The URL can be used to link to this page

DSAC Agenda 10/01/2025 Please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 if you have any questions or wish to meet with staff. Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, October 01, 2025 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development Department Conference Room 609/610 For more information, please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 or at Heather.Yilmaz@colliercountyfl.gov Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda Wednesday, October 01, 2025 3:00 pm 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Community Development, Conference Rooms 609/610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a “Speaker Registration Form”, list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. 1. Call to order – Chairman 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: a. DSAC-LDR: 08.19.2025 (Page: 04) b. DSAC-IFR: 08.27.2025 (Page: 09) c. DSAC: 09.03.2025 (Page: 15) d. DSAC-LDR: 09.16.2025 (Page: 23) 4. Public Speakers For more information, please contact Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz at (239) 252-8389 or at Heather.Yilmaz@colliercountyfl.gov 5. Staff Announcements/Updates a. Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi] b. Community Planning & Resiliency Division – [Christopher Mason] c. Housing Policy & Economic Development Division – [Cormac Giblin] d. Development Review Division – [Jaime Cook] e. Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Division – [Michael Stark] f. Building Review & Permitting Division – [Building Division] g. Collier County Fire Review – [Michael Cruz, Captain] h. North Collier Fire Review – [Chief Sean Lintz or designee] i. Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino] j. Public Utilities Department – [Matt McLean or designee] k. Transportation Management Services Transportation Engineering Division – [Jay Ahmad or designee] 6. New Business a. PL20250010243 - Development Order Process and Timeframes – LDCA 7. Old Business 8. Committee Member Comments 9. Adjourn FUTURE MEETING DATES: November 05, 2025 – 3:00 PM December 03, 2025 – 3:00 PM 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida August 19th, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Community Development Department Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe DR. Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Blair Foley Jeff Curl Mark McLean Robert Mulhere The following County Staff were in attendance: Jaime Cook, Director, Development Review, GMCD Eric Johnson, Manager – Planning, GMCD Richard Henderlong, Planner III, GMCD Angela Galiano, Planner II, GMCD Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst, GMCD 2 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Chairman- Clay Brooker Development Services Advisory Committee – Land Development Review Subcommittee, Tuesday, 19th August 2025 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Robert Mulhere made the motion. Mark Mclean seconded Motion passed 3. Old Business None 4. New Business a. PL20250005385 – Scrivener’s Errors and Cross-Reference Corrections Angela Galiano- Planner II • 2025 Scrivener ’s Error Amendment. Serves to clean up and address agency, department names and cross references, Consistency throughout LDC • Affects 21 Sections and 2 sections of the appendix • Department of Community Affairs changed to the department of commerce • Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council- changed name to Florida Invasive Species Council (FISC) • Growth Management Department changed to Growth Management Community Development Department • Spelling Issues • Lighting design for technical standards are being updated to the current version Updating IESNA RP 8.00 to ANSI/IES RP-8-22 • Updating Zoning district name • No Substantiative Changes Clay Brooker- Motion to approve Robert Mulhere- second Motion passed. b. PL20250006145 – Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation Eric Johnson- Planning Manager • 03.05.08 LDC- Amendment • Once a property gets a CO on an Estate- zoned lot, applicant shall only be responsible for removing prohibited exotic vegetation within 30 feet of the 3 addition or modification of structures that are described in any permit application submitted for principal or asseccory structures on or after 12/12/2023 • BCC intent for LDC amendment was to loosen the restrictions on exotic removal for small additions, such as a 10’x12’ storage shed. Cost of exotics removal far exceeds the costs of the actual permitted additions. • Mr. Johnson Referenced exhibit B- Minutes from 3/2025 Minutes. Page 205. Board of County Commissioners meeting to discuss amendment. • Committee discussion ensued around the topic • Mr. Mclean referenced Item C #2 3950- Does not apply to structures under 60sq ft. Mr. Mulhere suggested to amend to 100sqft and he would support. • Mr. Foley- Made a motion to deny. It’s important to state the exotic propagation and for the fuel for the wildfires in the estates area. Can’t support. Motion to Deny- Blair Foley Motion seconded- Jeff Curl Motion carries 3-2. Dissenstions from Bob Mulhere and Mark Mclean. Will go to full DSAC for review for denial. c. PL20250007882 – Administrative Plat Approval Richard Henderlong- Planner III, GMCD • Mr. Henderlong presented Petition 20250007882 that modifies the LDC to comply with Florida Law Chapter 2025-164/Senate Bill 784 which amends FL Statute 177.071 as adopted by the Governor on June 20th,2025 and became effective 7/1/2025. • On July 8th, 2025 the BOCC adopted resolution number 2025-131(Exhibit C.), designating the Development Review Division within the Growth Management Community Development Department as the “Administrative Authority” to review and process plat or replat submittals. • The County Attorney advised staff of a typographic error in the resolution that the words “Administrative Authority: should read as an “Administrative Official” being the county’s official . • LDC Section including Appendix A and Appendix C were revised to state that the “Administrative Official” shall be the authorized authority to sign plats, replats and construction/maintenance agreements. • Companion Administrative Code amendment was included as Exhibit A. On page 3 Line 46, the word “board” is being replaced with “administrative official.” Motion to approve- Robert Mulhere Motion seconded- Jeff Curl Motion carries unanimously 4 Blair Foley- How does this affect if something is already in process? Jaime Cook- Executive decision was made that anything approved prior June 30th,2025 went to the board. Anything July 1st,2025 of after will come to me for approval Mark Mclean- Under administrative official, is it only your position? Jaime Cook- In my absence Mike Bosi, Jaime French or County Manager can sign. Clay Brooker- Lot line adjustments, Lot split Jaime Cook- Those are already administrative 5. Public Speakers No public speakers 6. UPCOMING DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES DISCUSSION: a. Tuesday, September 16, 2025 b. Tuesday, November 18, 2025 7. ADJOURN Clay Brooker- Motion Robert Mulhere- Second There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 3:50 p.m. 5 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE _______________________________________ Clay Brooker, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on __________________, (check one) as submitted _______ or as amended ______. 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE IMPACT FEE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida August 27th, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Meeting and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Growth Management Community Development Department Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe DR with the following members present. Chairman: Mario Valle- Chair Bill Varian-Interim Nick Kouloheras – (Excused) Clay Brooker- (Excused) Robert Mulhere The following County Staff were in attendance: Gino Santabarbara, Manager, Impact Fees – Corporate Financial & Management Services Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst / Staff Liaison, GMCD Also in attendance by Zoom Nilgun Kamp- Benesch and Associates 2 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Chairman- Mario Valle Development Service Advisory Committee – Impact Fee Review Subcommittee, Wednesday August 27th, 2025 a. Selection of Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman (Conflict Areas) • Mario Valle- Chairman • Bill Varian- Interim (Conflict Areas) 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mario Valle- Need to move Items B and E to the end due to conflict 3. Old Business a. Collier School Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 04-25-2025 Presenter Nilgun Kamp- Benesch and Associates – Answering questions committee presented on 7-16-25 • Mario Valle- Was FFE included as part of the analysis- Understanding was that when we open a school Impact fee’s covered the initial FFE. But after they were not allowed. • Nilgun Kamp- The outside council for the County felt with the changes to the impact fee legislation it was a grey area, so all FFE was removed. • Robert Mulhere- Basis for that being those costs would not be considered capital. • Nilgun Kamp- The way capital is defined, it raises a question mark. Based on wording the attorney felt it was best to remove FFE. • Mario Valle- What does Collier County have in their impact fee fund? • Gino Santabarbara- Estimated $50-$70 million in reserves for the next school to be built. • Nilgun Kamp- Estimated cost of new school is $190 Million. • Robert Mulhere- Majority of growth will be East of 951. New Towns/Villages have to provide a certain amount of acreage for civic use. There is an agreement to provide those sites to the school board at $22,500 per acre. How has the land cost been calculated given that is a lot less than the cost per acre in the urban area. • Nilgun Kamp- Land cost was calculated at $75,000.00. If they have an agreement that they are consistently getting land at $22,000, we can address that. • Robert Mulhere- Committee will provide all of those documents. • Bill Varian- What is the land inventory currently that the school board has. • Nilgun Kamp- Even if they land bank, we are charging new developments for what the existing community invested in. • Mario Valle- Why aren’t we taking into account the capacity of charter schools. They are funded by the state and provide student capacity. • Nilgun Kamp- Charter schools are not included completely. We don’t charge for their students, value of the inventory or their funding. State Statute states impact fee cannot be 3 used for Charter schools unless the charter school is directly mitigating need for a public school and is built to the standards of the public schools. • Mario Valle- So we are not counting the students that attend charter schools within the calculation of the school impact fee in terms of the school need. • Nilgun Kamp- Yes. • Mario Valle- If they don’t need to build on the land they currently have so they sell a parcel of land that is not needed, how are we capturing that net gain of the appreciation of those lots? • Nilgun Kamp- Impact fees are based on current value and marginal cost of building a school. Not historical cost in the case of land value that may have increased. Impact fees are a snapshot in time. b. Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Study – DRAFT report 10-31-2024 Mario Valle Excused himself for this portion of the meeting due to conflict. Bill Varian took over as chair. • Question from Nick Kouloheras- LOS based on national standards and how involved is the sheriff in the number of beds. • Gino Santabarbara- Our county is the only one that still does the AUIR. We work with Sheriff and correctional facilities to determine what needs they have. • Bill Varian- What is our capacity between our two facilities • Nilgun Kamp- I have the number of beds. 1304. • Bill Varian- Will David Lawrence take away the need or does it become apart of the correctional facilities. • Nilgun Kamp- David Lawrence center will be additional because there is need to house the special needs inmates. It is not included in the study because it wasn’t built yet. We also have debt service on the current jail. One goes through 2033 the other goes through 2029. c. Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 10- 31-2024 • Mario Valle- Disagrees with the inclusion of the EOC in the study when we are not going to be replicating that in the future. It skews the cost in the impact fee dramatically. It’s not fair to the Collier County Taxpayer to be paying for something that is not going to be replicated. • Nilgun Kamp- We are including the square footage because it’s an investment the county and existing taxpayers made into the infrastructure. We value it at the average cost of all the other buildings. It equates to several stations if it makes more sense to build additional EMS stations. • Mario Valle- Including it at a rate of 100% when we have no intention of replicating it, skews the square footage numbers necessary for other EMS buildings. • Nilgun Kamp- Cost is split between EMS, Government buildings and Law enforcement. It reflects the square footage the community invested in up to this point. There is no reason an asset cannot be taken and converted into a different type within the same category if the service requires something different in the future. • Robert Mulhere- We can make a recommendation to have the EOC removed from the calculations. No recommendation was made during this meeting. d. Collier County General Government Buildings Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 4 • Gino Santabarbara read Clay Brooker ’s question- What makes collier county buildings cost of construction so much higher than other counties in the State of Florida. • Mario Valle read the answer provided by Nilgun Kamp. • Mario Valle- Local construction cost and labor extraction ability is higher than other metropolitan areas. We want to have a higher level of service within our buildings. e. Collier County Law Enforcement Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 Mario Valle excused himself for this portion of the meeting due to conflict. • Bill Varian- There is nothing anticipated in the CIP. • Gino Santabarbara- The fee is going down significantly for that reason. f. Collier County Library Facilities Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 • Bill Varian- In the CIP there are no plans to build a library. • Mario Valle- Impact fees collected need to be used within 7 years. When was the last library that was constructed in Collier County. • Nilgun Kamp- Golden Gate. We are currently paying debt service on the East Naples Library. • Mario Valle- We have to include the debt service until that gets paid. Part of the impact fees collected post construction go to pay the debt service. • Bill Varian- How much of the debt is left? • Nilgun Kamp- We have debt until 2034 on the South Regional Library and Golden Gate Library. g. Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 • No questions. Was not discussed during this meeting. h. Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study – DRAFT Report 10-31-2024 • Robert Mulhere- Going up directly related to construction cost and land cost. • Mario Valle- Legislature changed what areas impact fees can be used in based on where the home is being constructed relative to the impact fee district. • Nilgun Kamp- Road Impact fees have impact fee benefit districts. Collier County has 8 benefit districts. Whoever pays the fee will see the most benefit from it. 4. New Business a. Review Questions: July 16th Meeting • Answers are documented above. • Bill Varian- With all of the relief acts that have come out of the Governor’s office about burdensome requirements, are impact fees under that umbrella? • Nilgun Kamp- No. Senate bill 180 talks about Land Use Regulations. Impact fees are not considered Land Use Regulations. 5. PUBLIC SPEAKERS Emelia Vazquez- Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA) Thanked Gino. Wants to meet with Gino and the impact fee taskforce committee to go over the questions they have. 5 6. UPCOMING DSAC-IFR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES DISCUSSION: a. Wednesday September 17th, 2025- if needed. ***Not needed b. Wednesday, October 22, 2025- if needed. ***Not needed Bill Varian – Interim Chair • Made a motion to adjourn the meeting. 7. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 4:19 p.m. 6 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE IMPACT FEE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE _______________________________________ Mario Valle, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on __________________, (check one) as submitted _______ or as amended ______. 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida September 3, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Community Department Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida, 34102 with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley James Boughton Clay Brooker Jeffrey Curl Laura Spurgeon DeJohn John English Marco Espinar Norm Gentry Nicholas Kouloheras Mark McLean Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Hannah Roberts – AHAC (Non-voting) Jeremy Sterk Mario Valle The following County staff were in attendance James French, Department Head, GMCD Mike Bosi, Director – Zoning, GMCD Christopher Mason, Director – Community Planning & Resiliency, GMCD Jaime Cook, Director – Development Review, GMCD Michael Stark, Director – Operations & Regulatory Management, GMCD James French, Department Head, GMCD Designee for Building Review & Permitting Division, GMCD Captain Michael Cruz, Collier County Fire Review – NOT IN ATTENDANCE Captain Bryan Horbal, North Collier Fire Review Thomas Iandimarino, Director – Code Enforcement, GMCD Stephen Sarabia, Project Manager II – Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management, PUD Lorraine Lantz, Manager – Transportation Management Services, Transportation Engineering Division Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager – GMCD Richard Henderlong, Planner III – Zoning, GMCD Angela Galiano, Planner II – Zoning, GMCD Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst I / Staff Liaison, GMCD Gino Santabarbara, Manager, Impact Fees – Corporate Financial & Management Services 2 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER– Chairman William Varian Development Service Advisory Committee, Wednesday, September 3, 2025, was called to order at 3:00 PM. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA William Varian- Motioned to amend the Agenda moving Old Business- Impact Review Study up. Motion Seconded-Jeff Curl Motion passed unanimously 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. DSAC-IFR: 07.16.2025 Motion to Approve- Robert Mulhere Motion Seconded- Blair Foley b. DSAC: 08.06.2025 Motion to Approve- Jeff Curl Motion Seconded- Chris Mitchell Minutes approved unanimously 4. PUBLIC SPEAKERS Amelia Vasquez, CBIA Thanks county staff Gino for agreeing to meet with CBIA later this month. They want to be head of the table. They have an impact fee committee and would like to be involved and engaged in discussion on impact fees. Thanks Bill and Tom for starting the discussion on what they are going through as an industry. Would like CBIA leadership involved in discussion for Human Resources in the future. 5. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS a. Zoning Division – [Mike Bosi, Director] b. Community Planning & Resiliency Division – [Christopher Mason, Director] • Vulnerability assessment completed. Moving into adaptation plan. Will be working with a consultant starting in October. • Completed a repetitive loss area analysis with FEMA to determine areas that are susceptible to flood loss. • Preliminary FEMA Maps for interior portion of county. Looking to complete and release maps by Fall of 2026. c. Housing Policy & Economic Development – [Cormac Giblin, Director] 620 New affordable housing units housed YTD. Board approved 3 of 4 Land development code amendments at their last meeting. 3 d. Development Review Division – [Jaime Cook, Director] • Staff notes- Joe Bianci has relocated to Maine. Looking to fill the position. e. Operations Support & Regulatory Management Division – [James French, Department Head] • Report submitted shows stabilization YOY in the single-family home market. • Concerns- Discussed meeting with HR Staff at recent meeting. William Varian- Amy Lyberg, Alberto and Stephanie from HR were present for meeting. Tom Lykos, local builder, was present as well. Discussed pay scales, discussed recruiting for open positions. Discussed implementing training programs to work on promoting from within. James French- 4 new positions approved to fill. 1 Code Enforcement, 1 Animal Control Officer, 1 Building plans reviewer, 1 Building inspector. I have asked for an independent study to determine competitive wages. Struggling to keep employees due to neighboring counties offering higher wages, lower cost of living, sign on bonuses. f. Building Review & Permitting Division – [James French, Department Head] • Discussed certain repairs being forced to go through engineering for review before permits issuance. William Varian and Mario Valle gave examples of bathroom remodels being forced to go through engineering when it should not have been needed. • Fee Schedule- We received a $2M loan from the General fund to keep operations active for this year. Reserve payroll fund has enough to sustain 3 months of operations. Contracted with Raftelis to do a fee study. Looking at 5-year plan to implement increases in fees. I want to bring the plan back to DASAC at your next meeting to review and provide your feedback. Then on to the BOCC at their October meeting to vote on. g. Collier County Fire Review – [Michael Cruz, Captain] No Report- Not present h. North Collier Fire Review – [Bryan Horbel, Captain] • 613 permits came in. 2 day turn around on plan review. 44 permits were in turned around in 1 ½ day turn around. Next day on inspections. 1365 new construction inspections. 2 open Plan reviewer positions. i. Code Enforcement Division – [Thomas Iandimarino, Director] • Handfull of Code Lein relief applications come through that are moving forward to the BCC. Due to change in ownership/property sales. William Varian- From June-July cases/inspections doubled. Any specific reason? Thomas Iandimarino- Catching up on inspections that were missed while staff was out on training/vacations from the previous months. A saturation patrol was done down Golden Gate Blvd and cross streets. Mario Valle- How is the program going since you took over Animal control? Thomas Iandimarino- Animal control officers we have are doing a good job. We are struggling to hire qualified people who will stay and can handle the hard parts of the job. j. Public Utilities Department – [Stephen Sarabia, Project Manager II] • Nothing new to report. k. Transportation Management Services, Transportation Engineering – [Lorraine Lantz, Manager] 4 • Access management policy has been updated and revised. New Resolution number is 2025-150. Mike Sawyer will be sending it out and it will be posted on our website. • Ribbon cutting for Immokalee Tiger project has been rescheduled for 10/1/25 at 9:30am. • Golden Gate Parkway Corridor study will host a public meeting in November. Tentatively scheduled for November 20th, 2025. Clay Brooker- Wilson extension has been put on hold. Can you explain why. Lorraine Lantz- Put it on hold to look at additional alignments, look into the mine, coordinate with property owners and the landfill operations. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. PL20250009062 - Reasonable Accommodation for Certified Recovery Residencies LDCA Heidi Ashton- Cicko-Managing Assistant County Attorney Courtney DaSilva- Assistant County Attorney Petition PL20250009062 in relation to Florida Statute 397.487 Clay Brooker- Can you give a summary of what we are creating. Why we are doing this and give us an example of what kind of accommodation might be requested of the BCC. Heidi Ashton-Cicko- Occupancy related accommodations. Clay Brooker- The RUB is going to be traditional family home with 6 occupants and is now going to have 8 unrelated recovering individuals living there. Is notice going out to all surrounding homes and is there opportunity to be heard? Heidi- Notice will go out to residents within 150ft of the property. Decision must be made within 60 days and back to the property owner. Clay Brooker- Is the 150ft and not advertised the parameters in the State Law or is that what the county is proposing? Heidi- Zoning director will have to look at compatibility before making a decision. William Varian- Could this be an existing residence that is adapted or remodeled. Heidi- They generally go into a single-family home. But it could be a request for reasonable accommodation. We are trying to prevent density from being an issue. Mark McLean- Is there a requirement for supervision on site Courtney- There is a separate state statute that will govern how many people need to supervise depending on occupancy. Mark McLean- This allows occupancy up to 8, does that state statute say 6 or 10 and if this is 8 would be unsupervised. Courtney- The state statute has classification levels depending on how many occupants are actually in the home. That statute will dictate how many supervisors need to be there. That is unrelated to this process Heidi- Currently in certain zoning districts you can have up to 6 unrelated people. This does not address density. That is not what this ordinance is about. If you want to make a recommendation that density should be something that is considered as part of a reasonable accommodation process, you can make the recommendation. Clay Brooker- Density is not on the table for negotiation when it comes to accommodation. That’s what’s written in the code as proposed. There is also a safeguard built in where compatibility is required. The required notice should be larger than 150ft. 5 Heidi- As to the 6 resident sober home, we are currently preempted. We are limiting the reasonable accommodation request to design standards as opposed to number occupants. William Varian- Does this allow for this to happen everywhere. Heidi- We feel it does if we open the density. That is why we have excluded it. As we evaluate the federal law, we might have to open it up and include density. Clay Brooker- There is overconcentration limitation here. The burden would be on the applicant to show there is not an overconcentration of recovery residences in near proximity to one another. Mark McLean- Could an HOA guideline supersede this? Heidi- This state law does not preempt the HOA rules you agree to when you buy in. Clay Brooker- Motion to recommend approval with the following suggestions. 1. Density exclusion as a reasonable accommodation be kept included in the proposal. 2. Notice to surrounding properties owners be increased from 150ft to 500ft in the urban areas and 1000ft in the rural areas. 3. In regard to proximity definition, we will adopt what is already in the code as 1000ft. Motion seconded- Jeff Curl. Motion passed unanimously b. PL20250005385 - Scrivener’s Errors and Cross-Reference Corrections LDCA Angela Galiano, Planner II, Zoning, GMCD LDR Subcommittee reviewed and approved on 8/19/2025 Motion to Approve- Clay Brooker Motion seconded by- Mark McLean Motion passed unanimously c. PL20250006145 - Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation LDCA Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, GMCD 2023- Commissioner Hall asked the staff to update the LDC as it pertains to the removal of exotic vegetation. LDCA-PL20230018350. Subcommittee reviewed approval with changes. DSAC recommended denial February 7th, 2024. Collier County Planning commission recommended denial. BOCC voted to continue. Staff drafted new language. New petition Main change in language is • If a property has a CO for a principal dwelling that the applicant on an estate zoned lot shall only be responsible for removing exotics within 30 feet of the proposed addition or modification submitted on or after December 12th, 2023. Jeff Curl- We should be encouraging exotic removal. Not writing an ordinance to exempt it. For wildfire 2prevention, reduce fire load. Clay Brooker- We discussed this at the LDC subcommittee meeting. Existing code requires removal of all exotics. Mark McLean- I make a motion based on the subcommittee’s denial 3-2 we adopt their denial. 6 Motion to adopt denial- Mark McLean Motion seconded by- Jeff Curl Motion to Recommend denial passed 10-1 d. PL20250007882 - Administrative Plat Approval LDCA Richard Henderlong, Planner III, Zoning, GMCD Motion to approve- Jeff Curl- I move to approve the amended draft provided by staff and reviewed by legal. Motion seconded by- Mark McLean Motion passed unanimously e. PL20250008677 - Plat, Replat and Construction Documents, Code of Law Amendment (Informational Item only) f. Fee Schedule Status Discussed in Staff announcements with James French, Department Head, GMCD 7. OLD BUSINESS a. Review Impact Fee Recommendations – Corporate Financial & Management Services Gino Santabarbara, Manager, Impact Fees – Corporate Financial & Management Services William Varian- Gino would like a recommendation from this board for the impact fee review to move forward to the BCC. Mario Valle- Impact Fee Subcommittee chairman. Vast majority of the methodology was fine. An area that board questioned was in the School impact fees, in regard to land acquisitions. Developers were contributing land at $22,000.00 per acre. That information should be adopted back into the study. William Varian- In the study they are carrying $73,000.00 per acre. Most of the developments would be East of 951, we believe that most of those developers have made an agreement for $22,000.00 as part of their agreement. So why are we carrying $73,000.00 per acre? Mario Valle- Has a disagreement with the Emergency Services methodology including funding to build an additional Emergency Operations Center for $14 Million dollars when we have no plans to build another EOC. It has a meaningful financial impact to the Collier County taxpayers. Impact fees will be reviewed again in 5 years. It could be re- addressed at that time. Robert Mulhere- We talked about implementing a regular review cycle, a certain number, every couple of years. What was that? Gino Santabarbara- Once these impact fees are approved there will be a 4-year phase in. After that we will be reviewing and addressing 2 categories per year going forward. Nick Kouloheras- How do we change the process where the methodology is changed in future studies. 7 Mario Valle- Methodology has been consistent. The time in between reviews has been the issue and considerable increases because of the time has been the problem. As the impact fee committee chairman, I make a motion for the impact fees I reviewed, except for Law enforcement and corrections, that the DSAC committee accept the methodology for all of them noting that there is a question of the inclusion of the Emergency Operations Center within the EMS Impact Fee review. The BOCC should take that into consideration. Robert Mulhere- Amendment- the inclusion of the consultants agreement to look at the potential of including a lower per acre cost in Eastern Collier. Mario Valle- Accepts the amendment. Motion Seconded- Robert Mulhere Motion passed unanimously. Mario Valle excused himself for the discussion on Law Enforcement and Corrections. Law Enforcement and corrections- Impact Fee Motion to Approve- Robert Mulhere Motion seconded- Motion passed unanimously 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None 9. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00PM. 8 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE _________________________________________ William Varian, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on ___________________, (check one) as submitted _______ or as amended _______. 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida September 16, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee Land Development Review Subcommittee and Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Growth Management Community Development Department Room #609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida 34102 with the following members present: Chairman: Clay Brooker Blair Foley Jeff Curl - EXCUSED Mark McLean Robert Mulhere - EXCUSED The following County Staff were in attendance: Michael Bosi, Director, Planning and Zoning, GMCD Lisa Blacklidge, Manager, GMCD Michele Mosca, Planner III, GMCD Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, GMCD Richard Henderlong, Planner III, GMCD Angela Galiano, Planner II, GMCD Heather Cartwright-Yilmaz, Management Analyst/Liaison, GMCD 2 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of This Board you will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, Neither Collier County nor This Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 1. CALL TO ORDER – Chairman Chairman- Clay Brooker Development Service Advisory Committee – Land Development Review Subcommittee, Tuesday, 16th September 2025 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion to hear Item B first. Mark McLean made the motion. Blair Foley Motion seconded Motion passed 3. Old Business None 4. New Business b. PL20250010243- Development Order Process and Timeframes – LDCA Richard Henderlong, Planner III, GMCD On June 24th, 2025, the governor approved Senate Bill 1080 which amended Statutes FS.125.022, FS.163.31801 and FS.166.033. That regulates the review and approval of land development permits and development order applications by local governments. The new Law Chapter 2025-177 will become effective on October 1st, 2025. 1. The required processing starts with an acknowledgement of receipt within 5 days. 2. Application must be reviewed for completeness within 30 days 3. Non-quasi-judicial hearing applications must be approved or denied within 120 days. 4. Quasi-judicial applications within 180 days. 5. During a public meeting/hearing and applicant can request an extension in writing. Blair Foley- Based on my experience no applications that have been submitted have been acknowledged in 5 days. All the county has to do within 5 days is acknowledge receipt. Within 30 days it must be reviewed for completeness. Mark McLean- So then an application could sit without being reviewed and then rejected at 29 days Lisa Blacklidge- We are still going to try to process and review within the 5-day mark. Mark McLean- But it could happen Lisa Blacklidge- We are trying to improve timelines Mark McLean- These timelines don’t designate between types of applications. Blair Foley- Under the 3rd submittal, in plans and plats, if we have a third submittal the county is great about getting in done. If there is a minor submittal, would we still have 2 reviewers or less, is that still applicable. Lisa Blacklidge- It is still applicable. 1st, 2nd and 3rd submittal is still intake. 3 Richard Henderlong- First- If an applicant makes a substantial change to 15% or more in density or the square footage of the parcel, it automatically resets the 120–180-day timeclock. Secondly, the statute requires the county to issue refunds as a percentage of the application fee in the event it fails to meet the review time. 1. 10 percent for failure to issue written notice of completeness or areas of deficiencies within 30 days after receiving the application submittal or request for additional information 2. 20 percent for failure to send written notice or areas of deficiencies within 10 days of the second request for information and the applicant submits required information within 30 days 3. 50 percent if the county fails to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application within 30 days after conclusion of the 120-day or 180-day public hearing timeframe 4. 100 percent if the county fails to act after 30 days and the conclusion of the 120-day or 180-day timeframe 5. If the applicant and county agree to an extension of time, the delay is caused by the applicant or attributable to a force majeure, the county is not required to issue a refund. Clay Brooker-The language “the waiver of time limits is submitted” is used throughout this. Is the applicant releasing the county from its deadline to respond? Richard Henderlong- Yes. You are waiving the statutory time limits. Mark McLean- Once you put them on the statutory obligation to respond, when they kick something out you have 10 days to respond. By waiving yours, you are also waiving theirs. Lisa Blacklidge- That would only apply to intake. If you are under review the 10 days does not apply. 120-180 days start when you pay and go to review. Blair Foley- Will there be any communication with staff during this process Lisa Blacklidge- Yes. Development review, you will have the option when you submit. You will have the option when you get your correction letter and 15 days prior to the 120 mark. Clay Brooker- If I have a rezone that goes CCPC and BCC and I’m at 180 days, takes 30 days between CCPC and BCC, 45 days before CCPC, I am at 75 days off my 180 days. Is that the way it’s really supposed to work. Lisa Blacklidge- Not sure why it did that. Mike Bosi- That is why we have talked about developing the waiver timeline. Mark McLean- The intent of this is to prevent municipalities from taking a year to permit something. What this is now, if you are not on your toes and you do not sign a waiver you can get pushed out with a denial. Richard Henderlong- This does take effect on 10/1/25 Clay Brooker- The state law says what it says. This mirrors it. I do not see the refund codifying anywhere. Admin code maybe? Mike Bosi- Its still applicable. It should be in admin code. Lisa Blacklidge- 120/180 days have been in code for years. 4 Mark McLean- The intention is to speed the system up, but if you sign a waiver, it could actually slow everything down. If you sign the waiver the county has an open-ended timeframe to approve. Motion to approve to send to DSAC- Blair Foley- with the codification of the fees in the admin code. Motion seconded- Mark McLean Motion passed a. PL20240006969 - Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Restudy – LDCA Eric Johnson, LDC Planning Manager, GMCD Will amend 3 different sections of the Land Development code. Section 20307, 20308 and 020601. In 1999 the State of Florida imposed a Final Order on Collier County to perform a 3 year Rural and Agricultural Assessment of the GMP: 1. Protect prime AG areas- prevent premature conversion to other land uses 2. Protect natural resources- water quality & quantity, listed species & their habitat 3. Discourage urban sprawl. Areas designated as “sending” are areas of higher quality habitat to direct growth away; “receiving” are areas where development is more suitable. Landowners in the sending areas can voluntarily use the program to obtain and sell their TDR credits to developers in the receiving areas. This LDC amendment adopts GMPA (Ord. 2023-25) LDC Changes 1. Increases the number of base TDR credits generated per acre/per non-conforming lot. 2. Changing the calculation of TDR Bonus Credits 3. Addition of Conservation TDR credits. 4. Addition of Belle Meade Hydrologic enhancement overlay provisions. 5. Changes to Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR bonus credit 6. Introduction of Business and Industrial Uses in the receiving lands with specific uses, development standards and locational criteria to be identified within the LDC 7. Revising the table of allowable uses for RFMUD receive lands-Outside Rural villages 8. Changes to Rural Village design and density bonus for low-income residential housing units. 9. Addition of Clustering provisions for RFMUD sending lands. 10. Introduction of neighborhood commercial uses with affordable housing projects with specific uses, design and development standards 11. Reduction of open space requirements for housing that is affordable projects. 12. Allowance of active recreation in the sending lands as conditional uses 13. Additional development standards and location criteria for housing the is affordable within the receiving lands. Mark Mclean- How do you transfer density from one area to another 5 Mike Bosi- You have to own the property. 4 TDR for 5 Acres. 2 for your first participation bonus. You have restoration and conveyance. Create development rights agreement. You take the TDR so they can be utilized. Using TDR, you can get that up to 1 unit per 5 Acres. Grouping TDR with another 5 acre parcel you can develop a subdivision with 1 unit per acre. Or you can take the credits and develop a village. Mark McLean- Why are we doing this here, who is this benefiting. Mike Bosi- These were determined in 1999-2000, The criteria was based on environmental data. Mark McLean- So the data that’s created this is 25 years old. The traffic in these areas is already extremely bad. Clay Brooker- If you own land that is currently blue, (receiving lands) you’re suggesting now that you take away the TDR possibility to that landowner, they are going to have something to say about it. Mike Bosi- Based on the previous 25 years of development, yes that’s my suggestion. Clay Brooker- If I own a sending land in Belle Meade and I strip for credits, can I sell them to NW receiving land. Mike Bosi- Yes, there is no restriction on where a sending land credit can be spent at. Clay Brooker- If there are no receiving lands anywhere, then the program has come to a stall Lisa Blacklidge- There is no more NW receiving lands, but in the southern area there is still some areas. Mike Bosi- There is still land available in the Southern area. Lisa Blacklidge- North Belle Meade and Belle Meade there is a lot of acreage available. Blair Foley- What is the timing on this? There is a lot of information in this. Eric- We are aiming for a nighttime CCPC hearing in November. If you feel like you need more time to review, then take more time. Clay Brooker- We need Bob Mulhere to get his eyes on this. Blair Foley- Can we make a motion to continue to the next LDC meeting with Bob and Jeff present. Motion to Continue- Blair Foley Motion seconded- Mark McLean 5. Public Speakers No public speakers 6. REMINDERS OF UPCOMING DSAC-LDR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES DISCUSSION: a. Tuesday November 18, 2025 b. Tuesday December 16, 2025 7. ADJOURN Blair Foley- Motion to adjourn 6 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the chairman at 4:09 p.m. 7 COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE _______________________________________ Clay Brooker, Chairman These minutes were approved by the Committee/Chairman on __________________, (check one) as submitted _______ or as amended ______. September 2025 Monthly Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 1September 2025 Building Plan Review Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 2 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-254,028 3,966 3,657 3,557 3,595 3,876 4,279 4,979 5,088 4,326 4,306 4,357 3,717 3,710 3,880 3,668 4,143 4,313 4,655 5,068 4,696 4,511 4,338 4,391 4,294 All Permits Applied by Month ROW Residential, 94 Building, 551Shutters/Storm Protection/Screening Systems, 135 Mechanical, 714 Well Permits, 83 Doors/Windows Only, 366 Pool, 128 Roof, 268 Gas, 207 Plumbing, 305 Electrical, 369 Aluminum Structure, 193 Fence, 153 Replacement or Installation of Communicator, Existing … ROW Commercial, 88 Top 15 of 35 Building Permit Types Applied September 2025 Building Plan Review Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 3 $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 $450,000,000 Sep-23Dec-23Mar-24Jun-24Sep-24Dec-24Mar-25Jun-25Sep-25Monthly 1 & 2 Family Total Construction Value by Applied Date 1&2 Family $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 $450,000,000 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25Monthly Total Construction Value by Applied Date 1&2 Family Multi-family Commercial September 2025 $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 $450,000,000 Sep-23Dec-23Mar-24Jun-24Sep-24Dec-24Mar-25Jun-25Sep-25Monthly Multi-family & Commercial Total Construction Value by Applied Date Building Plan Review Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25Sep- 23 Oct- 23 Nov- 23 Dec- 23 Jan- 24 Feb- 24 Mar- 24 Apr- 24 May- 24 Jun- 24 Jul- 24 Aug- 24 Sep- 24 Oct- 24 Nov- 24 Dec- 24 Jan- 25 Feb- 25 Mar- 25 Apr- 25 May- 25 Jun- 25 Jul- 25 Aug- 25 Sep- 25 Commercial 9 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 8 4 6 6 4 9 7 4 3 5 6 5 4 8 3 7 4 Multi-family 15 3 4 5 3 11 3 4 4 2 4 1 1 10 2 2 5 0 2 1 6 13 1 6 5 1&2 Family 240 245 165 183 185 252 174 191 267 188 197 163 132 184 134 181 218 187 158 140 162 178 140 176 138 New Construction Building Permits Issued by Month 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Sep-23Nov-23Jan-24Mar-24May-24Jul-24Sep-24Nov-24Jan-25Mar-25May-25Jul-25Sep-25New Multi-family Building Permits Issued by Month September 2025 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Sep-23Nov-23Jan-24Mar-24May-24Jul-24Sep-24Nov-24Jan-25Mar-25May-25Jul-25Sep-25New Commercial Building Permits Issued by Month Building Inspections Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 5 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-2522,460 25,463 23,917 22,068 23,926 23,645 24,159 24,751 23,695 19,793 22,571 22,360 19,479 18,601 18,562 19,705 19,583 18,709 19,516 20,249 19,536 17,901 18,974 18,196 18,308 Building Inspections Structural, 7,321 Well, 108 Electrical, 3,824 Gas, 766 Plumbing, 2,388 Pollution Control, 0 Mechanical, 2,207 ROW, 273 Land Development, 1,262 Types of Building Inspections September 2025 Building Inspections Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 6September 2025 Not Due Yet, 368 HOA Notified/Ph1, 23 Completed, 508 Delinquent, 9 Ph2 Required, 14 MI Phase Permit, 10 Milestone Inspection Status Land Development Services Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 7 - 50 100 150 200 250 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25189 190 200 179 197 193 181 188 215 218 193 236 204 172 169 155 178 188 204 217 181 204 195 208 222 All Land Development Applications Applied by Month 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Code Payoff Request Zoning Verification Letter Vegetation Removal Permit Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change Special Event Permit 16 29 20 19 31 Top 5 Land Development Applications Applied within the Last 6 Months September 2025 Land Development Services Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-2527362121283229303022253831231727222234273830331728Pre-application Meetings by Month - 20 40 60 80 100 120 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-2516 6 6 5 9 10 13 8 8 15 15 10 12 2 6 14 9 5 13 7 6 11 3 3 4 85775766513659675235827262715157616690876244676680Front Zoning Counter Permits Applied by Month Temporary Use Commercial Certificates September 2025 Land Development Services Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-250 4 3 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 2 3 1 1 Number of New Subdivisions Recorded per Month Number of SubdivisionsYearly Totals Pages 2020 – 152 2021 – 188 2022 – 175 2023 – 100 2024 – 154 2025 – 124 Yearly Totals Lots 2021 – 1353 2022 – 3100 2023 – 1212 2024 – 1559 2025 – 1543 Yearly Totals Subdivisions 2020 – 25 2021 – 33 2022 – 29 2023 – 21 2024 – 18 2025 – 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-250 11 19 0 5 2 35 0 4 0 13 33 12 19 7 19 1 7 13 20 29 4 24 14 8Number of PagesPlat Pages Recorded per Month September 2025 Land Development Services Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-257876102849972158868681161113113Monthly Total of Subdivision Applications (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-2510 9 11 10 16 7 14 19 7 4 4 11 20 13 9 8 12 13 14 10 2 13 7 13 20 Monthly Total of Subdivision Re-submittals/Corrections (PSPA, PSP, PPL, PPLA, ICP, FP, CNST) by Month September 2025 Land Development Services Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 11 - 10 20 30 40 50 60 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-2536 30 35 37 40 35 43 38 32 45 34 32 40 27 31 33 33 34 47 51 36 50 51 42 33 Monthly Total of Site Plan Applications (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-2535462934433540503535514740584538353246385148384753Monthly Total of Site Plan Re-submittals/Corrections (SIP, SIPI, SDP, SDPA, SDPI, NAP) by Month September 2025 Reviews for Land Development Services Growth Management Community Development Department 12 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-251,113 1,429 1,032 1,106 1,205 1,167 1,162 1,220 1,163 1,080 1,213 1,292 1,254 1,237 982 1,160 1,103 1,027 1,301 1,338 1,216 1,189 1,318 1,436 1,514 Number of Land Development Reviews Ontime, 93.1% Late, 6.9% Percent Ontime for the Month 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 575 152 144 80 78 Top 5 Land Development Reviews September 2025 Land Development Services Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 13 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25Total Applied Construction Valuation Estimate Construction Estimate Utility Estimate 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25Inspections per monthSite & Utility Inspections Final Subdivision Inspection Final Utility Inspection Preliminary Subdivision Inspection Tie In Inspection September 2025 Fire Review Statistics Growth Management Community Development Department 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25DaysPlanning Fire Review Average Number of Days Sep- 23 Oct- 23 Nov- 23 Dec- 23 Jan- 24 Feb- 24 Mar- 24 Apr- 24 May- 24 Jun- 24 Jul- 24 Aug- 24 Sep- 24 Oct- 24 Nov- 24 Dec- 24 Jan- 25 Feb- 25 Mar- 25 Apr- 25 May- 25 Jun- 25 Jul- 25 Aug- 25 Sep- 25 North Collier 37 52 48 57 60 57 37 44 40 43 51 51 62 63 47 46 55 65 47 49 79 48 60 44 59 Collier County(Greater Naples)60 62 50 39 56 53 60 75 61 55 68 67 64 48 64 58 44 95 75 58 116 87 49 70 61 Total Number of Building Fire Reviews by Month 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sep-23Oct-23Nov-23Dec-23Jan-24Feb-24Mar-24Apr-24May-24Jun-24Jul-24Aug-24Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25Sep-25DaysBuilding Fire Review Average Number of Days Sep- 23 Oct- 23 Nov- 23 Dec- 23 Jan- 24 Feb- 24 Mar- 24 Apr- 24 May- 24 Jun- 24 Jul- 24 Aug- 24 Sep- 24 Oct- 24 Nov- 24 Dec- 24 Jan- 25 Feb- 25 Mar- 25 Apr- 25 May- 25 Jun- 25 Jul- 25 Aug- 25 Sep- 25 North Collier 525 616 543 411 459 406 508 581 684 634 647 646 733 655 459 481 588 491 621 818 820 771 750 613 755 Collier County (Greater Naples)397 442 395 403 382 429 425 552 517 511 482 407 464 447 390 432 459 436 484 622 537 547 431 408 549 Fire District Fire District September 2025 19/2025 Growth Management Community Development Department September 2025 Code Enforcement Monthly Statistics Code Enforcement Reports 9/2025 Growth Management Community Development Department 2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25211122232077204523961432226219702653130532762817Code Inspections Per Month 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Sep-24Oct-24Nov-24Dec-24Jan-25Feb-25Mar-25Apr-25May-25Jun-25Jul-25Aug-25462441467444512305597467676308715781Cases Opened Per Month 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 2024 2025 1204 988 4893 3374 Origin of Case Code Investigator initiated cases by FY Complaint initiated Cases by FY Code Enforcement Reports 9/2025 Growth Management Community Development Department 3 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Bayshore Immokalee 22 0 2544 3291 CRA Case Opened Monthly Monthly Case Opened Total Cases Opened Code Enforcement Reports 9/2025 Growth Management Community Development Department 4 Permit Fees, 65 Animals, 8 Accessory Use,16 Land Use , 46 Noise, 16 Nuisance Abatement, 121 Animal Control, 215 Parking Enforcement, 29 Property Maintenance, 54 Right of Way, 40 Signs, 20 Site Development, 65 Vehicles, 37 Vegetation Requirements, 10 Short-term Vacation Rental, 20 August 22, 2025 – September 17, 2025 Highlights •Cases opened: 781 •Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 498 •Property inspections: 2817 •Lien searches requested: 506 Top 15 Code Cases by Category 2 2 1 2 2 145324 3689 3 9 9 5 7 6 5 7 5 0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time -Letters of Availability Requests Completed Minimum Average Maximum Requests Received 1 2 3 1 1 41 3 2 0 2 2 2 5 2 2 3 5 27 12 7 10 23 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 RequestsBusiness DaysResponse Time -FDEP Permits Requests Completed Initial Review Time Revision Review Time Director Approval Time Requests Received 1 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20250010243 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment shall establish compliance with the Laws of Florida, Chapter 2025-177 that revised timeframes for processing applications for approval of development permits or development orders. It defines the term “substantial change” and provides refund parameters in situations where the county fails to meet certain timeframes. The timeframes are not applicable to statutory Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC). LDC amendments are reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of the DSAC (DSAC- LDR). ORIGIN Growth Management Community Development Department (GMCDD) HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED Board TBD 10.02.03 10.02.04 10.02.08 10.02.13 10.04.01 10.04.03 10.08.00 10.09.00 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof Requirements for Subdivision Plats Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures Determination of Completeness Applications Subject to Type II Review CONDITIONAL USE PROCEDURES VARIANCE PROCEDURES CCPC TBD DSAC 10/01/25 DSAC-LDR 09/16/25 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR Approval with recommendations DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On June 24, 2025, the governor approved Senate Bill 1080 which amended certain statues (i.e., F.S.125.022 and F.S. 166.033) that regulate the review and approval of land development permits and development order applications by local governments. The new law, Chapter 2025-177, will become effective on October 1, 2025. It requires counties by F.S.125.022, and municipalities by F.S.166.033, to specify minimun information for certain applications; revise timeframes for processing applications for development permits or orders; provide for refund parameters when the county fails to meet certain timeframes, and expedites the review for comprehensive plan amendments. The LDC amendment identifies those applications, and development order permits for clear communication and timely responses to applicants and recognizes the refund provisions resulting from processing delays. The required processing of an application starts with an acknowledgement of receipt within five business days of an application. Next, the application must be reviewed for completeness within 30 days, with any deficiencies being specified. Non-quasi-judicial hearing applications must be approved or denied within 120 days from when the application is deemed complete and quasi-judicial hearing applications within 180 days. During a public meeting or hearing, the applicant and county may agree, in writing, to an extension of time. If there is a “substantial change” (defined in the statue as 15 percent or more in proposed density, intensity, or square footage of a parcel) to the application, the timeframes restart. 2 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx Pursuant to F.S.125.022 (3)(a), “When reviewing an application for a development permit or development order that is certified by a professional listed in F.S. 403.0877, the county may not request additional information from the applicant more than three times, unless the applicant waives the limitation in writing.” F.S. 125.022 (d) also states: “Before the third request for addition information, the applicant must be offered a meeting to attempt to resolve any outstanding issues.” If the County fails to meet the statue’s stipulated timeframes, a percentage of refunds must be issued to the applicant as follows: • 10 percent for failure to issue written notice of completeness or areas of deficiencies within 30 days after receiving the application submittal or request for additional information, • 20 percent for failure to send written notice or areas of deficiencies within 10 days of the second request for information and the applicant submits required information within 30 days, • 50 percent if the county fails to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application within 30 days after conclusion of the 120-day or 180-day public hearing timeframe, and • 100 percent if the county fails to act after 30 days and the conclusion of the 120-day or 180-day timeframe. Additionally, if “…the applicant and county agree to an extension of time, the delay is caused by the applicant, or attributable to a force majeure or other extraordinary circumstance,” the county is not required to issue a refund. In accordance with the amended F.S. 177.071-Approval of Plat by Governing Bodies, final plats are now administratively reviewed and approved by a designated authority (County Manager or designee). In LDC section 10.04.03, the amendment will delete “Final Plats” from the graphic illustration for Applications Subject to Type II Review. Also, this proposed amendment will modify relevant sections of the Land Development Code and Administrative Code for Land Development to comply with the Laws of Florida Chapter 2025-177, particularly F.S. 125.022. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee recommendations: On September 16, 2025, the subcommittee unanimously recommended approval with the condition that staff include the required statutory percentage of refundable application fees in either the Administrative Code or County’s fee schedule. Further, the subcommittee recommended staff include a processing time frame chart to the review of an application for completeness as presented during the meeting. The chart has been incorporated as Exhibit C. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS A percentage of refund fees to the applicant can occur in the event of an application processing delay. Operationally, the county will incur administrative costs to update applications review time frames. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Administrative Code Amendment, B) Laws of Florida Chapter 2025-177, C) Processing Time Frames DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments 2 thereof 3 4 H. Time limits for review, approval, and construction of site development plans, site 5 improvement plans, and amendments thereof. 6 7 1. Site development plans, site improvement plans, and amendments thereof, will 8 remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's 9 comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were 10 sent to the applicant, or until the time frames specified in F.S. 125.022. If a waiver 11 of time limits is submitted and a response is not received within this time, the 12 application for the site development plan, site improvement plan, and amendments 13 thereof will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. If there is no waiver of time 14 limits submitted, and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S. 15 125.022, the application will be considered denied. Further review of the project 16 will require a new application subject to the then current LDC. 17 18 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 19 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 20 21 10.02.04 Requirements for Subdivision Plats 22 23 This section shall be read in conjunction with subdivision design standards, in particular, LDC 24 Chapters 3, 4, and 6. 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 28 B. Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plats (PPLs). Construction plans and final 29 subdivision plats are commonly referred to as "plans and plat." 30 31 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32 33 3. County Manager review of construction plans and final subdivision plats. 34 35 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 36 37 c. Once the construction plans and final subdivision plats are submitted by 38 the applicant for review by the County Manager or designee, they will 39 remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county 40 reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the 41 comments were sent to the applicant, or until the time frames specified in 42 F.S. 125.022. If a waiver of time limits is submitted and a response is not 43 received within this time, the application for construction plans and final 44 subdivision plat review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. If there 45 is no waiver of time limits submitted, and the applicant exceeds the time 46 limits specified in F.S. 125.022, the application will be considered denied. 47 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx Further review of the project will require a new application and the 1 appropriate fees paid by the applicant. 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 5 6 10.02.08 Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas 7 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 10 D. All proposals for zoning amendments shall be submitted as established in the 11 Administrative Code and accompanied by all pertinent information required by the LDC 12 and which may be required by the Planning Commission for proper consideration of the 13 matter, along with payment of such fees and charges as have been established by the 14 Board of County Commissioners. No application for zoning amendment shall be heard by 15 the Planning Commission until such fees and charges have been paid. 16 17 1. Rezoning application processing time. Once an application has been determined 18 to be complete, the application will remain active until An application for a rezoning, 19 amendment or change will be considered "open" when the determination of 20 "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing 21 number. An application for a rezoning, amendment or change will be considered 22 "closed" when the applicant withdraws the subject application through written 23 notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or 24 otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 25 months, or until the time frames specified in F.S. 125.022. If a waiver of time limits 26 is submitted and the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or 27 a response is not received within 6 months, the project will be considered 28 withdrawn. If there is no waiver of time limits submitted, and the applicant exceeds 29 the time limits specified in F.S. 125.022, the application will be considered denied. 30 An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and shall be 31 withdrawn. An application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. 32 The County Manager or designee will notify the applicant of closure, however, 33 failure to notify by the county shall not eliminate the "closed" withdrawn or denied 34 status of a petition. An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened by 35 submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of 36 a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the request will be subject to the 37 then current code. Further review of the project will require a new application and 38 the appropriate fees paid by the applicant. An application deemed "closed" may 39 be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees 40 and the grant of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the request will 41 be subject to the then current code. 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 45 46 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures 47 48 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 49 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 B. Procedures for planned unit development zoning. Petitions for rezoning to PUD in 2 accordance with LDC section 10.02.08 shall be submitted and processed as for a rezoning 3 amendment generally pursuant to LDC section 10.02.08 and in accordance with the 4 following special procedures: 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 6. Action by Board of County Commissioners. Unless the application is withdrawn by 9 the applicant, exceeds the time limits specified in F.S. 125.022 or deemed "closed" 10 pursuant to LDC section 2.03.06, the Board of County Commissioners shall, upon 11 receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, advertise and hold a public 12 hearing on the application. The notice and hearing shall be on the PUD rezone 13 application, PUD master plan of development and PUD ordinance, as 14 recommended by the Planning Commission to the Board of County 15 Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall either approve the 16 proposed rezoning to PUD; approve with conditions or modifications; or deny the 17 application for PUD rezoning. 18 19 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 21 22 10.04.01 Determination of Completeness 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 26 B. Approval of regulated development and certificates to operate for wellfield operations. 27 28 5. Administrative review. Certificates to operate shall be processed and reviewed, 29 and shall be administratively approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the 30 County Manager as provided in this section. Application for certificate to operate 31 shall be made on a form prepared by the County Manager. 32 33 a. Completeness review. 34 35 i. Within 30 days of receipt of a completed application, the County 36 Manager shall review the application for compliance with the 37 standards of LDC sections 3.06.12 and 3.06.13 hereof. 38 39 ii. If the application is found not to be in compliance, the County 40 Manager shall advise the owner/operator of the noted deficiencies 41 or required information by certified mail return receipt requested to 42 the address listed in the application. 43 44 iii. Within 30 days of the owner's/operator's receipt of the county's 45 notice, the owner/operator shall: 46 47 (a) Provide the requested information or provide written notice 48 to the County Manager of its intent to either furnish the 49 requested information; or 50 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 6 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 (b) Provide written notice to the County Manager of its intent to 2 have the application processed "as is" with the information 3 it then contains 4 5 b. Substantive review. 6 7 i. Upon a determination by the County Manager that the application 8 is complete, or upon receipt of written notice from the [sic] 9 owner/operator that the application should be processed as is, the 10 County Manager shall issue a determination of completeness and 11 provide a copy to the owner/operator by regular U.S. electronic 12 mail. 13 14 ii. Within 30 days of issuance of a determination of completeness, 15 the County Manager shall render a written evaluation of the 16 application in accordance with the standards of 17 sections 3.06.12 and 3.06.13 hereof and render a notice of intent 18 to issue or deny the application, a copy of which shall be sent to 19 the owner/operator by regular U.S. electronic mail. 20 21 iii. The owner/operator may appeal an adverse notice of intent to the 22 board as provided in LDC section 10.04.11, hereof. 23 24 iv. The certificate to operate will be issued or denied by the 25 department within 15 days of issuance of the notice of intent, 26 unless an appeal is taken as provided in section (iii) above 27 28 c. Extension of administrative review and withdrawal [of] application. 29 30 i. The County Manager may, in his sole discretion, extend the time 31 frame for administrative review set forth in LDC section 10.04.01 32 B.5.a. and LDC section 10.04.01 B.5.b. hereof or until the time 33 frames specified in F.S. 125.022 for the purposes of requesting and 34 receiving additional information necessary to complete the 35 substantive review of the application. 36 37 ii. If the owner/operator does not provide the information requested by 38 the County Manager or advises the county that the application is to 39 be processed "as is" within 45 days of such request, the application 40 shall be considered withdrawal [withdrawn] and fees paid shall be 41 surrendered. 42 43 iii. The owner/operator may voluntarily withdraw the application at any 44 time prior to the issuance of the County Manager's notice of intent 45 by submitting a written notice to the County Manager stating its 46 intent to withdraw. 47 48 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 49 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 50 51 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 7 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 10.04.03 - Applications Subject to Type II Review 1 2 The following applications are subject to Type II review: Conditional use Permits; Rezoning; LDC 3 Text Amendments; GMP Amendments; and sSmall-sScale dDevelopment Amendments. 4 For a graphic depiction of the review procedure, please see Illustration 10.04.03 A. 5 6 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 8 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Illustration 10.04.03 A. 2 3 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 4 5 10.08.00 CONDITIONAL USE PROCEDURES 6 7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 9 C. Application. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for a 10 conditional use application. 11 12 1. Conditional use application processing time. An application for a conditional use 13 will be considered "open," when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made 14 and the application is assigned a petition processing number. An application for a 15 conditional use will be considered "closed" when Once an application for a 16 conditional use has been determined to be complete, the application will remain 17 active until the applicant withdraws the subject application through written notice 18 or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise 19 actively pursue the conditional use, for a period of 6 six months or until the time 20 frames specified in F.S. 125.022. If a waiver of time limits is submitted and the 21 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 9 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or a response is not 1 received within six months, the project will be considered withdrawn. If there is no 2 waiver of time limits submitted, and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified 3 in F.S.125.022, the application will be considered denied. An application deemed 4 "closed" will not receive further processing and shall be withdrawn and an 5 application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. The Planning 6 and Zoning Department County Manager or designee will notify the applicant of 7 closure by certified mail, return receipt requested; however, failure to notify by the 8 County shall not eliminate the “closed” withdrawn or denied status of a petition. 9 Further review of the project will require a new application, and the appropriate 10 fees paid by the applicant. An application deemed "closed" may be re opened by 11 submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a 12 determination of "sufficiency." Further review of the request will be subject to the 13 then current LDC. 14 15 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 17 18 10.09.00 VARIANCE PROCEDURES 19 20 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21 22 I. Variance application processing time. An application for a variance will be considered 23 "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is 24 assigned a petition processing number. An application for a variance will be considered 25 "closed" when Once an application for a variance has been determined to be complete, 26 the application will remain active until the petitioner withdraws the subject application 27 through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing 28 or otherwise actively pursue the variance, for a period of 6 six months or until the time 29 frames specified in F.S. 125.022. If a waiver of time limits is submitted and the petitioner 30 withdraws the application through written notice or a response is not received within six 31 months, the project will be considered withdrawn. If there is no waiver of t ime limits 32 submitted, and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the 33 application will be considered denied. An application deemed "closed" will not receive 34 further processing and shall be withdrawn and an application "closed" through inactivity 35 shall be deemed withdrawn. The planning services department County Manager or 36 designee will notify the applicant of closure, however, failure to notify by the county shall 37 not eliminate the "closed" withdrawn or denied status of a petition. An application deemed 38 "closed" may be re-opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application 39 fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the request will be 40 subject to the then current code. Further review of the project will require a new application 41 and the appropriate fees paid by the applicant. 42 43 1. Applicability. All applications for a variance whether submitted before or 44 after June 26, 2003, shall comply with the processing time procedures set 45 forth in section I. above. 46 47 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 48 Exhibit A– Administrative Code Amendment DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 10 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 1 Chapter 4 | Administrative Procedures 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 I. Site Development Plan 6 7 I.1 Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) 8 9 Reference LDC sections 10.02.03 C. 10 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 13 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional 14 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC section 10.02.03 and 15 other provisions of the LDC. 16 17 Once submitted for review, the application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in 18 response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the 19 comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time or the applicant 20 exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, or withdraws the application through written 21 notice, the application review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the 22 project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time 23 limits submitted by the applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, 24 the application will be considered denied. 25 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 28 I.2. Site Development Plan (SDP) 29 30 Reference LDC sections 10.02.03. and other provisions of the LDC. 31 32 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 33 34 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials 35 are needed and approve, approve with conditions or deny the application utilizing the criteria 36 identified in the applicable LDC sections. 37 38 Once submitted for review, the application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in 39 response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the 40 comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time or the applicant 41 exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, or withdraws the application through written 42 notice, the application review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the 43 project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time 44 limits submitted by the applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, 45 the application will be considered denied. 46 47 Exhibit A– Administrative Code Amendment DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 11 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 I.3. Site Improvement Plan (SIP) 3 4 Reference LDC sections 10.02.03 E. and other provisions of the LDC. 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials 9 are needed and approve, approve with conditions or deny the application utilizing the criteria 10 identified in the applicable LDC sections. 11 12 Once submitted for review, the application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in 13 response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the 14 comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time or the applicant 15 exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, or withdraws the application through written 16 notice, the application review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the 17 project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time 18 limits submitted by the applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, 19 the application will be considered denied. 20 21 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 22 23 I.3.a. Immokalee Nonconforming Mobile Home Parks or Mobile Home Sites-Existing 24 Conditions Site Improvement Plan 25 26 Reference LDC sections 2.03.07 G.6. 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 30 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional materials 31 are needed and approve, approve with conditions or deny the application utilizing the criteria 32 identified in the applicable LDC sections. 33 34 Once submitted for review, the application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in 35 response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the 36 comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time or the applicant 37 exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, or withdraws the application through written 38 notice, the application review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the 39 project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time 40 limits submitted by the applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, 41 the application will be considered denied. 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 45 46 Collier County Land Development Code | Administrative Procedures Manual 47 Exhibit A– Administrative Code Amendment DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 12 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx Chapter 5 | Subdivision Procedures 1 2 D. Construction Plan and Final Subdivision Plat (PPL) 3 4 D.1. Construction Plan and Final Subdivision Plat - Standard 5 6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 8 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional 9 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 10 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. 11 12 Once submitted for review, the construction plans and final subdivision plat application will remain 13 under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received 14 within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is 15 not received within this time or the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the 16 application will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require 17 a new application together with appropriate fees. . If there is no waiver of time limits submitted 18 by the applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application 19 will be considered denied. 20 21 The County Manager or designee will provide a recommendation to the Board of County 22 Commissioners to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final subdivision plat. 23 24 For applicants requesting building permits before plat recording, the county will stamp the final 25 plat as “Preliminary Plat for Building Permit Issuance” after Board approval of the plat and receipt 26 of the fully executed construction and maintenance agreement and performance security after 27 County Attorney approval 28 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 30 31 D.2. Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plat Amendment (PPLA) 32 33 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 34 35 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional 36 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 37 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. 38 39 Once submitted for review, the construction plans and final subdivision plat amendment 40 application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's 41 comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the 42 applicant. If a response is not received within this time or the applicant exceeds the time limits 43 specified in F.S.125.022, the application will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further 44 review of the project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. If there is no 45 waiver of time limits submitted by the applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified 46 in F.S.125.022, the application will be considered denied. 47 48 Exhibit A– Administrative Code Amendment DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 13 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx The County Manager or designee will provide a recommendation to the Board of County 1 Commissioners to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final subdivision plat. 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 D.3. Final Subdivision Plat- For Townhouse Fee Simple Development 6 7 Reference LDC sections 10.02.04.B and 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional 12 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 B and 13 10.02.04 C and other provisions of the LDC. 14 15 Once submitted for review, the townhouse construction plans and final subdivision plat application 16 will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is 17 received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a 18 response is not received within this time or the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in 19 F.S.125.022, or withdraws the application through written notice, the application review will be 20 considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application 21 together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time limits submitted by the applicant and 22 the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application will be considered 23 denied. 24 25 The County Manager or designee will provide a recommendation to the Board of County 26 Commissioners to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final subdivision plat. 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 30 E. Construction Plans (CNSTR) 31 32 E.1. Construction Plans - Standard 33 34 Reference LDC sections 10.02.04 E. 35 36 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 37 38 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional 39 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC section 10.02.04 E and 40 shall approve or deny the application. 41 42 Once submitted for review, the construction plans application will remain under review so long as 43 a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date 44 on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this time 45 or the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application for review will be 46 considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application 47 together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time limits submitted by the applicant and 48 Exhibit A– Administrative Code Amendment DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 14 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application will be considered 1 denied. 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 E.2. Insubstantial Change to Construction Plans – (ICP) 6 7 Reference LDC sections 10.02.04 B.5 and 10.02.05 A.5 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application and identify whether additional 12 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with LDC sections 10.02.04 and 13 10.02.05 and any other applicable LDC sections. 14 15 Once submitted for review, the insubstantial change application will remain under review so long 16 as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the 17 date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within this 18 time or the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application for review 19 will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new 20 application together with appropriate fees. If there is no waiver of time limits submitted by the 21 applicant and the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application will be 22 considered denied. 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 26 F. Minor Final Subdivision Plat (FP) 27 28 Reference LDC section 10.02.04 D. 29 30 * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 32 Review Process The Development Review Division will review the application, identify whether additional 33 materials are needed and review the application for compliance with and shall approve, approve 34 with conditions, or deny the minor final subdivision plat. 35 36 Once submitted for review, the minor final subdivision plat application will remain under review 37 so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days 38 of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant. If a response is not received within 39 this time or until the time frames specified in F.S.125.022, the application for review will be 40 considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application 41 together with appropriate fees. . If there is no waiver of time limits submitted by the applicant and 42 the applicant exceeds the time limits specified in F.S.125.022, the application will be considered 43 denied. 44 45 The County Manager or designee will provide a recommendation to the BCC to approve, approve 46 with conditions, or deny the minor final subdivision plat. 47 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 48 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 49 Exhibit C – Processing Time Frames DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 15 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx REV. 9/19/2025 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 16 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 17 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 18 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 19 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 20 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 21 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 22 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 23 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 24 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit B– F.S. Chapter 2025-1777 DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 25 J:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC\2025\Oct 01\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx 1 Exhibit C – Processing Time Frames DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 26 J:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Development Order Process and Timeframes (PL20250010243)\PL20250010243 Development Order Process and Timeframes LDCA 9-17-25 DSAC.docx REV. 9/29/2025 1