompatible? MR. SERNA: Well, my testimony is in regard to the treatment facility next to a single-family residence. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to talk about the structures right now. February 6, 2025 Page 47 of 75 MR. SERNA: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: So are they compatible, the heights compatible? MR. SERNA: Yes, I would say the structures themselves. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I have a 220-foot green space with a 10-foot wall separating the one-story structure next to a two-story house, are they compatible? MR. SERNA: You know, that -- it's all a function of the use, and I think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So let's focus a little bit on the use. You would agree that this use is an allowed use in the Estates zoning district, correct? MR. SERNA: It's not allowed by right. No, I do not agree with it. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not an -- I didn't ask you if it was an allowed use by right. I asked you: Is it an allowed use in the Estates zoning district? MR. SERNA: It's allowed to -- you're allowed to request the use subject to the criteria in the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I were doing a conditional use -- did you analyze the conditional-use criteria? MR. SERNA: I did. They're very similar to the rezoning and PUD criteria. But this is not a conditional use, so I don't know if that's relevant. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you would agree with me that you have no expertise in traffic impacts to the site? MR. SERNA: I'm not a traffic expert. MR. YOVANOVICH: You would agree with me that at least the structures as to size are compatible with each other? MR. SERNA: That's a judgment call, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking you your judgment. MR. SERNA: Yeah. I've not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are the structures -- MR. SERNA: I've not made a determination on that, I should say. It's really just the use, the use in the neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you would agree with me that you are not an expert in how to treat people who have alcohol and drug addictions, correct? MR. SERNA: No, no, and I've not made those statements. I don't think that's appropriate. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you would agree with me that appropriate operational characteristics of the facility can address every one of your concerns, correct? MR. SERNA: No, no, I don't agree. I think there's more -- there's some uses you just can't control for so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. What uses can't I control for? MR. SERNA: Well, 26 residents for one. And, yeah, there's going to be -- they're not going to be permanent residents. So, again, that's all in my report. MR. YOVANOVICH: So a permanent resident is somehow -- a non-permanent resident is somehow a danger to a neighborhood? MR. SERNA: It's destabilizing. You don't know your neighbors, and those are all values that people value in single-family neighborhoods. MR. YOVANOVICH: They do. Do you live in a single-family home? MR. SERNA: I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you interview your neighbors before they moved in? February 6, 2025 Page 48 of 75 MR. SERNA: No, no, but I don't -- I didn't bring 26 residents with me either, and I think that's -- that would be huge. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be huge. But we are going to interview our residents, correct? MR. SERNA: I don't know. I mean, that's what's been stated, but I don't know the commitments to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Burgess, who's representing a company that's been here treating mental health issues for 56 years, is not telling the truth? MR. SERNA: No. My concern is how the county enforces that and how the neighbors can be assured of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So if we were to give the neighbors the name of a contact person that if they have a problem they can contact, would that make you feel better? MR. SERNA: It's not up to me. It would be up to the neighbors. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking you, in your professional opinion, would it make you feel more comfortable if you had a contact person at David Lawrence Center, besides calling the Sheriff's Office if it gets too loud, besides calling Code Enforcement, if you had a contact with the David Lawrence Center, would that help you? MR. SERNA: No. I mean, the uses are still incompatible, in my opinion. MR. YOVANOVICH: The uses are incompatible. A residential treatment facility as described to you with criminal background checks that don't allow any violent crime -- criminals to live there and no sexual predators to live there, that gives you no assurance as to the quality of the people? MR. SERNA: It's 26 residents. I think that's what really concerns me, and then how this is enforced, and I think the neighbors share those concerns. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're not here -- you're supposedly here as an expert. You would agree with me that zoning decisions are not popularity contests, correct? MR. SERNA: Oh, absolutely, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I appreciate the neighbors' concerns, but whether or not they're well founded or not is why we're here to talk about it, and what assurances we've given. So it's purely a number for you? MR. SERNA: It is. And in that regard, I mean, the neighbors can testify on their concerns and the character of their neighborhood. I do believe that has value. It's not just a popularity contest, but they can testify as far as what the character of that neighborhood is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking you, not the neighbors. I'm asking you in your professional opinion. It's purely just a number issue for you, isn't it? MR. SERNA: No. It's the -- it's the type of -- it's the type of treatment that goes on there, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: What type of treatment goes on there, sir? MR. SERNA: It's a -- it's a medical or drug treatment facility. It's -- it's not a single-family home, let me put it that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Let's talk about that. So single-family February 6, 2025 Page 49 of 75 rooms -- single-family homes have bedrooms? MR. SERNA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Single-family homes have living rooms? MR. SERNA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Single-family homes have kitchens? MR. SERNA: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Single-family homes have people who care about each other and are taking care of each other and helping each other with issues, correct? MR. SERNA: Generally. I hope so. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's exactly what we described, didn't we? But they're just not related by blood; isn't that correct? MR. SERNA: Well, it's 26 units, yes, and the other -- the other issue, not related by blood, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I just want to make sure we're clear. In every other professional opinion you've ever given as an expert, you've considered individual bedrooms in a house as a unit? MR. SERNA: Yeah. I think we've had similar -- I've testified on similar projects. Again, you're looking at the specific location where it's going. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if my neighbor has somebody unrelated living in their house -- because you can have up to six unrelated people living in my nextdoor neighbor's house -- we should count those as six units? MR. SERNA: No. I mean, that's irrelevant to what I'm saying. It's 26 units -- 26 people who are there for treatment in a single-family neighborhood. MR. YOVANOVICH: What medical treatment are we providing for on staff on that -- at that location? MR. SERNA: I mean, I don't know the details. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you just heard the testimony. The answer was zero. So there's no medical treatment there, correct? MR. SERNA: Well, psychological discussions, things like that, yeah, drug treatment. MR. YOVANOVICH: You consider psychological discussions -- where's the psychological discussions occurring on that site? MR. SERNA: Well, I don't know. I mean, it's -- again, it's -- it is a treatment facility by your own definition and by the definitions of the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a place where people live together to work through their recovery as alcoholics or drug addicts, correct? MR. SERNA: Yeah, that's your testimony. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have no evidence that that relationship will result in crime in the neighborhood, correct? MR. SERNA: I don't -- I haven't testified as to crime, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just trying to understand how we're destabilizing the neighborhood. It's just the number of bodies? MR. SERNA: Yes, a treatment facility at this location. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir, thank you. And I did read your document. It was well -- I mean, my questions, really, I wanted to understand your logic and your thinking, February 6, 2025 Page 50 of 75 because you did make some compelling arguments. And it all comes down to compatibility is basically what your statement was. MR. SERNA: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SERNA: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can we get the next speaker, please. And this is the person who has assigned -- 10 speakers allocated? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, Mr. Chair. We have Michael Rizzo, and I can call out each individual name. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I would like those individuals to stand as the names are called. MR. SUMMERS: Absolutely. We'll start with Earl Turner. If you can please stand. (Speaker stands.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: Susan Salzmann. (Speaker stands.) MR. SUMMERS: Desiree Hope. (Speaker stands.) MR. SUMMERS: Alexander McCaffrey. (Speaker stands.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. SUMMERS: Myung McCaffrey. (Speaker stands.) MR. SUMMERS: John McCaffrey. (Speaker stands.) MR. SUMMERS: Ken Koerner. Sorry if I said that wrong. (Speaker stands.) MR. KOERNER: You're close. MR. SUMMERS: Diane Sacks. (Speaker stands.) MR. SUMMERS: Abigail Timmerman. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She left. MR. SUMMERS: And Jennifer Carter. (Speaker stands.) MR. SUMMERS: That's all I have for you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Diane, did you raise your hand, or was that -- that was the person next to you for the other speaker, right? MS. SACKS: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, for this. All right. And there was a Mr. Rizzo. DR. RIZZO: Dr. Rizzo. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dr. Rizzo. And do you need the full 30 minutes -- DR. RIZZO: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- from all these folks? DR. RIZZO: Maybe. February 6, 2025 Page 51 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well -- I did state three minutes per, so I'm going to -- okay. Dr. Rizzo, please. DR. RIZZO: I think the background of who you're listening to, my history's a little important. I'm 66. My dad and my mom moved here in 1960, and I was a resident of Goodland when it first was incorporated, and then we moved to Chokoloskee, and then my parents bought a place in the East Coast. And we lived in Pembroke Pines until later in my life when I bought a place in Everglades City. I was in Naples before probably most of you-all, when I was five, six, seven years old, so I'm very fond of this community. About 10 years ago I bought a place on 60th Street. Now, I think it's also important that -- my history as a young adult was that I got in a lot of trouble with drugs and alcohol, and I had a lot of problems in school. I didn't even finish high school. And I would say -- I would say that when I became a teenager, I became oppositionally defiant, and then I moved and lived in Miami as a -- in a period of time when the cocaine world was out of control, from '78 to '85. And I was an addict. And even after I recovered from being an addict, I owed a lot of people money from the years I was an addict. And my life was in shambles, and I actually robbed my own sister. I robbed her house to secure items to pawn, to pay back dealers that I had owed from when I was an addict. Then I went back to school, and I had to start all over, about 26 years old. And when I was 36, I earned a Ph.D. in psychology. I went to work for Miami Children's Hospital. I went to work for Dade County Public Schools. I created programs and policies for all those institutions. I became an instructor of interns and post-doc students from Nova University and from Barry University. I've trained over 400 psychologists in all areas of psychology. I now have a practice that has offices from Jupiter to Coral Gables to Fort Myers to here. We have 40 psychologists. We have 40 professionals, mental health professionals that work for me. So Mr. Yovanovich or someone in the institute indicated I'm not an expert. I know more about psychology than anyone at David Lawrence Center. And at the last board meeting, the last Planning Commission meeting when I was speaking to you ladies and gentlemen about why they were taking so long -- and why they asked for a continuance, one of the Board members, I forgot his name, he was in the last chair, was also a board member for David Lawrence. So I was asked to not -- I was asked to restrict what I said because I couldn't speak today if I said too much about the concerns at that meeting. So I was very careful what I said. But the person that was supposed to recuse himself said to all of you, this is a very worthy idea. We should all be pushing this forward. That was his comment after he was asked to be recused. And then I left the meeting thinking that it was over. And I looked at the video of the recording of the meeting, and he continued to disparage my testimony at the end saying, who does this guy think he is? What kind of expert is he? We can't let him influence us. Now, that right there, we're not starting with a fair playing field. And on top of that, when we first became aware of the possibility of this going into our neighborhood, we tried to secure counsel. And my life partner -- we've been together 23 years -- is an attorney, and so she called attorneys and planners. Within 40 miles, not one person said they would touch this case because it's too politically loaded. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong. It matters the zeitgeist of the community is to push this mental health stuff forward at all costs. And February 6, 2025 Page 52 of 75 if we help you or we try to help you with an argument, we will never work in Collier County again. And she'll testify to that as well. So we had to reach as far away as wherever Luis -- Luis, where you from? MR. SERNA: Clearwater. DR. RIZZO: Clearwater. That was the closest we could find anyone to help us because of the political bullshit that's driving this whole thing. Now, I know more about addiction -- and as a matter of fact, one other note. My mother was a chronic alcoholic and a gambler and addicted to pharmaceutical drugs, and I paid for her to go through rehabs three times. And she lived in group homes two times. And not at David Lawrence. At Hanley Hazelden. Hanley Hazelden. Betty Ford Hanley Hazelden centers. And she relapsed every time and went back to gambling and went back to prescription drugs and died about four years ago from alcohol-related dementia because her frontal cortex was toast. Now, everything the David Lawrence Center tells you about how they're setting this up is classic perfect. There's nothing that you -- this argument about screening people and drug testing and watching what they're doing, it's exactly what should be done, and they're following protocol perfectly. There's a couple things that are not right. But that -- there's no argument with what they're trying to do. There's no argument that these people need help. The argument is -- now I'm going to go deep into the literature on addiction, okay. The addiction literature, without any question, says that a home that promotes sobriety is six to eight people, very rarely more, and they live as a family unit, and they're integrated into a community so they feel normalized. They don't feel ostracized like they're in an institution. And if they can feel normalized and become part of the fabric of a community, the possibility for recovery is tenfold then if they live in a place that still seems institutional. So anywhere in the literature, if you have any insight into real science, the perfect environment is six to eight. Now, some people have pushed that up to 12, and there's a difference between a sober home and a sober residence. A residence is when you have multiple units, like an apartment building, and you rent out a block of apartments to let people have the ideal impression of an individual home within an apartment building because they still live in a unit with six to eight people, and they still work as a unified family, but you don't have 26 people living in an apartment building in an apartment trying to get better because all you need is one to go off the rails. Now, Mr. Colucci said earlier this is a halfway house, and if it's not managed properly, it will be what they used to call a flophouse where you just go and get bored until we figure out what to do with you next. Now, the Sheriff's Office is thrilled about having this because they don't know where to put the people in jail that have nowhere to go next or that they don't want to Baker Act them -- they don't want to bring them to jail. It's easier to Baker Act them and put them in a drug rehab program than put them in the jail. So this is serving a great purpose for the Sheriff's Office and for where to put these really difficult patients. Now, the other thing is when you're in a community mental health center -- and Scott Burgess does an excellent job. But he's dealing with the most difficult population in mental health. This is not -- this is not people that can afford to go to private centers. These are people that have historically had very difficult lives, have had chronic histories February 6, 2025 Page 53 of 75 of drug abuse. Now, 70 percent of people with chronic histories of drug abuse also have psychiatric conditions. So you have PTSD and bipolar disorder and major depression. I could go on and on. Now, they have to be monitored for their psychiatric conditions as well as their addictive conditions, too. Now, these are very -- now, there's no question when you screen them and ask them, am I going to try my hardest to be good? No one's going to say no. No one's not going to sign a promissory agreement they're going to follow the rules. But these people have had histories their whole life of not being able to stick to their plan. The optimal environment for them to stick to their plan would be a sober home -- like, we haven't really -- there's another issue with that -- that whole thing that the Sheriff said about the crimes. I'd like to go over that with you guys, because there were -- my neighbor here -- I'm going to come back, but my neighbor where -- this Desiree, she lives on 60th Street at the end where people fish as well. She hasn't seen one police call to 60th Street where people fish in her backyard, but there's 14, 16, 18 events that happened within a 20-month period at the 62nd Street fishing spot. Now, I don't think that's a coincidence that one street has zero criminal events and one street -- and I'll read them to you. If you want to go through this, we can go through the whole list, okay. So the whole thing that this is maybe just an anomaly because people fishing get in trouble is nonsense. And if you want to read it, you can read it yourself. The next street over where people fish, there's not been one police call. The only police calls to our neighborhood that I recall is two times -- and one of them is two weeks ago when a sheriff came to my door, my gate, and said, "Can I please go into your backyard because we're hearing screams of distress coming from somewhere in the back of your house?" So I let the police in two weeks ago. They searched my backyard, and they couldn't find anything. You know what's in my backyard? Hope Home I is in my backyard. That's what's in my backyard. Now, we live with this constantly. We live with this fear. Now, if you put the 10-foot wall, which someone suggested we not even put the 10-foot wall to keep the neighbors safe. If you put the 10-foot wall, you help, but they can walk around the wall. There's four or five houses that can be walked around the wall to easily access. In these houses are old people, people with little children at the corner. Now, the thing about 62nd -- 62nd Street winds around -- it goes from north/south to east/west, and when it goes to east/west, it connects to 60th Street. So the end of 60th Street where we all live would be absorbed by all of the traffic, not car traffic, but foot traffic of 26 people walking back and forth each day to David Lawrence to get their -- whatever treatment they get at David Lawrence. Now, at that same intersection where these 26 people are going to live is the school bus stop for the children that live in our neighborhood that have to go out there in the dark in the morning, little girls, middle school girls, high school girls to wait for the school bus. Now, you're going to have 26 men with this sorted past, this sorted history walking past the school bus stop every day. Before they get to the school bus stop, though, they have to pass Kiddie Korral, which is the preschool for three to five -- two- to five-year-olds. So you have two- to five-year-olds, you have elderly people living in the three or four houses February 6, 2025 Page 54 of 75 that are there, you have a brand-new $2 million house being built on the corner where 62nd turns to go east/west. And then the houses that are along 62nd, 60th, where we live, I love these descriptions. There's 550 feet to the nearest building on that. We don't live in our house. We go in our yards. We have pools. We have swing sets. We have gardens that are at the end of our backyard, which takes us right up to the property line of where they want to put the wall. So maybe we'll have a 10-foot wall instead of being able to see. But if we don't have the 10-foot wall, when we go in our backyards to enjoy our rural lifestyle, we have to worry that somebody could wander through the buffer. The buffer is not going to be impenetrable if there's not a 10-foot wall. But why -- if they can get -- if they can't get through the 10-foot wall, they can walk around, which is Laurie's house, the person that spoke first about her fear. Laurie's house is the easiest house to get to if you walk around the left side -- the south side of the 10-foot wall. So how does Laurie feel about her safety when she goes to sleep at night? My daughter, my wife, they don't want to live here anymore. They're afraid. Everyone in our neighborhood is afraid to live in our neighborhood because even if these men have the best intentions, one -- if there's 26 there and the average stay is roughly six months, three to nine months, that's 52 different men with sorted backgrounds. And guess what my favorite part is? They don't have to live in Collier County. This could become a reservoir for treatment for people that can't afford more serious treatment from people all over the country. So you're going to take care of the transient addicts with comorbid psychiatric conditions and extremely sorted histories -- life histories to date that promise to get their lives together and take -- promise to not hurt anybody. And we're going to say, "That's a great idea. We believe them." Of course we believe them, but can they keep their promise? Somebody else pointed out the recidivism rate is more than 50 percent. My mother's failed three times. When you fail and you're desperate, you do desperate things. And the houses that will be most easily accessible when people fail will be our homes. And then another issue. Golden Gate City is freaking out about all the homeless that are showing up where the Winn-Dixie is, where the K-Mart plaza used to be. Where do you -- is it a coincidence that the bigger the David Lawrence Center gets, when people are released, where do they go if they have nowhere to go? Where will people that are expelled from this Hope Home II go if they have nowhere to go? Anybody know the answer to that question? So I respect Mr. Yovanovich's -- are you a mental health professional? Wherever he is, are you a mental health -- do you know anything about what you're talking about as far as the mental health side? You have to make a choice. You can change the rules or you can say, "I'm doing the right thing." But the bigger question, are you doing things right? This is not about doing the right thing by the law, because you can change the rules to make the law work, which you're trying to do. But this is -- are you doing the right thing for the people and for the community? And in the charter of Collier County, it says taking care of the county's safety should some first. The people that already live in the county should come first. So there's no reservation that this is a terrible idea to put in this location. Now, there's -- another thing is sober -- when you go over 12 to 14 people, it's no February 6, 2025 Page 55 of 75 longer considered a sober residence. It's considered a recovery community. And I can show you all the literature in the world that recovery communities should have Level 4 FARR support as far as the organization that oversees these places, and that means people should be living on site when it's a Level 4 site, because you've crossed the threshold to leave a home, and you've moved into what Luis said is institutional. It has become institutional when it crosses over the number of people that live in a family, based on addiction literature. And those sites should be on institutional property or commercial property with no residences around. Now, when they recover to the next level from a -- from a recovery community, then they're ready for a recovery residence or a sober home. But this is the step before recovery residences and sober homes. So anyone wants to have any literature to support my statements, I'd be happy to provide it. Now, I'd like to tell you about the end of the street that -- the one street gets zero police calls. Now, we were only able to secure this from Penny's arguments for the crisis center, which happened -- you know that whole story where the county got pushed around again. The way Mr. Yovanovich treated our witness is the way David Lawrence has treated the community, hostile. It's a hostile environment to live with. These people, if they didn't have me, would get their -- they'd be getting kicked around like dirt. They'd be conned. There would be bullshit. They're convinced that they're going to get their butts kicked because [sic] they have me. Now, I've been for two years -- 18 months, I haven't slept because I've been writing letters to you, I've been writing letters to the civic associations, I've been going and meeting with every commissioner. You know what every commissioner says? I won't say who said what. "As long as it's not in my district. I'll do what Burt says. It's his district." Nobody wants it in their district. They just don't want it -- and Burt's the key to where this goes, because if Burt flips either way, it could go either way. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And by "Burt," you mean Commissioner Saunders? DR. RIZZO: Burt Saunders, yes. Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just for the record. DR. RIZZO: So I met all these guys two or three times in the last 18 months. I brought them all this information. Now, at the end of our street -- at the end of 62nd Street, there was an alarm for a burglary at 6150. That didn't happen with the people fishing. There was a fire at the house. That didn't happen with the people fishing. There was another alarm, fire, commercial. Suspicious vehicle; it could have been the people fishing. Suspicious vehicle. Suspicious vehicle. Check on probation. Check on probation. Disturbance, general. Drunken person. Medical emergency. Civil process, served someone. Civil process, served someone else. Civil process, someone else. General unknown problem. Civil process, attempt to serve someone else. Medical emergency. Check probation. That's what's happened in a 20-month period, 14 police calls to that site. That was not people fishing, okay. Not one of the -- maybe the suspicious vehicle could have been some people fishing. So this whole -- the political climate when -- when -- this started with Passidomo at the state level when she approved the $3 million for this project, which is part -- and then February 6, 2025 Page 56 of 75 the one-cent penny sales tax. And then the -- even the philanthropists that funded David Lawrence's -- that chaired David Lawrence's two balls where Brooke Shields came and Goldie Hawn came, I know them. One of them had chaired it. And I told her where this was going to be. She said, "This cannot happen. I'm going to write Scott a letter and tell him this is not appropriate. This is not what we raised this money for, to put this in a residential community." Now, I never got -- I saw an e-mail that she sent to me and Scott, and she asked us to talk, and it never happened. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: When you say "Scott" -- DR. RIZZO: Scott Burgess. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- Senator Scott? DR. RIZZO: No, Scott Burgess. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, Scott Burgess. DR. RIZZO: She wanted to put us in touch. She sent an e-mail to introduce us, so we talked through this. And I told them I have a lot I could offer to help David Lawrence with my background in psychology. She asked us if we would talk -- she thought it was a terrible idea to put this in our neighborhood, and she's the one that helped to raise most of the -- a lot of the money from the philanthropists. And she has a -- she does have a background in mental health. And -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Dr. Rizzo, I know you're at -- you only have 10 minutes left, and I certainly don't want to take the time. But it's clear, for 20 minutes, you're -- the summation of your argument is this is not compatible because of the clientele they're dealing with, you're not -- it's not the size of the house. It's not the -- it's not all the other aspects that were discussed by Luis -- is it Luis Serena? MR. SERNA: Serna. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Serna, thank you. Sorry. But your biggest issue is, this is just not compatible because of the -- you're deeming that it's an institutional size rehabilitation facility being placed in a residential neighborhood. DR. RIZZO: Well, that's not -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's pretty much a summation of what you're stating? DR. RIZZO: My summation is -- immigrants are moving into our community without our control. This is like the border is porous. Somebody's letting our neighborhood be infiltrated by people that could be bad people even though they're going to promise to be good people. And what -- what defense do we have when we have lawyers that never lost a case probably when they're trying to push rural communities into compliance with building things, and we have a mental health center that has no competition in the community of anybody else trying to provide service; that whatever they say, everybody just believes there's no other way to do it because David Lawrence said it should be done this way. There's a lot of ways to do things in a better way. But there's no checks and balances on David Lawrence Center because David Lawrence Center -- and everyone on the board of David Lawrence, not one person has a background in mental health, not one board member. There was one guy that ran NCH, but they had to dissolve their psychiatry and psychology department because they couldn't make it work. February 6, 2025 Page 57 of 75 So you have a board that doesn't know anything about what they're talking about. They're just listening to bottom-up rhetoric about what we should do, and then they support that rhetoric with no competing ideas being introduced into how to help these people. Now, these people definitely need help, and there's ways to help them. And this is a stopping point before a true sober residence or sober home. And we already have served our community because we've -- we have had a sober home since 2018 in our community, and we don't think we should be the community that absorbs this institution. It is an institution based on -- not my opinion. When recovery -- if you go -- I have a bunch of documents, and I shared them with Scott as well, Scott Burgess. When you cross a certain threshold, you no longer are a community residence or -- you're no longer a residential -- you're a recovery community is the terminology that changes from -- I have it somewhere. There's three terms. Sober homes -- there's sober homes. Recovery residence is when you take over, like, a section of an apartment building and you take a lot of units and everybody still lives like individual families and a building -- the building fits the community. It doesn't look like -- Now, 15,000-square-foot house -- I think the biggest homes in our neighborhood are 4,000 square feet. This house -- this building that's supposed to blend into our neighborhood is almost four times bigger than the biggest house that's already in our neighborhood. And there's no restrictions on -- even if you have the wall -- beyond the wall, another requirement -- if we can't win, on the west side of 62nd, which has been brought up, a sidewalk with a fence, at least a 4-foot fence to try to keep the people from walking down 62nd to where it turns and runs into 60th so they don't have to cross in front of Kitty Korral and the bus stops for the kids. Minimally, you have to have a corridor built along 75 on the west side of 62nd Street that goes straight into Golden Gate and doesn't require people to walk down the 90-degree bend in 62nd where it connects to 60th. But that's if we -- if we have -- if this has to go forward, without a doubt we need a 10-foot wall. Without a doubt, we need security cameras all over that wall so -- if anybody leaves or goes around the wall, without a doubt, we need monitored entrance and exits to see who comes and goes from the property with a gate, with cameras to take pictures of the license plates. Without a doubt, we need these guys to be able to walk to David Lawrence without walking past people walking their dogs or kids playing in the street or preschools or churches. There's also a school for autism just on the other side of the church that's on the corner there. So you have an autistic kid could be roaming around if he gets out of the school. This is like -- if you'd step back and just think of what I said, we're going to put 52 men that promise to recover from lives that have been train wrecks, and we're going to trust that they're going to do their best and put them in your neighborhood. Who would like that in their neighborhood? Which one of you would like to volunteer to give up your neighborhood for these people? Ask your mothers, ask your daughters, ask wives and husbands, would you like this next to us? See where it goes. So that's -- I think that's pretty compelling. You know, I could make points for three hours. I know this stuff -- I spent the last February 6, 2025 Page 58 of 75 18 months taking my eye off the ball of my business where we save -- we see 2,000 kids a year that are troubled, and we have a zero recidivism rate. Every single kid improves and gets better. Now, David Lawrence's other show is they're going to bring you perhaps, at a commission meeting, people whose lives have been changed by going through this process. I can tell you, for every one whose lives have been changed, two or three that failed by going through the David Lawrence process. This is by no means a panacea. It's not his fault, because this is the most difficult people in mental health to deal with. No agency could do any better, in my opinion, but the most difficult mental health patients that exist go through David Lawrence. And nobody just has one thing. You have ADHD, you have learning disabilities, you have people that chronically are unemployed, you have people that are on Medicare -- on Medicaid, you have people uninsured. They don't even have the resources if they wanted to do it right to give them the best quality of care. So you have to examine where this will go, not is it a good idea. It's a great idea. But it belongs back on their main campus somewhere across the street or it belongs maybe wherever you have zoning pending for institutional, maybe where the -- are they going to put a veterans hospital or something at the end of the street? Or across from the government center you have these two buildings that are for sale, both -- two office buildings for sale. Now, you have -- you have another issue that's come up because of St. Matthew's, which is the homelessness rate because the people that fail out of the St. Matthew's House programs, they have nowhere to go either so that -- there are some that fail, even though that's a faith-based, very successful program, another model for the country. But you're also going to increase the home -- the rate of homeless in an area around David Lawrence Center as David Lawrence Center gets bigger and bigger, because they can't control what people do when they leave even if they -- are they going to bus them to Chicago or New York and you drop them off there? That's not happening, okay. So there's so many variables that don't come to your attention. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Can I ask you to wrap it up, please. I know you can go on for an hour. DR. RIZZO: I could go on for hours and hours about why this is just the most -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Please wrap it up. DR. RIZZO: -- ludicrous idea I've ever heard. Okay. Thank you all for listening, and I hope that this sinks in because just -- would I like it in my backyard? I do not want it in my backyard. It happens to be in my backyard. But would you like it in your backyard? It shouldn’t be in anyone's backyard. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Very compelling discussion, and I know -- but you're here representing the residents. You live in the community as well, but you're also a professional, and I don't know if Mr. Yovanovich has -- DR. RIZZO: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- any questions, but we'll defer till after lunch, because I know Terri needs a break. What do my colleagues think about lunch? Because this will go on probably after lunch. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are there more speakers? February 6, 2025 Page 59 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are there any more speakers? No other speakers? Terri? THE COURT REPORTER: I don't need a lunch. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twenty minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Ten. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Ten? Fifteen. We'll go with 15. And, Mr. Yovanovich, based on -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have any questions for him. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do you have questions? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: None? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not for him. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Well, we'll reconvene after lunch. I took a bunch of notes which I'm going to ask that you and Scott address. Dr. Rizzo, thank you. Very compelling. (A brief recess was had from 12:19 p.m. to 12:35 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Could I please have everybody take their seat, please. And just to reaffirm, we have no other public speakers registered? MR. SUMMERS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, before we proceed, is there anybody else who would like to speak that did not register to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, I'm going to ask you in rebuttal, but I'm going to throw the things I wrote down just to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Could someone bring the presentation back up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- rephrase. I've heard about the proliferation of meth labs and the potential for meth labs, increased crime. There was repeat substance abuse, a 2-mile separation. I'm not sure what -- supposedly there was a requirement for some kind of a 2-mile separation. If you could cover who enforces and who do the neighbors call if there's any issues. And, Scott, from a standpoint of what Dr. Rizzo talked about, relapses. And institutional -- this was an institutional property, Rich. They claim that because of the size, it's deemed institutional property. And again, from Dr. Rizzo's statement, two to three fail for every one success. And I don't know if that's what David Lawrence experiences. So with that, Mr. Yovanovich, do you have any closing remarks or rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a lot. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But let's -- let's make sure the -- is our presentation showing on the -- no, okay. Let's -- I'm going to have Scott come up here and address many of the comments you just asked us to address. It's funny -- anybody watch Breaking Bad? I had a flashback to -- I just finished -- I just finished watching Breaking Bad, and it's about meth labs. That's not what's happening here. I don't know where that comment came from and how that's any way related to somehow, by having people come and live in this home, February 6, 2025 Page 60 of 75 there's going to be an offspring of now trained meth lab people. MS. VAN ZANT: I'm not talking about meth labs, sir. I was talking about the possibility of other problems that people might experience. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Excuse me. We don't need comments from the audience. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure I'm not the only one who wrote down the word "meth lab" when the speaker -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But there was a statement that there was a correlation of somehow your experience, which I heard very clearly -- MS. VAN ZANT: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- was of the experience of somehow a group getting together, they learn how to cook meth, and then the next thing you know, we had a proliferation of meth labs. Thank you, ma'am. MS. VAN ZANT: Not just that. Other things. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's start with the basic premise -- and Scott's going to go into this in greater detail. These are not the worst of the worst coming to live in this home, and that's where the whole thing falls apart for their argument. We don't have the worst of the worst coming here. The Sheriff does not bring anybody to this facility. We are not taking criminals and running them through this home, and that's what you heard from the very first speaker. I wrote the word down "serious mental health, addiction, and criminal histories." They either aren't listening to what we're saying, they don't believe us when we're saying we're doing criminal backgrounds, but these are not the worst of the worst coming here. This is probably your brother-in-law, maybe your husband, maybe your son, maybe your cousin, that are working people in the community who have issues with alcohol or drugs and they want to do better. Do people fail? Yes. But they don't leave our facility and then go commit crimes, which is what you heard. And I want Scott to get into that. And I'm a little -- I'm a little ramped up because everybody on -- everybody in this room, I'm sure, knows somebody who has been through addiction. And they -- most of them started out innocently. I've got a brother-in-law who started out because he served in the military. He jumped out of airplanes for our country. He had bad knee issues. And guess what? He got hooked on pain medicine. He's a good person. We all know that person. That's what we're talking about trying to help. So when we start with this issue of the worst of the worst, I finally, personally -- my comment, not my client's comment -- find it disheartening, and I, frankly, find it offensive when I personalize it to people I know. I'm happy that Dr. Rizzo was a success. Good for him. That's a great story, but there are people not as hard up as Dr. Rizzo admitted he was that we are going to help. So don't buy into, "These are bad criminal people coming to our home." And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Scott, because I don't think I'm going to help any more by addressing those issues. I'm going to let the professionals get up here. I am not a mental health professional. I'm a lawyer. And my job is to present the case through experts as to why this is a safe and compatible use in this neighborhood, and that's what I did. And it's my job to point out when another expert gets up there to find out what was the real basis of their opinion. And if he felt like I treated him harshly, I do February 6, 2025 Page 61 of 75 not apologize. I do not apologize for taking him to task to support his opinions. So with that, I will turn it over to Scott and let him get into many, many of the comments. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Before you go, Randall. MR. YOVANOVICH: Keep in mind -- keep in mind, look at where the property is. I wrote down a comment. If that's not a major road, I don't know what a major road is. We front a major road. Where is this piece of property? It's not in the center of the neighborhood. It's on the outskirts of the neighborhood. To tell us -- to tell us to build a cage so people walk along 62nd Street in a cage to get all the way to Golden Gate Parkway so they can walk across the street if they need services from David Lawrence Center, why -- why can't they just walk on a street to go across the street? Why do they have to be fenced off? That's -- that's -- this is on the outside of the neighborhood. It's not inside of the neighborhood. We're not driving by any residential homes on 60th Street. This is it right here. That's how much of 60th we will be driving on, if they drive, to take a right. We're not impacting their neighborhood. We have adequate assurances. And with that, now I really will be quiet and let Scott take over. MR. BURGESS: Thank you. I'll try to address some of the questions. There was a lot that was levied there, so I tried to take some good notes. Hopefully I'll answer your questions as well. I will ask for Nancy Dauphinais, who's our chief operating officer, to come up and also speak to some of the -- actually quite gross mischaracterization of some of the literature and the research. And, you know, it was very disconcerting and, frankly, harmful from a stigmatizing standpoint, much of the comments that were made. Again, we are -- we are helping individuals that are in this community that are struggling and need some assistance and some support to thrive again. These are not individuals that are immigrating from any other area. These are Collier residents that are here in Collier County. There is ample supply of need in Collier County. There is no need for anybody to bring anybody in from any other community. Again, we'll -- Nancy will talk a little bit about the studies that were cited that were inappropriate and mischaracterized and what the data actually demonstrates related to not having increased crime around these types of residential residents. The clinical review is done -- I'll reiterate this because this has come up now a couple of different times from the various speakers that represented the neighborhood, and I don't know why it keeps coming up. But there are not criminals that are being brought into this home. Everybody receives, everyone, 100 percent receive a thorough criminal background check. That is a commitment that we've made. That is a commitment that we are -- you know, have put on notice here and on record that anybody that has a criminal background, violent criminal background, would not be eligible. They would be excluded from the criteria, would not fit the criteria. Anybody that was a sexual predator would not fit the criteria and would not be welcomed into the residence. So -- and then there was also a question in regards to -- well, there was an implication that everyone that comes to -- or very near everyone that comes to us also has a very serious mental health psychotic disorder. That is clearly not the case. Individuals that, as I've referenced, all go through a clinical screening and assessment to determine clinical appropriateness for being in this home. So individuals that have, you know, a February 6, 2025 Page 62 of 75 serious persistent mental illness that's not under treatment and control, they're not going to meet the criteria. We have a very rigorous approach to the criteria of who can be in the home. I think that speaks to how effectively the program has run thus far, and almost five years, and we really believe that we have the right criteria that are going to prove for the success of the residents for Hope Home II as well. There was a question in regards to our board members and none of them having any behavioral health background. That's clearly false. We have a clinical psychologist that's on our board. We have two medical doctors that are on our board, all of whom understand behavioral health quite well. The clinical psychologist practiced in Collier County for over 30 years. So we have additional behavioral health expertise on our board of directors. There was a question in regards to -- well, I think there was a comment in regards to the fact that we should ensure that we have cameras everywhere and we're tracking everybody on the -- on the property. I just wanted to let you know that we do have cameras on the current property, and we do have the ability to review all of the cameras, the coming and the going of everybody that's currently on the property, and that would continue as we move forward into the new property -- the new residence as well. I'm going to ask Nancy Dauphinais to come up next. She's going to speak more specifically to some of the data, because I think there were questions in regards to the data and what it specifically speaks to. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Before she comes up, Randy. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Excuse me. And thank you for clarifying some of these. Two quick questions, the first one's simple. The program that's taking place at the current home, basically, is going to be extended to include an additional 20 more residents, correct? MR. BURGESS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It's not an alteration, we're going to try something new; we're doing what we've done now for almost five years. We're going to expand it, correct? MR. BURGESS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Another question, not knowing -- and I apologize -- much about, for example, alcohol redemption and recovery, is it a prerequisite that these folks have gone through the 12-step program prior to requesting residency at this facility? MR. BURGESS: The residents that will be, you know, screened for potential appropriateness have been active in their recovery treatment already, so they have most likely already gone through maybe our detox program, and then we also have a 28-day program, which is a residential program where people stay on site on the main DLC campus, and then they have a period of -- then they transition into Hope Home. So they would have already had some level of treatment that's under -- under their belt already. You know, because we have limited capacity, a lot of times people have to have been discharged from that detox and 28-day program. Maybe they've been living somewhere else maybe with a friend or a relative or something of the sort. They're receiving some active treatment with us over at the Dave Lawrence Center main campus, February 6, 2025 Page 63 of 75 and then when there's availability in Hope Home, then they would -- if they meet all the criteria -- go through the whole process and the screening process that we have determined that are appropriate, then they could go into Hope Home. So they have an established period foundation of recovery already under their belt by the time they would move into Hope Home. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Shall we say that Hope Home is the third step, more or less? You know, they've gone through detox, 28-day program. Maybe they've had to go off site personally for a while, but trying to funnel them back into Hope Home II is the conclusion or -- MR. BURGESS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, right, exactly. So the whole -- the whole premise is that the longer that we can have somebody, you know, receiving that active sober living recovery support, the better their long-term prognosis is for their long-term sustained recovery, and the data demonstrates that. So if we can have somebody that's had that background of a strong foundation built up from a treatment standpoint and then we can get them into Hope Home, and if they're in there for another six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, then that just continues to elevate their likelihood that they're going to have great long-term success with sobriety. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: One last question. I apologize for taking so much time. The five residents that you have now in Hope I, is it four plus senior resident or -- MR. BURGESS: Five plus one senior. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Oh, it's five plus one. MR. BURGESS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. How -- out of those five, how many are working through their alcohol difficulties and drug difficulties? Do you know, roughly? MR. BURGESS: I don't know off the top of -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Not trying to pin you, but it -- MS. BALDWIN: I would say half and half. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Half and half, okay. All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. MR. BURGESS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. I don't know, Scott, if you're the best one to answer, but I thought I heard from Dr. Rizzo that six to eight is the more optimum size for a unit like this. And so the question is -- we're going to 20 residents -- what's your professional comment on the size because -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just to be clear, it's 18 and two in the new residence; 18 patients. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but the total site will be twenty -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Twenty-six. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twenty-three. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: It's 23 and three. February 6, 2025 Page 64 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twenty-three and three. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. But all I'm saying is the number, I think -- I think it was Dr. Rizzo said six to eight is the more successful typical. I don't know -- I'd like to hear a rebuttal to that. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. And Nancy will be able to speak to that very directly. But, you know, my personal opinion and professional opinion is no, that that's not accurate. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: That was exactly my question. MS. DAUPHINAIS: Hello. For the record, I'm Nancy Dauphinais. I'm the chief operating officer at David Lawrence Centers. I'm a licensed mental health counselor and a master's level certified addiction professional. I've been at DLC for 19 years and a Collier County resident for 20. I'll take that last question first about the size of the residences. I think that there is a lot of research on Oxford houses which tend to have between six and 15 residents. So the research out there, because there are more of that size, has more research about it but not necessarily conclusively stating that they are more successful than larger homes. So in preparation for this, we did go to review larger recovery residences in the state of Florida. Our team went to three, some on the east coast and one on the west coast of Florida all within a two-hour radius of here. And I'm just going to grab those details. So those recovery residence operators are also FARR certified Level II, and these are larger homes. So that's similar -- exactly what we're proposing with this. Our current home is a Level II home, and these would also be -- the new home would also be a Level II FARR certified. The ones that we visited have been in operation for between five and 10 years. One has 29 residents across 12 bedrooms, another has 24 -- excuse me -- it's 29 residents with three senior residents. So the total's 32. And another has 24 residents with three senior residents; 12 bedrooms, 12 bath. Another has 30 clients with five senior residents. Some are called house managers. They all are operating in residential neighborhoods next to brand-new homes where construction is going up, and people are moving in, not away, from those neighborhoods. One is within proximity, walking distance of a Ritz-Carlton. And so they're all in residential neighborhoods. The issues with -- when we asked them first about their relationships with their neighbors and if there had been any complaints, they started to share with us their complaints about their neighbors, because there are parties in the backyard of their neighbors where people are drinking and being very loud, and they want a quiet, sober environment, and we had to explain that we were asking about their neighbors' complaints about them. So there have been minimal with no specific incidents. The ones that are reported were similar to what we described with calls for medical service and other things about just not always knowing where somebody was being directed to get to the egress road. So they talked about how they worked with their neighbors collaboratively to establish that and -- but rare occasions EMS being called for medical -- medical emergencies. And I think that it's important -- we've heard a lot of an anecdotal -- anecdotal episodic kind of episodes. When we look at what the recovery residence literature suggests, it's actually the opposite of what we've been hearing. Most research supports February 6, 2025 Page 65 of 75 that there's lower crime rates, lower rates of homelessness, and lower rates of recidivism in communities that have recovery residences. These are individuals with chronic medical conditions, and return to use does happen. It's a -- it's considered a recurrence of use, and they are treated, and they are treated medically as needed with access to clinical programs near by when that does occur. But these research -- there's over 50 studies that have shown no impact on property values. In fact, some have known that property values increase because it actually promotes stability in the community. So I think it's really important to distinguish these -- kind of the anecdotes from what the research is saying. There's still a need for further research, particularly on larger homes, but they do exist. They do exist as FARR Level II certified recovery residences, and what distinguishes that is that it is a home-like environment. And I think I addressed -- did I miss anything? Any other questions about that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have a question on that. Well, what is the failure rate? I mean, we heard Dr. Rizzo make a statement. You're talking about recidivism. I can't even say the word. But is it -- because he made a statement, "Two to three fail for every one success." So that's about a 30 percent. MS. DAUPHINAIS: Our experience is usually there's two to three that are able to maintain long-term sobriety with an initial treatment episode while there may be one that returns to use. It's important to understand that substance use disorder is a medical condition. It is a chronic medical condition similar to diabetes, heart disease, asthma. There will be recurrence of symptoms over a lifetime with -- with this condition; however, they're managed medically in appropriate ways, and it's not always equated with a return -- with violent crime or what we've been hearing associated with return to use or a recurrence of symptoms. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A follow-on question, then. We have five in residence now. How many are in line waiting to get into a facility like this? MS. DAUPHINAIS: We've done snapshots. Yeah, I would say -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Are we talking 20? 50? MS. DAUPHINAIS: Forty-five. I mean, it's not -- I'd have -- I can't give you the list. Between all of our knowledge of our community partners and people request -- making requests to have this kind of affordable supported housing, at one point it was up to 100 where we could count that inventory of need. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So the agreed-upon number here is additional 18 in resident -- I guess I'll call them patients or -- MS. DAUPHINAIS: Residents. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Residents. Why not 10? Tell me why not 10? Why -- I'm increasing this threefold now -- a little over threefold than what exists now. Why not twice -- twice only -- with 10 residents and two on site? MS. DAUPHINAIS: It's interesting, the report that Dr. Rizzo cited actually has a whole section, a whole chapter on the need for additional recovery residence, that there is -- there are more Floridians dying of substance use disorder than can have access to the care that they need. So this is a life-or-death situation in our community, in our state, and, frankly, across our country. And we're already behind the ball in terms of having enough housing for individuals trying to work on their recovery. So we would say that the sooner the February 6, 2025 Page 66 of 75 better that we can expand the lifesaving access to this kind of housing would -- you know, we needed it 10 years ago, so -- times now. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. Anybody else, questions? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah, I've got a question. I don't know if my question is -- you're the right one to answer this one. My question is why this location? Why, geographically, this location, and were other areas or locations considered? I'm not arguing at all with the need for this. All I want to know is why this location? MR. BURGESS: Yeah. Well, there's so many things that make this, we believe, to be a perfect location. Again, we believe that it being in the proximity that it is, it doesn't really have an impact on the neighborhood. We also, you know -- having access to 75 and major corridors for people to get to work is very helpful for their ability to find work and continue to work. Having the access to, if necessary, some additional treatment supports that could be available over at the David Lawrence Center campus across the street. There's a proximity there that we believe is very helpful. And then, you know, it is in an area -- when you look at these types of residences, you want them to have close proximity to groceries and other types of things that are necessary for somebody to sustain and survive and thrive, and that checks all those boxes. So it's definitely been what we've considered to be a perfect location. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Scott -- and just to make sure we all recognize, you already own the property? MR. BURGESS: We do. Yeah, we do already own the property. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, that's a pretty good start. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, that helps. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have one other question, if no -- any other commissioners. And this is probably going to go to staff and Mr. Yovanovich. But I'm, again, going back to Mr. Serna's paper and Dr. Rizzo's statement. Of course, their basis of the argument is this is really not a group care facility; it's an -- because of the size, it's an institutional facility. So staff has reviewed this, and they pretty much have concluded that it is a group care facility and not an institutional. Because, I mean, I wrote those down even when I first reviewed, that this thing was such a size that it came across to me as -- almost as an institutional facility rather than as a group care facility. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. There's two different distinctions. By the land development and how we treat these facilities, it's a care facility. How the medical -- how the psychological community treats certain facilities because of number and the type of work that they're doing, we have no expertise on that. I defer to -- I'd defer to the medical community. But how we treat it by our Land Development Code, it's a care unit. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So, again, it's -- from a staff perspective it is not institutional. It is a care -- group care facility? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, this really comes down to compatibility, and it's compatibility -- and from what I heard from everyone -- and I'm February 6, 2025 Page 67 of 75 going to look at my commissioners, but do you have any other closing comments before we close the public opinion -- or public comments? MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to -- that was exactly where I was going to go. It's a house. It looks like a house, it operates like a house, and it is in a residential area. But remember, it's a care unit by definition. It can be anywhere. Not only in the Estates; it can be in any other residential zoning district. From a compatibility standpoint, it looks like a house. It's going to operate like a house. It's got bigger setbacks than is required in the Estates. It has appropriate -- the neighborhood requested the wall, things like that. So your staff has determined that it is compatible. It's really no impact on the roads. We're going to provide central water and sewer. So there was some concern that I heard kind of uniformly that you don't want a big, large septic tank and a drain field. That's -- so we'll have water and sewer. You had -- Mr. Chairman, you had the concern about fire, making sure there was adequate fire [sic] flow for water. All taken care of. Operationally, it's going to function like a house, and how we pick people to live there is more secure than what the neighborhood can pick. And with that, we -- this is the right location, it's an important use, and we hope that you will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval on both the small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment as well as the PUD rezone. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Randy, you have a question? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes. Rich -- and, Scott, thank you for everything you've done today. Rich, you made a comment earlier, something to the effect of, "Would you like to see us set up a hotline at DLC for concerned residents?" I think we went through something similar on the previous opportunity that was presented when we expanded David Lawrence. Has anything like that been set up? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And can we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That facility's not open yet, but it's -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: When it opens, it will be there for there to be a person to call. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And maybe on the website, should this go through, can there be something that ties, quote, anything with a concerned resident area, you call this number and you get somebody? MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. MR. BURGESS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. And not for you, but if I may, I'd like to ask staff -- not sure which one. Another silly idea of mine. As you look at the map that's up here, if we look at the intersection of where 62nd is going -- that's east and west, and where it makes a left-hand turn and goes north and south, County, is it possible to make a groomed legitimate pathway to go from that corner over to the sidewalk that's on Golden Gate so that residents could actually walk north on 62nd, cross over, get to the sidewalk, continue to walk east if they need to go to stores or the bus stop or whatever? It may be farfetched, but I thought I would just put that out there. February 6, 2025 Page 68 of 75 MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think, Mr. Sparrazza, to speak for staff, we had committed to making that connection if we could get the permits. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought when you said "connection," you were talking about water. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. I was also talking about a physical -- I think you're talking about right around this area right here? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. If he can get the permits from FDOT. Because it's part of the I-75 -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And it's in the corridor area? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. So if we can get the necessary permits, we would. And then I think someone said, "Well, they'll walk that way anyway because it's human nature." So we'll either have a pathway for them, or over time -- you know when you were in college and you walked on the grass, they would put the sidewalks there later because that's how they figured out where the sidewalks would go. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you for that. I misinterpreted that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had said that, and we are happy to do that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, I close the public hearing. I defer to our commissioners for deliberation. Just my statement, basically everything we've heard, it's really more compatibility than use, and the argument is that, because of the clientele that are being treated at the site, it's deemed incompatible. And Mr. Serna's comments certainly in his paper, well written and analyzed. So it's -- again, his comments were based on compatibility. And so I defer to my commissioners for any further discussion. I'm just going to hold off making any comments until I hear from you-all. So does anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I support you. It's a very difficult situation. I've been through it in different sort of ways in our community where everybody has a picture of what's going to happen. You know, doom and gloom, and how do you put the fail-safes in to make sure that it doesn't happen? I guess at this point I feel comfortable that we have the fail-safes with the setbacks and the layouts and the professional organization. I support it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Support it at the size being asked? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Next? Anybody else? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Well, when push comes to shove, it seems to me compatibility can be best summed up as "not in my backyard." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So let's just call a spade a spade. That's what compatibility means, "Not in my backyard." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, to be clear, there is -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: They can justify it by the numbers. He's got numbers to justify it, but that's -- that's not what's going on here. Compatibility is "not in February 6, 2025 Page 69 of 75 my backyard." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Randy. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: There's been a lot of conversation both for and against this project. I think the reasons the people were asking for it not to be done were met with mostly positive results by the petitioner in saying, "What do you want? What will make it better? What would put you at some ease?" We're never at 100 percent ease. Personally, as we've all said, you're not quite sure who's living next door. You don't interview them before you buy your lot. You might be in a gated community, and there's crazies living next door because they had the money to buy, or whatever. But I think with everything that has been put against the petitioner on what the residents would like to see, besides not seeing it there at all, NIMBY, "not in my backyard" -- they've asked for a wall; they got it. The Board here -- and I'm guessing even the county has said, "You know, septic and well really isn't great." That's off the table. As Rich said, "We're going to do that." Okay. So we've pulled those two items off. Agreeing to have communications set up at DLC for, "I've got a concern. Can you double-check on this?" "Sure. Let's go back and look at the videotapes. No one came in and out of our building, so it must have been a wild squirrel you heard and not someone else." They've gone through certain treatment programs within DLC. The -- so equivalent to -- somewhat equivalent. I am no expert to a 12-step program, but it's not like they're walking in off the street and going to this home. They've gone through a couple of prerequisites. They've gone through the screening. It is the same program, more or less, that they're currently doing with very little problems or difficulty. And if they're going to extend that to give 18 more county residents the opportunity to get well when, from what I understand, there's roughly, we'll say, 50 to 60 available beds in the entire county of this in a county of 420,000, I think it's shameful on us if we don't move forward with this, and I'm in favor of the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody else, comments? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I was just going to say that based on the evidence and testimony that was presented today, I'm in support of this project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: This is -- I think that if this wasn't a rehab facility, we wouldn't be here today. I think that if somebody wanted to build a 20-home [sic] single-family home there, which it is a single-family home, there would be no opposition. If it was a dorm room, there would be no opposition. And if there was a -- if it was a woman's shelter, there would be no opposition. But because of the -- because of what it is, everybody's passionate about it. I feel that the DLC has taken adequate steps to meet the community's needs with the water, with the wall, with the cameras, with the dedicated phone line, and even the sidewalk that they automatically agreed to, that it's in -- it I support the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have two comments I'll add. One is we've already agreed to the connection to the Collier County Water/Sewer District. The other is a dedicated 24/7/365 line that anybody can call if there's an issue. I do really have some concerns about the disparity of what the lieutenant put on the February 6, 2025 Page 70 of 75 record versus Dr. Rizzo's statement in regards to what he has said is on the record. I'm assuming those were right off the record of the sheriff's department and the disparity between what was stated on the record, "we were there for a minor investigation" versus the incidents he brought up. I'm not going to get into one or the other. Lieutenant, you're raising your hand or -- no? LT. WEIDENHAMMER: I can speak to that if you would like. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, yes. I'll open the public hearing, because I'd like for you to speak to that. Because there was some -- basically, it wasn't -- he didn't state it, but he's saying that what was on the record is not per your statement that you made on the record. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: I can't tell you exactly what I said, but I'm pretty sure I said that there were no criminal things there and that some of the -- some of the things were brushfire, folks' calls down at the end of the street at the canal, and a medical call. And I'm aware of what he brought up as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure that -- I mean, what was implying here that the record was not in sync with what he pulled -- allegedly pulled off the Collier County Sheriff record. And I know he just held it up. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But I don't want to get into it any further, but I understand. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: I have those, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: And I was asked a very general question. And I will tell you that the things that he said on there, the fire alarms and stuff, I have those as well. What I did say, there were no criminal things that we had been called for there. A fire alarm, medical call is not criminal. Coming to serve a civil process paper is not criminal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. LT. WEIDENHAMMER: So I have all those as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you, just for clarity. On the 24/7 call center, which we've talked about, or at least response center, that goes to the caretaker at the home? Can you -- can I ask that question? MR. BURGESS: I guess what we would want to do is determine what you-all would like to see. We have a 24/7/365 call number that's open to the community at all times. There's always somebody that is manning that phone. So we would probably have a mechanism where they would call our 24/7/365 number. Then that individual that would be housed over across the street on our main campus, then that individual would have direct contact with the folks that run the program, and then we would follow up with the neighbors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Because my concern, quite honestly, is even if the person calling perceives that it's a problem, I want you-all to investigate to determine whether it is a problem. And maybe somebody just walking down the street, I don't know. But -- and if it requires coordination with the county Sheriff's Office, then we do that with the county Sheriff's Office as well. The screaming for help, whatever that issue was, if that was the -- your other campus, but those kind of things certainly would raise the ire of the community. February 6, 2025 Page 71 of 75 MR. BURGESS: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I fully understand that. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. Obviously, we do as well. We want to commit to being available and communicative and work in partnership with our neighbors as well as work in partnership with the Sheriff's Office. Leslie is somebody that we work with all the time, and whenever we have any type of issue, a challenge that comes up, we always want to do some sort of debriefing to determine exactly what happened and make sure that whatever we can do to resolve the issue we do to resolve the issue. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Does the -- and I'll ask the Collier County attorney here, does this require any type of certificate of use from the county that if there are any continuing issues, that the county would pull the license or whatever you call it from -- for this place to continue to operate? Is there a certificate of use? Not a CO, not a building permit. But this is a -- for all intent and purposes, is a group care facility. And if they violate -- continue to violate, it's either a code issue, or can the county commissioners pull their certificate and say, no, they no longer can operate? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe the licensing is through the state. Rich can probably answer that better as far as the recovery residence. They'd get an occupational license probably. They already have that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Because I'm looking for a pathway that if this -- there's continued abuse, that the community can say, "Enough's enough," and that they can pull the operational license of this facility. Because there's got to be some kind of a threshold that says, "Okay. This is what they said, but they're not living up to what they said." And I don't -- but that's not a zoning issue, but it is sort of a compatibility issue. I don't know. MR. YOVANOVICH: The way it works is David Lawrence Center can't put anybody in a home that doesn't have the FARR. Thank you. I'm blanking -- FARR certification. But we don't -- we're recognized by DCF, but we're not -- we don't have a specific approval from the county. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So the mechanism to enforce it would be through Code Enforcement should we violate. And as you know, those fines can get pretty hefty, so you get into compliance pretty quick if there's -- if there is an issue. Again, I appreciate that people are worried about, you know, the worst-case scenario, but you have an operator here who's been here for 56 years. We're not getting to that position. And, Mr. Schmitt, there was one thing -- maybe you were going to get to it on your list, but Heidi brought up that the commitment to architecturally this was going to be designed to look like a single-family home. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. That was the last one. MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to add that to the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Criteria. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wasn't sure if you had that on your list or not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Not specifically as presented in the slides, but it would be a single-family home. MR. YOVANOVICH: It would -- yes. February 6, 2025 Page 72 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody making a recommendation? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. I just had another comment. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, there, Paul. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just the follow-up on the -- when we had the last David Lawrence facility come up, we talked about this hotline, and I don't think we need to wait until the last -- I mean, you have one facility -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- one operating. I'd like to see you formalize what you say you have so the residents know how it works and implement that so everybody understands it now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, and we can, because we are operating. But my -- I understood the question about, "What was approved across the street, is that in place?" And I said, "Well, not yet because the facility across the street's not operational." COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I didn't take it that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, I was just -- it just seemed like it wasn't formally in place, but there was something there. So I just say make it more formal. MR. YOVANOVICH: Got it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: When we approved the facility across the street, Scott, didn't you make a commitment that you would periodically -- I don't know what you want to call it -- meet with the community to vet any problems or concerns? I don't know if -- MR. BURGESS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- what we decided on, quarterly or otherwise, that you would -- you would hold some kind of a forum at least to listen and if there were any concerns on how the facility, quote, operated. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, absolutely. And we would welcome, you know, all neighbors to that. So we have actually a neighborhood meeting that we had scheduled for next week, and unfortunately, the neighbors asked for that to be postponed. So we are going to be meeting later this month. So we will -- and we will have those meetings with regularity, and obviously, we would be taking input related to anything that's happening at our main campus. Anything that's happening at Hope Home would also be welcome to come up there for discussion and for us continuing to be good neighbors. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Does the -- any of the board of directors, like, during the day, make visits, say, "We're going to come out and do a visit and see how things are going"? MR. BURGESS: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm just concerned that this thing just doesn't get out of -- get out of -- you know, sort of get out of scale or whatever happens there. What you're stating and what you're going to do, I'm sure the board monitors that closely. MR. BURGESS: Oh, yes. We have -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chris is gone. I know he's on your board and -- MR. BURGESS: Yeah -- no. I mean, we have monthly board meetings where we review all of -- we have 46 different programs -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. February 6, 2025 Page 73 of 75 MR. BURGESS: -- and support, you know, over 9,000 unique individuals in treatment services at DLC. So every one of our board meetings, we talk about what's happening operationally. We review with the board, on a regular basis, incidents that happen so that they're really aware of what's happening in real time in all of our programs, and we will regularly spotlight a program at each one of the board meetings so -- of which Hope Home and this Hope Home expansion has been big topics of discussion as we continue to try to move this important initiative forward. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. Anybody make a motion? I didn't hear any motions. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'll get a crack at it. I would like to move forward with a motion to approve. I don't have the numbers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: PL20220005195. That is The Hope Home II subdistrict GMPA and -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Accompanying. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- with also accompanying vote, so it would be a separate vote, but it's still inclusive -- we could make it the same vote -- PL20220005096. That's The Hope Home PUDZ, 3150 62nd Street. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: With the attached conditions, we just mentioned them, but maybe they need to be all on the record. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll go through them. Connection to the Collier County Water/Sewer District, 24/7 dedicated call center or response line, and that the house will be constructed, as discussed, it would be a single-family structure -- or single-floor structure, not a multistory. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if we can get the permit for the sidewalk -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Permit for the sidewalk. We're going to hold Mike -- Mike Sawyer back there responsible for making sure that happens. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm assuming those conditions would be in the PUD, not in the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Those conditions are in the PUD. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about the wall? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The wall is already in the record. Clearly, the wall's already in the record and stated. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in the PUD. It's already in the PUD. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's already in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: So are -- all the operational standards are in the PUD. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Anything else? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's it. I think -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Anything else from colleagues? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We'll call the vote. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: We need a second. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: We need a second. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, second. Paul made the second, thank you. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. February 6, 2025 Page 74 of 75 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER PETSCHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Old business? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Old business. I don't think we have any old business. And any other public comments? No public comments. Now, we do have to decide on our March meeting. I've not seen anything more on that. We did -- you were -- we canvassed, and we're going to -- this is for the LDC amendment. MR. BOSI: March 6th -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: March 6th. MR. BOSI: -- was when the majority of folks were available for a nighttime meeting, and that meeting only has one other petition, so we're going to start it at 3 o'clock. And we will send out reminders to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So we're going to start at 3? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then we'll do the petition and then go right into the LDC amendment. The LDC amendment was what? MR. BOSI: There's two LDC amendments related to the -- to the housing initiatives as well as the Immokalee area overlay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Was the Immokalee area overlay going to be -- MR. BOSI: I mean, it's the implementation of the Immokalee Area Master Plan in the LDC. So it's more procedural. It's straightforward. It's just incorporating the direction of the Immokalee Area Master Plan into the LDC. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: And we can't start the second part until 5:30 because it's -- MR. BOSI: 5:05. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 5:05. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: 5:05. Okay. And dinner served? Be careful what you say. MR. BOSI: We're looking into options. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Adjourn. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. February 6, 2025 Page 75 of 75 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:27 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on _3/6/2025 , as presented ___X___ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.