Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/16/2025October 16, 2025 Page 1 of 35 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 16, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Joe Schmitt, Chairman Chuck Schumacher, Vice Chairman Randy Sparrazza Michelle L. McLeod Charles "Chap" Colucci Amy Lockhart, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Paul Shea, Secretary Michael Petscher ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Courtney DeSilva, County Attorney's Office Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I James Sabo, Planner III October 16, 2025 Page 2 of 35 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Could I have your attention, please. We'll start the meeting. Welcome to the October 16th, 2025, Collier County Planning Commission. I ask that we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. We'll -- Commissioner Shea is absent, so I'll just go through the roll. Commissioner Schmitt is here. Commissioner Schumacher? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Shea is excused absence. Commissioner Sparrazza? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Colucci? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner McLeod? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And Commissioner Petscher is absent, excused absence. And Amy Lockhart, excuse me, representing Collier County Schools. MS. LOCKHART: Here. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Excellent. All right. With that, we do have a quorum, and we will proceed. Ray, are there any agenda to the -- addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No changes. All right. The next meeting is November 6th, 9 a.m. Are there any commissioners going to be absent from that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We're all here. We should have a quorum. And then there is a meeting on November 20th. I will miss that meeting, so, Chuck, you're going to have to lasso the crew. It looks like a fairly -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As of now, we have four petitions. There may be a fifth petition. But there's three projects, one GMP, PUD, and then two other petitions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: On the 20th? MR. BOSI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: What's it look like on the 6th? MR. BOSI: On the 6th, we have five petitions with one -- four projects, five petitions. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Okay. We'll proceed to the approval of minutes of September 18th, 2025, minutes. Do I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: So motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: A second? October 16, 2025 Page 3 of 35 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No amendments, so it passes, and approved. Ray, BCC reports? I imagine we're going to start first with the rather calm and mundane meeting on Tuesday. MR. BELLOWS: It may have been the most watched BCC meeting. On Tuesday, the Board heard the automobile service station waiver and PDI pertaining to Costco. That was approved 5-0 for both petitions. Also the Paradise Club rezone and conditional use was approved on the regular agenda, and on the summary agenda was the Magnolia Pond PUD amendment. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, just to give the Planning Commission awareness, at the end of the meeting, Commissioner McDaniel and staff were -- and the Board of County Commissioners agreed, gave them the head nod, for staff to package the history of the distance waiver, put together why it was put together, how many times it's been requested, and then evaluate -- provide an evaluation as to whether that distance waiver for gas stations, the 500 feet from gas station to gas station, is still a valid concern and should we still maintain that distance waiver for the evaluation. Obviously, that will start with our LDC team putting that package together. We'll go talk -- we'll go speak with the DSAC, DSAC subcommittee, then bring it to the Planning Commission for your guys' review and recommendation, and then ultimately take it to the Board of County Commissioners to see how they want to move forward with that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But during the meeting, which I watched out of sheer penance, I guess, maybe it was -- I don't know what it was -- you did give a pretty good explanation as to the start of it. Wasn't it -- was it Ridge Road -- MR. BOSI: Pine Ridge Road in 19 -- it was adopted in 1998. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: And there were some gas stations near the interstate at Pine Ridge Road, and that was the concern about gas stations in close proximity and the ingress/egress, backing into the right-of-way, safety concerns such as that. Traffic -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It was pretty much at the four corners -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- of trying to prevent this -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- you know, proliferation of gas stations. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, obviously, we'll see where this goes after -- the citizens who voiced great opposition, I don't know if they're going to -- they claim they're going to proceed with legal. MR. BOSI: They have 30 days from the date on Tuesday to file an appeal, and if October 16, 2025 Page 4 of 35 they file an appeal, we'll go through the process, and we'll see where it goes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I look forward to being deposed. And it also was discussed at the meeting, and it was the site on Pine Ridge Road, that the Board approved the 105 units, but it's clear from my colleagues up here that still is going to come through us, because it has to still go through the rezoning process. It's not a Live Local project. It will have to go through the rezoning. MR. BELLOWS: It's not a Live Local project where it has exempted itself from the public-hearing process. It's a 120 -- Statute 125, which is a portion of the Live Local, but it's the paragraph before the Live Local. It was Live Local before Live Local became an adopted statute. In 2021, I believe it was, the statutes were changed that said the Board of County Commissioners can approve any project if it has a minimum of 10 percent of affordable housing, and that was one of the starts that -- really kind of the incubus [sic] that started the moment -- or the movement for Live Local a couple years later, but it was adopted in 2021. But it has to go -- it has to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So because of that, the applicant has agreed he will go through the process. That means going to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners. So you guys eventually will get your review of that, and they had provided up to 105 units as what would be allowed by the Board's approval. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But for clarity on that, the Board did not approve the project. They actually approved for the funding to proceed. MR. BOSI: For the funding, for them to seek the financing. And if the financing is not -- doesn't -- if they don't win the financing, then the project's going to die before it even gets to you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. Okay. Okay. With that, I have nothing from the -- as far as the chairman's report, so we'll -- and there's nothing on the consent agenda. ***We'll proceed with the first public hearing. These are 9A and 9B. 9A, 20220002063, which is the Greenway Fritchey Residential Overlay GMPA. This is an adoption. We've already heard this in transmittal, so it's on adoption, and the -- accompanying that is 9B, 20220002061, which is the Greenway Fritchey PUD. So with that, I ask for any disclosures. Amy. MS. LOCKHART: None. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich, and, of course, have the documents from the transmittal as well. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials, and I spoke with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. With that, any persons wishing to speak on this matter, please rise to be sworn in. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Put those hands up. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With that, I turn it over to the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning October 16, 2025 Page 5 of 35 Commission, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. I noticed nobody in the audience stood up other than my team. Is there anybody on Zoom registered to speak on this matter? MR. SABO: (Shakes head.) MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason I ask that, because you have all heard this one time before. So if it's acceptable to you-all, we'll just do a brief overview since you've heard this before. But obviously, the entire team, as you can see on the visualizer, is the -- is here: David Torres, Lisa Lefkow, Mike Solorzano. Taylor Whitcomb is here. I'm here. Mr. Mulhere, our planner, is here. Norm Trebilcock, our traffic consultant, is here. Is Emilio -- Matt's here, okay. I'm sorry. Matthew DeFrancesco, our civil engineer, is here. Our other planner, Jeremie Chastain, is here, and Ramsey Fisher, our environmental consultant with Passarella. They're all part of the team. They're all here. This -- this is the property in question. It is 227.09 acres which is off of Greenway. Greenway intersects with U.S. 41, so this is -- this is north of U.S. 41, and Greenway is over here. It's kind of small. And then Fritchey is the other road that will be updated as part of this process and will provide access to one of the parcels. As you're aware, this is a two-part request. You heard at transmittal the Growth Management Plan amendment, which would allow for the project to move forward. As you will recall, these lands are in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. They're designated Receiving Lands; therefore, development is supposed to occur on these properties. Under the Growth Management Plan, there's the opportunity to request up to 12.2 units per acre if you provide affordable housing. Our request is for 5.72 units per acre for a total of 1,299 residential dwelling units on the property, and 20 percent of which, which is 260 dwelling units, will be built by Habitat for Humanity, and they will serve the 80-percent-or-below median income. And then we also have an amendment pertaining to littoral plantings within the lakes to consolidate those littoral plantings. All of that you heard as part of the first round of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We've received no comments from the State regarding the Comp Plan amendments. And what you're here today to do is make a recommendation as to whether or not to adopt the Growth Management Plan amendment or whether -- and whether or not to approve the -- the proposed PUD. As Bob will briefly take you through the master plan, there are two tracts. One tract will be the market-rate tract developed by Mr. Torres and his companies, and the other tract is owned by Habitat for Humanity. And we had a lot of discussion about how those two tracts would work together at the transmittal hearing. As I've already said, this property is the green property. It's in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and is Receiving Lands, which would allow for the increased density we're requesting, and it's also adjacent to the urban area, which also allows for higher-density projects. You're familiar with the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and how that process came about many, many years ago, and I've already gone through this slide regarding the increase that's allowed under the affordable housing density bonus request. Under your Land Development Code table, we could have asked for up to 60 units per acre. We're actually asking for slightly below that number. So we're even consistent with the table that's in the Land Development Code. And I believe that did finally -- the table finally did get adopted. October 16, 2025 Page 6 of 35 Am I correct, Mike? MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: And with that, the zoning, again, is ag, Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Overlay Receiving Lands, and what we're asking for is, assuming the Comp Plan amendment is approved, is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and is actually consistent with the spirit of the Growth Management Plan, as we've talked today, and consistent with the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District provisions as we move forward today. With that, I'm just going to ask Bob to briefly go over the master plan, and then we'll -- we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding the project. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere. The master plan is depicted on your screen, and you can see that we have a preserve right here. We have access right here from Greenway, and then Fritchey is right here. Fritchey will be improved, and, of course, there's access here from Fritchey. These are the R2 tracts. These are the R1 tracts. We meet all of the other requirements that are prescribed in the -- meet or exceed, in many cases, exceed all of the other requirements that are described in the Land Development Code related to buffers and open space and native vegetation preservation. This is a cross-section of both the existing and proposed Fritchey Road section. You can see on -- on the higher -- right here is the existing condition. Right here is the proposed condition. We'll be adding, basically, four foot of additional pavement, and so that will be a 24-foot typical paved cross-section now, safer, wider, and then providing 16-foot of right-of-way with a 5-foot sidewalk. So that will be -- and, of course, there's a 20-foot landscape buffer there. So that will be significantly improved. Traffic generation, total p.m. peak hour two-way traffic is 861, so there will be a traffic peak amount in -- there is, in the PUD, a trip cap. And I mentioned that staff recommends adoption of the GMP as well as the RPUD with conditions, and you recommended approval at the initial transmittal hearing. This is now what they call the adoption hearing. If you have any questions -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Randy. MR. MULHERE: -- we're here to answer them. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Thank you. Not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I forgot to mention one thing, if I could. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's going to be a companion developer agreement that goes to the Board of County Commissioners to address the intersection improvements at Greenway and U.S. 41, and there's already a condition that we're limited to how many units we could have before the intersection's actually improved. But there's going to be a developer agreement in place that puts the financial burden on this project to upgrade, add additional turn lanes that will be necessary in Greenway -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is that language identified in the ordinance, or is it just the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a reference to the developer agreement as one of the -- as one of the conditions in the PUD. Are you putting it up? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that's negotiated, the cost of any intersection improvements, to include the installation of the traffic light. October 16, 2025 Page 7 of 35 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the traffic signal is already there, and it's already addressing what's already been approved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will be -- we will not have to make any changes to the traffic signal, but we'll need to make changes to turn lanes in 41, turn lanes in Greenway. I take that back. We won't have to make any changes to the mast arms related to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the traffic signals. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But is there a developer's contribution towards the cost of the installation of the traffic signal as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, apparently -- I'm being corrected. We are going to change one of the master arms, so that will be at our expense, obviously. But, Commissioner Schmitt, I don't believe there's a reimbursement tied to what's already being done, because that's being done for projects that already exist. This project's not the cause of why those -- the traffic signal's going in. It will be the cause as to why that intersection is modified, and we will pay 100 percent of those expenses. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You stated that you're going to do a modification to one of the mast arms -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we pay 100 percent of that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and at your cost. MR. YOVANOVICH: At our cost. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And we discussed this on the phone, but I thought during the transmittal there was a commitment to provide a fair-share contribution towards the -- towards the installation of the traffic signal as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't recall that, but I'm not going to say -- if there's something in the minutes where we said we were paying our fair share toward that traffic -- the existing traffic signal, I need to see that. I know we did that for a different project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, we did for the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I remember doing that for a different project. I don't remember talking about it for this project. But again, if we did, then, you know, we said what -- we said what we said. If we said that, then we'll have to deal with that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll defer and wait for staff, because I'll ask Mike Sawyer. I thought there was a County commitment of some sort towards -- all the developments that are going to be favorably impacted by the installation of that light, were going to contribute to the cost of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, you know, all of the developments in the area are going to be favorably impacted by the upgrades that we're doing, and we're not asking anybody to come and help us pay for the upgrades. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Randy? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: He just answered the question regarding the intersection and improvements, lanes, and traffic lights, so thank you, Rich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: And I don't believe there was a specific commitment related to the -- to the signalization. There was questions about the signalization and a developer's contribution agreement, but because we only had the -- or the GMP amendment, we were October 16, 2025 Page 8 of 35 only at transmittal. We said when we get -- when we come back for adoption, when we have the PUD language, specifically, we can discuss the specifics of the developer's contribution agreement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, in the effort of full disclosure, feet -- I'm on CDD1 in Fiddler's Creek. We did not install that traffic signal. That was CDD2, but we paid for half of that signal. There was no county funds that paid for that signalization of that -- putting up that traffic signal. It was all -- it was a 7-Eleven. There's the additional project that went in, and Fiddler's Creek. The additional project has not paid anything. We're -- they're still going through the, I guess, the determination of what contribution would come from the 7-Eleven, but the residents of Fiddler's Creek paid 100 percent of the cost of that installation of that traffic signal. Whether -- you know, for -- and there were -- there was the -- part of that, of course, included the shopping center -- the shopping center at the corner of U.S. 41 and Sandpiper. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I just was trying to figure out were there any other folks that are going to contribute to that. I thought during transmittal -- we had a speaker from CDD2 come to that, Mr. Miller, did he not? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that he came to that one. I remember him attending for the Jay House project, which was the one adjacent to the 7-Eleven. I don't remember him -- again, if he did, you know, a -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Mr. Miller is the Chair of the CDD2. They're the ones that contracted for and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And Norm knows the whole history of it, because he was the traffic engineer for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. And, you know, I've done I don't know how many projects now, and I can't tell you how many times my client has paid for traffic signals 100 percent because it was a commitment that they made, and they didn't get -- they didn't get any assistance from anybody else who benefited from that signal. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. The only other question I have, since I've got the floor -- are you done, Mike? MR. BOSI: No. Just one comment on the highlighted language that you see, staff -- I just recognized that after "Greenway Road," we don't need to say "ass." We can say "as." We need to drop an S. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. The issuance of the 1,000th certificate. So there's no contribution until they have a thousand? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't -- we don't have to build the much larger intersection until we hit 1,000 units. And we worked this through with your Transportation staff, and they thought that was the appropriate timing for that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is that build or have complete by the time you have 1,000 COs? MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, "Design, permit, and construct operational improvements." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: In regards to the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So we can't get the -- we can't get beyond 1,000 until the intersection improvements are completed and accepted. October 16, 2025 Page 9 of 35 COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Are completed. That's how I -- okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: On the two questions, one, you put up the -- Bob put up the overlay for the work that was going to be done on Fritchey Road. Is it -- is it an entire resurfacing of the road or just adding the four feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's being brought up to County standards. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's the question. Sawyer -- Mike Sawyer, again, staff, I'm going to ask that it be brought up to county standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's not simply just adding the additional width. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The second is you had offsite mitigation. Can you put on the public record showing where that offsite mitigation is so that's clear in the record? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And I misspoke. Bethany Brosious is here from Passarella, so I'll let Bethany address the environmental. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MS. BROSIOUS: Good morning. For the record, Bethany Brosious with Passidomo & Associates. We do have about an 126-acre offsite mitigation parcel that is surrounded by the Picayune Strand State Forest. It's on the north side of Sabal Palm Road and, like I said, kind of is a missing puzzle piece within the Picayune State Forest where we're completely surrounded. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And that's gone through U.S. Fish and Wildlife approval? Was that through a Section 7 consultation to the 404 process, or was that just simply -- was a purchase for mitigation of wetlands and panther? Or give me the background on how you guys came about both the acreage and the agreements with the federal and state agencies in regards to the acceptance of this. And who's going to manage it, or is it going to be turned over to the State? MS. BROSIOUS: Sure. So as of right now, we have a South Florida Water Management District permit for the project. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MS. BROSIOUS: And this property provides the wetland mitigation for the wetland impacts associated with the project. On the federal side, we're currently in the Section 7 consultation process and are addressing comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This property will provide federal compensatory wetland mitigation, and it will also provide panther habitat compensation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I would assume it would. So that's a good move, yeah. So it reduces your requirements for MHUs. MS. BROSIOUS: It does. It will meet our requirements for MHUs. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It will meet it? MS. BROSIOUS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, wow. Super. MS. BROSIOUS: And then as far as management, the landowner will be required to management -- excuse me -- manage it for the five-year monitoring period, and then at some point in the future, we may seek turning it over to Picayune Strand State Forest. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is it -- any restoration, exotic removal, all that going to be taken care or by the -- as part of this mitigation? October 16, 2025 Page 10 of 35 MS. BROSIOUS: Oh, yes, by the applicants. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: By the applicant. MS. BROSIOUS: So we'll be removing exotic vegetation. We'll be installing supplemental plantings where needed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Good. Any questions on that? Do you have a location so my colleagues could see it? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know it was in the packet, but I just want to make sure they understand where this mitigation is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmitt, I don't have something easily accessible -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's all right. I know where it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to show the location. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It's north. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: North of Sabal Palm. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's by Sabal Palm Road, right? MS. BROSIOUS: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: How far -- how far east? MS. BROSIOUS: Two and a half miles. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we just had a petition on Sabal Palm, so it's a little -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm having posttraumatic stress over that, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: A little bit further east of that -- of that piece of property. MS. BROSIOUS: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That was -- all right. Anything else? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's everything we have. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, with that, staff? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. We have reviewed, obviously, the comments from the State related to -- which were minimal, related to the transmittal hearing here at the adoption hearing. We have reviewed the planning -- or the PUD for consistency with the proposed GMP amendment. Overall compatibility with the land, we think, is -- is provided for. The, you know, advent of the number of 260 affordable housing units for sale, we think, is a significant contribution to the need for the -- within the community. And we'll note there are seven deviations that are being requested. Staff is in support of them. If you have any questions, the applicant could probably provide a little more specific detail for the justifications. But with that, staff is recommending approval of both the GMP and the PUD. And we do have members of our Environmental staff as well as Transportation Planning staff if you have any questions related. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm going to have Transportation come up. But before that, Bob, do you have a -- obviously, my colleagues have no questions about the minimum yard requirements and the minimum lot area. Do you have a -- MR. MULHERE: Table? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- display to show that, or is it just -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Just curious. So that's on the record as well. I mean, this is fairly typical, but it is -- October 16, 2025 Page 11 of 35 MR. MULHERE: It is. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, it is fairly typical, and these -- this product, the lot widths and other dimensions are actually being constructed elsewhere, you know, in the County. So there's nothing that's, you know, land breaking here, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Anybody have any questions on the deviations? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay, good. Mr. Sawyer, if I could ask you to comment, since -- we'll go back to staff. In regards to the improvements to Fritchey Road, the County will review all plans, and as far as the reconstruction, it will be built to county standards? MR. SAWYER: Yes. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. Yes, it will be. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But this is -- this is not curbs and a full -- what I would call county standards, curbing and drainage. This is pretty much rural type of -- MR. SAWYER: You're correct. It's going to be more open swales, more of a rural cross-section. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: In regards to my questions in the intersection improvements, there were several projects that impacted that intersection, primarily at Greenway Road, the right-in, right-out, decel lanes, all those. I'm trying to figure out who are the contributing entities now for all the intersection improvements that are going to take place, primarily on the Greenway side. MR. SAWYER: Correct. For clarification, any time we've got projects that are impacting intersections, they're responsible for taking care of those improvements. In particular with Greenway Fritchey, our concern was because their traffic is definitely impacting Greenway was on the Greenway portion of it. The question of the signal is, quite honestly, one of timing. Once the determination was made that the signal was warranted, at that point it will be considered a required improvement. And according to State statute, any development coming in after that point, once it's determined that that is a required improvement, they are able to take advantage of that improvement. So that once we had the warrants, the time clock starts as far as getting that improvement made by whoever is responsible for that improvement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. SAWYER: Most of the time, quite honestly, it's the County that winds up being responsible for those improvements if we're improving a roadway section. If it's in the five-year work program, then any development that's impacting it, they take advantage of those improvements. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the County -- as far as the installation, the County funds -- county taxpayers didn't pay for that, correct? MR. SAWYER: Not in this case, no, you're correct. That was 100 percent on Fiddler's Creek. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Fiddler's Creek, okay. All right. Any questions? They just benefit from it. MR. SAWYER: They do, in fact. It's not always what we perceive as necessarily being fair. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) October 16, 2025 Page 12 of 35 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll ask the members of CDD2 to stand at the corner with a cup and say, "Please contribute," then say, "Thank you." MR. SAWYER: Wherever I can, I try and get whatever we can. And quite honestly, in this particular case, the improvements that are going to be made at that intersection on Greenway are really, really critical. We've got an offset intersection -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: -- and that's the bad side. And so it's really critical that we, in fact, get those improvements made. It requires additional right-of-way being acquired in order to get the additional turn lanes. There is some additional -- there's some additional improvements in that whole intersection on that north side that are also impacting the convenience store as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But now they are going to go in, "they" being the developer, and they're going to take down a mast arm that has already been installed and paid for. But now they're just going to incur the cost. What do we do with the mast arm? Is that the County's? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: EBay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: EBay? MR. SAWYER: That would be a resource for whoever is paying for the -- for the signal, so... CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. MR. SAWYER: It would be similar to whenever we actually take down mast arms and replace them. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But that's all coordinated through the -- through the County, then? MR. SAWYER: Correct. As far as from an inspection standpoint, definitely, and FDOT. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And FDOT, of course, because it's a State and a U.S. road as well. It's not a county road. MR. SAWYER: 100 percent, 100 percent. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. Any other questions? Yes. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As we spoke yesterday during our briefing, Joe, we had received a letter from Mr. John Straith -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- Strathman of 14600 Fritchey Road at the southeast corner of Greenway Fritchey -- or Greenway and Fritchey Road. He had asked about the -- overall, the impact of the projects related to the stormwater flow for the general area. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BOSI: We have -- I coordinated with Ms. Cook, and she said she's going to have her staff reach out to Mr. Strathman and talk about how the process works, what the requirement is for the project, and how they're required to treat the water on their site and discharge to the appropriate location. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah, that email was in our packet. MR. BOSI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It wasn't a letter of objection. It was just a matter of, please, somebody inform -- October 16, 2025 Page 13 of 35 MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- me as to the impact, and I defer to county staff to do that. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So thank you. MR. BOSI: I just wanted to let you know that we definitely are actively reaching out to Mr. Strathman. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. With that, do we have any public speakers? MR. SABO: No public speakers, Chairman. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Wow. With that, I close the public hearing. I turn it -- open it for discussion with my colleagues. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any motion? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I hear any second? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second from Mr. Colucci. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Both items, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Both items. That's both 9A and 9B. This did not require EAC approval. Go ahead, please. MR. BOSI: And we can remove the "s," right? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: With the removal of the "s." MR. YOVANOVICH: I object. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, we will remove that. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I object. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I question it, but we will do it. And with that, a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: No opposition. It passes unanimously. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'll leave it up to my colleagues in Fiddler's Creek if they want to pursue any funding. I'm paying -- I'm paying for it. But we didn't put the signal in. We're just paying for it. ***All right. With that, we'll proceed to the next item, which is 9C, PL20240003054, with -- it's the Stewart Materials Expansion Conditional Use. And this property does require the approval of the -- us sitting as the EAC. So with that, I turn it over -- are there any disclosures from my colleagues? MS. LOCKHART: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: No disclosures. October 16, 2025 Page 14 of 35 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about this as well. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Except for Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: You spoke to him, yes? COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For the record. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Michelle? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Staff materials and spoke with Rich. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Any persons wishing to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. COPPER: Good morning, everyone. My name is Brandon Copper with Davidson Engineering. I do want to start off by giving you the opportunity to -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Is that speaker on? It's not -- okay. MR. COPPER: Better? MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe he's too tall. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, I think so. MR. COPPER: A little bit better. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: There. There you go. MR. COPPER: Thank you. Brandon Cooper with Davidson Engineering. I want to start off by thanking you for being here today and also give you the opportunity to maybe get a SparkNotes version of this. I assume you read the staff packet. Presumably, this is pretty straightforward. If we have no comment from the public, and with respect to everyone's time, I would just kind of like to just breeze through this, if that's all right. Sound good? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. COPPER: All right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Proceed. MR. COPPER: We have a full design team here represented by myself, Mr. Rich Yovanovich, Lisa Daugherty, and the Stewart Materials team. The project's located north of Immokalee, west of State Road 29, south of State Road 82 in Collier County. A little bit of history about the site. In the red you see the existing mine site. That was entitled originally in 2003 for about 200 plus or minus acres. That was further expanded in 2021 to encompass the 450 acres, and we are here today to incorporate the almost 40 acres to the east into that conditional-use boundary to allow for mining-related activities. Taking a look at our Master Concept Plan, essentially where the mine site is currently, or the processing facility is currently, is kind of in the center of the lake. I'm sorry. Let me go back. You can see that large area with the equipment arm. There's really high-quality material underneath that equipment currently, and the reason for this expansion is to relocate that processing facility to the east, and that way they can get to that material underneath where it is currently. October 16, 2025 Page 15 of 35 The equipment processing area is going to be about nine acres of that 40 acres. Another nine acres is designated for the storage of that excavated material. And we have accommodated a stormwater management area that exceeds both South Florida Water Management District and Collier County standards. Main access is off of Edward Grove Road. We are providing code minimum required landscaping around the entire perimeter of the development as well as a 50-foot preserve to the south that exceeds the County's required preserve. And as a part of a previous commitment by the developer, they are reserving 200 feet for a future right-of-way of the Little League road extension to the south. In front of you now are some conditions of approval. We have 17 in total. I'm not going to read them all to you. Just know that we worked closely with staff to maintain the previous conditions of approval and even added a couple more. Most of these pertain to maintaining Edwards Grove Road, trip caps, as well as hours of operation. In conclusion, we're not requesting to excavate any more material out of the site. That's fully entitled already. There's no anticipated increase of traffic. No changes to the hours of operation. No impacts to native habitat. And there are no threatened or endangered species on site. With that, I'll turn it over to you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see no questions from -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead, Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: This additional parcel of sand that you're going to have access to, or may have access to, how many years of this sand distribution is projected for this 40 acres? MR. COPPER: So we're not mining that 40 acres. Does that answer -- or is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. MR. COPPER: Okay. So if we go back to that -- our Master Concept Plan. Oh, to mine the additional materials, yeah. Can we speak on that, maybe, from -- somebody from the Stewart team? At most 10 years. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So you're taking this parcel, and you're -- I assumed that it was going to be mined for this sand. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. And so you're projecting this additional area to provide about 10 more years of sand to those who want to buy it? And I know there's a contract with the County that has -- for sand and then others, too, other counties, perhaps, other vendors, whatever. So what happens after this? So after the 10 years, what's -- what's the plan? Is there another parcel that you-all would be looking at? MR. COPPER: Well, there's a plan of reclamation to restore the site once they fully mine it, so that's when that would be enacted. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- are you asking where are they going next to mine sand? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right, exactly. October 16, 2025 Page 16 of 35 MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'll just give you a brief -- so I was on the City Council and TDC, and there was -- back then we were dredging the sand, and then it became so costly that we started hauling in the sand. And then there was this thought we would run out of sand eventually. And so my thought is, okay, so this is going to help us provide some additional future years of, like, beach renourishments and things like that. What happens after that? Is there -- do we find more land -- will we run out? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think to answer your question, right now we don't have an identified source or an identified parcel to go mine additional sand. I'm sure we'll look for that, but we don't have one right now. So the answer to your question is, unless there's additional sources found in Collier County, you'll have to import it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah, okay. Yeah, it's just like, yeah, what does the future look like along these lines? I do -- in talking to the County, I understand that we're doing some exploratory studies as to whether the sand that has been maybe washed out into the Gulf of Mexico -- or Gulf of America, if that is viable for beach so I guess that's, like, a possibility down the road in looking at that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- just so I don't go too far off track, eventually you're going to have to find other sources. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: This gets us more sand more immediately. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think that's one of the -- I think that's a critical benefit of why we're here, and we're asking for this additional area because I think sand is obviously a very important resource to not only Collier County but others. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Agreed. And that's one of the reasons why I brought this up so that we would realize how important this kind of measure is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. COPPER: Anyone else? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I see no other questions from my colleagues. Anything -- anything more from the petitioner? MR. COPPER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Before I turn it over to staff, at this time -- I'll ask at this time, do we have any public speakers? MR. SABO: There are two registered public speakers. One of them is up at the podium. I'm not sure what -- when they want to speak. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're our team. It's our team. It's my team. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Your team. No one -- no one other than the team here to speak, then? MR. SABO: No, there is not. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Staff, please. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The petition has been reviewed by our Environmental staff, by our Engineering staff, as well as our Transportation staff. We are recommending approval. We have October 16, 2025 Page 17 of 35 updated the conditions of approval as appropriate for the -- for the additional time frame as well as activity. But staff is available for any questions. We are supporting the -- we are supporting the petition and recognize you will have to take an action as the EAC as well. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: If I could ask Jaime, please, to come up, Ms. Jaime Cook. Only from the staff perspective -- because we had this at the last petition recently with the mining. But for the record -- because some of my colleagues were not here for that petition -- just state for the record how staff will monitor this to ensure that all stipulations are adhered to in regards to the operation and the mining and the trucks and vehicles on the road. So if you would kind of highlight that, between the Engineering staff and the Environmental staff, how they monitor this to make sure they stay in compliance, please. MS. COOK: Sure. Jaime Cook, director of Development Review, for the record. So once -- if this petition were to be approved, once they move forward with their site plan and any associated permits, the engineering inspections team does do monthly inspections -- spot inspections that are unannounced to the site. They ensure that soil and erosion control is being met, that there's no offsite tracking of dirt or fill off the site onto the County roads. If there are issues, they work with the property owner and the developer to get them cleaned up or silt fence reinstalled, things like that. If the -- if the owner does not comply, they are shut down for a period of time until they do comply. But those monthly inspections occur for the life of the mine. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And considering this is sand, I'm pretty -- it's pretty obvious to me, at least I think, that this is mostly dragline and excavation. It is not -- there's not any blasting. But if there were blasting, they would then have to come back to the County to apply for blasting applications through both the County and, I guess, the State as well, correct? MS. COOK: Correct. The blasters themselves are licensed by the State. The County does issue site-specific blasting permits for any excavation. When blasting occurs, an inspector is on site during the blast. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. MS. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And with that, no other public speakers. I close the public hearing. I open it up to my colleagues for a discussion. Anybody? Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And a second? COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Second from Michelle. All in favor, say aye. Oh, we are voting for both the petition and as the EAC, the sitting body of the EAC. So there's a motion and a second for us acting as the Planning Commission and as the EAC. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. October 16, 2025 Page 18 of 35 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It passes unanimously. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And I guess before we get started on the next one, why don't we just take a break then, and we can converge on the next one. So we'll take a 10-minute break. (A recess was had from 9:48 a.m. to 9:59 a.m.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. We'll proceed to the next item. Note that the next -- these next items are strictly legislative in nature, so there's no disclosure required or no oath required. ***So we'll proceed to 9D, which says PL20250006145. This has to -- it's an LDC amendment discussing the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. We had a great opportunity to address this in the past, and now it's back to us fine-tuned and -- MR. JOHNSON: We're back. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- ready for us to discuss again. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, for the record, LDC -- Eric Johnson, LDC planning manager. This amendment may look familiar because a different iteration came before you last year. Just to give you some context about the removal of exotic vegetation requirements and where we have and where we think we're going. The first street protection ordinance that came into the County was adopted in the early 1970s. In 1979, the County required the removal of exotics on properties except for those with agricultural purposes or ones that are zoned and platted for single-family residential homes. In 2004, the County required removal of exotics prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for single-family homes. A year later, we excluded tents, awnings, cabanas, utility storage sheds, and screen enclosures. Now, fast forward to 2023, there was a Board of County Commissioner hearing. Commissioner Hall asked the staff to update the LDC as it pertains to the removal of exotic vegetation. So the reason why it looks familiar is because we did bring forward to you a different iteration which proposed to exempt new structures and additions on Estates-zoned lots from being required to remove exotics within what they call -- what we county-approved cleared areas plus seven and a half feet around the perimeter of the property. We worked on that, went back to the drawing board, changed the language a little bit. And as you know, with all LDC amendments, we go through a process where staff generates a draft, we bring that draft before the DSAC subcommittee, the DSAC, the Collier County Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners. So we did that, and we have the proposal here for you today. I'll bring it up on the screen. This is the legal ad for it. Okay. So like before, it would be a change to LDC Section 3.05.08. And what we're aspiring to do is single out the Estates zoning district for any Estates-zoned -- October 16, 2025 Page 19 of 35 Estates-zoned lot that have been issued a certificate of occupancy, and that being when you -- when you go in for your initial permit for your house, you're required to clear off the entire lot of exotics -- of exotics, okay. So we are stipulating that if you have a CO, the applicant shall only be responsible for removing prohibited exotic vegetation within 30 feet of the addition or modification of structures described in any permit application submitted for principal or accessory structures on or after December 12th, 2023, and then we're also looking to change the requirement to remove "prohibited vegetation shall not apply to" -- existing language -- "tents, awnings," but we're proposing to include fences and then utility storage sheds that are under 60 square feet. So this iteration went before our DSAC subcommittee; they recommended denial. It went before the DSAC; they also recommended denial. And the way -- the inspiration for this amendment -- I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm a neutral party here. I'm just trying to carry out the will of the Board of County Commissioners. If you have a piece of property in the Estates, and you already were required at one point to clear out all your exotics and you built your house and now you want to do an -- like another improvement, the way the current language is is that you would be required to clear out -- make sure that all the exotics are removed. The Board of County Commissioners were sensitive to, I guess, a couple of people that approached them saying, "Hey, listen, you know" -- these are their words, not mine, in the minutes in the Board of County Commissioners. Say you have an improvement that cost, like, $2,000, right, to erect something like a shed, and then the cost of removing your exotics is $10,000, you know, they're just trying to figure out a balance here. And so, you know, that's what we're trying to do is carry out the will of the Board of County Commissioners and have -- have the local planning agency, the Planning Commission, vote on it as well, make a recommendation to the Board. So if you have any questions for me -- that's my presentation. If you have any questions. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. You've said that some agency or entity recommended denial. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Who -- who and why? MR. JOHNSON: They -- the DSAC subcommittee and the DSAC, so the Development Services -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: DSAC is the Development Services Advisory Committee. They're -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Why? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They're a group of volunteers who usually screen all of the -- any of the LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Why? MR. JOHNSON: Well, you know, we've had these regulations on the books for a long time, and they felt that these were good regulations to retain the requirement to remove exotics. Exotics are bad. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Eric, the -- you stated that if you're going to build on a lot, the initial construction, you're then required to remove all the exotics on that lot. October 16, 2025 Page 20 of 35 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: By statute, though, or by county regulation, is the homeowner -- I believe the homeowner is still responsible for assuring that the exotics do not reappear. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And to maintain those lots to prevent further proliferation of exotics. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So you're -- what we're dealing with now are the fact that people did not remove the exotics as required. They grew back in the area, which it happens with Melaleuca and especially Brazilian pepper. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: And acacia. I pull an acacia every day. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. So now we're asking to be exempt if they want to add an addition when they really should have been removing the exotics all along. That's my logic; is that incorrect? MR. JOHNSON: No, you're correct. You're correct. You know, the County doesn't actively go out and make people remove -- make property owners remove their exotics. It's usually we're kind of reactive. They submit a permit application for something -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. The first development order, a plat or a plan requires that then the developer remove exotics. Large developments as well. Normally they do it incrementally as they develop each tract. It's not where they go in and remove all the exotics off a development. I mean, some of the large PUDs and DRIs, they do it incrementally. I don't know. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. I mean, it's a good discussion point. If you have an Estates-zoned lot, the minimum lot size in the Estates is 2.25 acres. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Correct. MR. JOHNSON: It's pretty sizable. Whereas, say in a PUD, you know, you have less than an acre or half acre, you know, that kind of thing. So maintaining exotics on a smaller lot is not as big an ask as if you're on Estates-zoned lot, so... And what I wanted to say was we don't actively make every property owner perpetually remove their exotics. There's something that comes before us like a permit application for some sort of improvement, and then we get into a review of that. And so the requirement to remove the vegetation will likely come in when they submit an application of sorts, and then we start reviewing it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So the DSAC recommended no on this. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They required if you want to do any type of improvement, you remove all the exotics? MR. JOHNSON: That's the existing language. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. Any comments from my colleagues? Go ahead, Michelle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I have a question. I don't live out in the Estates. I don't know how prevalent this is, but -- okay. So if a lot has, then, these exotics, how does October 16, 2025 Page 21 of 35 that affect everybody else in the neighborhood? Is it -- is it doing something with the water? Like, the Melaleuca, is it soaking up -- I don't know. What's the damage? MR. JOHNSON: Well, if you have exotics on your property, you know, through the course of time, with wind and, you know, just the way things work in the world, it could pop up on your neighbor's property. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Do you want to add to that? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Because that's where I live, and it does, it does. MS. COOK: Jaime Cook, director of Development Review, again, for the record. So in addition to potential seed-source spreading across property lines, it does also impact -- and there's some research that especially pepper blocks water flow. So water isn't allowed to flow as well as it drains. Additionally, it can cause the proliferation of wildfires if that understory is not removed. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And I'd just be curious to get your perspective, Chuck, since you live there, and you see that. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, it's constant. You've got to constantly maintain it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: But, I mean, is it -- is it something that you would support considering, you know, like, the example that was given, a $2,000 -- or $2,000 improvement but you have to now pay 10,000 to remove the -- is it -- would you support that? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I mean -- I'll go back to Mr. Johnson. So it says, "To new structures and to additions on single-family." So if somebody goes in and pulls a bathroom permit, are they going to be required to clear the exotics? MS. COOK: No. Interior renovations already do not require this requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: So this is -- MS. COOK: Or do not trigger this requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: This is more towards sheds and fences? MS. COOK: Sheds, pools, guest homes. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Guest homes. MS. COOK: Garages -- detached garages, things like that. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Can I make a question with Joe and his statement of if the current law requires you to continuing -- continue to maintain the removal of exotics and you haven't done it, that's not correct. That's bad, right? This actually gives them a way -- a way out of, "Well, now I only have to do," was it "30 feet around the perimeter" or something. They're almost being rewarded for not doing what they were supposed to be doing, which is continually maintaining the exotics. I'm not saying whether this is financially good or bad or right or wrong, but if the current law is you maintain the exotics, but, oh, I didn't for the last eight years, I'm going to put in a "she" shed or a him -- what's the new one that -- him -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Man cave? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yeah, whatever -- and because I'm doing that, well, now I only have to take care of a little bit. I can let the rest of my property exist with exotics. Am I interpreting this and/or what commissioner said -- or Chairman said? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. October 16, 2025 Page 22 of 35 I would interpret it that removal of exotics by our code is always required. What we're saying is if you come in and you want to build a shed, you only have to remove the exotics within 30 feet clear of that shed. If your neighbor called Code Enforcement and complained that you had exotics on your property, it would be a violation. It just doesn't exempt you from those exotics that were supposed to be cleared originally and supposed to be maintained free from your property. It doesn't -- it doesn't exempt you from that. So if your neighbor called Code Enforcement and said, "He's got exotics that are starting to encroach upon my property," that's a violation. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: But -- and excuse me for trying to make this simplistic for my peewee little brain here. But if there are exotics 50 feet away but you're only required to remove them at 30 feet away, I'm not being penalized for disobeying the law of always keeping my entire property exotic free. MR. BOSI: Correct, you're not. You're not being -- you're not -- you're not being asked to do your whole property again. You're only being asked to do around 30 feet of where the -- where your structure's going to go, but that original commitment that -- to maintain your property exotic free doesn't go away. A neighbor could still exercise the right to call Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement sends out an inspector, and if they find Melaleuca or if they find Brazilian peppers, that's a Code Enforcement [sic] that's going to need to be abated. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: I believe we can go round and round in circles on this, but it still seems to me -- and anybody else please help me understand this -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- that I can't be a little bit pregnant. This is -- I'm either -- well, maybe -- never mind. I've got to watch. I'm on record here. This is still giving them a "get out of jail free" card because they didn't take care of their entire property, right? MR. BOSI: No. No. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Sure it is because if the law -- I'm sorry, Mike. I didn't mean to say it like that. But if the law states there should never be exotics on your property but when you come out and you put up a "she" shed, and, "Well, if there's exotics 50 feet away, don't worry about it. Just clear them to 30 feet," that means I don't have to follow the law for the outer perimeter of my lot, only the 30 feet around. MR. BOSI: And as you frame it that way, you're correct, because the inspector who comes out from an environmental perspective to make sure the exotics have been removed for that 30 feet would be looking beyond that 30 feet. They could in -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: In theory, they could say, "Hey, by the way" -- MR. BOSI: -- in theory, not if -- we're not proactive. Code Enforcement's not proactive, "proactive" meaning we have to have a complaint for us to investigate something. So it's even more convoluted. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Is that -- I mean, I'll be Mr. Simplistic No. 2, if we have a law that says your property must be -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Exotic free. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: -- exotic free, what's preventing us from enforcing that law, and why do we need this? I mean, we have a law that says it has to be exotic free. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It almost sounds as if -- I know we're bearing way down into the weeds, but -- October 16, 2025 Page 23 of 35 COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Let me clear this up real quick, because I want you guys to understand that the whole two-something minimum lot, which is 2.25 -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: 2.25. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: -- or 3 acres or 5 acres, they're not fully cleared because you're not allowed to fully clear all of that. You're only allowed to clear, what is it, 40 percent? MS. COOK: You're allowed to clear up to one acre with a building permit -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: One acre. MS. COOK: -- and then any additional clearing requires an additional building permit. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Exactly. So it can get tedious to maintain that, because your natives will mix in with your -- with your invasives, and trying to go through that, and some people, you know -- pepper hedge is -- tedious as they are, they are a good buffer for sound, so people leave that on their back property to separate that from the property behind them. So it does get tedious in that fact. So having 30 feet around, if I was going to put a shed out on the side yard, and 30 feet around that I've got to clear, I understand that. Going through the whole property and clearing it is -- it can be very tedious, especially when you have excess acreage. You still do it, but sometimes it falls through the cracks. I can tell you right now I've got -- I've got Brazilian pepper sitting against Vanderbilt -- don't have Code Enforcement come out -- that I didn't cut down last year, and it's now twice as big, and I've got to take care of it this year. But looking through the comments from the other committee, I mean, they make a good point. Like, the clearing of the exotics does cut down on wildfires. I mean, we had that wildfire on Immokalee Road a few years back that just ripped through how many streets. Do you remember that one? It was on the north side of Immokalee. And that just ripped through two, like, streets' worth in excess of two, five, 10 acres, 25 acres on each side and just tore through it. I mean, if you took all the exotics out, would it have not gone -- fueled it as far? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. But I just can't -- I can't get through taking it away completely. You know what I mean? I can't say -- I can't say let's just remove it because you don't want to do the 30 feet around wherever you want to put the shed or a pool or whatever. I just don't -- I can understand it for a fence, because with a fence -- if you're putting a fence in, you're going to have remove that exotic anyway if it's on the property line. I get that. But for a shed or something else, I can't -- I can't see supporting it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, let's -- we can beat this to death. We all voted against this last time. You brought it back to us. The Board asked us to reconsider. Obviously, there must have been pressure to the Board from constituents. I'm indifferent. I mean, I don't own an estate lot. I can understand if you're going to add -- spend $2,000 for a pole barn -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Tool shed. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and you spend 10-, $15,000 to clean the exotics, to me is economically infeasible. It's just -- so there -- I'm open. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Do you want to amend it and set a dollar amount in adding fences and say you can limit it at X dollars? I mean -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: My statement goes back -- and I'm not a October 16, 2025 Page 24 of 35 lawyer. But if the law states one thing, either change that law or don't follow it. I'm sorry. Change that law -- COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Or enforce it. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Yes, or enforce it, that -- that's my statement, either change the law or enforcement, because this is a modification to make it convenient for the homeowner. And I understand the financial burden that's being placed on it. To me it almost reminds you of, "Well, it's okay to steal $750 worth of stuff. We're not going to prosecute you," but you're still stealing. So either do this correctly or not. That's my statement. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Commissioner Colucci. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah. I don't see -- I don't see how we can possibly approve a regulation that is contrary to what the law says. That just doesn't make any sense to me. MR. JOHNSON: Commissioners, I just wanted to point your attention to the screen. These are the reasons why the DSAC subcommittee and the DSAC recommended denial of this iteration. So I wanted to address in more elaborate detail Mr. Colucci's ask of me, why did the DSAC recommend denial. So it says right there on the screen. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I understand the issue from the standpoint -- I don't know if that would be, as Chuck discussed, some kind of proportionality of what the improvement is versus how much you spend on exotics. I don't know if that's a -- that's a compromise. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I also think it brings more people in. Well, no. I'm sorry. This exempts from getting a permit for a shed, right? MR. JOHNSON: No. They would still have to get a permit for the shed. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: They would still get a permit. Okay. Well, then it -- I mean, I'm sure there's a number of sheds, especially during Irma, that blew away that weren't permitted. You know, they just showed up and they were stacked there, and they were gone, and there's fences put up that aren't permitted, and we don't even know if they're on the right property line because they didn't have to do the survey or anything else. So I can understand lessening it to get, I guess, more in compliance. MR. JOHNSON: Commissioners, I really enjoy hearing all the comments that you have and the discussion that you're having. Staff would love to discuss it, but it's not our place to offer advice in this instance. So please continue to discuss it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, do I hear any motion? Anybody want to make a motion or make a proposal to move forward? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'm going to look at legal and ask if I'm -- what we can do or can't do here, because I don't want to -- I don't want to make it to where we're allowing people to be exempt from just maintaining property and increasing risk on their maybe neighbors, but... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Board has been toying with this issue for quite a long time. Initially, they wanted to just get rid of the whole requirement. And so this is sort of a compromise, because my understanding is that the clear zone regarding buildings that's recommended by the fire department is either 25 or 30 feet. So this, essentially, eliminates the requirement for Estates lots that are adding improvements. You still have to clear the whole lot when you build your home, but it relaxes it for October 16, 2025 Page 25 of 35 putting in sheds and things like that that trigger an upgrade to the entire lot. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: It sounds like it relaxes the requirement once you've received your initial C of O on the property because -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: -- if I put in a "she" shed, I only have to worry about the 30 feet around it and forego the other hundred feet behind me that still may have exotics. And cost is something everybody would be and should be concerned with, but -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Eric, this is just dealing with the Estates lots, right? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And if I could also point out, I believe there's another section in the LDC that does say it has to be maintained free of exotics, I believe, Jaime, so they could still have a Code Enforcement issue. MR. JOHNSON: Heidi, I think that's in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, it's in the Code of Laws and Ordinances? Okay. But they could still have a Code Enforcement action for exotics on the site. It's just this permit doesn't trigger it, correct? MS. COOK: Correct. This would only be looked at at time of a building permit as far as the inspection is concerned. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, I mean, if fire recommended 30 feet, I mean, obviously I don't want to go against fire. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We just went with the recommended clear zone. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Clear zone? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Um-hmm. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. Well, anybody want to make a recommendation? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I mean, the only recommendation I could make is I would exempt the exotics for a fence install, because fence install, you're going to remove the exotics anyway, or the fence install is going to be going around your pool because you just took down your cage, which is a safety issue. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you use your mic. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I apologize. I said I would -- I would agree with the fence install because you're going to have to cut down whatever's there and put your fence in anyway, and also if it's going around -- if you're taking down your pool cage and -- you have to put a fence up around it because that's a safety code, so I could see those two. I kind of struggle with the shed one. I mean, I can understand, you know, you spend $2,000 on a shed, but then you're paying 6-, 8,000, whatever, in exotic removal. I mean, that's the only one I can't -- if you wanted to put it at something like, you know -- I don't even want to put a dollar amount on it because then people could falsify the dollar amount to avoid pulling a permit for a shed. So I guess the only thing I could -- I could say I agree with is the fence aspect of it. That's the only recommendation I could have. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: So your feeling is maybe we should look at relaxing the law for fences, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Like I just said, if you're putting a fence in, you're cutting the exotics down anyway. October 16, 2025 Page 26 of 35 COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I mean, you've got to go through it. And if putting a -- if you're putting a fence in, it's because your pool cage came down and you have to put a fence up around it because that's a safety requirement to make sure nobody can fall in the pool. That would be the only one I could find any logic behind. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Okay. Well, I think that's -- I can support that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Do you want to put that in the form of a motion and -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I make a motion to amend the LDC draft to allow the removal of the requirement for the 30-foot exotic removal for fence installations and exclude the storage sheds from that recommendation. MS. COOK: So before you vote, just so that everybody understands the process, for the -- for the permit structures that are listed in No. 2, currently, the exotic removal inspections that is done by the County inspectors does not load on those things. So if somebody applies for a -- to replace their screen enclosure because it got destroyed in a hurricane, when they get their permit, that exotic removal inspection does not currently load because that's already a currently exempt structure. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. MS. COOK: So in No. 2 those items would -- those structures would not have the exotic removal inspections load, and an inspector would not do the inspection for those permit types. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Well, that -- I just make a motion to deny, because, I mean, it's already in the code what we're talking about here. MS. COOK: Fences isn't, but I will tell you that's how it is being done now is the inspectors are not doing exotic removal inspections on fences. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: I'm almost saying that we don't support this. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Let me ask a simple question again. When anybody does anything out on their property, a fence, a cabana, tent, "she" shed, man cave, when they go out there, there's supposed to be no exotics on the property. That's law today, correct? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Okay. But now we're saying, "Well, we won't look at what should have been done a year ago, five years ago, 10 years ago. The house is 20 years old, whatever. Let's just care -- let's just worry about this 30 feet perimeter around X item." I'm too much of a conservative, I guess. I can't do that. I can't say you were supposed to do something, but now you only need to do a little bit of it even though it's law, so I would not support this. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I think we're right back to our original motion. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Back to our original motion which is -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: Last year. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Last year we voted in denial. So all in favor, say aye. October 16, 2025 Page 27 of 35 COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All opposed? So we -- in unanimous denial of this recommendation. Unfortunately, we punt to the Board of County Commissioners, and they can argue it. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Terri had mentioned we need a second on -- right -- did you say? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We had a second. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll second it, Terri. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. We had a second. Thank you, Terri. ***All right. With that, we go to the next LDC amendment, PL20250007882. This is administrative plat approvals. Richard, with that -- MR. HENDERLONG: Good morning, Chair -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: This is pretty simple. MR. HENDERLONG: -- and members. Yes, it is. A state mandatory requirement. The state legislature changed the law under Chapter 2025-164, also known as Senate Bill 784, amending Florida Statute 177.071, the approval of plats by governing bodies. It became effective July 1, 2025. There are several stipulations for the changes. It says that there will be an administrative approval by the county or municipality -- this also applies to the City of Naples -- by governing body. It requires the County to designate an administrative authority to review and process that plat or re-plat submittal, and it defines the term "administrative authority." It also empowers the authority to perform five separate actions. First, to receive the plat, within seven business days thereafter, provide a written notice to the applicant acknowledging its receipt, any missing information, and the requirements regarding the completeness of the process with the associated time frames for reviewing it. Secondly, to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the plat or re-plat in accordance with that time frame. Thirdly, to notify the applicant in writing if the administrative authority decides to approve the plat or re-plat. And then, fourthly, to provide a written notice as to the reasons for if there's going to be a denial. And then, lastly, it prohibits an administrative authority or any other official or employee or agent or designee from the county or requiring -- or requesting or requiring the applicant to an extension of time. So it is pretty concise and pretty compact. So the Board, on July 8th, 2025, designated past Resolution 2025-131, which is part of your Exhibit C, designating the Development Review division within the Growth Management Community department as the administrative authority to review and process the plats and re-plats. Since then, the County Attorney advised staff that there was a typographic error in that resolution in that the term "administrative authority" should read as "administrative" October 16, 2025 Page 28 of 35 first -- "official." So this change has been incorporated in the LDC amendment, also in the Administrative Code. It's interesting to note that the administrative official, based upon the resolution passed by the Board, authorizes either the County Manager, the Deputy County Manager, the Community Development department head, the Development Review director, and even the Zoning director to sign and act as the administrative authority. So initially and at this point in time -- so in the absence of Mrs. Cook, being out of town or whatever, Mike could have the authority to assign and review those plats. So this is the -- is a requirement to comply with the Florida statutory changes, which were authorized by the state legislature. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: For my colleagues' edification, in the past the plat would come in, go through review, go through the approval process, and would be on -- typically on the summary agenda -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- and approved -- MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- by the Board. MR. HENDERLONG: And there's notice, right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Obviously, the State felt that that was a bit -- MR. HENDERLONG: Cumbersome. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- too lengthy of a process. They're trying to expedite the process, so they basically said you could now appoint an official to -- MR. HENDERLONG: To perform. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- to perform the approval process. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: My question has to do with the fact that our previous procedure, by being identified as an agenda item on an agenda for the Board of County Commissioners, it essentially became a public-noticed action that was -- could be deemed objectionable, or the public could object to any kind of plat approval process during the Board hearing. Typically, in the past, these are usually on the summary agenda. Now we don't have any official approval. This just -- other than the individual -- the administrative official, whomever that may be in growth management, approves it. It then goes to the county Clerk's Office to be recorded. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Now there's no public announcement. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We had an issue in the past -- and Mr. Yovanovich, in particular -- but I'll bring it up because it was during the Fiddler's Creek PUD amendment, there was a resident who objected to some of the minor changes in the PUD. In Mr. Yovanovich's defense, he said that the plat process was a public-announced and publicly approved process and approved through the Board; therefore, it basically codified any type of minor changes through the plat process. Now we don't have any type of official advertisement because, in fact, when it was on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda, that agenda's advertised, and the items are officially deemed to be fully advertised. Now we -- October 16, 2025 Page 29 of 35 MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- circumvent the full public advertisement process. I'm turning to the County Attorney. Does that create some kind of a problem? Because in the past, we've had -- in defense of some of the minor changes during the plat and plan process where they made modifications to a PUD, the road layout -- you know, the road layout is sort of a schematic, but then when it gets down to actual plat and plan, there may be changes, modifications, cul-de-sac, or other types of things. Now none of that is public. It goes -- it is public in the sense that it's still discoverable by the public if they want to go to Growth Management, but it's no longer an advertised agenda item. So where are we now with this? It sort of defeats the purpose of trying to publicly announce this as an agenda item that, if somebody objects, they certainly can come in and register to speak. Go ahead, please. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, that's correct. It is viewable through the CityView portal, but you'd have to be looking regularly to see if something was pending -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- otherwise it gets approved administratively, and it would make it more difficult for someone to appeal it because they wouldn't know about it. But, I mean, we're complying with state law. If you think there needs to be some kind of notification, then -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Would it make sense -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- make the recommendation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Would it make sense to have, for every board meeting, on the consent item, a list of those plats that were approved, just publicly noting that these plats have before approved? I don't know. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You could make a recommendation to the Board. Now, if you want to add that to the Planning Commission and have staff report it -- you know, when you have your meetings, what plats have been approved in the two-week cycle. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Or, Chair, maybe another recommendation would be to send out the notices to the surrounding areas, how -- whatever it is, 500 feet whatever, the required notice, and that's how they would know about it. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yeah. We've never done that in the past. I think that would be -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct, that's correct. We've never done that. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- really quite a burden. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We are limited. MR. HENDERLONG: We don't do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We're limited with the -- I think it's -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I know we're trying to live within the state law. My concern is that in defense of a developer, and -- because this came up -- it's come up in the past, but most recent was the most recent amendment to Fiddler's Creek; that those minor changes were done, fully vetted, and approved through public announcement. It was an agenda item, and it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Now we don't have that. MR. HENDERLONG: Maybe under the -- either the County Manager's -- when October 16, 2025 Page 30 of 35 they give their report or whatever, just list that -- just like you recommended, list that they've been approved, the following -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: See, I would -- I would recommend we do that, either just a list under County Manager or -- even if just the Planning Commission. MR. HENDERLONG: Or the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: As an agenda item, as advertised, part of the Planning Commission, the following plats have been approved. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I wanted to hear Heidi's thought she was about to finish. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Go ahead. I thought she was done, I'm sorry. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't remember. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Oh, okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Chairman, if I may, are we late when we tell the public, "These have already been approved"? Is there any way to get ahead of that and say at the meeting or at this meeting, "In the next 30 days, these are going to be reviewed by staff and approved"? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: It sounds like the State is trying to expedite this process, and they don't want to -- they don't want a procedural rule to sort of delay the plat approval process. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Which I -- COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: The Chair's trying to get it advertised that these are done. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Right, but what action would the public have when they're already done? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: They can always file -- the public can always file an appeal. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Well, I mean, you can always go through a -- MR. BOSI: An administrative approval such as that has a 30-day challenge period. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Has a 30-day challenge period. MR. BOSI: So the timing is going to be hard any which way we do it, whether -- prospectively, and then it's -- you don't -- it's kind of like asking a staff member to sign something that is official that's not official. You don't really -- you can't be prospective. You can't say, "These are going to be approved in the next 30 days," because that's prospective. You really don't know what's going to happen. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There are two points of entry, I think, that would be something staff could administer. One would be when we receive the application, "These are the applications we received for plat amendments or new plats," and the second would be when they're approved they can say, "These are the ones that are approved." CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to -- my thought is only because this has been used as a defense in the past to defend changes. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: What specifically does the law say? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: The law basically is saying that -- the State is saying that they want an administrative approval process. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: That's what they're saying. October 16, 2025 Page 31 of 35 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So -- did this go to the DSAC? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, yes, it did, and they recommended -- they accepted it and made the recommendation. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm fine with it. I mean, it's just a matter of it's no longer going to become a defense for a developer if there were minor changes and somebody says, "Well, I'm sorry, you probably should have been looking in on the -- in CityView for when the plats come in for approval." I guess we put the onus, then, on the public. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: The law of the State of Florida now says a plat change, whatever, is an administrative task, correct? CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: That's what they're stating, yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's correct. And it's on Page 24 of your packet, Exhibit B. I said earlier C, but it says -- COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: I probably fell sleep. MR. HENDERLONG: -- yeah -- "Administrative approval of the plats are now" -- they struck it out -- "by governing bodies." It's done by a designated county or municipality official. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. All right. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Chair, let me throw a little bit more confusion into this process, or maybe not -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. BOSI: -- incredulousness to this process. We also are required to allow building permits on up to 50 percent of those plats before they've even been approved. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Say again, please. MR. BOSI: The statute -- and Ms. Cook could probably explain it a little bit better because it's her shop. MS. COOK: So in 2024 -- I believe it went into effect October of '24 -- we are now required to issue up to 50 percent of their building permits before the plat is even recorded. They have to post their construction and maintenance agreements and bonds and things like that. But if their plat is approved and they've posted that maintenance agreement and bond, then we have to issue up to 50 percent of their building permits for the subdivision. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All right. When you approve a plat, then, administratively, and it goes over to the Clerk to be recorded, is there some kind of an announcement at the Clerk's Office? Is it -- it's just in the Clerk's record or -- MS. COOK: So once we've administr- -- once we've approved a plat, regardless if it's administrative of the Board, the developer has 18 months from that date to go record the plat. Once it is -- does go to the Clerk, it's just filed in their records. I do not believe they post any announcements. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, that defines the property boundaries, the property alignments, all the other kind of things that end up going from the Clerk then to the Property Appraiser. So it defines that whole legal process. The only public, again was -- only public involvement would have been during the advertised public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners -- MS. COOK: Correct. October 16, 2025 Page 32 of 35 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- when it was -- the plat was on the consent agenda. In my years in the County, I don't think I've ever heard anybody object to a plat. I can't, but -- MS. COOK: I've heard one, but it's very rare. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: But the -- I'm fine with it. I recommend approval. COMMISSIONER SCHUMACHER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, unanimous. I guess it's up to the public, then, to keep their finger on the pulse. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: ***Well, with that, then we'll proceed to the next item. This is PL20250005385. These are scrivener's errors and cross-reference. Eric, unless you want to steal victory from the jaws of defeat or defeat from the jaws of victory, I recommend approval. This is pretty benign, and it's just edits and it's changes. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: So I would recommend approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Second. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHUMACHER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Aye. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Any opposition? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: None. It passes unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Yes, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Before you swiftly make a motion to adjourn, staff is -- wanted to discuss with the Planning Commission. We recognize that our LDC is devoid of any references to charging stations within commercial developments or commercial establishments as well as multifamily facilities. Or even a traditional residential subdivision. Staff is asking that the Planning Commission direct staff to incorporate LDC amendments to address the rules and regulations for how charging stations should be permitted through the -- through -- within the LDC. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We're not stipulating that they have to have them, but if they want them -- MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- then you're -- they're going to develop criteria -- October 16, 2025 Page 33 of 35 MR. BOSI: Currently -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- on how they would be -- MR. BOSI: Yeah. They're going to be treated as -- traditionally as accessory structures, and they'll have to meet their traditional accessory structure setbacks, how they're placed in the parking lots, and whether it be residential or commercial, and it's simply -- we've been processing them. We do -- we don't have a requirement that you have to have charging stations, but some facilities want to have it. Some -- specifically the newer apartment complexes wanted to have some of those provisions. But we have nothing in our code, and it's just -- it's a hole that we recognize that we would like to codify. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, I'm fine with that. So come back to us with a recommendation. My biggest complaint is when these stations are put in, they seem to be put in in very preferential parking spaces. MR. BOSI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Meaning, if you don't have an electric car, you know, you're out in the back 40, but if you have an electric vehicle, a plug-in, you get a nice preferential parking spot. I -- COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Is there a 500-foot minimum requirement between charging stations? MR. BOSI: We call -- the term is separate but equal. But we will look at it from legal a point and -- but we're really just joking. But we're -- it's not a huge lift, and we're doing it now in terms of -- but we're doing it now just recognizing they're accessory structures, and they have to meet the accessory structure setbacks. Other than that we really don't have any guidance in our LDC. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, you still have to define the width of the parking space, all the other types of requirements. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Okay. That's fine. I would recommend we bring it back as part of an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: And along these -- that same thought, another LDC amendment that maybe we could consider -- and, Mike, I talked to you about this before, and you said to bring it up -- with regards to littoral shelf plantings. What's happening now? Like, we're seeing that come up, and the Board is always approving the request. And it's like, can we just decide one way or the other, and... MR. BOSI: I mean, the requirement, I believe, is for 30 percent -- 30 percent littoral plantings. We've had some recent cases that have come through that have asked for some modifications to that based upon the individual circumstances. Both -- I think both of the times they have come up staff has supported it based upon the criteria and the conditions of the unique property. So I'm not sure -- I'm not sure if we -- actually, our conversation, if we had identified a specific need for an LDC amendment or review from a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. MR. BOSI: I'm having to lean upon our environmental staff in terms of their expertise as to whether they think there's justification or not for the modification. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Okay. So then let's just leave it as case-by-case. Okay. Very good. October 16, 2025 Page 34 of 35 CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I'm going to just -- on that point, we -- almost every development coming in, this is between a cul-de-sac and a hammerhead. We always -- we always get deviations because they want a hammerhead instead of a cul-de-sac. Smart growth and all the other types of things we discussed in the past were cul-de-sacs. Would it make sense to change the LDC to make it an option? Because we seem to always get deviations. Because the hammerhead is more efficient land use -- use of the land and allows for platted lots instead of the -- MR. BOSI: Staff -- from staff's perspective, we don't disagree with you. It accomplishes -- it's like when I was speaking with the Board of County Commissioners related to Costco and they were asked about deviations, and they kept calling them variances. Well, they're not variances. A deviation is specially unique to a PUD and how to be able to accomplish the intention of a regulation but having a different manner to provide for that -- that "and," and that's what deviations are for. A hammerhead is a good example. It's a deviation to allow for a turnaround at the end of a roadway that's an alternative to a cul-de-sac. As long as it meets the design specs that are -- CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Well, it has to meet design specs. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: And it also has to meet fire-safety requirements for turnaround, for vehicular access, engine -- pumper engines, all the other types of things. So I'm just -- I think that would be something you may want to look at. I could care one way or the other. We could leave it as a deviation, but maybe we look at something that it's an option. MR. BOSI: I was just having a conversation with Eric Johnson, our LDC manager, of how some of the larger -- the RLSA, the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, and Immokalee LDC amendments are coming through and are getting through the process, and we were looking for some more work to do. So I think the hammerhead would be something that their team would work with Ms. Cook's engineering folks to be able to make sure that that's an alternative that's codified so they don't have to seek that deviation. COMMISSIONER McLEOD: Right. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: I would recommend we look at that. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: We just make it an option, because some people want the cul-de-sac, and it proves to be more beneficial. Typically, the cul-de-sacs are associated with a multifamily development where they have the roundabout, but we often get in -- most single-family, terminus is a hammerhead, so -- MR. BOSI: Will do. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: -- would you look at that as well? Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: With that, I'd make a recommendation we adjourn. COMMISSIONER SPARRAZZA: Adjourn. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: All adjourned. Approved? Yes, we're approved. COMMISSIONER COLUCCI: Yes. CHAIRMAN SCHMITT: Thank you. October 16, 2025 Page 35 of 35 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:51 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION __________________________________________ JOE SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on _10/16/2025, as presented ___X___ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.