Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/15/2025May 15, 2025 Page 1 of 4 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 15, 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 3:00 p.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 Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Michael Petscher ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I James Sabo, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager May 15, 2025 Page 2 of 4 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, welcome to the May 15th, 2025, Collier County Planning Commission. I would ask we all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Commissioner Shea, could you please take the roll. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Chairman Schmitt? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Vice Chair Schumacher? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here. Secretary Shea is here. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Commissioner Petscher is not here. Ms. Lockhart. MS. LOCKHART: Here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We have a quorum, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Excellent. And I'm assuming, Mike, I didn't hear anything but -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: He sent us -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: He sent an email, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Do we need to excuse him? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, we would -- no, we just -- it's a -- we don't have to make it official. It's an official absence. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He had an emergency, which is fine. MR. BOSI: It was a family emergency from a medical standpoint. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Mike, do you have any addenda to the agenda? MR. BOSI: None -- none at this time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We note that Ray is not here because we have no land-use petitions. This is all legislative in nature. So I note that the next meeting is June 5th, 2025. Are there any projected absences for June 5th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, again, following that is July 5th. MR. BOSI: July 3rd. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: July 3rd. I had July 5th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the 19th is still canceled? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: 19th is canceled. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: July 3rd, which we all believed we were going to at least attempt to be here, there was -- MR. BOSI: As of right now, there are no petitions -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No petitions. May 15, 2025 Page 3 of 4 MR. BOSI: -- for July 3rd, but there's still time before the advertising deadline, so there may be something that gets added. I'll send that in a week. Once we hit the advertising deadline, if nothing else gets on, I will send out a notice so you guys will be freed if you want to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, we'll just -- let me know, and then we'll make -- you know, make -- certainly make a decision if there's no petitions, so we'll just -- MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- cancel the meeting unless there's something that we have to meet for. But I would -- unless there's no petitions. And then following that, you said July 17th is the possible -- our meeting with Costco, so I would have to state that it was -- most likely that will be the only item on the -- on the agenda? MR. BOSI: There are other -- there are two other items that are currently scheduled for the 17th that I'm aware of. So that one is going to have to be put -- the Costco one would have to be put last on the agenda. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: Just because we know it's going to take that much time. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Okay. Anybody project that they're not going to be here on the 17th? You could probably find a good reason not to be here. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I probably will not be here on the 17th. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There you go. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I'm going to go watch my great granddaughter take her first steps. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You're going to watch the grass grow out in front, or -- no. It's going to be an interesting -- but, again, for those who are listening, this is a PDI, and it's focused strictly on the amendments that they're asking. It is not a rezoning, and we need to make that perfectly clear. We're not here to debate the rezoning. It's an activity center. It's already zoned commercial. It's the fact that the petitioner is asking for some -- I believe, four deviations? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So we will address that, and that will be clearly stated in the staff report. Approval of minutes. I have three sets of minutes. Do we need to approve those separately, or we just state them? And then, for the record, it's the March 20th, 2025; April 3rd, 2025; and April 17th, 2025. Are there any objections or notes for any of those three sets of minutes? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. It passes unanimously. So, Mike, anything from the BCC report that you want to share with us? MR. BOSI: On the summary agenda, the Sainvil -- the Immokalee 29-unit, I believe, Sainvilus subdivision PUD was approved under the summary as well as the Armantrout, which was the ag for three individual Estates lots. That was approved as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. And NC Square was continued. May 15, 2025 Page 4 of 4 MR. BOSI: NC Square has been continued now. It was originally going to be heard the second meeting in April and then the first meeting in May, and now it's been continued even further. It was going to be back to the May 27th. We're just looking for modifications from the applicant. When they're comfortable, they're going to submit that in, and we'll schedule it, and we'll report back to the Board. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. For public hearings, this public hearing is legislative in nature, so there's no swearing in required for that, but we can go through disclosures. ***But the first public petition, I'll just announce it before we go through disclosures. This is the Greenway Fritchey Residential Overlay GMPA, northeastern intersection of Greenway Road and Fritchey Road. So that is a GMP amendment. Starting, Amy, any disclosures? MS. LOCKHART: Text materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chap? COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and site visit. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich and with Bob Mulhere as well just before the meeting on the subject. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Staff materials and a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, spoke with Rich Yovanovich, met with staff, visited the site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So with that, Rich, I will turn it over to you for your presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, and good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. We have a large project team that's here to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is the Greenway Fritchey, LLC, and Habitat for -- I'm sorry -- Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. So this is -- this is -- and we're going to talk about the Growth Management Plan amendment that we're proposing, but we're also going to show you the PUD. So you'll see that there's -- I'm going to use the term "partnership" loosely as this is moving forward, because there are two developers working together for this Growth Management Plan amendment. So David Torres is here for Greenway Fritchey Land, LLC, and we have Mike. Mike is to Solar -- I can't say his last name -- from Habitat. Taylor Whitcomb is also here with Mr. Torres' firm. Myself, Mr. Mulhere. Norm Trebilcock is our -- our traffic consultant; Matthew DeFrancesco is with Bowman, and Emilio Robau are our engineers, and Jeremie Chastain, also with Bowman, is one of the planners. And then Ramsey Fisher from Passarella is our environmental consultant, if you have questions from -- for any of them that either I can't answer or Bob can't answer. But you'll hear from me and Bob as part of this presentation. As the Chairman mentioned, we're here for a Growth Management Plan amendment. It's a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment on the property that's on the visualizer. We are asking to establish a subdistrict, and I'll get into the details of that in a minute. But this property is off of Greenway Road. You have seen other petitions recently in this area on Greenway. There's a Live Local project on that corner of Greenway, and then this was a previously approved 7-Eleven at Greenway. So this is -- this is an area on the East Tamiami Trail that is seeing development occur as we're going through this process because pretty much the urban area is built out, so the corridors in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and then also up on Immokalee Road in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District are where we're starting to see development. May 15, 2025 Page 5 of 4 Our request is to create a subdistrict consisting of 227.09 acres. The subdistrict will allow for up to 1,299 residential dwelling units which is an overall project density of 5.72 units per acre. Of those units, 20 percent, 260 dwelling units, will be reserved for individuals with a median income below 80 percent. It's a for-sale product. That's going to be the Habitat portion of this project. And we're also seeking to modify the littoral zone planting requirements for the project under the conservation element. Assuming the Board of County Commissioners transmits us to the state for review, we'll come back at the second round and come back for the adoption portion of the Growth Management Plan amendment and the actual rezone of the property to PUD. But we're going to take you through the PUD in a little bit of detail just to let you know and the public know what will result from this Growth Management Plan amendment should it get approved. We're in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. We're within the receiving lands portion of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. So this is where development is supposed to occur under the Growth Management Plan. So that is consistent with what's being requested. A couple of things. You all know about the history of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and it being established in 2002. As I mentioned, we're receiving lands, so this is where development's supposed to occur, and the Growth Management Plan was recently amended -- I guess it was a couple years ago now -- to allow for affordable housing projects to come forward to increase density on lands within the receiving lands. The LDC table that exists today would allow us to ask for a bonus of up to six units per acre, so we're consistent with the LDC table that exists today. But the county is going through the process of implementing the Growth Management plan provisions -- the general Growth Management plan provisions, so we're moving forward with our own subdistrict because we're a little ahead of schedule than the county is on adopting their implementation regulations for the LDC. And our request is less than what we could ask for under the existing table in the Land Development Code. I think we could be a total of 6.2, and we're slightly under that number under the existing table. I'm going to turn it over to Bob in a second to kind of go through the site plan or the master plan for the PUD. But again, this is -- our request is consistent with really what the Board of County Commissioners has recently, from a policy standpoint, directed; they'd like to see affordable housing come forward on the Tamiami Trail segment of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. We're consistent with that. Our requested density is consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the existing LDC table. It is -- I know there's some stuff in the staff report talking about, really, the PUD, but the allowing for the affordable housing to be built on one segment of the PUD and not mixed in with the market-rate segment of the PUD. These are two separate, basically, projects within one Growth Management Plan area and within one PUD. This is not unusual. You've seen this before. I've done two projects where there were apartment projects where they were basically a partnership with Habitat where Habitat took care of all of the affordable housing on its parcel and the market-rate development was on a separate parcel. So this is not anything that you haven't seen before, and we're carrying that theme forward. So from a -- that's a brief overview of what we're proposing. Bob will take you through some of the finer details of the PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a quick question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: While you're on that slide, where's the current Habitat project that's under -- it's on the west side of the road, but I'm not sure if it's on this map or not -- how far north it is. It is right there. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Regal Acres. May 15, 2025 Page 6 of 4 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Regal Lakes, okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Regal Acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's there. Oops, I don't know how to make that go away. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Rich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- between you and Bob, in the staff report -- and I'll quote the statement, "However the GMPA does not provide for integrating affordable housing units with market-rate units in conformance with the RMFUD and the LDC." Well, that's not required, so I want to make that clear, and if it's required, staff needs to let me know. But I couldn't find anything where it required. It's encouraged. So I'd ask that you clarify on the site plan so we have a clear understanding of the Habitat development versus the at-rate market housing and the ingress/egress so we fully understand that, because I was somewhat remiss that staff didn't bring it up that this is basically two different developments that are integrated into one request for a GMPA. And in fact, you said it in the past, this has been done in the past. And I -- and I -- to say to integrate, it would be a wonderful idea, but frankly -- and we can have people from Habitat talk about this, but they have a whole different development pattern and a whole different marketing strategy than -- than the at-rate housing. So would you just make it clear for my colleagues up here so we can clearly understand where the Habitat is versus -- and the reason why, quote, we're not integrating into -- as one development. It's, frankly, two separate developments. MR. YOVANOVICH: And Bob will point out on the master plan where this is occurring. But if you remember a couple weeks back or a couple meetings back, we came forward with the -- on Sabal Palm Road -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- a similar concept. We were doing a subdistrict to create affordable housing, and we had market rate on one parcel and we had the affordable on a separate parcel, and that one we did actually have a mixture of both market rate and affordable. But we were doing townhomes on that one and the single-family on another one, and they were separated. But, you know -- and I understand, and usually what you see is apartment buildings in which you have rental housing, and in those you do have the units within the same building. So that -- this is different, but it's not -- there are also circumstances where we do integrate them all into the same project. But this is totally separate. Not unusual that we've done that. And, Bob, I'm going to let you come up and take that question since the master plan is up for you. MR. MULHERE: Sure. Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Bowman. Still not used to saying that. And Emilio Robau, who also works with Bowman now, and Matthew DeFrancesco prepared this master plan that's on the visualizer. Let me see if I can -- so basically, the tract boundary -- you have two tracts -- excuse me -- two tracts, R1 and R2, and the boundary is right here. And you can see in red Tract 2 is 92.34 acres. That, of course, includes the lakes and the internal rights-of-way. And Tract R1 is 121.6 acres. We do have a planned bicycle and pedestrian interconnection between the projects and a future connection, bicycle and pedestrian, to the east. We see no value in having a vehicular connection here. And as Commissioner Schmitt said, that's not required but encouraged. You'd just be running -- all of the traffic is going to be using Fritchey Road and Greenway, so it doesn't really help. We are making improvements to Fritchey Road, as requested -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Bob, tell them which one's Habitat. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say that. Okay. May 15, 2025 Page 7 of 4 This is the Habitat tract, Tract R2. This is the market-rate tract. We are making improvements to Fritchey Road as well as Greenway as requested by county staff, and we've agreed to those. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Bob, when you say "improvements," are we talking about a full -- okay. I got it. MR. MULHERE: So I apologize. This is the cross-section for Fritchey Road, which for the most part there's an existing 60-foot right-of-way. I think we had some easements that we had to, you know, transfer or will transfer to make up in a few locations the 60-foot right-of-way, and you can see that this has basically a 16-foot right -- 16 feet for compensating right-of-way and then a five-foot sidewalk and a landscape buffer along it. So it will be a nice and attractive cross-section on Fritchey Road for traffic to use. The PUD -- and again, this hearing is for the transmittal to the State of Florida for the GMP when we do come back for adoption, assuming that this gets approved for transmittal, and we'll have the PUD as a companion item. Norm Trebilcock did our transportation assessment. There is a -- these projects, collectively, the total PUD, will -- will generate 861 p.m. peak-hour trips. So that will be included in the PUD as a condition as an overriding limit on development. As you know, depending on what kind of product you build, there's a slightly different analysis for trip generation, so you have to be sure that you don't exceed that trip cap. We do have a staff recommendation of approval for transmittal to the Department of Commerce. They've changed that name a lot, but they get to take a review, and they send it out to the various state agencies, and if they have any comments, they have 30 days to provide those back to the county, after which the county will schedule this and the PUD for the next set of public hearings. So if you have any other questions, we have a whole team here to assist in responding. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. I had a -- I don't know if they're questions or just my understandings. We've got two projects going on here. One is the Habitat project, and the other is the non-Habitat project. My understanding is on the multifamily units, they're all condo. That's the way you're looking at it, right, as opposed to apartments? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We have the -- we have the ability to either do apartments or condos as multifamily. I think we're -- we're not really sure, but our guess it's probably condos right now is the thought, but maybe apartments. Who knows? But, yes, it could be -- MR. TORRES: Townhomes also -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. MR. TORRES: -- are considered multifamily. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. You're right. Town -- I'm sorry. That was David Torres, if you needed that, Terri, for your -- Townhomes are also multifamily so they could be side by side. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Oh, sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or, you know, basically flats. One on top of the other. But yes, those are -- that's an option as well as multifamily goes. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Okay. So we're really in the early stage here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I mean, what you're asking for, essentially, is approval of this GMPA with the first step being you take it to the Florida Department of Commerce, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: You know, get their input, and whatever you get from that, you'll incorporate into your eventual full-blown idea, and then we'll deal with it at that time, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we'll -- yeah. Essentially, right now we're just asking for permission to create the subdistrict. If the subdistrict gets approved by the county, then the rezone, May 15, 2025 Page 8 of 4 which is the master plan you see right here, that basically tells you what we might put on this property; multifamily, single-family. And multifamily could be apartments. It could be condos. It could be townhomes. Those are all multifamily types of uses. That will get also approved. But the real detail as to what use goes where on this master plan occurs at the site development plan stage. So that's when you get -- that's when you make the decision, is it apartments? Is it condominiums? Is it townhomes? COMMISIONER COLUCCI: That's what I thought. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. So that's the process. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. This is the first stage of it. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This is a comp plan amendment. It has to go through transmittal. It will come back for adoption. It's unusual because sometimes -- in your short experience, sometimes we -- on a small-scale, we don't go through transmittal and adoption. We do adoption and the PUD. But this is a large project, so it goes to the state for comment. It will come back to us again for a second review, and it goes through, of course, to the Board of County Commissioners. And when we look at that second review, we'll get the -- the PUD that -- COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Well, I'm learning as I go. I think I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: You got it down. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You got it now. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I got it now. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is it -- Michelle? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Lisa, can I ask you to come up and I can ask you some questions? MS. LEFKOW: For the record, Lisa Lefkow, CEO, Habitat for Humanity. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you. I was not aware that this has happened before in the past where Habitat partners with a developer. When I first saw it, I thought, "Wow, this is a great idea." Now, can you tell me a little bit about the background of this? You have other Habitat properties around there. Why are you partnering up this time? Let's just start there first. MS. LEFKOW: Sure. All kinds of reasons. And yes, we have -- we have built on the other side, on the west side of Greenway Road, inside the urban core, right, inside the rural fringe, and successfully. It's a nice area for us. We actually bought this property long ago. We've been partners with David Torres for many years, as David's had a heart for housing affordability in our community, has done a lot of that work himself. So there was just a natural alliance there, as he began to buy property in the same area, and this just was a strategic partnership. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And I don't know if you know this or if Bob, but what separates these two developments? Is it a landscape buffer? MR. MULHERE: Landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there will be -- there will be a buffer right along that property line, right there (indicating). COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. MULHERE: In here. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And so -- and for Lisa, back to Lisa, so you don't know yet if it's going to be single-family stand-alone houses. MS. LEFKOW: Correct. In reality, what we're actually hoping for is the opportunity, because it's a large parcel and it does provide some opportunities that we haven't had before, that we may be able to do some mixed product. So there may be some areas that we can do single-family and others multifamily. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And is that why in the documents it says -- it's on May 15, 2025 Page 9 of 4 Page 285 of I think it was 312 pages, that Habitat for Humanity could build 500 units based on the final site plans, so more than just the 20 percent? Is that because -- MS. LEFKOW: Maximizing. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: -- you would change -- MS. LEFKOW: Certainly maximizing the opportunities there. We don't -- it's -- that's not our -- we've never built at maximum density. So that's -- that's not our intention is to max it out. But yes, the potential is there. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And then how do you feel about what the Chair had mentioned with regards to the requirement of not having to integrate the two? MS. LEFKOW: Yeah. We actually support the non-integration of two developments, because, yeah, as you know, our model is very different. And our follow-up, the way our homeowners associations are created, our involvement in the support of the homeowners association all makes way more sense to have segregated developments. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I like, though, that the sidewalk goes through. MS. LEFKOW: A little interconnect. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's good. You mentioned the model, which brings me to my next question. And maybe this is for Heidi. But what -- so Habitat has its model. This has a different model on monitoring affordability. What model supersedes the other? MS. LEFKOW: So we are providing the affordable housing. So this -- our model is the one that supersedes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. But it doesn't really spell out exactly how you guys do the affordable housing monitoring and things like that. MS. LEFKOW: Sure. So that's fairly simple. Our process is a homeownership process, so all of our income qualification prior to application, even application approval, and then certainly prior to closing identifies income level, low or very-low. Our program is specifically focused to low- and very-low income homeownership. Once the families are in their homes, because it's homeownership, they're signing a 30-year mortgage interest free. And following -- following closing on the house, they can earn more money. We don't have to -- they don't have to stay low income once they're in the house. If there's a turnover, right, if there's a sale, we have a different process for that. We use deed restrictions. Primarily, houses come back to us. We income qualify for subsequent sales. So we are -- we're continuing to monitor for subsequent sales. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And so, Mike and Heidi, you don't have to put that in here, right? It's just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: In the PUD, when you get the PUD, we'll be bound by the county's minimum process. We could have a more stringent process, which obviously Habitat does. But we will follow the county's minimum process, like a 30-year requirement, that they have to be income-qualified before they close on the unit. The difference is if someone goes to sell under the county's process, they could sell it for -- they get a certain amount of appreciation each year, and then if they sell it for more than that amount, then they have to split the profits with the county, but that's a different -- so we will meet the minimum county's process. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. But I guess my -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Commissioner, so if you were to remove the monitoring and restrictive covenant requirements that's currently in the GMPA then -- which will be carried over to the PUD, the county would lose an ability to enforce it. So if it were solely Habitat that was controlling it, we wouldn't be able to control it without language in our ordinance. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I guess my point is, though, I like the Habitat model better for controlling certain things than the county's. MS. LEFKOW: There's no conflict. So they -- there truly is no conflict between the county's requirements and our requirements. May 15, 2025 Page 10 of 4 COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Well, you have a different model. MS. LEFKOW: If the property has to be affordable for 30 years, our model supports that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. But the way -- if somebody were to sell to a non-qualifying person, yours is different than -- or Habitat's is different than the county. MS. LEFKOW: It echoes the county. It supports the county. It's still -- the deed restriction requires that it stays as affordable at whatever percentage rate the requirement is for 30 years. So our mortgage and deed restrictions echo what's in the PUD. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Lisa -- and I would have to say Lisa provides an extra layer of oversight. Their board and their program provides an extra layer. It's not in the GMP, but it's their business model and their management practice. And you also hold a second, don't you, on most of the homes? MS. LEFKOW: If it takes a second to provide affordability for the first mortgage payment, then yes, there's a second mortgage taken back. There's shared appreciation involved. There's deed restrictions involved. So, again, all incentive for if a unit was to be subsequently sold, generally it's going to come back to us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the requirement -- as Mr. Yovanovich stated, the GMP has to state the county's requirement as was stated by the County Attorney. Whatever Habitat does above and beyond that, I mean, it certainly provides an extra layer of oversight in regards to finding home -- or home -- people who are looking for homeownership. MS. LEFKOW: Income-qualified homebuyers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Income-qualified. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And for the record, I love Habitat for Humanity. I just love how -- how it all works together, and I'm really excited about this project. MS. LEFKOW: Thank you. We are, too. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And as typical of the Habitat, these require sweat equity as well -- MS. LEFKOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- in regards to this. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: All that it requires. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All the requirements. Paul, do you have any questions? Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. Whenever Lisa's up here, we always have to call her up to the microphone. So a lot of people can answer, but since you're here, just right now that land, the entire property, is owned by the applicant, right? The property. MS. LEFKOW: Applicants, yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Who -- if I went to the county record, who owns the land? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's Habitat. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So right now that parcel is owned by Habitat? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. You have the landowners. This is not contingent upon zoning. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. So actually, you could come through with a Habitat proposal for Tract 1 without -- MR. MULHERE: Two. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- without Tract 2, right? MS. LEFKOW: We are Tract 2. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You're Tract 2, then. But you could come in by yourself for an application? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Technically. MR. MULHERE: They could. They could. The one thing that wasn't mentioned, I think, May 15, 2025 Page 11 of 4 somewhat in response to Michelle's question -- excuse me -- was, "What's the benefit of this kind of a model?" There are some other benefits. I'm not prepared to quantify them, but there are some costs that Habitat will not -- MS. LEFKOW: Absolutely. MR. MULHERE: -- will not have to add to this, such as mitigation, which are not insubstantial, which are being borne by the market-rate developer and other things. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it's a good marriage. It allows a higher density on the other tract as well. So I'm not being critical of it. I just want to make sure I understand it. MS. LEFKOW: Yeah. If I can just respond and maybe speak to that. Bob brings up the critical point, which is the cost savings for shared infrastructure work, which is exactly what we've experienced in our other JV partnership. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. And that's a good thing, Bob, you pointed out about mitigation and others, certainly, that David's picking up. I mean -- and I could tell you my experience. In probably panther habitat mitigation alone, the PHUs, I would have to guess were probably somewhere in the million dollar range, if not higher, for PHUs for this and all the other type of mitigations that are required. So it is a true benefit to Habitat. They get to piggyback off of the developer's, basically, piggy bank. MS. LEFKOW: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So that's a -- it's a great marriage from that standpoint. MR. MULHERE: Initial design costs, all that stuff. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All that stuff: Petition, design, all the other -- all the other issues associated with going through the process. Okay. Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I know this isn't the place to ask this, but when you look at the site and you look at everything, stormwater flow's going to be a big issue, and I don't -- there's nothing in terms of where the water's going. And I realize it's premature, but you have to have some thoughts on it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, I'm not a -- let me clarify. I'm not a civil engineer, and we don't -- because this was a -- oh, Matthew's here. I didn't see him before, but he's here now, so I will let him -- he knows where the water's going. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, Matthew will certainly -- I don't know if he's done any preliminary, but I am assuming you've already looked at -- MR. MULHERE: He knows it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- your water management from going through your state process. But go ahead. MR. DeFRANCESCO: Sure. Matt DeFrancesco, for the record. Also of Bowman, which is new for me to say that as well, with Bob. So, yeah, this project, we actually just got our South Florida Water Management District permit yesterday. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, you're that far along? MR. DeFRANCESCO: Just got it yesterday, yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wow. MR. DeFRANCESCO: And this specific basin is Belle Meade South. So the project is required to comply with the discharge rate of 0.04 CFS per acre which is generally lower than the total requirement for -- well, not the requirement. It's the lowest discharge rate in the entire county. So compare that to basically -- as the site exists today, the discharge rate is about .1 to .15 CFS per acre. And the way you -- the way you basically compensate for that rainfall, that storage, is you have all the lakes on site. So -- and to summarize numerically, like I said, the discharge rate for this site is .04 CFS per acre. As the site exists today, it's about .1 to .5 CFS per acre. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where does it discharge? May 15, 2025 Page 12 of 4 MR. DeFRANCESCO: Was that the question? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where does it discharge? MR. YOVANOVICH: Where does it go? MR. MULHERE: That's okay. What you said was good. MR. YOVANOVICH: So which way -- where does it go? MR. DeFRANCESCO: South. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It looks like it goes to the swale on Fritchey Road. MR. DeFRANCESCO: Yeah, exactly. There are two separate basins. It's R1 basin and R2 basin. They both discharge to Fritchey Road through two separate control structures. MR. MULHERE: And then down. MR. DeFRANCESCO: And that's also consistent with how the site drains today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it did go to Greenway and then Greenway south. MR. DeFRANCESCO: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it goes to Fritchey Road, very similar to how it exists today. It goes to Fritchey Road. Fritchey Road takes it to Greenway Road, then it heads south to the canal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that will go along the canal that runs along 41. MR. DeFRANCESCO: Exactly, yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I can give you great detail on where that goes. But that's far beyond what we need to talk about. Are there any jurisdictional wetlands on this site? It was all former -- formerly used croplands. It's all -- but I would have to assume they're minor. MR. DeFRANCESCO: I'd have to defer to someone else for -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, you have to -- Passarella. Put them on the -- we might as well talk about it, Rich. We've got till 5 o'clock. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We've got time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was actually hoping to get some of my day back. But we'll stay, you know. MR. FISHER: Ramsey Fisher from Passarella & Associates, for the record. We -- as they had mentioned, we do have our South Florida Water Management District ERP. We are also coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for our federal permit. We do have some, you know, limited jurisdictional waters on the property. The majority of the property was significantly, you know, farmland and so on -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. FISHER: -- but their natural lands is primarily being preserved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. And then you'll be dealing with the bonneted bat, which already is covered by the State of Florida. You'll be dealing with that as well as panther mitigation. MR. FISHER: We are coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding, you know, species of concern. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And we will probably cover that in more detail during the PUD, but... MR. FISHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So everything is going through the permitting process; state permits, federal permits? MR. FISHER: Yes, yes. Everything is being permitted. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Good. MR. FISHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't see anybody else with any other questions. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I've got one. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Didn't we approve another project off this road a while back in December? May 15, 2025 Page 13 of 4 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: How many units was that? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That was the one -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Greenway. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: No, the one off of Greenway. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The one off of Greenway. We had -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Three hundred units. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We had one at Greenway, and we had one just up on the Trail just to the -- to the west of the, I guess -- what do you want to call it? The -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If you're looking, Mr. Schumacher, just for Greenway, that's the project. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Fiddler's Creek didn't ask you to pay for more of the stoplight with this one? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, that will be part of the -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: We pay our proportionate share for intersection improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Just checking. Just checking. I just want to make sure I ask that question now -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's just all be friends until we come back for the PUD. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's not Fiddler's Creek. It's the county asking for fair-share contribution to all of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: How the county -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- intersection improvements. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- allocates the money, we don't care. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I just had to ask the question. Do my due diligence. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: That's all I've got, Chair. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But yes, to answer your question, that will become -- that will be clear in the -- in the PUD from the standpoint of what will be stated. And, Chuck, you're done? COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Yes, sir. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: No, I want to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Charles, go ahead. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I'd like to ask Lisa a question. I've never met you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, Charles, Lisa is going to have to give you a tour. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: My name's Charles Colucci. You can call me Chap, C-h-a-p. MS. LEFKOW: Can't wait to give you a tour. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Thank you. I'm just curious. I'm not trying to tell you how to run your business, that's for sure, but would your project be financially viable without the partnership? And the reason I say "financially viable" is I understand the benefit. All the improvements are going to be -- you're going to get a lot of help with the infrastructure improvements. My question is simply, would your project be viable without the partnership? MS. LEFKOW: It would be more challenging. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Okay. Well, I like your part of it. I don't know much about the other part of it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it would be more challenging -- MS. LEFKOW: I know a lot about the other part, and I can testify to the benefit of all of this. And again, let me reiterate that David has long been involved in the affordable housing arena. This is not new to him. He has a heart for this. It's just hard to do in Collier County. And as a testament to that, there is actually nobody else doing that. There is no other developer providing May 15, 2025 Page 14 of 4 access to affordable homeownership in Collier County outside of Habitat for Humanity. Margins are very thin, and it is more and more difficult. And a model that's not based on the generosity of the community and our philanthropic benefit has a really hard time penciling. But the benefits are manifold here. Not only do we have the strength of a united partnership here, we have a united voice. We have shared costs, and I believe we're going to build a better development that has both market-rate and housing available for our low-wage workforce. So I think all in all, this is what the county looks for is an opportunity to bring both online in a common area. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Well, thank you very much, and it was nice seeing who you are. MS. LEFKOW: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Bob, I have a question, and it may go to Rich as well, but I don't want to go into detail. But you did include -- the staff did include in this Exhibit E, the Greenway Fritchey RPUD, and there's a list of deviations. Of course, all of this will be discussed when they come back for the PUD. Just as an overview, I mean, these are all pretty standard -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- deviations. There's nothing that is dramatic here. I think the only one that may cause some further discussion is the cluster development. Is this deemed to be a cluster development, but I'm not going to get into that, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We've had this philosophical debate with -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- with county staff in the past. We think we meet the cluster development standards, but they've asked us to include a request for the deviation, so we've included a request for the deviation. Is that a fair summary, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes, I would agree that's a fair summary. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, it's -- I mean, it's -- to me it's sort of philosophical. I mean, is it -- a cluster development be if you were going to provide some kind of infrastructure or some kind of whatever inside -- internal to the community, but there's no stores, barbershops, or anything like that. This is not a mixed-use development. It's strictly residential. And Habitat will have its own, I'll call it -- I don't even know if they will have their community center, but this site -- this development will have its own community center, which is fine. Okay. We'll get into deviations at the PUD. But for now, I don't think it's -- it's not part of the transmittal, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine with us. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any other questions? Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Since we have an hour left... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, no. We've got more. We have another petition, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So this is more informational, so -- is Regal Acres a similar relationship with the developer there? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I notice it's isolated in the middle of a development. MS. LEFKOW: No. Regal Acres is completely stand-alone. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But you had a development there, plus a development just north of Regal Acres, correct? MS. LEFKOW: Actually, just west of Regal Acres. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just west of -- okay. MS. LEFKOW: Yes. So there are two subdivisions underway. They share a master May 15, 2025 Page 15 of 4 association because of water flow, water management, but they're two unique developments, two unique products, separate HOAs. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. LEFKOW: The second one is yet under construction. So that's where we're currently building. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: What's the name of that, Lisa? MS. LEFKOW: Majestic Place. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. One was -- I would call it a townhome. When we -- when it came in, it was a townhome type design when we saw it a year, year and a half, two years ago. MS. LEFKOW: Yeah. So Regal Acres is twin villa. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twin villa, yeah. MS. LEFKOW: And that was built 2011 to '14, and then Majestic Place is a single-family home. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other questions or concerns? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Just one. With regards to all of these new developments, are we concerned at all about traffic? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We could have Mike chat about that, but it -- this area was the last area to be developed in Collier County, and I would say, frankly, that intersection at Greenway right now without the traffic signal is a very dangerous intersection. And the latest projection is the traffic signal may be up by June. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of this year. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This year. MR. YOVANOVICH: June's vague. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: But it's worked out lately. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: June is vague. The sad news is when they started work back in November, they hit a fiber-optic cable. And probably Norm can probably talk about it. But it was fiber-optic cable that was in a place that nobody knew was there because it was supposed to be located five feet further from the roadway, and then everything stopped, and it was another 40,000, $50,000 to relocate that. So I don't know -- Bowman is doing the work for CDD2. I'm pointing at Bob. Terry -- Terry's not here. We could have Terry come in and -- the engineer -- and talk about it. But this traffic signal has been in the works for over two years. It started out to be, Norm, if I remember, about one -- a little over a million. We're up to about $2 million on this traffic signal. You probably know. But that is -- and that work, plus the mitigation at the signal and at the interchange, will mitigate some of the traffic. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. For the record, Norm Trebilcock. I worked on that traffic study for this project. I also worked on that signal. Now, what's going to happen, though, what we've committed to -- and Rich had mentioned there's a development DCA where what we'll do is we'll analyze and look at the cumulative impacts of everything going on here at the intersection. So you have these improvements -- you know, the signal that's being put in right now, but what's really going to be needed is there's going to be additional improvements that are needed. That signal's going to need to be modified by this project, and that's what we're looking at. So that's why they're really kind of separate things there. So that signal's going forward. It's sort of in the rearview mirror somewhat. Other people did have commitments to pay for that, and so they're getting them to do that. May 15, 2025 Page 16 of 4 But for this project, the development will take another look at the whole intersection and look at more of a buildout condition, you know, including all the other developments coming on line that have been mentioned and see what the impacts are, because there are going to be some additional turn lane improvements, some, you know, paving of the intersection, and then the signals themselves will need to be -- have another modification. So that will be coming up as well. So -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Norm, the signalization is just one thing. Greenway Road is only a two-lane road, and already there's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. So that main thing -- the main problem with Greenway is really going to be at the intersection itself at 41. That's where it is, because there really is sufficient capacity of the link, what we'd say, the two-lane roadway itself, but where it runs into issues is right at the intersection, and that's where -- they've even been working with the adjacent development, the by-right housing project there on the corner has worked to look at some reservation of right-of-way and working with -- you know, to be able to make the overall improvements that will be needed. But the intersection really is key on the Greenway side, to your point. Because right now there's only what we call a single-lane approach coming to that intersection, and that's really insufficient. We need to have, you know, a left-turn lane, right-turn lane, and a through lane so everybody can, you know, go over to the Publix there at Fiddler's Creek and enjoy it, so, you know. Okay? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. I don't see -- thanks, Norm. I don't see any other questions. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. MORALES: I would like to speak, but I didn't know -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Did you fill out a form? MR. MORALES: I didn't know there was a form to fill out. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You don't have to -- you're welcome to speak. It's legislative in nature, so you don't have to be sworn in, but if you would like, state your name, please. MR. MORALES: Yes. My name is Neil Morales, and I live in 14830 Fritchey Road, so I'm literally the south end of this project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. MORALES: Is there a timer here I have to worry about? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, just go ahead. MR. MORALES: Okay. So basically, I have several concerns. The first concern is that I don't believe that you're being properly represented here as far as what's going on. I mean, Fritchey Road is a very small road. It's very thin in nature. Two cars can barely pass. And I am an owner of half of that road where my property begins and ends, so no one has negotiated with me any rights to my right on that property. And we've owned that property since 1980. That's been my family home. That's been my family place that -- we've been there since 1980. So again -- and it's not just me who owns that portion. My cousin who lives next door who owns his five acres or 10 acres of the front, he also owns his half there, too. So I don't know how they're going to widen Fritchey Road. Plus, Greenway Road is already a mess. I mean, Habitat for Humanity has flooded us out, and Greenway. There's barely any space to pass other cars, especially when there's lots of cars going back and forth. And if you need to widen Greenway Road, you're not going to have enough public easement access in order to widen it large enough, because the canals on both sides are pretty much framing that entire road. So you would have to cut into other people's properties. And from what I understand from people I've spoken to, there's been -- you know, there's been a requirement that you need at least four lanes out there, and then you're going to need a -- May 15, 2025 Page 17 of 4 you're going to also need a traffic stop at Fritchey and Greenway Road. So they're not even discussing what the future's going to look like. They're saying to you, "Hey, approve this, and hopefully it's all going to work out," but there is -- it's a lot of obtuseness going on here. And so the people that are going to suffer are us who actually live out there. And the issue is is that when you look at the way the property's set up, I'm literally -- and where Fritchey Road is, that's my property right there, and all that water's going to drain onto my land. When it rains out there -- and I'm telling you I've been there since 1980 -- it floods. It's a lake. So they're not telling you the truth that it's not wetlands. It's all pretty much wetlands. And when I used to talk -- I used to represent -- I'm also an attorney. I used to represent Mr. Bob Bean when he was trying to sell the property prior to Mr. Torres buying. We were in discussions with D.R. Horton, and we went over all the different, you know, schematics or whatever. And one of the things that we talked about was that there's an underground water flow that comes up from Lake Okeechobee that runs across this land that you're going to try to develop, and it cuts into almost 90 percent of the abutting land. So you're dealing with not just affecting the top layer, but you're also affecting the ground layer. And also, like I said, I've lived out there. My parents, they used to have cattle, and I can tell you that we would lose cows on Mr. Bean's property, which is now Mr. Torres's property, because the sand there is very quick-sandy. I don't know if it's exactly quicksand, but it's definitely that kind of sand. So you're going to be swallowing up a bunch of concrete building anything out there. We've lost cows out there because of the quicksand. So I don't see that their sand tests that were done or soil tests that were done in that 312-page document that was placed online. I mean, maybe I missed it. But how are you going to build these many homes out there in this portion of the area? I mean, if you look at this, their project should be abutting 41 or some large intersection or road. Where they're asking to build, they're just going to go create a nightmare in that area with all the people that you're going to stick in there, especially if you increase density at six homes per acre. That's just insane. You're not going to be able to get 1,200 people up and down that road that easily. And I understand that there's a lot of good will here. Everyone wants to help out with affordable housing, but you want to do it right. You don't want to do it haphazardly just so you can check off a box and say, "Well, now we have some affordable housing." So there's a lot of property down there in U.S. 41 south. I mean, you can see all that before Majestic Lake, all that -- I mean, there's all kinds of lake places you can develop something like this. But to develop what they're trying to develop there in the middle of that neighborhood, that is just creating a time bomb not just for all the residents that are involved, but for all the logistical issues involved. You're not going to have enough space for everybody in there, and you're going to have to tear up all that land, which is a lot of preserve. I don't see why the county hasn't bought that land, because it's such a beautiful land for preserve. I mean, I live out there. We've got bears. We've got panthers. We've got all kinds of wildlife that's protected by not just the state but federal government, and they have nowhere else to go. Collier County is just eating up all that natural resource, and eventually we're going to turn into the East Coast. We're going to become Boca Raton. You're going to look at the satellite image of Florida, and you're just going to see concrete to concrete from coast to coast. You're destroying this county this way. There is a certain aspect about living on this coast where we have, you know, some sort of, I don't know -- it feels good to live out here because you have that -- you don't have that congestion that you have on the other coast. You have the ability to -- you know, to have horses and animals if you go far out enough. You're able to -- I mean, it's got a nice mixture. I mean, you have your downtown area, which is more touristy, you've got your -- you know, you have your lands out in May 15, 2025 Page 18 of 4 the county where you can have horses and cattle. You're going to destroy all that and just create one big Boca Raton residential center, and then you're going to suffer because those people that you're going to bring in there, over 1,200 people, there's not an economy that's going to be able to maintain those people. You don't have enough businesses or work or jobs to maintain those people. You're going to find yourself with increased crime because they're not going to have the money to pay for things. You're going to find yourself seeing foreclosures, destroying the market value for all the homes in this area. And you're not just impacting me. You're impacting Fiddler's Creek and Naples Lake. I think it's pretty interesting how we're having this meeting today, which is after season's over, because I can tell you one thing, when I went to some of the hearings that Mr. Torres was having for some of this information, it was packed. Packed with people from Naples Lakes, the little community that's up there somewhere. And I can tell you they were all upset. They were going to talk to their commissioners and congressmen. Everyone. I mean, they were upset. I don't see any of those people here today. So you're not getting the full feeling. Everything sounds nice, and they're telling you all these things, but I live out there, and I can tell you it is not going to work. It is not feasible. It's going to destroy a quality of life that we have here in this county, and at the same time, it is not going to help the situation for the people that need this. It's going to make it worse, because if you stack all these people in there and you expect them to take this little narrow road every day to work and you expect them to live out there in the woods somewhere where it's full of bears, I mean, I don't see the logic in all of this. Now again, if we're talking about U.S. 41 south, you would have more access. You would have more abilities, but you're going to have to create another city within a city. You're going to have to tear up so much land to build your sewage system, to build your electrical grid. And I don't even think the electrical grid can handle what's going on out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Can I ask you to -- we got the gist of it. Can we ask you to wrap up, please? MR. MORALES: Okay. I do apologize. But this does affect me personally, Mr. Schmitt. I don't know what it's like where you live, but where I live it's been nice and peaceful until lately. And so nothing's been done on Fritchey, okay. There's been no work done on Fritchey. So what they told you, that they were fixing things, they're not doing anything. It's just all still just open range. And I would ask the -- to not approve this or at least allow it to go through some more studies, because it will create a problem, a mess that you're going to have to address later. Thank you. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Sir? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And what's your -- Chap, wait a minute. And your name again, please. MR. MORALES: My name is Neil Morales. I'm an attorney here in Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Neil Morales. Mr. Morales -- MR. MORALES: I'm also a farmer. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- just regarding -- just -- I don't know if you're that familiar with the whole Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District designation. We've had this discussion 15, 18 years ago in regards to receiving lands and sending lands. The whole issue of the zoning and where we want to concentrate zoning for the future, that argument has passed. We've had the -- we've had the study, we've had the restudy, and we had a third analysis of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. These lands were identified as RM -- RFMUC [sic], which is mixed-use -- mixed-use -- Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, which was where we want to move the development. So this area's been identified for development for over 20 years. So this is not -- it's May 15, 2025 Page 19 of 4 not something that we're not -- MR. MORALES: You're discussing theory. You're saying what it's been identified as theory. I'm saying practice. I'm telling you this is not going to work. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. But I -- we're not here to debate theory. That's the developer. He takes the risk. He and his partners take the risk financially. MR. MORALES: Well, we all take the risk because we live there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I understand. I'm not debating. I'm just pointing out that you stated soil studies and other types of things. We don't deal with that here. We deal with the zoning. We do deal with the -- you mentioned flow of water. And this developer cannot legally trespass any water onto your property. MR. MORALES: He will because the canal -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm not going to discuss whether he will or not. If he does, it's illegal. You're an attorney. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) THE COURT REPORTER: Hold on. Hold on. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir, sir, thank you for your time. You can sit down now. I'm not going to debate now. I'm just going to point out the issue. Thank you. I'm just going to point out, they go through -- they go through the study. They've already talked about that they have their state permit. They go through what is called the state resource permit for the development in which studies all the use of water. You're welcome to review all that. I'm not going to get up here and try and defend it. They're presenting us the facts. I just want you to understand that they've gone through all of the permitting process. And from what I've just heard, they've stated that they're going to deal with the water. Now, if they put water on your property, that's trespassing, and you're an attorney. You know how to deal with that. MR. MORALES: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So, Chap, what do you have, please? COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Well, I want to try to put this gentleman's mind at ease. MR. MORALES: Can I -- can I -- COMMISIONER COLUCCI: No, hold on. Let me assure you the timing of this meeting is not a conspiracy, okay. You seemed to intimate that at the beginning of your soliloquy. This is just the first time we've heard about this. And the timing is the timing, and there's no conspiracy involved. The second thing I want to tell you is if this is a bad idea, there's ample time in the process that everyone's going to go through to stop it in its tracks. And I just want to tell you that this commission is here to help -- to advise the county board of commissioners of how we think they should proceed. And it's the county commissioners, not us, that makes the final determination about whether or not this project goes forward. I don't know if you understood that, but that's the way things work, so that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just want to jump on what Joe said. I mean, you're -- 20 years ago the county decided where the growth was going to be. Even though it was rural in your area for the last 20 years, it was decided that that is the less environmentally sensitive in the area to put the growth. So it's always been planned that this type of development would happen. Now, having it technically done proper is something we have to make sure happens. But they're just following what the county determined was where they wanted the growth to be versus in more environmentally sensitive areas. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then to clarify, this -- they've already gone through the Environmental Resource Permit. And, Rich, you can have your engineer study this or state this. Sir, just so you understand, this is the first process. It will be, I'm guessing, eight to 10 months before we see this again when it comes back for adoption, and at that time we'll get -- also May 15, 2025 Page 20 of 4 to accompany this will be the PUD, the planned use -- the Planned Unit Development that is associated with that. That's the zoning. That gives the specificity on what's going to be developed. I would ask Mr. Yovanovich and his client if he could address the issue about the ownership of the road. I know nothing about the ownership of the road, whether -- Mr. Morales stated that he owns to the center line of the road or he owns portions of the road. I mean, that's a legal matter. I have no idea who owns the road other than we know who owns the property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Whenever it is my turn to go, I'm happy to go. I've got a lot of notes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Could we finish all the public comment, if there's other people besides Mr. Morales? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would ask -- Mr. Morales, do you have any other comments if you -- other than what you stated? If you would come up to the podium again. Because I know I shut you off but I -- so that -- lastly, you clearly understand the process? MR. MORALES: No, I understand your advising, but this is still an important meeting. I mean, this is not -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. MORALES: -- just something -- I mean, we're not just rubber-stamping here, correct? I mean -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No, we're forwarding it to the Board of County Commissioners for approval or -- MR. MORALES: Exactly. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- or disapproval depending on -- MR. MORALES: So your mind's already made up. I mean, I'm here to tell you that your decision -- and I understand things have been zoned, but that doesn't mean that this is the project for that zoning. You're putting these conclusions together saying that somehow it's inevitable that this is the project that Collier County needs, and I'm telling you this is not the project that Collier County needs. You can have other projects. There's other ways of doing that out there that make sense, but what I'm saying to you is, the way this is going to happen is haphazard. It's not well thought out. If you advise this county commission to go ahead with that and all this becomes a problem -- and I can tell you right now that water doesn't come down the way you think it does. It floods my property every time, and that's just the way it is now. Imagine when you soak up all that land, and all that water's going to flood me out. And I understand I'm an attorney. I can file inverse condemnation and lawsuits and injunctions, but I have to live underwater while I'm doing that? That's the problem that I'm seeing here is that we're not looking at the impacts for all the people around. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You haven't done any studies on this? You haven't done any analysis -- MR. MORALES: I live out there. I know what's going on out there. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But this is all your personal assessment. MR. MORALES: No, no. This is reality. What they're telling you is an assessment. They're telling you numbers. Oh, it's 0.56 or 01.7 water. Yeah, anybody can give you numbers, but when you live out there, you know what's real, and you can see that when that water -- when it rains -- we're getting into rainy season. Why don't you take a nice little trip out there when we have a nice rain season coming through, and then you tell me what you think when you see my property underwater, you see all that land underwater, and you expect that all these houses that you're going to have to raise the elevation for -- I don't know where you're going to get the fill -- but you're going to raise the elevation for, you don't think that's going to come onto my land even worse? May 15, 2025 Page 21 of 4 Just go out there. I mean, it's nice to sit here and look at numbers and pictures and graphs and listen to people here with nice suits and ties, but that doesn't tell you the facts. The facts are you have to go out there and look at that place. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. MORALES: Don't make up your mind until you take a look; otherwise, what you doing here? I mean, you're supposed to be representing the county, right? This is your job. Go out there and look. It's just a nice little drive. It's beautiful out there. Go check it out. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: The lakes aren't built yet. All of the water control mitigation devices aren't there. So the idea behind this is you actually have less of a flooding problem when they follow -- when they comply with all of the South Florida Water Management requirements for water retention on the site. You don't have that requirement now. That's why it's moving off the site. MR. MORALES: That used to be a fishery. On the back part, right there, of the property, there's fisheries. There's a ton of little lakes. There were a bunch of fish. Bob used to engage in that sort of business. He was a -- he was a guy who bought and sold tropical fish. All that was fisheries, so you have a bunch of lakes back there, and yet it still floods. The basin, the Florida basin's like this (indicating). When you hit 41 and you go to the other side of Fiddler's Creek, it drops, like, five feet. We're like this in the State of Florida right now, and the people that don't believe that -- well, ask the people in Sarasota when the last hurricane came in how they all flooded inland. The people in Fiddler's Creek, it's just a matter of time before they get flooded when we get a direct hit. Where we're at, we always get hit. But I'll tell you one thing, if you fill all that up with people and property and cement, all of this area's here going to flood out. I'm going to flood out. All these farmlands are going to flood out. And I understand, again, zoning, but there's right ways of doing things, and there's wrong ways, and we can't just simply say, "Well, somebody's going to do this, and that's it." I can tell you I was representing Mr. Bean when we were dealing with the D.R. Horton -- it's a bigger company and more powerful, more involved -- they brought out their people out here. I sat down with them. We went over their graphic satellite maps, and I can tell you, the only way that made sense for them was to cut through from 41 all the way straight up to Bob Bean's property. So they'd have to buy all the land, including my own, and I wasn't going to sell. So they decided to just back out. But they knew that they weren't going to be able to build out there any other way. They knew that they had to create a whole infrastructure going up and down that area. You're just going to basically make a pocket and just fill it up with people and say, "Well, at least we've got affordable housing in Collier County." But is that the kind of affordable housing you want? Think about it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you for your -- for your input. Mr. Yovanovich, can you highlight the issue of what -- who owns what in the road and the proposal for the road improvements? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are there any other public speakers? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, are there any other public speakers? Sorry. Yes. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, there are no other public speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Let me start with -- I pulled up Mr. Morales's website and all of his expertise, and let me point out some things that he's not an expert in. He's not an expert in engineering. He's not an expert in transportation. He's not an expert in environmental permitting. May 15, 2025 Page 22 of 4 He has none of those qualifications. Everybody on my team has professional qualifications, and everybody on the county's team has professional qualifications. You heard a lot of innuendo. And I don't normally get up here and take on members of the public, but when they talk about us obfuscating the facts and not giving you the true story and misrepresenting who owns what -- well, you know who owns Fritchey Road? He owns half; we own half. If he read the materials, he'd realize that we were going to build on our property the county level roadway that is required to serve this project. So when you want to talk about representing the facts, the facts are: He owns half; we own half; we're building the road on our half. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're adding some of the land that we own to come up with an appropriate road for Fritchey. If he read the materials, he would have known that. So Fact 1. Fact No. 2, you heard from our professional engineer. You're a professional engineer. Mr. Shea's a professional engineer. The facts are: We will improve the water flow out there because right now more water is coming off the site today than will come off in our scenario. How does that happen? I've learned a little bit of engineering in 35 years of being up here. There'll be berms around the property to make sure the water stays on our property, and it gets discharged at a much lower rate. I'm not an expert engineer. I just have watched several of my professional engineers do that. And guess what? The real regulatory agency that does this, the South Florida Water Management District, issued their permit. And what do they do? Water management. So let's talk about facts and not scare tactics from a resident. Now, I don't know whose cows got sucked up by quicksand then somehow they're gone now. The reality is is when the developer goes out there, they are going to do soil borings, and they're going to figure out where they can build and where they can't build. They're not just going to build and let the house sink into the ground. Not going to happen. So let's talk about that fact. The Army Corps of Engineers will deal with listed species and take care of all of that. We'll get the right permits, and we'll do the right mitigation. Fact is, this property was identified 23 years ago; 23 years ago as where development was supposed to occur. Twenty-three years ago. That's a long time ago. This is where development's supposed to go. This is where affordable housing's supposed to go under the Growth Management Plan. We could ask for up to 12.2 units per acre and be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Now, I can't do that math in my head, but that's over 2,000 units. Am I close to right, 2,200 units plus -- 2,500 units, I think I'm pretty close to that. We're not asking for every unit we could put out there. We're asking for 5.72 units per acre. That's not a high density. You heard from Norm Trebilcock, a transportation expert. Greenway Fritchey -- Greenway can handle the traffic. We will have to improve the intersection, but the two-lane road that's out there today can handle the traffic. That's a fact verified by your staff who are independent from us. Now, I will tell you my consultants are professional consultants. They don't just come up here and give you an answer that we want you to hear. They analyze it, and if it doesn't work, they'll say it doesn't work, and we would not be here. If anything he said was true, we would not be here. We don't bring petitions and do hocus-pocus. This is a professional staff. You have a professional staff. I have professional consultants that look at this. And believe it or not, they've told me things -- and I want them to tell me when things don't work because I expect -- and maybe he will hire somebody to get up there and give an actual opinion from a qualified person. And I would expect that that person will -- maybe they'll cross-examine my expert, and I will cross-examine theirs, and we will see who's right. But every expert you've heard from so far has said this petition should be approved. And your staff is recommending approval. We're asking you to recommend approval to the Board of County May 15, 2025 Page 23 of 4 Commissioners. I hope I've answered your questions. I know I'm a little bit more animated than I normally am, but I thought -- I thought the comments and the way the comments were made were not appropriate and, thus, we are asking for your recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any -- no other questions from the commissioners up here. Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich. Staff presentation? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As contained within the staff report, staff is recommending approval -- or recommending approval from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners for the project. And we do note this is a large-scale amendment, Growth Management Plan amendment, so it does require four separate hearings. This is the first of the required hearings. We'll go to the -- make a recommendation from the Planning Commission which will go to the Board of County Commissioners, it will be sent to the State of Florida, they'll analyze it for consistency related to the state systems and impacts upon those state systems, and then we'll be back with the -- for the adoption hearing, and at that adoption hearing, the PUD and the specificity of that PUD will be contained. We gave you the PUD, the draft PUD just so you have a comfort level with some of those components. But the specificity within that PUD will be the main focus of the adoption hearings, and then it will have to go to the Board of County Commissioners as well. As part of this -- this is in the Coastal High Hazard Area -- the applicant has agreed to two portable generators to -- for the use for sheltering within the emergency management system or for the shelters as well. Overall, what we would say is, at the -- even the GMP and at the PUD zoning level, a lot of the improvements are not identified from a transportation standpoint. It's when they come in for the -- the Site Development Plan and the plats, that's when the -- that's when our Concurrency Management System would be applied. Operational analysis is applied as well. So whatever improvements that are required for the road -- or for the impacts for the roads from the water management standpoint, from a utilities standpoint will be addressed to make sure there's capacity within the system. We have -- we have provided that -- the general premise and the impacts of this proposal and the number of units being proposed, and we haven't had any of our reviewing departments provide any concerns to be able to handle the load. What I will say, and I will say to Mr. Morales and the Planning Commission, this is in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District receiving area. Within a year to a year and a half, you will have 6,000 acres above and around in close proximity that will be submitted as the first and only village within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District receiving area. And with that you're going to have a development the size -- the size of -- a little bit bigger than Ave Maria, the Town of Ave Maria. So you're going to have with -- a variety of economic development uses, commercial uses, institutional uses, civic uses as well. So this area has been long slated for development and residential development. In the 20 -- the 2019 Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District amendments and the 2023 GMP amendments, we adopted a provision that allows for 12.2 units per acre in the receiving areas if you're providing for affordable housing. The total that they could possibly have if they were taking advantage of it was 2,784 units. They're asking for 1,299, much -- at a density just below six units an acre. So they are leaving a lot of density on the -- on the table in that regard. But one of the things that I would say is this area is -- is changing, is starting to change from a very low-density rural/semirural type of environment to a more urban type of environment with urban services. And because of that, we know that there's going to be a lot of infrastructure improvements, a lot of water management improvements as well. Overall, staff is recommending approval at the GMP level. And we do know that when we come back for adoption, the PUD will have a lot more specificity, and I think there will be a lot May 15, 2025 Page 24 of 4 more robust discussions in terms of some of the deviations and some of the proposals that are being pertained [sic]. We do recognize it has the component for 20 percent of affordable housing dedicated to 80 percent of AMI. We know that this is going to be another -- another step forward in trying to address the affordable housing project. We have had a number of affordable housing projects in close proximity, and within those studies they have shown that the location of economic employment opportunities are within a 5- and a 10-mile radius of this area. So there are jobs, and there are needs for workforce housing within this location. For all those reasons, staff is recommending approval to transmit this GMP to the state, and then it's at adoption before any final decisions will be made and the recommendations will be carried forward from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. So any other questions that staff may be able to answer? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a little more education for me. In the staff materials, you mentioned proportionate share of $600,000. Is that number just a number right now, or is it -- is it an actual number that if the cost of the work doubles, that cost doesn't -- the proportionate share doesn't double with it? MR. BOSI: It is -- and I should probably allow Mr. Sawyer to be able -- but it depends on how the specific commitment is going to be stated within the Development Services contribution agreement, a DCA. And this will have a DCA, and that DCA will be brought to you as part of your adoption hearing. I don't have that DCA. It's still being factored out what the specifics are. There may be an escalator that's agreed to. That's between our Transportation Department and the applicant. But those specifics will be contained as part of the PUD review that you get during the adoption hearing. And we do note that, in the staff report, that this will have a DCA, but that DCA has not been finalized, and that will have the final price tag and any escalators that would be put in terms of that to recognize any inflationary aspects of work. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, it seems like -- I mean, they're responsible for a proportionate share of the work, and it should be based on the actual cost of the work, not on what you think it is five years before you actually calculate the number. MR. BOSI: And I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I know it's difficult for the applicant because then he doesn't know what it is either, although he has technical people that are probably pretty good at projecting what cost will be in the future. MR. BOSI: Agreed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No other questions. I'm going to close the public hearing. I open up to my colleagues for any discussion. Seeing none -- I just want to point out to Mr. Morales -- Mr. Morales, I don't discredit what you say. I fully understand. Just so you know, I'm a retired army engineer, former commander, army engineer district, Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer and an engineer, educated. So is Paul. We fully -- I fully understand the Environmental Resource Permit process as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' federal permitting process. In fact, I've done consulting work. I live in Fiddler's Creek. I'm well aware of the flow of water in that area. I know it like the back of my hand because I helped the owner of that property with the last permit they received in what is called Estancia. So I know it well. I'm not discrediting what you say, but a lot of what you stated, frankly, is your opinion, and I understand that. But if you feel that strongly about it, I would encourage you to obtain some expert advice or have experts at the next hearing who can testify to the fact and support your May 15, 2025 Page 25 of 4 allegations, because what I heard from you was a lot of your personal input, but there is no professional criteria behind that. We've heard from the staff, and we also heard from the petitioner's consultants. They've already received the Environmental Resource Permit, and I know what that takes to go through the South Florida Water Management District. So in that regard -- and I stated very clearly on the record that they cannot trespass any water on your property. And, in fact, that's clear. And I'm sure when they go through the ERP -- and you're welcome to look at that permit. It's online, or you can ask the consultant for a copy of what was submitted, and it will clearly describe how they did the calculations, the water calculations, the rainfall, the flow. All those kind of things are clearly stated in the Environmental Resource Permit how much they're going to retain on site, how much will be discharged. And even if it comes down Greenway Road, it's going to go to 41, and that actually flows through the -- through Fiddler's Creek, the main canal that goes through Fiddler's Creek, and into what is called -- well, they call it Fiddler's Creek, but it's actually a marsh buffer system that displaces the water south into Henderson Creek. I could go into great detail of how the water flows through that, but not for this. And if you care to talk to me after the meeting, I'll talk to you about it. But I would recommend if you feel that strongly, you're really going to need some consultants who can support your, I guess, premise -- your assessments or your -- I'll call them allegations or your beliefs. But clearly, this has gone through the rezoning. It's been identified, as staff said, as a receiving area, and just as staff said, there's another 6,000 units coming in out there. MR. BOSI: Six thousand acres. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Six thousand acres, which is going to be zoned as more development. All of the tomato fields and the farmlands, whatever that is, 6L Farms, that whole area is all going to be pretty much -- it's been identified as receiving area. So with that, do I hear any motions for recommendation on how to move forward? MR. MORALES: Sir, you say you live in Fiddler's Creek? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Sir, you can talk to me after the meeting. I'll talk to you about it. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I heard a motion to approve. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, please, by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: None. That's approved unanimously. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. MORALES: You're destroying Collier County. You're destroying -- you're destroying Collier County, too. No, no, seriously. This is what happens to nice cities when people like you show up and destroy everything. You buy everything. You build out. And then when people can't get jobs and they can't afford to live, they start suffering because then they end up losing their houses, losing their jobs, and then we have ghettos, thanks to people like you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There you go. I appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Boy, that's a hell of an extrapolation. May 15, 2025 Page 26 of 4 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, it was. Well, with that, we'll take a 10 -- 15-minute break. (A recess was had from 4:25 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have a live mic. And I'm not sure if -- Tray [sic] has actually gone back -- yes. All right. We have a live mic. If I could get the commissioners to come up here, and we're going to address the next one here. And I'm sure we can get about another 3- or 400 questions on the next one. ***All right. I'll get my commissioners up here. And for the record, this is PL20250000524 [sic]. This is a modification of the publication of legal notices for neighborhood information meetings. So with that, I turn it over to staff. MS. GALIANO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Angela Galiano, planner with GM/CD zoning division. Staff is submitting PL2025000524, publication of legal notices. This amendment would amend LDC Section 10.03.05, required methods for providing public notice and also our Administrative Code. The purpose of this amendment is to allow our applicants of land-use petitions that require a neighborhood information meeting to advertise their meeting on the county clerk's official website instead of a newspaper. Some key points and advantages of this amendment are the cost savings for our applicant, convenience, its consistency that aligns with how the county is consistent with advertising our ordinances, and efficiency. So with that being said, for PL2025000524, staff is seeking recommendation of approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I have one question. I have one question, then I'll turn it over. MS. GALIANO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Will this be on a -- it's going to be on a county website? MS. GALIANO: The county clerk's website is our official website -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Will this -- MS. GALIANO: -- to advertise. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- now be able -- will there be a consolidation of all the NIMs so that I don't have to go search everywhere? Will there be a list of NIMs? Go ahead, please. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning Director. It will be -- for each individual NIM -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- it will be posted for the required 15 days prior to that -- prior to that NIM. It will be just -- it will be on the county legal notice website hosted by the Clerk's Office saying of where the -- where the project is located, what time the NIM's going to be but only until -- for that 15-day period, and then it will get taken down. So it won't be a -- it won't be a recurring list of NIMs. It's -- in lieu of advertising in the Naples Daily News, this is where we're proposing to modify the LDC to allow for the NIMs to be advertised at. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Here's my question. I see a sign posted. And I go, "Oh, that's interesting. What's coming up?" And I'll try and go look where there -- the NIM was advertised, but there's no central repository of some sort on the website -- and even in the Collier County Growth Management website -- that says, "Here are the upcoming NIMs" or "Here are the upcoming petitions." Am I wrong? Unless I know the number or the other, there's -- it seems to me that there would be a -- I love the idea of this, and it's a great proposal, but I also would like to go one step further and have some kind of a central I'll call it a hot link or whatever, like, if I'm driving down the road. May 15, 2025 Page 27 of 4 And, you know -- I'll give you an example, though. The most recent zoning we did for the car storage area on 951. I mean, you're traveling 45, 50 miles an hour. I've got two options. I see the sign, and I go, "Well, I'll go figure it out and go on the website," or I slam on the brakes and stop. And, of course, everybody's traveling behind me at 50 and 70 and 90 miles an hour on 951. Then I have to deal with that. So I'm looking for somewhere that if I see a sign, I can go and find out what we have coming. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: A point of clarification. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly. On Page 454, the blue, it states, "Advertisements for NIMs may be published on the official website of Collier County or in a newspaper." I thought I heard you say in lieu of a newspaper. MS. GALIANO: It is in lieu of a newspaper, but they still have the option. If they still want to advertise in a newspaper, they could. But to save in the cost, the cost difference would be a lower cost for applicants -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. MS. GALIANO: -- if they choose to do it on the county clerk's official website. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But they can do -- MS. GALIANO: The Naples Daily News still. They're -- yep, still can. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So this line is correct, "or in a newspaper." MS. GALIANO: That's correct, yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Great. Thank you very much. MS. GALIANO: You're welcome. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: How do the Ns in NIM currently find out about upcoming information meetings? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Mailings. MS. GALIANO: How do, like, families find out about information meetings? COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I assume NIM means neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: So how do the neighbors currently find when an information meeting's going to be held? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Chap, there's two ways. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. I don't know. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And typically, they're required -- and we won't get into it, but the NIM, if there's a development, everybody within a certain distance of the rezoning receives a letter. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Oh, good. That's good. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I can't recall. Is it one mile? MR. BOSI: It depends. If you're in the -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It depends on where we are. MR. BOSI: If you're in the Estates, it's a mile. If you're in the urbanized area, it's 500 feet. If you're in the rural agricultural, currently it's a thousand feet, but we have been directed by the Board of Commissioners to extend that to a mile. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You'll typically see in your packet, at the end of your petition packet will be a list of addresses. The petitioner goes to the county, they pull up all the addresses, and they have to send out an individual letter to every one of the addressees notifying them of the rezoning. But the question is, again, if you didn't get the letter but you see the sign, unless you go up to the sign and take the number down and then research, there seems to be no hot link or anything in the county website, zoning -- May 15, 2025 Page 28 of  MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- that says "upcoming petitions." COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Well, I'm not objecting to any of this. I don't understand what's changing here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The only thing that's changing is they're going to be allowed -- the requirement was originally to have to be in a local newspaper. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Now they're saying the county clerk has an official website where petitions are posted. So now the petitioner has an option of either posting it on the county clerk's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- website or publishing in the paper. That's all this is. MR. JOHNSON: And also, the applicant could advertise on both if they so desire. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It says "or." MR. JOHNSON: "Or" means either or, but -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Correct, or both. MR. JOHNSON: Or both, correct. MR. BOSI: To answer your question, no, we do not have a hot -- zoning hot link on our zoning web page that maintains a running list of upcoming NIMs. For this purposes, what we were trying to do is just make the consistency with -- we require all of our -- all of our petitions to -- to post their advertisements of their public hearings on the clerk's website, and we were making the NIM -- because currently in the LDC, it says "newspaper," and we're proposing modification to be consistent with how we advertise our -- all of the legal notices on the Clerk's website. So that's the only change. Now, if you want us to research and try to develop a component on our website of, say, a list of all upcoming NIMs on our zoning website, that's something I could look into separately from this request if that's -- you know, you think just in terms of providing more transparency. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I would like something like that that the public would have -- be able to access without slamming on the brakes in front of a sign and trying to read it. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: That sounds like the best idea I've heard. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anyways, with that, I see no commissioners raising any issues. Michelle, sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I do support that idea of posting -- having a general location on the website so that you know where to go. So I support that movement. And then, with regards to what Randy had said, do we have to say something about the newspaper? Like, they're not required to do it on the newspaper if we -- if this passes. Why even mention it? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Well, no. That's -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I believe it's required by state statute. You have to do it in a -- state statute said that it had to be within a widely distributed -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Format. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- format or publication. It didn't say newspaper. It just said -- I can't remember the language. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Well, can we say that, then, instead? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Say again. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Can we say that, then, instead? MR. BOSI: The fact is it's not -- it's no longer -- it used to only be -- the requirement was the only place you could do it was that general circulation newspaper. The statute has changed and says a county can host legal notices on their own website and not have to use the newspaper. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: That's my point. Leave it at that. Don't -- we don't need to say "or the newspaper." May 15, 2025 Page 29 of 4 MR. BOSI: We want to give them the option if they want to do it in the newspaper to know that they can do the newspaper. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But don't they -- won't they already know they can -- they can put it wherever they want. MR. BOSI: No, they can't. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But if you remove the language of putting it in the newspaper, then they have to do it on the Clerk's website, and they don't have that option. If you remove that language about placing the advertisement for the NIM in the newspaper and just have "the Clerk's website," they will not have an option. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Oh, and you have to give them an option? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, you can put -- no. This is giving them an option now. It's giving them a second option. And the newspaper is about a thousand dollars to run an ad, and the Clerk's website is about 50, so -- and it's easier for everybody, from an administrative perspective, to process it through the Clerk. She's made it really easy to do, so... COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. I see no other -- is there any public speakers? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No speakers. All right. With that -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- we close the public hearing, and I hear a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Second. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And we have some seconds. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. Well done. All right. We will take another pause until 5:05. Thank you. (A recess was had from 4:52 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Thank you. We reconvene. This is a requirement of an evening meeting to reconvene at 5:05. We have two LDC amendments that we have to discuss on the agenda. And the first one has to do -- I'm going to read it. ***This one has to do with a -- the Rural Lands Stewardship Area's overlay updates, so I turn it over to staff. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson, LDC planning manager. Let me just bring up my PowerPoint presentation real quick. COMMISSIONER SHEA: One slide, right? MR. JOHNSON: Oh... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And, Eric, these are all changes that we have addressed over the last several years that you've now consolidated into an amendment? MR. BOSI: The Board of County Commissioners -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning May 15, 2025 Page 30 of 4 director. The Board of County Commissioners, in July of 2021, adopted the Growth Management Plan amendments for the RLSA, which was a culmination of the last 20 years of improvements that we were -- we've adopted. Over the last three years, our LDC and our GMP have not aligned. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. BOSI: This is to bring the LDC level language to the LDC so it aligns with the current GMPs as to what can and can't go forward within the RLSA district. So this is simply -- this is simply to take the policies that are adopted in the GMP and right-size the regulations that are contained in our LDC to support those policies. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So putting in the LDC language is the implementation -- MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- of the -- MR. JOHNSON: Of the GMP. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Of the GMP. So, Eric, we stole all your slides. So go ahead. MR. JOHNSON: All right. So do you want a presentation? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. Just briefly, if you'd go through it. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. This is -- this is just the RLSA overview. You can see on your screen what happened back in 1999 to, you know, start the RLSA program, how the State of Florida imposed a final order on Collier County. The RLSA overlay was adopted into the GMP in 2002. Simply put, landowners in the RLSA voluntarily protect environmentally sensitive land enabling public benefits to be achieved with little public funding. And the stewardship credits from an SSA -- that's a Stewardship Sending Area -- are used to entitle development of a SRA; that's a Stewardship Receiving Area. And it could be either a CRD, a compact rural development, a village, or a town. If you look on the overhead, you can see the sheer size of this overlay as it compares to Collier County. It's pretty large. The overlay is outlined in red. So the RLSA today is 185,935 acres, and you'll see that it's comprised of a lot of different colors. I elected to put up the acreage for the SRA, the FSA, the HSA, and the WRA, and those are all in the legend, if you could -- if you could see that. But the Growth Management Plan restricts the RSA development -- those are the receiving areas -- to 45,000 acres. On the books right now, we have RLSA developments, we have two towns. We have the Town of Ave Maria, Town of Big Cypress, we have four villages, and then we have one compact rural development that was approved in 2023. And you can see where they are with that map that I have on the overhead. All right. So the RLSA was adopted into the LDC in 2003, and through the years there have been different amendments made to the LDC. In 2015, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate restudies of four GMP master plans, including the RLSA, and then in 2019, the Board directed staff to draft LDC amendments to address the SRA. And like Mike said before, they -- they approved Ordinance 2021-28, and that's really what we're simply here tonight doing is trying to implement that GMP amendment. The GMP amendment that was approved in 2021, it had these -- more or less, these associated with it. It's also on the overhead. I'm not going to read them; you can see them. So we have a lot of pages before us. I tried to summarize it all in one page so as to not bore you to death. The first bullet point is to update the definition of compact rural development to include certain industries. We're going to define micro mobility, park and ride sites, walkability, change the comprehensive review of stewardship credits from five years to seven years, and establish a credit cap of 404,000 acres and no more than 45,000 acres of SRA, and that's -- that was specific language that was in the GMP. We're updating the wildlife management plans to minimize human/wildlife interactions; establishing provisions for outdoor lighting; updating SSA credit generation by including ASA, May 15, 2025 Page 31 of 4 Agricultural Stewardship Area; updating restoration stewardship credits by awarding up to 10 credits per acre including panther corridor and wetland wading bird habitat. I think before 2021, for every acre it was a -- it was eight credits per acre, and now it's being changed to 10 credits per acre. Is that correct, Jaime? MR. BOSI: Correct. MS. COOK: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. Okay. Good. We're also -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask questions as you go through this? MR. JOHNSON: Say again. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask questions as you go through or -- MR. JOHNSON: You can. This is my last slide, though. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I know, but each different topic. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. If you want to ask questions -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's easier to do it on each bullet. MR. JOHNSON: -- that's fine. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So how do you control -- if you go on the Growth Management Plan, there's all these pink acreage that is supposedly receiving lands. And I think it's a lot more than 45,000 acres, right? So how do you control the 45- -- that number that you say, no more than 45,000 if there's more pink on the growth management map than 45,000? MR. BOSI: There -- and the pink area is the non-environmentally sensitive areas. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MR. BOSI: The NRI score is relatively low. That's where we want to promote development, and that's where the SRAs are most likely to -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: How many of those are there and how many acres? MR. BOSI: Right now in terms of overall development for the SRAs were -- I believe we are close to 18,000. So we keep a running track. And -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But how many -- if I -- how many acres are the pink, which are areas that can be developed? MR. BOSI: Oh -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So when you get to 45-, do all the other pink areas not get allowed to build other than one to five? MR. BOSI: They'll be able to develop at one to five or any of the uses that are allowed within the -- within the agricultural zone. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're in a "first come, first serve" on the pink areas? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because when you get to 45-, you're going to cap it somehow. MR. BOSI: It's already capped. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but I don't know how you do that with an individual. MR. BOSI: The current regulations are we have a -- and it's being brought in. But the GMP says, we have a 45,000-acre cap and a four -- or 404,000 credit cap as well. So we've capped the credits and capped the number -- capped the number of acres. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. MR. BOSI: And I think Ms. Cook was going to probably offer an assessment as to what the pink area is. MS. COOK: Thank you, Mike. Jaime Cook, your director of Development Review. So the pink is all of the lands that are open lands. It's about 90,000 acres and could be developed either as an SRA, up to that 40,000-acre limit. Once we've hit that 40,000 -- 45,000-acre limit, it could be developed under either the baseline standards of the RLSA program or, as Mike said, the one to five under the base zoning of agriculture. May 15, 2025 Page 32 of 4 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. So there's a big -- we're almost incentivizing people to get their butts in gear and bring in projects out there because it's -- half of it -- half the people aren't going to get -- half the acreage isn't going to get the ability to get beyond one to five. MR. BOSI: The program was developed in 2002. It was implemented by the LDC in 2003. That's 22 years ago. We have close to 17,000 acres. We're in entitle [sic], on average, less than -- less than 1,000 acres a year. We've probably got another 20 years of entitlement before we start bumping up the cap. But I agree with you that what's going to be taking place in a future Board discussion, a future Planning Commission discussion, is do we maintain that 45,000 acres based upon what's going on on the ground. I don't know what those environmental conditions are. I don't know what the land-use situation will -- I don't know a lot of different factors that could influence a different direction. But as of now, it's -- you are -- it is first come, first serve, so there is some incentivization to get in while there is still open land to be able to develop those towns and villages. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there any science to that 45,000 number, or is that something that somebody could make it 50- if they wanted without violating any science? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wait a minute. No, there was a lot of science done on the receiving lands. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, but -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As far as -- and the sending lands. I mean, there were overlays. There was an extremely detailed analysis of the lands out there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you have 90,000 acres of receiving lands, and you're saying only 45- of it can actually develop as receiving lands. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MR. BOSI: A lot of the acreage caps were -- were arrived upon based upon the total acreage area, how much was being -- how much was being developed, how much needed to be -- how much is being conserved. And what we thought and what we said was a three-to-one aspect would seem appropriate to be able to -- to be able to honor the -- because the RLSA is based upon three premises: Protection of the environment, protection of agricultural activities, and the protection of property rights, and both -- all three of those things don't complement each other. Sometimes they're adversarial. And what -- the arrangement with -- because the Conservancy was involved in a lot of these early discussions, and the League of Woman Voters, the Defenders of Wildlife. A lot of environmental groups were in there. And that three-to-one aspect -- and you've got 196 acres. And when it translates out, that three-to-one, the one for develop -- one acre of development for three acres of preservation, that translates to, basically, three acres are going to be set aside from development -- from intense urbanized development, and the three times is close to 200,000; you get right around 45,000 acres. That's really -- that was the equation. But there was many studies, panther studies, reports in terms of impacts upon the -- our protected species. So there has been a lot of science applied to it. But really, that was the ratio that shook it out, a three-to-one -- three-to-one preservation to entitlement, and you multiple that three-to-one or utilize that ratio against the 96,000, and it comes to about 45-. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the other piece of this as well is most of the receiving lands were lands that were farmed or other type of agriculture issues. The fact of the matter was is the intent was not to displace all of those farms, orange groves, and other activities. So yeah, there was -- the program was designed for people to come in early so we could identify where the development would take place, but second was to preserve -- the other way of life out there in those areas was farming, ranching, and other things that would stay and would no longer be lands that would be future -- would allow for future development. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, thank you for bringing that point up, because as I said, there's three provisions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. May 15, 2025 Page 33 of 4 MR. BOSI: It was property rights, it's agricultural protection, environmental protection. And the way that it was viewed was during the amendment process, we recognized that property rights and ag -- or environmental protection maybe got a little bit more attention than the ag protection. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MR. BOSI: So one of the outcomes that you're approving here is the identification of ag credits. You can get credits if you maintain -- if you adjust that you're -- or commit that you're going to farm for a period of time, waive those rights and -- waive, for that period of time, commit it to agricultural. So some of that 90,000 acres of open land, as Joe said, most of that open land is farm field. So some of -- a lot of that leftover that maybe doesn't get developed by the 45,000 acres of SRA, some of those will be -- be preserved as agricultural activities that they've lifted the credits to be able to utilize within the other side of the equation. So some will be dedicated to long-term ag preservation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. All right, Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: You mention that there were three premises for putting this plan together. Was this also -- was one of the other reasons to avoid urban sprawl? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Was that -- that's this one where -- wasn't it that Golden Gate sued the county, the county lost, and then the state required us to put some sort of plan like this in place and -- is it -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It actually resulted from the development of Twin Eagles. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Twin Eagles was selling 5-acre ranchettes, and then the owner was turning around and subdividing and giving a portion back, which became part of the golf course. It was a slight of hand, so you got a -- it resulted in the first development, which was -- then started the whole, "Wait a minute, this is getting out of hand. This is not one unit per five acres. This was a slight of hand." That was the one development, and yes, there were others. And then the state said, cease and desist, and that was the final order, so... COMMISSIONER McLEOD: So it's just interesting that if -- one of the reasons why this program was put into place was to avoid urban sprawl. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: After the 45,000 acres are used, then you go back to one per five, which is the urban sprawl. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But only -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Only urban sprawl in areas that were allowed for development, the receiving lands, and then villages, hamlets -- whatever we call them now, villages and townships. MR. BOSI: CRDs. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. So -- and that's to force concentrated development. That was part of the program. MR. BOSI: And so the 45,000 acres will be SRAs. The other 45,000, hopefully 10- to 15- to 20,000's going to be set aside for long-term agricultural production because you're going to be able to generate credits. You're not only going to be able to have a useful farm, but you're able to participate in the development process by selling your credits to a landowner that has opened -- that is looking for an SRA. So that will take up some of the remainder of the land. But, you know, some of the others, there may be some -- there may be some one-to-five development that comes through. But what I would -- I would probably suggest to you that as we start getting close to 40,000 May 15, 2025 Page 34 of 4 or 45,000 acres, that Planning staff is going to look at that and have a discussion with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to say, that's an outcome that way back in the early -- at the turn of the millennial, they did not want to promote one-to-five. Well, we've got maybe 30,000 acres that are leftover that haven't been enrolled in this program. How would you better suggest to build upon the premise of compact, sustainable urban development? We could suggest a different arrangement for that one-to-five. Because you're right, that premise is never going to go. One-to-five is inefficient. If you're not utilizing it for agricultural, just utilize it for one house; that's an inefficiency that we don't want to see spread out over 50- and 60,000 acres, you know. We want that -- we want that confined much more. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Got it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And at the rate that you're really burning the land out there, you've got plenty of time to see how it -- where everybody's moving. MR. BOSI: Without a doubt. Like I said, we're close to 17-, 18,000 acres entitled. We're 23 years into the -- 22, 23 years into the program. And what I'm -- what we're really finding is it's not just a generational perspective. It's a multigenerational perspective before you get to buildout. Ave Maria was entitled in 2004, 2005. It is only at half of its development capacity, and that's over 20 years. Another 10 years, that's two full -- that's two full generations of time that's passed while this -- while the development is still -- and that development is showing that the end goal of the self-sustaining economic activity and self-sustaining residential community can grow out of the old farm fields with the right amount -- with the right infrastructure investment and attention to land uses. Because one of the things -- we have two manufacturing facilities of Arthrex out there. The Chilean glass manufacturer's going to develop another. That starts to change some of our commuting patterns by having job opportunities created there. And as that town grows, it has a better offering of commercial goods and services. You don't have to come to the -- you don't have to come to the west all the time to get your goods and services, and sometimes you're going to find you're going to have economic opportunities and jobs for those folks that live in the Estates, that live in the middle. It's not always going to be dictated in the sun -- in the morning time you have head west and at nighttime you head back home. Sometimes some of that traffic is now being diverted to those manufacturing jobs that are in Ave, that are planned for the Town of Big Cypress and some of the other villages. So you can start to see that that program -- this program works, and the more time we give it, the more final adjustments I think we're going to be able to arrive upon. So I think this won't be the end of the -- and one of the other things that we have in there, I believe on an every-seven-year schedule, we will review the RLSA to make sure that there's no further -- that there's -- what tweaks are needed, what modifications may be needed to make the program more efficient. So we will continue and be obligated to do that to bring that report to you. I believe -- in four years from now the time's ticking that my -- our Comp Planning is going to have to provide an assessment, provide it to the Planning Commission, go out and talk to the public, and then bring something back for you guy's consideration for potential modifications. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Amy? MS. LOCKHART: Yes. I just wanted to make a comment that yesterday at our school board meeting, we named our school that will open in '26 Ave Maria Elementary School, and it is the first public school that will be in an SRA. Our first -- yeah. And that one is going to be, what, 22 years from the time it started. MR. BOSI: And that's one of -- another of the greatest advantages of the RLSA program, schools, transportation, public utilities, all of our infrastructure provided, the EMS, fire, they all sit at the table while they're preplanning this community, and if they identify this as a need, they'll set aside the acreage, and they'll set aside a pre-entitlement price tag associated with that acreage so May 15, 2025 Page 35 of 4 the acquisition isn't at your full entitlement price tag, but agricultural. So you get a -- like, the Town of Big Cypress, the commitment from the Town of Big Cypress for government acquisition of land is $22,500 for a fully entitled property. So that -- we get a -- we get a pretty good bargain when we are in those arrangements so we can make sure that the infrastructure needs of our future towns are always going to be provided for because they all sit at the table as they're doing their preplanning. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Eric, you have your last slide up, and you're making a recommendation of approval. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I was helping you guys. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask him one question? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: One more question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This was an easy one. When I was reading in there, I thought I read that towns were capped at 5,000 acres. MR. JOHNSON: Five thousand acres. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We just lifted that for Ave Maria. Is that just a one-off for Ave Maria? MR. BOSI: I appreciate that, because I should have picked that up. The Board of County Commissioners two -- a month ago adopted a modification that was proposed by Barron Collier Companies to lift the 5,000 acres. So yes, you are correct, that will have to be -- that will need to be modified in what goes -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: It will apply to all towns, not just Ave Maria? MR. BOSI: All towns. All towns. That 5,000 limitation on towns has -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I get my paycheck this week? MR. BOSI: Yes, you did. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. So, Paul -- okay. I see no other questions. Do I hear a motion subject to the change that we just discussed, that Eric will make sure that the -- we note that change of greater than 5,000 acres, whatever the limit will be? MR. BOSI: No cap. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I hear a motion. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimous. Good job, Eric -- MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- and staff on that. That -- the one thing I did note in there, though, was a lot of detail about the lighting. So, I mean, was that a result of different discussions during the Ave Maria and others? MR. BOSI: Yes. There was a lot of discussion about incorporating Dark Skies principles into the lighting standards out there just because of the concern for, you know -- of the setting. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, we learned a lot from Ave Maria, too. MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes, we have. May 15, 2025 Page 36 of 4 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Okay. We're going to proceed to the second item. And stand by a minute. This item is -- this is floating solar facilities. And this was extremely interesting from the standpoint of it's going to comply with state statute, as I understand. So I'll turn it over to staff, and I think, Richard, you've got the -- you've got the microphone for this one. I found this to be interesting. But I have to assume there's been a lot of studies that this does not impact aquatic life or other -- I'm just thinking about abnormal heating of the waters with the solar panels. I -- it's just bizarre to me, but if somebody finds it to be useful and environmental -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sunlight? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Lack of sunlight. MR. HENDERLONG: All right. Let me -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. But go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We read it. MR. HENDERLONG: Rockin' and rollin' with you on this. Rich Henderlong, for the record, Planning and Zoning Department, Planner III in the LDC section. This is a statutory required amendment. And let me move that down. The purpose of this amendment before you is to comply with the statutory law, Florida state -- or Florida Statute 163.32051, floating solar facilities and best practices for energy conservation, which established these facilities as a permitted use and appropriate land uses. This is new legislation that had been passed in 2022, and the amendment before you is in compliance with it. It's also intended to support active participation in energy efficiency practices and promote infill development that -- by saving energy and using existing urban infrastructure, i.e., an existing lake, rock mines, et cetera. Also, the county's energy policies are required that we shall reduce and eliminate undesirable effects on human health and environmental stability by reducing heavy reliance on energy fuel consumption. So what does this statute do? It not only created the floating solar facilities, which is a highly technical area of expertise -- and we'll get into some of that later in the presentation -- it defines what a -- floating solar facility as a production facility for electrical power, which is located on, specifically, wastewater treatment ponds, abandoned lime rock mine areas, stormwater treatment ponds, reclaimed water ponds, or other water storage reserves -- reservoirs. Secondly, it requires local governments to amend our Land Development Code regulations to promote the expanded use of floating solar facilities. (Commissioner McLeod left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. HENDERLONG: Thirdly, as an appropriate use for water and land, the legislature determined that it will -- that it has -- and they had this as a finding -- a cooling effect on solar panels which boosts the power production up to anywhere from 15 to 20 percent or higher based upon ground-mounted solar systems, and to help decrease water loss due to the evaporation rates besides the formation of harmful algae blooms. Fourthly, the statute allows the county to specify also buffer and landscape requirements but they cannot exceed the requirements of similar uses involving the construction of other solar facilities permitted in agricultural land uses and zoning districts. A few more slides. So what does the amendment do? In terms of trying to identify where -- besides defining what a floating solar facility is, it allows it as a use. We did a comprehensive study through the State of Florida and other Florida counties and found that the majority of them are consistently staying with rural agricultural districts. We've included the Estates, a public use, and a community facility designation by right with the exception that conservation/preservation designated areas is not an appropriate use form [sic] at this time until additional research is done, which the State of Florida is undertaking some pilot programs on that May 15, 2025 on a limited basis. As an accessory use, they will be allowed and -- as a structure or an accessory use in the C-1 through C-5 commercial zoning districts, the travel trailer/recreational vehicle district, campground, industrial and business park. They are not allowed currently as -- in residential zoned conventional districts or PUD residential districts. The reason primarily being -- and this was discussed at DSAC and the subcommittee -- is that there was a thought, maybe a conditional use, but the practices are -- of the communities we've studied is the majority of them are staying within these institutional uses. City of Naples is allowing them as an institutional use and a recreational only and that it's -- the cost of constructing these facilities is much higher, and it hasn't been fully proven yet to be an appropriate use for residential; however, staff is in concurrence with DSAC's recommendation that when new projects come through, they can always request that as an option as opposed to a ground-mounted solar facility. So that's for the awareness of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, Richard, my only question on this is, if it's going to be in a PUD, I would -- would the applicant have to go back through the Water Management District to get their approval? Because all of the lakes that typically are put -- are constructed within a PUD are controlled -- controlled through the Water Management District. It's part of the whole water management process. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. This -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And they'd have to amend their ERP. MR. HENDERLONG: They have to prove to the state that they're not going to interfere with the current stormwater requirements and the flow. It varies on water body to water body. Most of these are ending up in a low, shallow, 7- to 8-foot pond, if you will. The largest one, Orlando Utilities, has got an excellent water/sewer -- water supply system where they set it up. They're saving $400,000 a year on their system, and then, actually, our Public Utilities department is analyzing this application for the 41-acre up there at Goodlette Road. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Goodlette Road. MR. HENDERLONG: At Goodlette Road on the 41 acres to save -- get some energy cost savings. The interesting thing about floating solar facilities are -- and I'll get into that and some of the details about the decommissioning plans and the preventative maintenance. They do require more maintenance than a ground-mounted facility. And it depends upon the manufacturer. There's a tremendous amount of research on it. It basically says that the manufacturing materials themselves have to be run through the University of Central Florida. It's a clearinghouse -- depository house, if you will, for getting all the solar panels approved, and then the panels themselves -- the advantage of floating facilities is that they can be phased, and they're easier to interchange because of their linkages. We've -- in our studies, we've concluded that it would be best -- and you'll see those recommendations as to why we came to the conclusions as I go to the next slide. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't know if we want to get into a debate of the science behind it. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's required by the state statute. I mean, we could probably sit here and discuss the science and the pros and cons and the benefits and questions, but -- MR. HENDERLONG: They're going to have to go through that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's a nice academic discussion. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Say again. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We don't have an extra hour like we did -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We don't have an extra hour left to discuss that. Page 37 of 4 May 15, 2025 Page 38 of 4 COMMISSIONER SHEA: You notice how our attitude changes. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So I have no other questions. I don't know if anybody up here has any questions. I mean, it's going to comply with the statute. But go ahead, Chuck. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I -- so the statute states local government to site these facilities as appropriate uses of water and land areas in their local planning process, correct? MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: So that's -- I don't have a problem with using it on county property, like you just stated for the water treatment plant would be a great example. My concern is is that if you have bad architects come in and tell a community, "Oh, we can put these panels into retention ponds, and we can save you X amount of dollars," and then that doesn't come to fruition because they're going through a third party who's capping whatever would be going back to them. You have an issue where you're putting these into community lakes which takes away from their own microenvironment that they actually are between the littorals, the fish, and everything else. That's my concern is I don't want to see these going somewhere where they shouldn't, whereas they should be restricted, as you had stated, into commercial applications such as C-1 to 5 or even like your mining areas. MR. HENDERLONG: We agree with you. The burden of proof for them to come back for a PUD amendment is to demonstrate that they're going to have to show that there's no environmental impact, there's no loss to the littoral shelves, the limnetic zone, all of that requires intensive water-quality studies. Most of the solar floating facilities have weather radars and have different anchoring systems. There's a whole list of issues that come along through the SDP process that they would go. But the first step -- and that's how the committee came up with a recommendation. We're going to take baby steps with this. And we felt it was appropriate for commercial use and that that consumption would be on site and that the rest would have to come back for further permitting purposes. Mike? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Mike. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Staff. MR. BOSI: I would point out the only residential district -- and it's substantive to ag -- that we are permitting that you may want to make a recommendation is you may want to -- based upon that -- because you can't go within a residential community. We're not allowing that. Estates, we've debated, and we've included it, but if you feel it's appropriate to remove that -- and then it would just be the agricultural zoning district, the commercial zoning districts, as well as the community facilities or where they would be permitted as right as a permitted use. So that might be a suggestion that -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I think baby steps might be the best way to go with this instead of -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I agree. MR. BOSI: So what it sounds -- because when I heard that, I -- when I heard your comment, I think it was directed, you don't think from a -- from a residential standpoint or an Estates standpoint that utilizing those lakes for foil [sic] and soil is appropriate at this time until we've got a little more refinement to it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I don't think we know enough technically -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- what's going on to open it up widespread. MR. BOSI: Agreed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A comment on the Estates -- May 15, 2025 Page 39 of 4 MR. HENDERLONG: Agreed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- is in order to do it in Estates, you'd have to amass several -- MR. HENDERLONG: Properties. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- lots or -- lots to have a lake sufficient size for this. MR. HENDERLONG: Well, you'll remember there's other problems with it. For example, the one that we presented to the subcommittee was off of Pine Ridge, Trail Boulevard, up there behind the shopping centers. Pine Ridge is zoned RSF-1 or 3, I forget; maybe RSF-3. But all those lot owners -- you have commercial here on the front, C-4, and then you have the residential, the large lots. They're very large residential lots. But each one of those lots go into the center of the lake. They own the bottom of the lake, and they come across. So how are those people -- if they're landlocked, how are they going to come up with a homeowners association, a maintenance plan, a preventative maintenance plan? Just not going to happen. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I tend to agree that the technology behind this is still pretty magical when a salesperson comes to discuss it with someone. I mean, the carcinogenics that are built into these solar panels are just mind blowing. The efficiency rate is terrible. Anything that sits in water for a long period of time we know is going to have electromechanical breakdown a lot quicker than if it's on land. Infant steps, maybe not even baby steps, is the right approach to this. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Just a personal observation. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We like being on the leading edge, not the bleeding edge. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My recommendation is to take out the Estates. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then we do it -- the rural agricultural public use, and then C-1 through C-5 is on an accessory structure, but we'll see what happens. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that's my recommendation. Do we have any public -- public speakers? MS. PADRON: We do not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We have no public speakers, okay. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Are we bound by the state statutory [sic] on this for what we can change in this? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I would kick that over to the legal guru. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I'd hate to think that we can only rubber stamp this, but it could be, correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are limitations relating to buffers and landscaping. We can specify the buffers and landscaping, and then the requirements have to be similar to other similar uses. So we are -- what other things are you thinking of changing? COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Not allowing it in a PUD or in a residential community. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, it isn't allowed in a PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: It isn't? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. MR. HENDERLONG: Right now it is not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Put up the chart. MR. HENDERLONG: It's a prohibited use because we don't have it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The chart on there, it's only going to be allowed in -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: C-1 through 5. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No. It's only allowed in rural agriculture, public use, and CF, May 15, 2025 Page 40 of 4 community facilities. We're taking out the Estates, and then it would come in as an accessory use. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right. And my question is, are we allowed to even modify that because it's a state statute? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the state statute allows you to develop the land development regulations where you're going to allow it, so... COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: I have a question, to you. I heard you mention the commercial districts. Just for clarification, are you suggesting to exclude the TTRVC, the industrial, and the BP? I'm only asking because I didn't hear you include them. MR. HENDERLONG: Those are accessory uses. MR. JOHNSON: As accessory uses. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I mean, TTRVC, we're talking about almost residential. MR. JOHNSON: Well, the reason why we selected that -- and just let me explain for a minute. The accessory use -- so far most of the communities we've seen, they're small. They're, like, 20 panels, 25 panels, and it has to deal with the megawatts that are associated with that. A good example is an accessory use that DOT is doing in the right-of-ways where they're using solar rather than a ground-mounted panel to fuel some of their lighting facilities on their poles or their lights or whatever, so they're very small. So we agree -- we thought that a travel trailer/recreational vehicle park, campground in particular, because they're remote, they're more rural and generally in nature; that that would be an appropriate use for them to come up accessory. But the difference being they've got to consume on site. They're not necessarily going to be connected to a transformer and a grid that's going to supply offsite energy. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Do we need to specify that in this, that it cannot be off site; it has to be consumed onsite for travel trailers? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Wouldn't that come up in the review of the proposal? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I think we can. Currently, these are allowed for both a large facility and also for personal use in the zoning district, so there's no limitation. So if you want to limit it, then we can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: I would limit it, the LDC amendment, to consumption on site. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: For all of those. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: For all of those. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Everything up there? COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So they can't try to sell it back to Utilities. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Anybody else. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, not for all of them. Not for commercial and not for public use. Some of those -- if they put one up in the -- as we said off of -- at the water -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Treatment. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- treatment facility, the power that is not used, they're going to sell back to the -- MR. HENDERLONG: They can get credit -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They'll get credit. MR. HENDERLONG: -- if they sell it back. That's how it works. They get a credit back, reimbursement credit. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They can sell it back to the grid. May 15, 2025 Page 41 of 4 MR. HENDERLONG: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I don't think we can prohibit that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: All right. So we're saying on use -- on use only for the TTRVC -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: TTRV [sic] is -- that's for on use on site. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why can't we eliminate -- I don't understand why we're picking travel trailers and not -- to me, it's residential, and it's even going to be more concerning to me than residential. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As Rich said, these might be self-contained. MR. HENDERLONG: If you want to eliminate it, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: A little bit more rural. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: More of a -- what do you want to call it -- survival type of self-contained units where they put them out. MR. HENDERLONG: If there's no reasonable alternative energy use. That's another way to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And they allow for -- to generate -- MR. HENDERLONG: Another alternative energy use. And if they want to come in and petition that, they'll have to prove to us that -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Yeah, I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any other comments or recommendations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do I hear a motion to approve subject to the changes? One was to remove the Estates; and two, the subject, the TTRVC, that the -- it would be consumed on site. COMMISSIONER SCHUMAKER: Motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Motion -- made a motion. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There is none. It approves -- it passes 5-0. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I do have a -- I just saw an email from Ray. There's no petitions -- MR. BOSI: Yes. I was going to say to the Planning Commission, I was just informed that we had a petition that was going to be scheduled for June 5th. That has been reassigned. We have no petitions on June 5th, and your June 19th meeting is canceled. You have a month off. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wow. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Officially, June 5th is gone? MR. BOSI: June 5th is gone. June 19th is already stepped on. The Board of County Commissioners is having a budget workshop. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then the next meeting will be July 3rd. MR. BOSI: But as of now, we have no petitions scheduled for July 3rd. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As of now we have no petitions. You said you will let us know. MR. BOSI: But that may change. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And then be prepared for July 17th. May 15, 2025 Page 42 of 4 MR. BOSI: And then you're going to have an all-day meeting on the 17th of July. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Jam is required. COMMISIONER COLUCCI: I'd like to take the time off to determine how long it's going to be before we run out of acronyms. MR. BOSI: You're going to need a lot of time. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: There is a cheat sheet available, honest to God. I have it. There's a cheat sheet. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I make a motion to adjourn. Anybody object? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Comments from staff? MR. BOSI: None, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: None from the Chair. Thank you very much. We're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION __________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on____________, as presented ________ or as corrected ________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 7/17/25 ✔