DSAC-LDR Agenda 04/21/2026•
Collier County
Growth Management Community Development
Development Services Advisory Committee
Land Development Review
Subcommittee
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
3:00 pm
2800 N. Horseshoe Dr.
Naples, FL 34104
Growth Management Community Development
Department
Conference Room 609/610
Please contact Eric Johnson at (239) 252-2931 or
Eric.Johnson@collier.gov if you have any questions or wish to
meet with staff.
,4
Collier County
DSAC — Land Development Review Subcommittee
2026 Land Development Code Amendments
Agenda
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
3:00 pm
2800 Horseshoe Drive N., Naples, FL 34104
Growth Management Community Development, Conference Rooms 609/610
NOTICE:
Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman
adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Registration Form," list the topic they wish
to address, and hand it to the Staff member before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by
the Chairman and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During
the discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker.
Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the
room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe
Roberts Rules of Order and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into
the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made.
1. Call to Order— Chairman
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Old Business
a. PL20250012443 —Golf Course Errant Ball Containment Barriers (Quail Creek Country
Club)
b. PL20250013881— Golf Course Errant Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino and
Commers)
4. New Business
a. PL20260002638 — Recreational Vehicle Parking (Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances)
b. PL20260003715 — Facilities with Fuel Pumps Waiver of Separation
5. Public Speakers
6. Reminders of Upcoming DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Meeting Dates Discussion:
a. Tuesday, July 21, 2026
b. Tuesday, October 20, 2026
7. Adjourn
For more information, please contact Eric Johnson at (239) 252-2931
or at Eric.Johnson@collier.gov
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
„)Collier County
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20250012443
ORIGIN
Quail Creek Country
Club, Inc.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This Land Development Code (LDC) amendment proposes to define Errant
Golf Ball Containment Barriers and include them as an accessory and
conditional use within the Golf Course and Recreational Use (GC) Zoning
District and include related development standards. LDC amendments are
reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of
the DSAC (DSAC-LDR Subcommittee).
HEARING DATES LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED
Board TBD 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts
CCPC TBD 5.03.08 (NEW) Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf
DSAC TBD Course (GC) Zoning District
DSAC-LDR 03/17/2026
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC
TBD TBD TBD
IMIX601 [li311111111L1;
The Quail Creek Country Club and golf course have been in existence at this location since
approximately 1981. There have been multiple expansions throughout the year, including a rebuild of
the golf course in 1993. The driving range is located south of the clubhouse, next to hole 10 of the golf
course. Driving ranges are a common accessory use to golf courses. There have been several instances
of injury to patrons playing through hole 10 caused by errant golf balls from the driving range. In
response to a significant safety risk to golfers on the course and to protect the safety and welfare of the
public utilizing the golf course, an errant ball containment fence was installed in April 2024 along the
western perimeter of the driving range, to prevent errant and long shots from reaching Hole 10. To date,
six individuals have been struck on Hole 10 by range ball, including one incident resulting in major
injury.
In the GC District a driving range is an accessory use. 2.03.09.A.1.b.2., LDC ("Recreational facilities
that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community
center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities, snack
shops and restrooms.”) (Emphasis added).
Dimensional standards for accessory uses are included both in section 2.03.09.A. Lb., and section
4.02.02, LDC. Additional dimensional standards for fences are contained in section 5.03.02, LDC. None
of the above sections contain a height limit for accessory uses in the GC District. This is distinct from
accessory uses for other districts which do have height limits.
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Materials\PL20250012443 Golf Course Errant Ball
Containment Barriers (Quail Creek CC) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
„)Collier County
Specifically, in the GC District, in section 2.03.09.A.1.b., LDC, there are dimensional standards
regarding pro -shop sizes, § 2.03.09.A.1.b.3., LDC, but none regarding practice driving ranges. In
Section 4.02.02, LDC, the GC District dimensional standards are "[RESERVED]”. This section, prior
to ordinance 2010-23, contained dimensional standards that were moved elsewhere and did not include
a height limit. Finally, in section 5.03.02, LDC, which includes additional dimensional standards for
fences, does not include any height limit applicable in the GC District.
There are fence height limits in certain listed zoning districts other than the GC District; for example,
Residential (RSF, RMF, RT, VR, MH) and TTRVC zoning districts and certain commercial and
industrial districts have fence height limits listed in section 5.03.02, LDC. Notably absent from the list
of districts with a fence height limit is the GC District. Section 5.03.02, titled "Fences and Walls,
Excluding Sound Walls", however, does not contain any height limit for fences in the GC District.
Validation that there is not a height limit for fences in the GC District is in the form of the 2 golf courses,
Imperial and Hibiscus, that have driving range containment fences taller than 35 feet.
The requested amendment is consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Growth
Management Plan; will establish height limitations for errant ball containment fences in the GC district;
and establish setback and landscaping standards to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The
proposed standards will allow golf courses to safeguard the safety of guests and adjacent properties
through the installation of these containment fences, while giving Collier County the means to review
and ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY
There are no anticipated fiscal or operational The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by
impacts anticipated with this amendment. Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed
consistent with the GMP.
EXHIBITS: None
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Materials\PL20250012443 Golf Course Errant Ball
Containment Barriers (Quail Creek CC) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
DRAFT
Amend the LDC as follows:
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethre nh is current text to he deleted
1 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts
2 A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is
3 to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including
4 certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and
5 manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban
6 mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element
7 of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in
8 LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards.
9 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses
10 that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.
11 a. Permitted uses.
12 1. Golf courses.
13 2. Hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks.
14 3. Passive recreation areas.
15 4. Disc golf.
16 b. Accessory uses.
17 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as
18 of right in the GC district.
19 2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use,
20 including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice
21 driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities,
22 snack shops and restrooms.
23 3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet,
24 associated with a golf course.
25 4. Restaurants associated with a golf course with a seating capacity of 150
26 seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no later than 10:00
27 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall be limited to 200 seats, and the
28 hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m., within the Golden Gate
29 City Economic Development Zone.
30 5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf course
31 employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf course.
32 6. Maintenance buildings.
33 7. Errant golf ball containment barriers that meet the design standards
34 established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
35 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in
36 the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC
37 section 10.08.00.
38 1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops;
39 pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants
40 with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City
41 Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily
42 intended to serve patrons of the golf course.
43 2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens.
44 3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to
45 residential uses.
46 4. Museums.
3
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250012443 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Quail Creek CC) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethre nh is current text to he deleted
5. Water related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat ramps,
docks, and fishing piers.
6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and
racquetball.
7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers.
8. Parks and playgrounds.
9. Pools, indoor or outdoor.
10. Botanical gardens.
11. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards
established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
14-2. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing
uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals,
as applicable.
# # # # # # # # # # #
5.03.08. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District
A. Purpose and intent. The Durpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball
containment barriers do not adversely impact land uses adiacent to golf courses and/or
driving ranges by establishing height, locational, and landscaping standards. Errant golf
ball containment barriers (more commonly known as golf netting or barriers) consist of a
netting barrier supported by upright poles and designed to contain errant golf balls to
Protect players, spectators, neighboring properties, and public and private right -of- way
from the risks of stray golf balls; and are a component of golf courses and/or practice
driving ranges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
within the Golf Course and Recreational Use Zonina District "GC".
C. Design and development standards.
1. Height, Location, and Design Standards.
a. Maximum Height: seventy (70) feet.
b. Setbacks. Except as otherwise Drovided in this section. errant aolf ball
containment barriers shall be set back twenty (20) feet from any property
line under separate ownership.
C. Required Setback Adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwelling units: One (1) foot for each foot in height.
d. Required setback adjacent to public right-of-way: One (1) foot for each foot
in height.
e. Required Upright Pole Color: Matte Black
4
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250012443 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Quail Creek CC) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DRAFT
f. Required Netting Color: Black
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text strikethre nh is current text to he deleted
2. Landscaping requirements when adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwelling units.
a. A cluster of trees consisting of a minimum of three (3) canopy trees or
Palms at the approximate location of each upright pole shall be required.
Required tree plantings shall be planted a minimum of ten (10) feet and a
maximum of fifteen 0 5) feet from the errant ball containment barrier upright
poles; and shall be minimum of twelve 02) feet in height at time of planting
and a minimum height of twenty (20) feet at maturity. There are no
limitations on the number of Dalms that can be used.
b. Where adiacent property within three hundred (300) feet is improved with
one or more residential dwelling units, the required tree plantings shall be
located between the errant golf ball containment barrier upright pole, and
the adjacent property.
C. Existina. native veaetation that is a minimum heiaht of twelve (12) feet can
be used to meet these screening requirements. If native vegetation is
present but there are not enough trees at a minimum height of twelve (12)
feet, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the screening
requirements.
D. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall require both a Site Development Plan and a
building permit review.
E. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards established
above shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use approval, subject to the standards and
provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00.
5
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250012443 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Quail Creek CC) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
ERRANT BALL CONTAINMENT FENCE LDCA
REQUEST STATEMENT
Introduction
The Quail Creek Country Club is located approximately one mile north of Immokalee Road and
just under half a mile east of I-75 North and comprises of one parcel approximately 183.18 acres
in size. The property is developed with the Quail Creek Club, which comprises of a clubhouse,
court sport facilities, and a 36-hole golf course. The land use designation is currently Urban —
Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The property is zoned Golf Course and
Recreational Use District (GC), which allows for golf courses and recreational uses.
The surrounding lands are designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict.
The zoning and existing land uses on the surrounding lands is as follows.
• North: Zoned GC, developed with a golf course and recreational uses; zoned RSF-2,
developed with single-family dwellings.
• South: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings.
• East: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings.
• West: Zoned RSF-2, developed with single-family dwellings.
Re uest
This is a request to amend LDC Section 2.03.09.A.1.c., Open Space Zooning Districts - Golf
Course and Recreational Use District "GC" — Conditional uses; and to add Section 5.05.17.,
Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District, to the LDC as
follows (text underlined are additions):
2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts
A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district
is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including
certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and
manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban
mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element
of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in
LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards.
1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the
uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.
a. Permitted uses.
1. Golf courses.
2. Hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks.
Page 1 of 6
Request Statement (2-26-2026)
3. Passive recreation areas.
4. Disc golf.
b. Accessory uses.
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses
permitted as of right in the GC district.
2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course
use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center
building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming
pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.
3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet,
associated with a golf course.
4. Restaurants associated with a golf course with a seating capacity of
150 seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no later
than 10:00 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall be limited to
200 seats, and the hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m.,
within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone.
5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf
course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf
course.
6. Maintenance buildings.
7. Errant golf ball containment barriers that meet the design standards
established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional
uses in the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established
in LDC section 10.08.00.
1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift
shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square
feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats
outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone;
cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve
patrons of the golf course.
2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens.
Page 2 of 6
Request Statement (2-26-2026)
3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to
residential uses.
4. Museums.
5. Water related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat
ramps, docks, and fishing piers.
6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball,
tennis, and racquetball.
7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers.
8. Parks and playgrounds.
9. Pools, indoor or outdoor.
10. Botanical gardens.
11. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design
standards established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
12. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the
foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of
Zoning Appeals, as applicable.
................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
5.03.08. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball
containment barriers do not adversely impact land uses adjacent to golf courses and/or
driving ranges by establishing height, locational, and landscaping standards.
Errant golf ball containment barriers (more commonly known as golf netting or barriersi
consist of a netting barrier supported by pright poles and designed to contain errant golf
balls to protect players, spectators, neighboring properties, and public and private rihg tof-
way from the risks of stray golf balls; and are a component of golf courses and/or practice
driving ranges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
within the Golf Course and Recreational Use Zoning District "GC".
C. Design and development standards.
1. Height, Location, and Design Standards.
Page 3 of 6
Request Statement (2-26-2026)
a. Maximum Height: sevenly (70) feet.
b. Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant golf ball
containment barriers shall be setback twenty.(20) feet from any.propertX
line under separate ownership.
c. Required Setback Adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwelling units: One (1) foot for each foot in height.
d. Required setback adjacent to public right-of-way: One (1) foot for each
foot in height.
e. Required Upright Pole Color: Matte Black
£ Required Netting Color: Black
2. Landscaping requirements when adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwelling units.
a. A cluster of trees consisting of a minimum of three (3) canopy trees or
palms at the approximate location of each upright pole shall be required.
Required tree plantings shall be planted a minimum of ten 0 0) feet and a
maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the errant ball containment barrier
upright poles; and shall be minimum of twelve (12) feet in height at time
of planting and a minimum height of twenty (20) feet at maturi .. There
are no limitations on the number of palms that can be used.
b. Where adjacent property within three hundred (300)feet is improved with
one or more residential dwelling units, the required tree plantings shall be
located between the errant golf ball containment barrier upright pole, and
the adjacent property.
c. Existing, native vegetation that is a minimum height of twelve (12,) feet
can be used to meet these screening requirements. If native vegetation is
present but there are not enough trees at a minimum height of twelve (12)
feet, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the screening
requirements.
D. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall require both a Site Development Plan and
building permit review.
E. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards established
above shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use approval, subject to the standards and
provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00.
Page 4 of 6
Request Statement (2-26-2026)
Tnctifieation
The Quail Creek Country Club and golf course have been in existence at this location since
approximately 1981. There have been multiple expansions throughout the year, including a rebuild
of the golf course in 1993. The driving range is located south of the clubhouse, next to hole 10 of
the golf course. Driving ranges are a common accessory use to golf courses. There have been
several instances of injury to patrons playing through hole 10 caused by errant golf balls from the
driving range. In response to a significant safety risk to golfers on the course and to protect the
safety and welfare of the public utilizing the golf course, an errant ball containment fence was
installed in April 2024 along the western perimeter of the driving range, to prevent errant and long
shots from reaching Hole 10. To date, six individuals have been struck on Hole 10 by range ball,
including one incident resulting in major injury.
In the GC District a driving range is an accessory use. 2.03.09.A. Lb.2., LDC ("Recreational
facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to
clubhouse, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming
pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.") (Emphasis added).
Dimensional standards for accessory uses are included both in section 2.03.09.A. Lb., and section
4.02.02, LDC.1 Additional dimensional standards for fences are contained in section 5.03.02,
LDC. None of the above sections contain a height limit for accessory uses in the GC District.
This is distinct from accessory uses for other districts which do have height limits.
Specifically, in the GC District, in section 2.03.09.A. Lb., LDC, there are dimensional standards
regarding pro -shop sizes, § 2.03.09.A. Lb.3., LDC, but none regarding practice driving ranges. In
Section 4.02.02, LDC, the GC District dimensional standards are "[RESERVED]". This section,
prior to ordinance 2010-23, contained dimensional standards that were moved elsewhere and did
not include a height limit. Finally, in section 5.03.02, LDC, which includes additional
dimensional standards for fences, does not include any height limit applicable in the GC District.
There are fence height limits in certain listed zoning districts other than the GC District; for
example, Residential (RSF, RMF, RT, VR, MH) and TTRVC zoning districts and certain
commercial and industrial districts have fence height limits listed in section 5.03.02, LDC.
Notably absent from the list of districts with a fence height limit is the GC District.
Section 5.03.02, titled "Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls", however, does not contain
any height limit for fences in the GC District. Validation that there is not a height limit for fences
in the GC District is in the form of the 2 golf courses, Imperial and Hibiscus, that have driving
range containment fences taller than 35 feet.
Conclusion
The requested amendment is consistent with applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the
Growth Management Plan; will establish height limitations for errant ball containment fences in
1 Dimensional standards for principal uses in the GC District dictate a height limit of 35 feet, but
this is not applicable to accessory uses. § 4.02.0l.A., Table 2.
Page 5 of 6
Request Statement (2-26-2026)
the GC district; and establish setback and landscaping standards to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding area. The proposed standards will allow golf courses to safeguard the safety of
guests and adjacent properties through the installation of these containment fences, while giving
Collier County the means to review and ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
Page 6 of 6
Request Statement (2-26-2026)
ERRANT BALL CONTAINMENT FENCE LDCA
LDC AMENDMENT TEXT
Text underlined are additions and stmek thfough are deletions.
2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts
A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district
is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including
certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and
manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban
mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element
of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in
LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards.
1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the
uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.
a. Permitted uses.
1. Golf courses.
2. Hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks.
3. Passive recreation areas.
4. Disc golf.
b. Accessory uses.
Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses
permitted as of right in the GC district.
2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course
use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center
building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming
pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.
3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet,
associated with a golf course.
4. Restaurants associated with a golf course with a seating capacity of
150 seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no later
than 10:00 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall be limited to
200 seats, and the hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m.,
within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone.
Page 1 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf
course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf
course.
6. Maintenance buildings.
7. Errant golf ball containment barriers that meet the design standards
established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional
uses in the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established
in LDC section 10.08.00.
1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift
shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square
feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats
outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone;
cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve
patrons of the golf course.
2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens.
3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to
residential uses.
4. Museums.
5. Water related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat
ramps, docks, and fishing piers.
6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball,
tennis, and racquetball.
7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers.
8. Parks and playgrounds.
9. Pools, indoor or outdoor.
10. Botanical gardens.
11. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design
standards established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
Page 2 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
12. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the
foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of
Zoning Appeals, as applicable.
...............................................................................
5.03.08. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC,) Zoning District
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball
containment barriers do not adversely impact land uses adjacent to golf courses and/or
driving ranges by establishing height, locational, and landscaping standards.
Errant golf ball containment barriers (more commonly known as golf netting or barriers
consist of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and designed to contain errant golf
balls to protect play. e�pectators, neighboring_ properties, and public and private ri h
way from the risks of stray golf balls; and are a component of golf courses and/or practice
drivin rganges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
within the Golf Course and Recreational Use Zonine District "GC".
C. Design and development standards.
1. Height, Location, and Design Standards.
a. Maximum Height: seventy (70) feet.
b. Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant ,golf ball
containment barriers shall be setback twenty (20) feet from anyproperty
line under separate ownership_
c. Required Setback Adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwelling units: One (1) foot for each foot in height.
d. Required setback adjacent to public right-of-way: One (1) foot for each
foot in height.
e. Required Upright Pole Color: Matte Black
£ Required Netting Color: Black
2. Landscaping requirements when adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwellinz units.
a. A cluster of trees consisting of a minimum of three (3) canopy trees or
palms at the approximate location of each upright pole shall be required.
Page 3 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
Required tree plantings shall be planted a minimum of ten (10) feet and a
maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the errant ball containment barrier
upright poles; and shall be minimum of twelve (12) feet in height at time
of planting and a minimum height of twenty 20) feet at maturi .. There
are no limitations on the number of palms that can be used.
b. Where adjacent property within three hundred (300) feet is improved with
one or more residential dwelling units, the required tree plantings shall be
located between the errant golf ball containment barrier upright pole, and
the adjacent property.
c. Existing, native vegetation that is a minimum height of twelve (12,) feet
can be used to meet these screening requirements. If native vegetation is
present but there are not enough trees at a minimum height of twelve (121
feet, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the screening
requirements.
D. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall require both a Site Development Plan and
building permit review.
E. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards established
above shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use approval, subject to the standards and
provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00.
Page 4 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
ERRANT BALL CONTAINMENT FENCE LDCA
LDC AMENDMENT TEXT
Text underlined are additions and stmek thfough are deletions.
2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts
A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district
is to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including
certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and
manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban
mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element
of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in
LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards.
1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the
uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.
a. Permitted uses.
1. Golf courses.
2. Hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks.
3. Passive recreation areas.
4. Disc golf.
b. Accessory uses.
Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses
permitted as of right in the GC district.
2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course
use, including but not limited to clubhouse, community center
building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming
pools and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.
3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet,
associated with a golf course.
4. Restaurants associated with a golf course with a seating capacity of
150 seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no later
than 10:00 p.m. However, the seating capacity shall be limited to
200 seats, and the hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m.,
within the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone.
Page 1 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf
course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf
course.
6. Maintenance buildings.
7. Errant golf ball containment barriers that meet the design standards
established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional
uses in the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established
in LDC section 10.08.00.
1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift
shops; pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square
feet; restaurants with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats
outside the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone;
cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily intended to serve
patrons of the golf course.
2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens.
3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to
residential uses.
4. Museums.
5. Water related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat
ramps, docks, and fishing piers.
6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball,
tennis, and racquetball.
7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers.
8. Parks and playgrounds.
9. Pools, indoor or outdoor.
10. Botanical gardens.
11. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design
standards established in LDC Section 5.03.08.
Page 2 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
12. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the
foregoing uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of
Zoning Appeals, as applicable.
...............................................................................
5.03.08. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC,) Zoning District
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball
containment barriers do not adversely impact land uses adjacent to golf courses and/or
driving ranges by establishing height, locational, and landscaping standards.
Errant golf ball containment barriers (more commonly known as golf netting or barriers
consist of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and designed to contain errant golf
balls to protect play. e�pectators, neighboring_ properties, and public and private ri h
way from the risks of stray golf balls; and are a component of golf courses and/or practice
drivin rganges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
within the Golf Course and Recreational Use Zonine District "GC".
C. Design and development standards.
1. Height, Location, and Design Standards.
a. Maximum Height: seventy (70) feet.
b. Setbacks. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant ,golf ball
containment barriers shall be setback twenty (20) feet from anyproperty
line under separate ownership_
c. Required Setback Adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwelling units: One (1) foot for each foot in height.
d. Required setback adjacent to public right-of-way: One (1) foot for each
foot in height.
e. Required Upright Pole Color: Matte Black
£ Required Netting Color: Black
2. Landscaping requirements when adjacent to property improved with one or more
residential dwellinz units.
a. A cluster of trees consisting of a minimum of three (3) canopy trees or
palms at the approximate location of each upright pole shall be required.
Page 3 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
Required tree plantings shall be planted a minimum of ten (10) feet and a
maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the errant ball containment barrier
upright poles; and shall be minimum of twelve (12) feet in height at time
of planting and a minimum height of twenty 20) feet at maturi .. There
are no limitations on the number of palms that can be used.
b. Where adjacent property within three hundred (300) feet is improved with
one or more residential dwelling units, the required tree plantings shall be
located between the errant golf ball containment barrier upright pole, and
the adjacent property.
c. Existing, native vegetation that is a minimum height of twelve (12,) feet
can be used to meet these screening requirements. If native vegetation is
present but there are not enough trees at a minimum height of twelve (121
feet, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the screening
requirements.
D. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall require both a Site Development Plan and
building permit review.
E. Errant golf ball containment barriers that cannot meet the design standards established
above shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use approval, subject to the standards and
provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00.
Page 4 of 4
LDC Text Amendment (2-26-2026)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
„)Collier County
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
PETITION
PL20250013881
ORIGIN
Letitia and Frank
Accarrino
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT
This Land Development Code (LDC) amendment proposes to define Errant
Golf Ball Containment Barriers and include them as an accessory and
conditional use within the Golf Course and Recreational Use (GC) Zoning
District and include related development standards. LDC amendments are
reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC), Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC), and the Land Development Review Subcommittee of
the DSAC (DSAC-LDR Subcommittee).
HEARING DATES
LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED
Board
TBD
1.08.02
Definitions
CCPC
TBD
2.03.09
Open Space Zoning Districts
DSAC
TBD
4.02.02
Dimensional Standards for Conditional Uses and Accessory
DSAC-LDR
03/17/2026
Uses in Base Zoning Districts
5.03.08
(NEW) Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf
Course (GC) Zoning District
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
DSAC-LDR DSAC CCPC
TBD TBD TBD
BACKGROUND
The homeowners at Quail Creek Estates (the "Homeowners”) propose a Land Development Code
("LDC") Amendment with respect to "errant ball containment barriers." These homeowners'
residences abut the driving range and golf course of the Quail Creek Country Club ("Quail Creek," the
"Club"). They are adversely affected by starkly industrial 63-foot high poles that Quail Creek illegally
installed in April of 2024, intending them to support an 850-foot-long golf barrier.
The Quail Creek example illustrates the harm that can befall homeowners when a golf club installs an
enormous, inappropriate and poorly researched barrier. Ignoring the legitimate concerns of residents,
the golf club has aggressively pushed for homeowners to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the
market value of their homes. Having had no success with its earlier maneuvers, Quail Creek is
currently seeking its own LDC amendment to permit super -tall "skyscraper" golf barriers throughout
Collier County.
In contrast, as golf course residents, we support solutions that balance safety considerations with our
aesthetic and property value concerns. We believe that compromises can be reached that will address
both safety and homeowner needs and maintain the beauty and value of our golf communities. The
optimal result in this County would be to achieve safety on golf courses by minimally visually
obtrusive means, avoiding disruption to surrounding residential development.
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Materials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant Ball
Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
.,,)Collier County
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS GMP CONSISTENCY
There are no anticipated fiscal or operational The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by
impacts anticipated with this amendment. Comprehensive Planning staff and may be deemed
consistent with the GMP.
EXHIBITS:
2
G:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Materials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant Ball
Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
DRAFT
Amend the LDC as follows:
1.08.02 — Definitions
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document or documents that provide an objective
evaluation of the impacts of a proposed development or other alteration of the existing natural
condition on the natural resources, environmental quality, and listed species.
Errant Golf Ball Containment Barrier. An errant golf ball containment barrier consists of a netting
barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to contain stray golf balls so as to protect
players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties; and is typically located within golf courses
and/or Dractice drivina ranaes.
Essential Services: Those services and facilities, including utilities, safety services, and other
government services, necessary to promote and protect public health, safety and welfare,
including but not limited to the following: police; fire, emergency medical, public park and public
library facilities; and all services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone,
electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been
approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction, and governmental
facilities.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts
A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is
to provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including
certain uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and
manner with residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban
mixed use district and the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element
of the Collier County GMP. All uses shall be subject to design standards established in
LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other applicable LDC standards.
1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses
that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.
a. Permitted uses.
35
1.
Golf courses.
36
2.
Hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths and observation decks.
37
3.
Passive recreation areas.
38
4.
Disc golf.
39
b. Accessory uses.
40
1.
Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as
41
of right in the GC district.
42
2.
Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use,
43
including but not limited to clubhouse, community center building, practice
44
driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis facilities,
45
snack shops and restrooms.
3
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than 1,000 square feet,
associated with a golf course.
4. Restaurants associated with a golf course with a seating capacity of 150
seats or less, provided that the hours of operation are no later than 10:00
p.m. However, the seating capacity shall be limited to 200 seats, and the
hours of operation may be extended to 12:00 a.m., within the Golden Gate
City Economic Development Zone.
5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for use by golf course
employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf course.
6. Maintenance buildings.
7. Errant golf ball containment barriers up to and including thirty-five (35) feet
in height, subject to the standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08.
c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in
the GC district, subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC
section 10.08.00.
1. Commercial establishments oriented to the golf course including gift shops;
pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet; restaurants
with seating capacity of greater than 150 seats outside the Golden Gate City
Economic Development Zone; cocktail lounges, and similar uses, primarily
intended to serve patrons of the golf course.
2. Cemeteries and memorial gardens.
3. Equestrian facilities, including any trails, no closer than 500 feet to
residential uses.
4. Museums.
5. Water related activities, including non -motorized boating, boat ramps,
docks, and fishing piers.
6. Courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickle ball, tennis, and
racquetball.
7. Neighborhood fitness and community centers.
8. Parks and playgrounds.
9. Pools, indoor or outdoor.
10. Botanical gardens.
11. Errant golf ball containment barriers exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height or
that do not satisfy the design and development standards set forth in LDC
section 5.03.08.
142. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing
uses as determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals,
as applicable.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
4.02.02 — Dimensional Standards for Conditional Uses and Accessory Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
A. GC District. eQo Accessory uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height,
unless a conditional use request is granted pursuant to LDC sections 10.08.00 and
5.03.08.C.4.
4
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
DRAFT
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
# # # # # # # # # # #
5.03.08. Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoninq District
A. Purpose and intent. The Durpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant aolf ball
containment barriers do not adversely affect residential land uses adjacent to the golf
courses and/or driving ranges by establishing design and development standards. An
errant golf ball containment barrier consists of a netting barrier supported by upright poles
and is designed to contain stray golf balls so as to protect players, spectators, and/or
neighboring properties; and is typically located within golf courses and/or practice driving
ranges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
located within the GC District.
C. Design and development standards.
1. General Height and Location Standards.
a. Maximum Height: thirty-five (35) feet.
b. Required Separation from Property Zoned Or Used For Residential
Purposes. The errant golf ball containment barrier shall be positioned at a
minimum distance of one hundred and fifty (150) feet from any property
zoned or used for residential purposes.
C. Setback. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant golf ball
containment barriers shall be set back twenty (20) feet from any property
line that is not in common ownership with the golf course or driving range.
d. Required Setback Adjacent to Public Right -of -Way: One (1) foot for each
Foot in height, but no less than twenty (20) feet.
e. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall not be located within a Lake
Maintenance Easement.
2. Netting and pole requirements when the errant golf ball containment barrier is
within three hundred (300) feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes:
a. Netting used in the errant golf ball containment barrier shall be low visibility,
with a twine diameter of one (1) millimeter or less.
b. Errant golf ball containment barrier poles shall be constructed of wood,
aluminum or steel, and, if aluminum or steel is used, the poles shall be
powder coated or painted a grayish green or sage green matte color.
5
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
DRAFT
3
Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
Landscaae screenina reauirements.
a. A cluster of trees ("pole cluster planting") shall be planted in front of each
errant golf ball containment barrier pole. See Figure 5.03.08 C. If both sides
of the poles are facing property zoned or used for residential purposes that
is located within three hundred (300) feet of the errant golf ball containment
barrier, then a pole cluster planting shall be required to be installed on both
sides of the poles. Each pole cluster planting shall consist of a minimum of
one (1) tree and an additional two (2) trees or palms clustered and adjacent
to each upright pole. A tree shall be planted in the center of the cluster. The
other trees or palms shall be spaced no less than fifteen (15) feet on center
and no more than twenty-five (25) feet on center. The required pole cluster
plantings shall be planted at a minimum distance of one-half (1/2) of the
tree or palm average mature spread from the errant golf ball containment
barrier, but in any case no less than six (6) feet from the errant golf ball
containment barrier. The required ratio of canopy trees to palms set forth
in LDC Section 4.06.05 (D) (2) (a) shall not apply.
AIRIER POLE
/NETTINQ
% NO PLANTINGOI NQ PLRNTI NG 2 OM1IE
TREE CAR PALM TREE OR PALM
N, 1 S QH CENTER
MAX 2S ON CENTER
TREE
POLE CLUSTER PLANTING
Figure 5.03.08 C
b. Minimum Plant Standards for Pole Cluster Plantings. All proposed trees
and palms for the pole cluster plantings shall have a minimum mature
height of thirty-five (35) feet. All trees must have a minimum mature spread
of twenty (20) feet. At the time of planting, trees shall be a minimum of
twelve (12) feet in height with a 1 3/4-inch caliper. Palms shall have a
minimum ten (10) foot clear trunk at Dlantina. Plant material shall follow the
6
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added
Text str'Lethre nh is current text to he deleted
native requirements as set forth in General Landscape Requirements
Section 4.06.05 (D) and Figure 4.06.05 D.
C. Existina. native veaetation of the minimum reauired size and located within
a twenty (20) foot radius of each pole can be used to meet these screening
requirements. If native vegetation is present but there are not enough trees
or palms of the minimum required size, supplemental landscaping must be
used to meet the screening requirements.
4. Relief from design and development standards. An applicant requesting a
Conditional Use may request a deviation from the design and development
standards of this section as part of the Conditional Use request. Criteria for the
deviation will be the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00 D.
5. The errant golf ball containment barrier and related landscaping shall be shown on
site development plans and construction plans.
7
GALDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\DSAC-LDR\2026\03-17\Mate rials\PL20250013881 Golf Course Errant
Ball Containment Barriers (Accarrino_Commers) - LDCA (03-10-2026).docx
,t .., Collier County
Memorandum
To: Development Services Advisory Committee -Land Development Review (DSAC-LDR)
Subcommittee
From: Alexander Showalter, Planner III
Date: April 14, 2026
Re: Golf Course Errant Ball Barriers (PL20250013881)
Hello,
Additional documents related to application PL20250013881 have been included with this agenda
packet. The applicant has resubmitted and updated the proposed LDCA and narrative. The
narrative has been revised and now includes opposition to the competing amendment proposal,
PL20250012443. Two changes have been made to the proposed amendment:
- 150 ft distance requirement to residential, reduced to 2 ft of distance for every 1 ft in
height.
- Landscaping requirements updated to include 3 canopy trees instead of allowing up to
two palms.
Please contact me at (239) 252-1032 or Alexander. Showalter&collier.gov if you have any
questions.
1.08.02 - Definitions
....Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document or documents that provide an objective
evaluation of the impacts of a proposed development or other alteration of the existing natural
conditions on the natural resources, environmental quality, and listed species.
Errant Golf Ball Containment Barrier. An errant golf ball containment barrier consists of a netting
barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to contain stray golf balls so as to protect
players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties; and is typically located within golf courses
and/or practice driving ranges.
Essential services: Those services and facilities, including utilities, safety services, and other
government services, necessary to promote and protect public health, safety and welfare,
including but not limited to the following: police; fire, emergency medical, public park and public
library facilities; and all services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone,
electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been
approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction, and governmental
facilities... .
2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts.
A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to
provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including certain
uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with
residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and
the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP.
All uses shall be subject to design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other
applicable LDC standards.
The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are
allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.... .
1. (b). Accessory uses. .. .
7. Errant golf ball containment barriers up to and including thirty-five (35) feet in height, subject to
the standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08.
c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the GC district,
subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00...
11. Errant golf ball containment barriers exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height or that do not
satisfy the design and development standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08.
44 12. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses as
determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeal, as applicable.
4.02.02 - Dimensional Standards for Conditional Uses and Accessory Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
A. GC District. [Reserved] Accessory uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, unless a
conditional use request is granted pursuant to LDC sections 10.08.00 and 5.03.08 (C)(4).
5.03.08 - Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball
containment barriers do not adversely affect residential land uses adjacent to the golf courses
and/or driving ranges by establishing design and development standards. An errant golf ball
containment barrier consists of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to
contain stray golf balls so as to protect players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties: and is
typically located within golf courses and/or practice driving ranges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
located within the GC District.
C. Design and development standards.
1. General Height and Location Standards.
a. Maximum Height: thirty-five (35) feet.
b. Required Separation from Property Zoned Or Used For Residential Purposes. The
errant golf ball containment barrier shall be positioned at a minimum distance of
two (2) feet from any property zoned or used for residential purposes for every one
(1) foot of height of the errant golf ball containment barrier up to 35 feet.
c. Setback. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant golf ball containment
barriers shall be set back twenty (20) feet from any property line that is not in
common ownership with the golf course or driving range.
d. Required Setback Adjacent to Public Right -of -Way: One (1) foot for each foot in
height, but no less than twenty (20) feet.
2
e. Errant golf ball containment barriers shall not be located within a Lake
Maintenance Easement.
2. Netting and pole requirements when the errant golf ball containment barrier is within
three hundred (300) feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes:
a. Netting used in the errant golf ball containment barrier shall be low visibility, with a
twine diameter of one (1) millimeter or less.
b. Errant golf ball containment barrier poles shall be constructed of wood, aluminum
or steel, and, if aluminum or steel is used, the poles shall be powder coated or
painted a grayish green or sage green matte color.
3. Landscape screening requirements.
a. A cluster of trees "pole cluster planting") shall be planted in front of each errant
golf ball containment barrier pole. See Figure 5.03.08 C. If both sides of the
poles are facing property zoned or used for residential purposes that is located
within three hundred (360) feet of the errant golf ball containment barrier, then
pole cluster plantings shall be required to be installed on both sides of the
poles. Each pole cluster planting shall consist of a minimum of three (3) trees
clustered and adjacent to each upright pole. One of the trees shall be planted in
the center of the cluster as set forth in Figure 5.03.08 C. The other trees shall be
spaced no less than twenty (20) feet on center and no more than thirty (30) feet
on center. The required pole cluster plantings shall be planted at a minimum
distance of one-half (1 /2) of the tree's average mature spread from the errant
golf ball containment barrier, but in any case no less than twelve (12) feet from
the errant golf ball containment barrier.
NO PLANTING ZONE
POLE
NO PLANTING ZONE w
1:(L
J N
Q
a = it
w zp
20' ON CENTER
30' ON CENTER
POLE CLUSTER PLANTING
Figure 5.03.08 C5.03.08 C
*TREE SYMBOLS
ARE SHOWN WITH
A 10' SPREAD
0
b. Minimum Plant Standards for Pole Cluster Plantings. All proposed trees for the
pole cluster plantings shall have a minimum mature height of thirty-five (35) feet.
All trees must have a minimum mature spread of twenty (20) feet. At the time of
planting, trees shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height with a 1 3/4-inch
caliper. Palms may not be used. Plant material shall follow the native
requirements as set forth in General Landscape Requirements Section 4.06.05
(D) and Figure 4.06.05 D.
c. Existing, native vegetation of the minimum required size and located within a
twenty (20) foot radius of each pole can be used to meet these screening
requirements. If native vegetation is present but there are not enough trees of
the minimum required size, supplemental landscaping must be used to meet the
screening requirements.
4. Relief from design and development standards. An applicant requesting a
Conditional Use may request a deviation from the design and development standards
of this section as part of the Conditional Use request. Criteria for the deviation will be
the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00 D.
5. The errant golf ball containment barrier and related landscaping shall be shown on
site development plans and construction plans.
Quail Creek Homeowners' LDC Amendment Narrative
and Opposition to Quail Creek Country Clubs LDC Amendment
Brief Summary
The homeowners at Quail Creek Estates (the "Homeowners") propose a Land Development
Code ("LDC") Amendment with respect to "errant ball containment barriers." Our
amendment represents a reasonable compromise between competing goals by preserving the
value of Collier County residential development as much as possible, while providing safety
to golfers. Our proposed language sets forth location, height and design requirements for
these errant ball barriers. Meanwhile, golf courses would be permitted to build barriers,
unlimited in length, up to 35 feet high. Barriers in excess of 35 feet or that don't comply with
the other criteria may be considered as a conditional use.
I. Preliminary Statement
The Homeowners' residences abut the driving range and golf course of the Quail Creek
Country Club ("Quail Creek," the "Club"). They are adversely affected by starkly industrial
63-foot high poles that Quail Creek illegally installed in April of 2024, intending them to
support an 850-foot-long golf barrier that would protect only private golfers that play golf on
one of its 36 fairways. Ignoring the legitimate concerns of residents, this golf club has
aggressively pushed for its barrier, causing homeowners to lose hundreds of thousands of
dollars in the market value of their homes.
The Quail Creek example illustrates the harm to neighboring homeowners when a private
golf club illegally installs an enormous, industrial -style barrier in a residential community,
towering almost 70 feet above its surroundings. See Exhibit A (photographs). The Zoning
Division rejected Quail Creek's permit application in June of 2024 on the grounds that the
barrier's enormous height exceeds the 35-foot maximum in the GC District. The other
procedural maneuvers it has made since then have failed. Repeatedly refusing the
homeowners' good -faith offers of mediation, Quail Creek now seeks a County -wide LDC
amendment to permit the installation of 70 foot tall "skyscraper" golf barriers (twice the
existing height limitation) throughout Collier County as of right, with affected homeowners
to be afforded no public hearing or opportunity for comment.
The essence of zoning is that it ensures compatible land uses and protects property values.
Thus, LDC amendments cannot be considered in a vacuum. But that is precisely what Quail
Creek's proposal does, utterly ignoring the very real property value and other interests of
homeowners whose properties abut the GC District.
Super -high, "skyscraper" barriers placed within view of residences disrupt the status quo
between the golf course and the neighborhood, and are damaging to homeowner values. A
certified residential appraiser testifies that any home with a view of an ultra -high barrier will
"suffer due to this external obsolescence, causing negative market value impacts." See
Exhibit B ¶ 9. (Declaration of Burkhard Klein). One affected home has sold at only half of
its original list price. See infra at 21.
As golf course residents, we support a solution that balances golf safety considerations with
aesthetic and property value concerns.
That is the goal of our proposed changes to the LDC, which would also comply with the
existing requirement in the GC District that recreational uses be compatible in "scale and
manner" with residential land uses. See LDC § 2.03.09. Minimally visually obtrusive means
to achieve safety on golf courses should be used to avoid unnecessary damage to the value of
surrounding residential development.
Our proposed amendment sets forth, among other things, that a 35-foot height limit applies
to accessory GC District uses, including golf barriers. This merely clarifies law that has
existed since 1974 for the GC District in Collier County. An errant ball containment barrier
in excess of 35 feet in height could now be permitted as a conditional use.
Ultrahigh barriers would thus be considered on a case -by -case basis. This is a reasonable
approach, especially since existing residential homeowners stand to lose hundreds of
thousands of dollars in home equity if confronted with the installation of ultra -high,
discordant golf barriers.
Standards to Govern Errant Ball Containment Barriers
Our proposal would define and regulate "errant ball containment barriers" as an accessory
use within the GC District. Such barriers are intended to protect players, spectators and
neighboring properties from the risk of stray balls. These barriers can look industrial, even
prison -like. But in Collier County, any errant ball containment barrier within 300 feet of
residences would be subject to the height, location and design standards we propose in order
to make it as unobtrusive as possible to nearby residential properties, thus preserving the
compatibility of the golf course with the residences nearby.
The existing 35-foot height limitation in GC Districts is essential to making errant ball
containment barriers in residential golf communities proportionate and preserving property
values. At that height, the barriers are not visible from the front of the homes. They are at
the treeline instead of 35 feet above it, and don't block the sky or darken the sunlight. They
are at a height where camouflaging their height with trees is possible. See Exhibit C (photos
showing 35 foot high line superimposed on Quail Creek barrier).
ii. .safety
Reports from not just one, but two, independent golf experts establish that a 35-foot barrier
are more than adequate for safety in the Quail Creek situation. In cases where that height is
not adequate on its own, alternative remedies are available, in addition to the conditional use
procedure set forth in LDC § 10.08.
One of the golf experts, Joseph M. Groch, a golf professor at nearby Florida Gulf Coast
University, explains through peer -reviewed trajectory and statistical analysis that a 35-foot
barrier can block almost all errant shots at the Quail Creek course, at 99.9962%. "The 35-
foot net with an arc -tee configuration provides superior aesthetics and safe containment with
40% less visual impact than a 60-foot straight -tee barrier. Incorporating vegetation buffers
and standard operational controls, the design achieves 99.9962% containment, meeting or
exceeding industry standards." Exhibit D at 1. The arc -tee configuration means that the tee
2
stations arc slightly to the left, away from the area of concern, a very inexpensive and
noninvasive change. See generally Exhibit D.
This barrier with the arcing achieves 99.9962% safety, or a .0038% error rate (the risk that
a ball will be hit over a barrier at all). Based on the area of Hole 10, he estimates the risk of
actually hitting a Hole 10 golfer when a 35 foot barrier is present at .0000182%. And
multiplying that probability by the number of balls hit on the driving range per year,
estimating that to be 1,000,000, he estimates that .182 of a ball per year would be likely to
actually hit a golfer on Hole 10, less than one -fifth of one ball per year.
This .0000182% probability is much lower than the generalized risk of being hit by a ball
elsewhere on the golf course, which is about 1 in 5,000, or .02%.
There are many alternatives that can achieve golfer safety while minimizing damage to the
neighbors. Our two independent golf experts discuss the various means that may be used to
alleviate the danger from stray balls. Exhibit D at 12-13; Exhibit E at 11-12.
As these experts explain, golf barriers can often be avoided altogether by the use of
thoughtful and analytical approaches like landscaping methods such as trees and shrubs,
hedgerows or high berms; adding a much smaller barrier closer to the tee box to catch stray
balls closer to the point of origin; and golf restrictions such as self-limiting balls (which were
formerly used at Quail Creek), repositioning tee stations to be angled away from the area of
concern, and irons -only policies. See Exhibit E at 13-14.
In an addendum to his report, Mr. Groch analyzed, from a statistical perspective, the positive
effect that the use of limited flight golf balls would have on safety. Exhibit D at 14-16.
Mr. Groch points out that "a 60-foot proposed net, when compared with a 35-foot option,
adds little efficacy but at a great cost to the environment." Exhibit D at 13.
iii. Conditional Use Procedure
An "ultra -high" errant ball containment barrier exceeding 35 feet in height would only be
permitted as a conditional use pursuant to LDC § 10.08. Where these higher barriers might
actually be necessary, the conditional use procedure is a very appropriate vehicle for
considering the installation of an ultra -high golf barrier in a residential area.
The conditional use procedure would provide notice to affected homeowners when any golf
barrier is planned exceeding 35 feet. This procedure provides actual notice to affected
homeowners of a neighborhood information meeting at which a County planner would be
present, as well as a public hearing. The public hearing would give affected homeowners an
opportunity to be heard. Residential landowners to be affected by an errant ball
containment barrier, the ones who will be permanently viewing it, would have a voice.
The conditional use process will also ensure that any ultra --high containment barrier will be
in harmony with the general intent of the LDC and consistent with the Growth Management
Plan ("GMP"), will benefit the public welfare and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
adjoining properties. For example, many such barriers are installed to actually protect
3
nearby residents. The circumstances of each ultra -high system will differ, so the conditional
use process is uniquely suited to provide appropriate review.
A conditional use procedure would also be available for deviation from the design and
development requirements of our proposed amendment if necessary.
In summary, our proposed LDC Amendment clarifies the existing height regulations for the
GC District, provides design and location criteria to make sure these errant ball containment
barriers can be as unobtrusive as possible, and offers the conditional use process to protect
the compatibility of residences around GC Districts when an errant ball containment barrier
higher than 35 feet is being proposed. That process would help homeowners preserve their
property values as much as possible by giving them input and an opportunity to be heard.
This will make Collier County golf courses and their adjacent residential communities as
beautiful as possible, while safety considerations are satisfied as well. Collier County could
serve as a model to other golf courses throughout Florida by harmonizing these objectives.
iv. The "Floodgates "Argument
Quail Creek's attorney raised a "floodgates" argument at the initial hearing on March 17,
2026 (before the Land Development Review subcommittee of the Development Services
Advisory Committee), claiming that it would be time consuming and onerous for other golf
courses and the County staff to deal with the conditional use procedure to obtain permits for
their heretofore unpermitted golf barriers.
Throughout this controversy, Quail Creek has complained about golf courses in the County
that have installed golf barriers higher than 35 feet with no permit. Among these, it
specifically refers to two other golf courses that are also in the GC District, Hibiscus and
Imperial. Quail Creek Narrative at 5. At the initial hearing on March 17, 2026, the Club's
counsel referred to additional golf courses located in PUDs that also do not have a permit.
In the first place, making things administratively "easy" for golf courses that have evaded
the County's permitting requirements for many years and thus may have erected unsafe
structures should not be a primary focus as these LDC amendments are considered.
Much more important is preserving and protecting the value of existing development in a
reasonable compromise between golf course safety and aesthetics, as is embodied in the
Homeowners' LDC amendment.
Next, County staff is not concerned. Staff had actually suggested the conditional use
procedure in response to the initial draft of Quail Creek's LDC amendment as well as our own.
Quail Creek rejected that idea, but we adopted it.
Concern for these golf clubs is misplaced. They never obtained permits for their barriers to
begin with, so they would have to do substantial paperwork to get them. This will likely
involve filing structural diagrams for projects that were put in place decades ago, in many
cases, and obtaining wind studies for their supertall structures. Other barriers may not
19
comply with the Florida Building Code and may need additional foundational or other
support. The Valencia club's barrier, for one, does not look like it was properly installed. It
will likely need to be shored up or redesigned to get a permit. This administrative/structural
work has nothing to do with the conditional use, but relates to the fact that these clubs built
unpermitted barriers.
Not many golf courses are involved. There are not many GC golf districts in Collier County.
Other than Quail Creek, Imperial, and Hibiscus, there are only four. See Exhibit F. And only
three apparently need permits for illegally installed golf barriers.
Quail Creek's concern is remarkably disingenuous. In January of 2026, Quail Creek itself
instituted Code Enforcement proceedings against the Hibiscus and Imperial golf clubs, the
two GC District clubs with unpermitted golf barriers, by making complaints against them.
Mr. Christopher Ragain, a Quail Creek golfer who is a resident of neither the Imperial nor
Hibiscus communities, made each of those complaints. Exhibit G at 1, 4. He attempted to
initiate the Imperial complaint anonymously, but it was rejected by the County, and he had
to make a second complaint in early February using his name. These complaints were most
likely made at the request of Quail Creek management or its lawyers.
Having embroiled Imperial and Hibiscus in Code proceedings that previously didn't exist,
Quail Creek's claims of concern on their behalf are simply false.
The commencement of the Code Enforcement cases against Hibiscus and Imperial coincides
with the pending hearings on Quail Creek's proposed LDC amendment. Quail Creek's
strategy to get its LDC amendment approved appears to be to make passage of its LDC
amendment more likely by creating a group of golf clubs that would benefit from the County
passing legislation that allows 70-foot tall golf barriers as of right. But the Hibiscus and
Imperial situations are very different from Quail Creek's.
Each has a fence at the end of a very short driving range that has been put in place for the
residents' safety. Hibiscus' barrier has been in place since at least 2005. Imperial's has been
there at least since 2010. There are no complaints about the barriers from affected residents
for either of these properties.
The first complaint about these unpermitted barriers has come, not from the residents, but
from Quail Creek. So, unlike Quail Creek, those golf courses are unlikely to encounter any
opposition from residents if they request a conditional use.
Finally, the idea that even Quail Creek's proposed LDC amendment will allow easy approval
of the barriers of the other golf clubs is a mirage. Assuming that Code cases were initiated
against them, several of the other golf courses would have to seek conditional use approvals
under either proposed LDC amendment, not because of the height of their barriers, but
because their existing vegetation is not exactly as prescribed, distances are different, or
other factors.
For example, Wilderness (approx. 35 feet), Eagle Creek (approx. 10 feet), and Olde Cypress
(33-35 feet) all have distances from the golf barriers in certain locations that are less than
the "one (1) foot for each foot in height" distance set forth in the Club's proposed
5
amendment. See Exhibit H hereto (screenshots with distances from Google Earth). The
fences are in those locations to protect residents' safety.
II. Consistency with the GMP
Our legislative proposal is consistent with the GMP because it clarifies existing law on GC
district height restrictions of 35 feet for accessory uses, including errant ball containment
barriers. It is also consistent with the 35-foot height limitation in surrounding residential
development, including the RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4, RSF-5, RSF-6, and RMF-6 districts.
The surrounding homes of the Quail Creek golf course are zoned RSF-2.
Design, location and height standards for all errant ball containment barriers will ensure
compatibility with existing residential land uses. See infra 10-12.
Moreover, our proposal integrates existing development with golf course needs by allowing
surrounding residential homeowners to have a voice as provided in the conditional use
procedure where any golf course barrier is planned exceeding 35 feet or deviates from the
design and development requirements.
This will avoid unnecessary depletion of the value and enjoyment of existing residential
development.
III. Legislative Background.• Height in the GCDistrict Has Always Been
7?P.14fPirtPd
Our proposed amendment clarifies existing law, providing that, consistent with legislative
history in the GC District:
A height restriction of 35 feet applies to all accessory uses in the Golf Course District,
including any golf course or driving range barriers. Errant ball containment barriers over
35 feet high can be permitted as a conditional use. (The existing 35 foot restriction on
principal uses in the GC District will remain in existing Table 2 of LDC Section 4.02.01,
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts.)
It has always been the BCC's intent to regulate height in the GC District, which is one in
which golf courses are typically interwoven with residences. Those restrictions are
especially important now that residential development has grown up around the golf courses
in GC Districts.
In addition, the Zoning Director has recently issued an Official Interpretation finding that
golf barrier barriers are limited to 35 feet.
Passage of any LDC amendment that allows golf barriers to exceed the 35 foot height
restriction written into the GC District could give rise to claims against the County for
unconstitutional takings and/or Bert Harris claims. The external obsolescence would impose
an "inordinate burden" on the existing uses in the GC and other districts, making the
property owner "permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment -backed
expectation for the existing use of the real property." Remedies include payments in lieu of
onsite mitigation, which is impossible here, and purchase of the real property. See Fla. Stat.
§ 70.001-002.
0
A prominent view of an industrial -style barrier (evocative of factories and prisons) in
previously parklike residential settings will rob homeowners of home equity they have
accrued through the price they paid based largely on the view, long years of homeownership,
repairs, payment of property taxes and HOA fees, and costly improvements added to their
homes.
In many cases, a golf course resident's home is their largest investment and the embodiment
of their life savings.
i. Legislative History
The Board of County Commissioners in Collier Couty restricted heights in the GC District
from the very beginning. It called for "harmony" in such districts in relation to landscaping,
location of access streets, parking areas and buffer areas. Later, the LDC added an
overarching requirement that recreational uses be compatible in "scale and manner" with
residential land uses —in other words, with the nearby homes.
The BCC restricted heights in the GC District from 1974 on.
In 1974, the provision in the LDC defining Golf Course Districts, § 11.22, provided for a
maximum height of 35 feet above grade within 150 feet of any district that was restricted to
30 feet in height, and "except 45 feet elsewhere within the district." Ordinance 74-12 at 77 -
78 (attached hereto as Exhibit I). The height provision was part of the GC District
description and therefore covered everything. It was not limited to certain types of uses.
In 1975, the provision for the GC District on height stayed the same for the most part, but
the BCC took out the confusing word "except," making it even clearer that height was to be
regulated. Ordinance 75-24 at § 26 (Book 9 page 243) (Exhibit J).
In 1991, the Golf Course District was amended to provide that a height limitation of 35 feet
would apply to all permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the Golf Course District.
(Exhibit K, Ordinance 91-102 at 2-6 to 2-7, § § 2.2.1.4; 2.2.1.4.4). The height of lighting
was restricted to 25 feet. §2.2.1.4.10 (Exhibit K).
In 1992, language was added making pro shops in excess of 1,000 square feet and
restaurants with seating for more than 150 primarily for golf course patrons, conditional
uses. Ordinance 92-73, 2.2.1.3. (Exhibit L).
In 2004, the BBC enacted a major recodification of the LDC, Ordinance 04-41. In its recitals,
the ordinance provided that "the revisions to, and recodification of the LDC does not
substantively alter in any way the prior existing LDC text and the substantive provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby determined to be consistent with and to implement the Collier
County Growth Management Plan...". 2 -3 of 6 (emphasis added) (Exhibit M).
Ordinance 04-41 provided that, and the LDC still provides that:
"in the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or of any
other statute, code, local resolution, regulation or other applicable federal, state, or local
law, the more stringent standard, limitation, or requirement shall govern or prevail to the
extent of the conflict, except that in the event that any provisions of the adopted, re -
codified LDC should result in the unintended consequence of an unresolved conflict with
7
the provisions of the previously adopted LDC, as amended, the prior provisions will be
considered to apply. " Emphasis added. LDC § 5, Conflict and Severability, Ordinance 04-
41 (Exhibit M at page 5 of 6).
In the 2004 version, the description of the GC District was for some reason dramatically
curtailed. What had been several paragraphs and sub -paragraphs became one small
paragraph. The paragraph no longer listed specific principal, accessory or conditional
uses. The new description in its entirety was as follows:
"The purpose and intent of the "GC" District is to provide land for golf courses and normal
accessory uses to golf courses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. The GC
district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural rural
district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. " Exhibit M, 22 of 176.
It was in this same version of the LDC that the table of heights for principal uses in various
districts, including the GC District, was promulgated. Table 2 [of Article 4], Building
Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts provided for a "maximum
building height" of 35 feet for the GC District. Exhibit M at 2, 3 of 247.
So, when Table 2 was put in place, there was no longer a verbal description of the specific
principal, accessory or conditional uses of the GC District in the LDC.
Obviously, the main principal use of the GC District, a golf course itself, is not a building or
structure with a height that needs to be regulated. Hiking trails, passive recreation areas
(picnic areas and benches) and disc golf are also at ground level.
Since a golf course is by necessity at ground level, Table 2, if taken literally, has no
practical application. Applying the table literally would have the absurd result of
rescinding the previously mandated height restriction of 35 feet for all uses in the GC
District, and resulting in no effective height regulation in the GC District. Permit
applicants in the County have long interpreted the 35-foot height restriction to apply to
accessory uses.
Indeed, Quail Creek's own engineers acknowledged in its variance application exhibits that
accessory uses in the GC District are limited in height when they noted that 35 feet was the
"maximum building height." Exhibit N. They noted that the cart barn had a height of 29.42
inches, the club house was 31.77 feet tall, the halfway house was 14.83 feet tall. These are all
accessory uses, not principal uses. The barrier, however, was listed at 60 feet: not in
compliance.
Because the 2004 version of the Code was expressly meant to be a recodification and did
not intend to make a substantive revision to the previously existing height restrictions, the
prior, 1991 version should control. It seems likely that the severe shortening of the GC
District description in 2004 led to its being inadvertently included in a table for the heights
of principal uses, since the listing of its specific accessory uses of restaurants, snack shops,
driving ranges, and clubhouses and their ilk was now missing.
Indeed, in later versions of the LDC, the full description of GC District uses, explaining that
the "golf course" was a permitted use and that a clubhouse, community center, practice
0
driving range, snack shops were accessories, was added back. This occurred first in 2008.
See Exhibit 0 (Ordinance 08-11, 128-129 of 134). Yet Table 2 of the building dimensional
standards remained, and with it the nominal restriction on the height of only principal
uses —which are ground -level uses (and fences).
We have thus proposed that clarifying language be put into the GC District description that
restates the pre-2004 language to the effect that a height of 35 feet would apply to all
accessory uses in the Golf Course District, but that errant ball containment barriers may be
over 35 feet if permitted as a conditional use.
ii. GOIfBarriers Are Limited to 35 Feet
The Zoning Director, in response to the Club's request, has very recently interpreted the LDC
to the effect that golf course barriers are limited to 35 feet. CU Decision," Exhibit P).
Mr. Bosi could also have decided that their height was limited to 8 feet, without a variance.
A front yard fence for a property of one acre or less, like our properties, is limited to 4 feet,
LDC § 5.03.02 (C)(1) (b), and 6 feet for larger lots. LDC § 5.03.02 (C) (2) (a). Even in
commercial areas, fences are limited to 8 feet. LDC § 5.03.02 (D) (1). Since golf course uses
are to be compatible in scale and manner with residential uses, these limits make much more
sense where the view of homeowners is involved.
LDC § 5.03.02 (emphasis added).
Fences in all districts are subject to the rules set forth in LDC § 5.03.2, unless specifically_
exempted. (emphasis added).
The GC District is NOT exempted.
The fences within agricultural districts are exempted, LDC § 5.03.02 E. showing that
certain districts were considered for exemption, but the GC District is not one of them.
This provides an 8-foot fence height for a commercial district such as the Quail Creek
Country Club. The fence provision in the LDC restricts the height of fences to the single
digits because fences can infringe on and interfere with the view of those nearby.
"Where any provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect
in Collier County, Florida, imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any
other provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in
Collier County, Florida, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be
deemed to be controlling."
LDC. § 1.03.01 (d).
So, it could be argued that the lesser of the 8-foot height limit for fences in commercial
districts (LDC § 5.03.02) and the 35-foot limit for principal uses in Table 2 of LDC § 4.02.01
applies.
But Mr. Bosi decided that the 35-foot height in Table 2 of LDC § 4.02.01 applied to limit the
height of the Club's barrier. Exhibit P. So that is what we have included in our proposed
amendment.
0
IV. "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors ".
Errant Ball Golf -Barriers Should Be Required to Follow
Location, Design and Height Standards
For Collier County residents with lots abutting or near a golf course in the GC District, an
errant ball barrier, whatever its size, may cause external obsolescence to their homes,
leading to an immediate and precipitous decline in property value. As in the Quail Creek
example, those views would be blocked forever by an enormous black barrier, overtly
industrial in appearance. An errant ball containment barrier can dramatically destroy
formerly expansive views, and hence the market value of affected homes.. See Exhibit B ¶ 9
(appraiser declaration).
The objective is therefore to achieve safety on golf courses in GC Districts in this County by
minimally visually obtrusive means.
Design and Development Standards
We thus propose certain design and development standards. The location of any errant ball
containment barrier must be placed at least two feet away from property zoned or used for
residential purposes for every one foot of height of the golf barrier. Should safety to those
homes require a closer distance, the conditional use procedure is available.
In addition, design requirements would be imposed when the barrier is within 300 feet of
property zoned or used for residential purposes. These relate to the type of netting to be
used, the poles, and landscape screening for the benefit of those nearby residences.
Height
Height is a crucial element of a fence in a residential area. Height needs to be limited
in proportion with surrounding residential development and trees. Since a 35-foot fence is
more or less level with the treeline and matches the maximum height in both the residential
districts and the GC district, it is much less damaging. A taller barrier would block the sky
and the light and cover up the view from the neighbors' homes, as shown in the Quail Creek
pictures. See generally Exhibit A. It would be, by far, the highest thing anywhere around,
and naturally draw the eye toward a very unsightly structure.
Netting
Netting should be of a twine thickness of 1 millimeter or less for optimal aesthetic
appearance. This will be almost transparent. One type of netting on the market is called
Dyneema #6, made of polyethylene with a .8 millimeter diameter. This was designed
specifically for the purpose of golf netting. It has a higher breaking strength and better
durability than polyester netting. See Exhibit Q, contrasting the coarse, ropelike netting
planned by Quail Creek and the much more transparent, lighter in weight Dyneema netting.
The last two photos in Exhibit Q show an errant ball containment barrier with netting similar
to that planned by Quail Creek, contrasted with a single -panel Dyneema barrier. As shown in
these photos, the lighter, seamless netting does not sag and presents a much better
appearance in a residential area.
10
The thickness of the netting dictates how visible it is. We have seen many examples of the
heavier, 2 mm twine fabric in use, and it has several drawbacks, especially its appearance.
The heavier weight of a typical 2 mm netting fabric per square foot makes it sag, especially
over time. Lighter, thinner netting does not sag, allowing for a much more transparent
appearance.
Heavier weight netting also typically needs panels every twenty feet of its height, creating
visible dividers, or seams, that add not only to their visibility but also the industrial look of
the installation. Dyneema netting, for example, allows for single panels of netting up to a
height of 52 feet, so that unsightly dividers are minimized. Therefore, it is much more
conducive to a residential setting, which is the onlyplace that these design requirements
would apply.
Heavier netting also requires a thicker, more industrial pipe style pole, which is evocative of
factories and prisons and is not appropriate in a residential setting. The poles at Quail Creek
are currently a 50-inch circumference, which is unsightly near residences. With lighter
weight netting and a barrier of a height of 35 feet, the poles can be significantly thinner: the
poles can be at a 12-inch diameter at the base (37 inch circumference) and taper to 8 inches
(25 inch circumference).
Thinner netting does not mean weaker netting. For example, the twine of the Dyneema #6
netting made by Netex is .8 mm thick. Made of polyethylene, its breaking strength is 103
pounds, while the breaking strength of the 1.3 mm polyester product is only 95 pounds.
Fewer poles and less landscaping make a containment barrier project less expensive as well
as less obtrusive to neighboring properties. Using Dyneema netting, a 40-foot barrier with
wooden poles can place the poles 60 feet apart instead of 50. A 30-foot barrier with steel
poles can have the poles placed 71 feet apart instead of 50. More poles per foot are needed to
support the weight of heavier netting. For example, the 2 mm netting will need a pole every
50 feet, whereas depending on the height of the poles, netting with a .8 mm thickness will
only need one every 60 or 70 feet, cutting down on necessary landscaping and cost.
The polyethylene used by Netex is dyed instead of coated, so it lasts much longer against UV
degradation (15 year warranty) than the usual industrial netting product, which is coated
black instead of dyed and comes with only a 10 year warranty. The Dyneema polyethylene
has a life expectancy of 25 years, with the life expectancy of polyester nets being only 10 to
15 years.
The thinner netting is really a far superior product for this purpose and is much better to
enhance the compatibility of the golf course barriers in residential communities. Otherwise,
property values would be negatively affected by sagging netting, more poles and partitions
between each panel —creating an industrial look which is incongruous in a residential setting.
Landscaping To Mitigate the Barrier's Appearance
11
Since the netting would be much less obvious, only the poles of the barrier would need
camouflage. 1
In consultation with a landscape architect, we adopted the idea of a "pole cluster planting" to
include at least three trees of a 20 foot minimum canopy spread. All must be chosen to reach
an ultimate height of 35 feet to camouflage the poles from the residences.
One tree must be in the center of the cluster for best camouflaging of the poles. More details
on spacing as well as a diagram are specified in the proposed amendment language, as well as
a diagram. We believe that the "pole cluster plantings" will do the best possible job of
camouflaging the poles under the circumstances, taking into account the value of golf course
space as well as money to be spent on landscaping. If the poles are exposed to residences
within 300 feet on both sides, the landscape screening is also required on both sides of the
poles.
We are not stipulating that any hedges be provided along the rest of the fence, which will
economize on landscaping costs. Individual communities can certainly do more if they wish;
the trees specified are a minimum number and hedging is permissible.
With the poles camouflaged and the netting as invisible as possible, any damage to the
residential neighborhood by an errant ball containment barrier would be minimized. Please
see Exhibit R (diagrams of sample barriers designed in accordance with the proposed
amendments).
Poles
There are also choices of powder -coated color if steel or aluminum poles are used. We are
specifying a sage green or grayish green to blend in with the trees and other landscaping on
the terrain of a golf course. Natural wood poles would not have to be painted.
If poles higher than 35 feet are sought through a conditional use, taller trees as well as a
bluish gray color (to blend in with the sky) for the pole portions above 35 feet would
probably work much better, and this would be possible through the conditional use
procedure.
ii. The Views in a Golf Residential Comm unity are Crucial to Value and Enjoyment
A golf course in a GC District can't be viewed in a vacuum. It is surrounded by homes. Golf
community HOA rules, golf course and real estate sales literature all traditionally reflect the
value that the views, in particular golf course views, are crucial.
1 In the Hibiscus and Imperial communities, for example, the golf clubs have planted substantial
trees along the entire length of the barrier. These mature trees create far better camouflage than
that offered by Quail Creek's proposed LDC amendment.
12
Golf course residents bought their homes largely for the view. Views are how homes in golf
course communities are marketed, and maintaining those expansive, landscaped views in
turn supports the value of those homes. The Quail Creek Estates community, for example, is
known and advertised for its golf course views.2
The Quail Creek Estates HOA's website attests that "The homes are featured on large lots of
almost one acre, providing privacy as well as spectacular golf and lake views rarely found in
Naples." Exhibit S (emphasis added).
Views of the golf course are commonly acknowledged and restricted as particularly
important in the HOA documents. There are severe restrictions on obstructing them.
For example:
No fences, hedges or other obstruction shall be constructed at, or near the
boundaries of the Quail Creek Golf Course.
At all times, complete visibility of the Quail Creek Golf Course and its
appurtenances shall be preserved.
Exhibit T, § 8.6 (emphasis added) (Second Amended and Restated Master Declaration of
Protective Covenants for Quail Creek).
In Quail Creek, there is also an entire separate set of Architectural Planning Criteria that
govern how things are supposed to look. Again, golf course views are emphasized and cannot
be blocked.
2 "Quail Creek is a gated community of 291 estate homes located in North Naples. Every home in
this 640-acre community has views of the golf course and other scenic natural vistas."
https://www.naplescondoboutique.com/cluail-creek/
"Welcome to Quail Creek, a prestigious subdivision located in the heart of Naples, Florida. Nestled
within the beautiful Collier County, Quail Creek offers a luxurious lifestyle surrounded by lush
landscapes and stunning golf course views."
https://www. captainchrisswflhomes. com/listings/ subdivision/Quail-Creek/homes-with-golf-
course-view/
"One of the standout features of this exclusive neighborhood is the breathtaking golf views that
grace many of the homes. Imagine waking up each morning to panoramic vistas of lush fairways
and vibrant greens, where the beauty of the outdoors seamlessly integrates with your everyday
life. The homes here are designed to maximize these spectacular views, with expansive windows
and spacious patios that invite natural course views light and fresh air into your living spaces."
htt s: www.theguillettegroup.com/listings/subdivision/Quail-Creek/homes-with-golf-course-viw/
"There are no condominiums or villas within Quail Creek, so residents here are seeking a large
single-family estate home with views of the 2 magnificent golf courses..
https://www. gulfcoastfloridahomes. com/golf-communities/naples-florida-golf-communities/quail-
creek/
13
No landscaping, hedges, fences, buffers, walls, or other structural screens or
other obstruction shall be constructed at, or near the boundaries of the Golf
Course, or block another's view of the golf course.
§ 2.5 (emphasis added). Exhibit U.
Golf course literature (like Quail Creek's) typically speaks of the "lush, mature trees and
carefully curated landscaping, "picturesque grounds," the "peaceful sanctuary of our natural
surroundings," and the "preservation of natural beauty." Exhibit V.
It trumpets the "harmonious blend of sport and nature"...where our "36 holes of golf are
seamlessly woven into the serene tapestry of the ... grounds". "golfing experience . .
.seamlessly blends luxury with nature's wonders."
See Exhibit V.
The value of golf course views has been recognized by the Zoning Division in connection with
the golf course conversion amendments.
As Mr. Bosi, the Zoning Director, pointed out in his introductory remarks to the new
regulations for golf course conversions in 2017, "[t]he [Board of County Commissioners]
recognized ...that golf courses have a unique presence within the built environment.
There's a vested interest, there's a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golfcourse . .
.." See Exhibit W at 126-127 (Transcript of BCC hearing on Ordinance 17-10 at 123 (March
14, 2017) (emphasis added)).
Caroline Cilek testified that during the discussions about golf course conversions that were
done in 2016, the Board provided several considerations and a couple of concerns they had
about the potential for conversion. See Exhibit W at 124 (including that "the property
ownerssurroundingagolfcoursepurchased their homes with the expectations that they
would have a golf course viewin perpetuity, and if this view amenity is lost to a conversion
project, that there maybe a potentialloss in property value). See Exhibit W at 124-125
(March 14, 2017) (emphasis added).
Ms. Cilek noted that when a conversion is foisted upon residents and they have no input to
the process, there can be long running and wasteful litigation. See Exhibit W at 126-127.
That is exactly what has happened here, ever since the Quail Creek golf club illegally
installed its structure and persisted in ignoring the concerns of the immediate community.
Lawyers are profiting from this situation on both sides, and the situation has been extremely
stressful for the affected homeowners.
14
iii. GCDistrict Golf Courses Have A Symbiotic Relationship with
Their Residential Neighbors
There are benefits and burdens to being part of a GC District community, on the sides of both
the golf club and the residents. Having obtained substantial benefits from the residential
community, including their very existence and a substantial portion of their income, it sits
poorly for GC District golf clubs to simply discard residential interests as "inconvenient" and
ignore them when expedient, as in the case of an ultrahigh golf barrier.
The GC Districts in Collier County are territorially, economically and from a zoning
perspective, inextricably intertwined with their neighboring residential communities. When
legislating as to the GC District, the adjacent residential land uses must be taken into
account. And in addition to the normal compatibility requirement of the GMP that land
uses complement each other, the Open Space Zoning Districts provision explicitly requires
that recreational uses be "compatible in scale and manner with residential land uses." LDC
§ 2.03.09 (A).
All of the GC District golf courses in Collier County are located next to residential
development. See Exhibit F. Quail Creek, in particular, chose a design and location for its
golf courses that is tightly surrounded by homes, presumably to allow it to incorporate two
golf courses instead of just one. See Exhibit X.
A GC District golf course benefits from a substantial income stream from the monthly fees of
local golf and social members, as well as being granted the privilege of running commercial
enterprises such as restaurants and event spaces and pro shops, charging for golf and tennis
lessons, and obtaining revenue from all of those. Without the GC District, these enterprises
would not be permitted to exist in a residential area.
Neighboring residents are usually responsible for adhering to an exhaustive set of
Community HOA standards, including the stringent requirements that golf course views be
preserved at all costs. In Quail Creek Estates, as with other high -end golf communities
throughout Collier County, there is an entire set of rules that governs how homes and their
lots in Quail Creek Estates should look. See generally Exhibit T at 21-27 Second Amended
and Restated Master Declaration of Protective Covenants for Quail Creek). An architectural
review commission is in place to "preserve the beauty, quality and value of the community."
Exhibit T (page 18-21, § 6).
These rules and restrictions are part of the recognition that appearances are a vital part of
the enjoyment and value of golf course homes. The idea is to keep the community looking
beautiful and homogenous, to maintain property values and maximize homeowners'
enjoyment of their properties. This enhances the value of the golf course as well.
In turn, residents are supposed to benefit from the expansive golf views provided by the golf
club's playing areas, and some of them take the opportunity to be members and socialize at
the golf club.
When a golf club needlessly destroys the scenery and thus the value of the residential homes,
it is trying to take all the benefits, but ignore the burdens that go along with the GC District.
15
The conditional use process that we support for errant ball containment barriers over 35 feet
is crucial in such situations. It would require golf clubs to involve the neighboring
homeowners in the development process through the neighborhood information meeting and
allow them a much -deserved voice at a public hearing.
With the protections of the conditional use procedure, the affected Quail Creek residents
could have provided feedback and helped implement a consensual solution. The golf course
could have had safety much sooner, and the homeowners would have been content with a
barrier that would have been as camouflaged as possible, thus far less damaging to
homeowner values.
Rather than repeat Quail Creek's damaging behavior in the rest of Collier County by
codifying it, let's learn from these mistakes by providing design specifications for errant ball
containment barriers and allowing for the conditional use process that takes into account the
interests of both the golf club and homeowners.
The Homeowners' Opposition to Quail Creeks LDC Amendment
Quail Creek's proposal to allow up to 70 foot golf barriers "as of right" would create
unnecessary damage in Collier County's attractive network of golf course communities.
Property values would fall unnecessarily and wildlife would suffer as well.
Such barriers would contravene the spirit of these "open space" districts, making the GC
District "open space" only for the lucky residents that don't have their views completely
blocked by these towering, black fences. The giant fences are the height of a five -to -six story
building, markedly disproportionate among typically one-story homes. But the harm doesn't
end there. For the unlucky, they introduce an industrial look reminiscent of smokestacks
and prisons.
Ultra -high barriers like the one illegally installed at Quail Creek have no public benefit to
balance out their negative impacts on other property owners and the community at large.
The purpose of that barrier is to prevent errant golf balls from hitting players on a single
fairway out of the thirty-six (36) that it operates. Thus, the proposed barrier would protect
only people who have already assumed the risk of being present on the golf course. Indeed,
only the subset of these club members who have golf memberships and their golfing guests
are allowed on the course when the driving range is open. Through its proposed county -wide
LDC amendment, the Club thus wishes to impose a huge and widely visible public cost on the
golf residential communities in Collier County, solely for the benefit of its own private golf
membership.
An LDC amendment county -wide, doubling the existing height limit to permit these
installations, would cause substantial external obsolescence to estate homes like those
owned by the affected residents in Quail Creek. Golf course residents throughout Collier
County would be damaged by permitting these extreme fences; homes' values could
needlessly plummet in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our concerns about damage to
property value have already been validated by the sale of an affected home at fifty cents on
the dollar. See infra at 20-21.
16
In any event, LDC amendments require compatibility and consistency with the GMP. All
LDC amendments undergo a review process to ensure they are consistent with the policies,
objectives, and land uses outlined in the Growth Management Plan. LDC § 10.02.09 (A)(1).
Also, proposed land uses and developments, including those authorized by LDC amendments,
must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existing zoning districts. The
GMP's objectives include compatibility of land uses.3
Ultra -High, Factory -Style Barriers Are Not Compatible with Residential Land Uses
Our expert planning witness Cecelia Ward found that the variance Quail Creek had originally
sought was incompatible with residential uses and inconsistent with the GMP. See her full
report at Y at 10-14. The LDC amendment now being requested is no different.
Ms. Ward wrote in assessing Quail Creek's variance application: "Regarding the
compatibility of [a] netting structure, generally, uses that deviate significantly in
density, intensity, scale, and form or that could negatively impact surrounding land
uses are deemed incompatible. The County should not support or approve this
application unless it provides extraordinary measures to offset identified potential
adverse impacts."
Exhibit Y at 10 (emphasis added).
Ms. Ward further explained that a variance, like the LDC amendment that Quail Creek
proposes, would be inconsistent with the compatibility requirements of the County's GMP.
Exhibit Y at 13.
3 II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICY'S GOAL:
TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION -MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY
NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL -PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND
WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE
PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES
OBJECTIVE 1: Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations,
Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the
natural and human environments.
OBJECTIVE 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect
environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property
rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use
Element
Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the
surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted
June 22, 2004, and (XLIV) = Plan
Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017-22 on June 13, 2017, 18 Future Land Use as of Ordinance
No. 2024- 46, adopted on November 12, 2024, effective October 18, 2024, as amended.
17
She stated that, "the evidence must assess and establish that the Applicant's variance request
must include an assessment of the proposed golf ball netting system in relation to surrounding
residential land uses and make a finding that it represents a complementary pattern of
development. [As with its prior variance application,] The Applicant's request Ffor an LDC
amendment) does not address this standard at all.
"Further, the proposed plan must also identify and include a mitigation strategy to address
identified adverse impacts resulting directly from the requested variance's location, including
a plan to increase landscape screening.
"This landscape mitigation must address the need to restore .years of tree and vegetative
removal and the resulting degradation of the visual and safety barrier between the residences
and the golf course orientation of proposed improvements and/or accessory uses.
"The adjacent homeowners have identified substantial adverse visual and economic impacts
to their properties resulting from the Applicant's request, but the Application to -date remains
silent on this matter.
"At a minimum, the missing evidence must address the proposed system's F63 feet plus
artificial berm) height in relation to both on -site and adjacent residential structures designed
to less than half that height. In addition, the evidence must address the netting's structural
design, and the materials/finishes used in relation to the adjoining residential properties'
substantial architectural designs and materials."
Exhibit Y at 14 (emphasis added).
The starkly prison -like style of Quail Creek's partially built barrier is plainly at odds with the
surrounding properties and even its own clubhouse, as shown in the photographs. (Exhibit
Few trees grow as high as 70 feet in our area. Certain pines and palms may approach that
height after many years, but are spindly and they don't provide meaningful camouflage. At
70 feet, the poles need to be much thicker than at 35 feet to support the overall structure,
making the installation look much more industrial. At Quail Creek, for example, 50-inch-
circumference, 63-foot poles of shiny black coated steel, largely elevated by an artificial
berm, now thrust themselves in the middle of the previous naturally landscaped view. Trees
often need to be removed (and were removed by Quail Creek) before these giant fence
installations can be made at all, adding to the environmental carnage.
So far, three palm trees of unspecified type on one side of an installation (canopy trees are
optional) of a final mature height of 20 feet tall is the only sop the Quail Creek proposed
Amendment throws to homeowners, and those trees would be woefully inadequate to
camouflage a 70-foot golf barrier. See Exhibit R.
Making ultra -high golf fences legal may cause knee-jerk reactions and overkill among golf
course management, encouraging golf courses to do the easiest thing —put up a big, ugly fence
to the detriment of their residential neighbors, violating the spirit as well as the letter of the
Golf Course "Open Space" District. This amendment would industrialize the look of golf
courses in GC Districts as well as PUD's throughout the County, ruining their natural,
landscaped look by putting prison -like poles and rope -like netting squarely in view.
IN
Such high fences would be visible from other neighbors' homes and the roadways as well,
cheapening the overall look of residential communities throughout the County.
The industrial appearance will therefore damage the value of the nearby homes, not just the
directly affected.
Also, the market value of directly affected homes will suffer dramatically, and the ensuing
uncertainty is likely to affect prices in residential golf courses County -wide. The reliability
and therefore marketability of Collier County golf course communities in GC Districts and
PUDs alike, as a place to purchase homes will be thrown into question.
Quail Creek Sets An Example for this County to Avoid
The illegally installed barrier poles at the Quail Creek Country Club, intended to be 68-70 feet
tall by incorporating the added height of an artificial berm, is an excellent example of the
harm that ultra -high golf barriers would cause in Collier County. The conditional use
process, before anygolfcourse applies for a golf barrierpermit and begins construction of an
ultra high barrier, would avoid this situation.
Back in 1981, the original Quail Creek golf course was designed with a tree barrier between
Hole 10 and the driving range to assure golfer safety. Exhibit Z. When we bought our
homes, the tree barrier was robust and beautiful. Exhibit AA. The driving range and the
fairway next to it operated without incident for many years.
But from 2013-2020, Quail Creek systematically removed its own tree safety barrier. See
Exhibit BB. In 2018, the Club erected an artificial berm with a row of short, branchless
palms, and an unpermitted 12 foot tall netting fence attached to palm trees which it utterly
failed to maintain. See Exhibit CC. What had been a functional and attractive barrier was
gone.
As our golf expert states, "The golf course affirmatively created the danger to players
playing the loth hole with the removal of these barrier trees." Exhibit E at 6. "Leaving those
trees in place would have continued to provide a meaningful and effective buffer between the
driving range and the 1Oth hole." Exhibit E at 6.
The Club installed a new driving range, also without a permit, both next to Hole 10 and
behind the homes of two of the residents on Coco Plum Lane, placing them in danger. "This
puts the Coco Plum Lane properties squarely in the crosshairs of the Zone of Danger,
necessitating elimination of the back tee box area completely." Exhibit E at 13. It also
expanded its driving range towards Hole 10 by adding a short-range hitting area. These
actions raised the danger level for Hole 10 golfers. To our knowledge, all of these changes
were made without permits.
This was continually negligent behavior, just waiting for something to go wrong. See Exhibit
E at 6-8 (explaining how the various changes to the original design of the Club's driving
range enhanced the dangers).
After an accident occurred in 2023, it apparently became a priority of the Club to get a
manmade barrier. But no trajectory analysis was undertaken to determine what size barrier
19
was actually needed. See Exhibit DD at 1 ("Engel & Company Engineers, Inc. were not
contracted to provide a trajectory (ball containment)).
In late April of 2024, and without even consulting with the County to get a permit, the Club
began installing its barrier. An unlicensed contractor placed enormous black poles in the
ground intended to support an 850 foot long, 63-foot high black netting barrier. Thus, the
Club literally went from zero to sixty overnight. They went from going without any
protection for Hole 10 golfers for several years due to their tree removal and failure to
maintain their own netting fence, to allegedly needing every inch of 63-foot tall fence.
The Club did not consult with or inform the nearby residents, did it provide any notice at all.
The affected residents tried to contact the golf club right away, to register our concern and
dismay. But the Club refused to take our calls or return our emails.
The Club was stopped only by Code Enforcement, on May 1, 2024.
In a meeting on May 8th, which we were told was set up to hear the concerns of the
homeowners, the Club refused to have a constructive dialogue with the affected residents.
Instead, it began the meeting by telling us that the poles would stay up "no matter what."
This arrogant attitude persists today, as the Club would rather try to amend the LDC
County -wide (and file complaints against its fellow golf courses into the bargain), than
engage in mediation of this controversy with the affected parties.
It has been made crystal-clear that our legitimate concerns didn't matter to the Club, despite
its central position in our community. That the Club is unnecessarily harming the affected
homeowners, with maximal cost to the community and the natural environment and
minimal forethought, didn't seem to bother them, then or now.
Club representatives did admit to some of the affected homeowners (only three families were
permitted to attend) at the May 8 meeting that even they were taken aback by the visual
appearance of these poles. This is an important admission —they didn't bother to do adequate
research before they installed these horrific poles in full view of our homes.
The Club has studiously ignored the objections of the affected homeowners ever since,
pretending that property values would not be affected. Many, many months of delay have
ensued as Quail Creek tried to figure out a way to push through its illegal barrier without
giving homeowners a chance to be heard. (Almost two years, or 704 days, have now passed
since the barrier poles were illegally installed). These attempts have included a variance
proceeding that they later abandoned, a request for an official interpretation of the height
restrictions, and now an LDC amendment.
The Quail Creek Barrier Has Caused Significant Damage to the Affected Homeowners
During all of this time, homeowners have had to live with an illegally constructed, enormous,
industrial -style barrier that is having a substantial negative effect on property values.
The market value damage to our homes is apparent already. Since the illegal barrier has
been left standing for 20 months, one homeowner was forced to sell during that period of
time, and catastrophically received only 50 cents on the dollar of their initial home price.
The final price was $1.25 million on a home initially marketed with a list price of $2.5
20
million. That price was set by an experienced realtor in the area before the illegal pole
installation. We attach the Zillow listing showing how the price was marked further and
further down over time, as buyers kept walking away from the ruined view. Exhibit EE.
Meanwhile, an unaffected property just one house away sold in a couple of months for 94% of
list price. Exhibit FF.
We have personally spoken with several real estate agents, who have all confirmed the
potential for a substantial decrease in property values for those of us whose views are now
obstructed. Originally this was in the $500,000 to $700,000 range. But the sale that
actually occurred reflects that that amount of damage may be a serious understatement.
Another affected home is currently on the market, its owners needing to sell to fund the cost
of their move to a senior living facility. It was placed on the market in November of 2025,
and has already been forced to lower its asking price by $500,000. Exhibit GG. A realtor
photo shows that the home will have a full view of the proposed Quail Creek barrier. Exhibit
(4(CT a,t 3-
Meanwhile, the Quail Creek Club demonstrates the needlessness of their "overkill" fence
every day by having children stand right next to the poles located farthest from the
clubhouse. Exhibit HH. If there were a substantial danger hundreds of yards away from the
tee that somehow required a 70 foot fence, children should not be standing there. As Mr.
Groch states in his report, hitting a ball in that area is mathematically impossible. Exhibit D
at 7.
"While we conservatively estimate that 1% of the golfing population at Quail Creek can hit
the ball 250 yards, it should be noted that the proposed 60-foot barrier spans a distance of
325 yards from the tee. This is well beyond the point where it is a mathematical
impossibility for balls to reach that height at the barrier location. The Club has placed a
driving range for younger golfers at the 325-yard distance, so that unprotected children are
standing to hit their own practice shots right next to a barrier intended to be 60 feet high --
showing the gross inconsistencies in the Club's approach to safety."
Exhibit D at 7 (emphasis added).
And —despite its "safety concerns," the Club has kept right on using its driving range, and the
fairway for golf hole #10 right next to it exactly as before, with no restrictions. Indeed, the
Club has recently shown in plans submitted with an SDPI for a golf course renovation that it
wants to expand its driving range tee box area a full 50 yards toward Hole 10. This would
significantly add to the danger to golfers using that area of the golf course, as Professor
Groch explains. See Exhibit II. That this would be planned --notwithstanding the
controversy and the serious concerns raised by the adjacent residents over the proposed
driving range barrier --reflects the attitude of Quail Creek Country Club's management.
Wildlife Will be Harmed
Finally, the natural community of local animals will be damaged as well.
21
With a skyscraper fence in place, and the beautiful trees all gone, previously attractive
driving range areas will become a giant cage to fence out and divide the animals. Birds will
get caught in it.
Our local chapter of the Audubon Society has already written to the Board of County
Commissioners to oppose Quail Creek's proposed barrier. Please see the attached letter
dated November 22, 2024 (Exhibit JJ at 2) (attaching a list of the many species that have
been identified on the Quail Creek golf courses).
"A barrier of this enormous size and type is a terrible obstacle to wildlife. The
requested barrier would greatly interfere with the numerous wildlife species —
birds, mammals and amphibians —which reside in and around the area of the two
golf courses (listing the many different species which have been observed using
the Quail Creek golf courses and community as habitat) . "
"Sandhill cranes and wood storks, for example, are threatened species in Florida
and are observed at Quail Creek. Birds would fly into and be caught in this net. Other
animals would be confused about their habitat areas and blocked from their normal
paths. The net will impede migration of birds as well."
Exhibit JJ at 1 (emphasis added).
The Club's own website points out that diverse flora and fauna such as birds and fox
squirrels, make this area their home. (https://www.quailcreekcc.com/golf ); Exhibit V at 2.
Netting is dangerous to animals.
Netting, often used for various purposes such as fishing, sports, or gardening, has
become a serious threat to wildlife. While nets serve many human needs, their
consequences on the environment and animal life are often overlooked.
One of the primary dangers associated with netting is the entanglement of wildlife.
Birds, mammals, and marine life can easily become ensnared in discarded or
improperly managed nets. Hundreds of thousands of animals, both marine and on
land, die from being trapped in netting each year. Net entanglement leads to injuries,
restricted movement, and, in severe cases, fatalities. The animals that struggle to free
themselves can be found with severe wounds and stress, affecting their overall
health and well-being.
Birds, especially, are highly susceptible to the perils of netting. Loose or abandoned
fishing nets can pose a significant threat to waterfowl and seabirds. These animals may
mistake the netting for nesting material, leading to entanglement or, in the case of
seabirds, ingestion. Ingested netting can cause internal injuries, impacting their
digestive systems and often proving fatal. Netting used in gardening or construction
can trap small mammals, reptiles, and even insects. This poses a threat to the
delicate balance of ecosystems, potentially disrupting food chains and biodiversity.
Netting is Dangerous to Wildlife, Wildlife Rescue League
https://www.wildliferescueleague.org/animals/netting-is-dangerous-to-wildlife/
22
(emphasis added, in part).
For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Board of County
Commissioners reject Quail Creek's proposal and adopt the Homeowners' proposed LDC
Amendment instead.
Respectfully submitted,
Letitia and Frank Accarrino
13057 Coco Plum Lane
Naples, FL 34119
Chad and Natasha Commers
13156 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
Goldie and Kenneth Wetcher
13024 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
Dana and Michael Sturdevant
13033 Coco Plum Lane
Naples, FL 34119
Mariam Mars Gulistan and
Lucille Wetlaufer
13002 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
Fahmida Rahman
13056 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
23
Quail Creek Homeowners' LDC Amendment Narrative
Preliminary Statement
The homeowners at Quail Creek Estates (the "Homeowners") propose a Land Development
Code ("LDC") Amendment with respect to "errant ball containment barriers." These
homeowners' residences abut the driving range and golf course of the Quail Creek Country
Club ("Quail Creek," the "Club"). They are adversely affected by starkly industrial63-foot
high poles that Quail Creek illegally installed in April of 2024, intending them to support an
850-foot-long golf barrier.
The Quail Creek example illustrates the harm that can befall homeowners when a golf club
installs an enormous, inappropriate and poorly researched barrier. Ignoring the legitimate
concerns of residents, the golf club has aggressively pushed for homeowners to lose
hundreds of thousands of dollars in the market value of their homes. Having had no success
with its earlier maneuvers, Quail Creek is currently seeking its own LDC amendment to
permit super -tall "skyscraper" golf barriers throughout Collier County.
In contrast, as golf course residents, we support solutions that balance safety considerations
with our aesthetic and property value concerns. We believe that compromises can be
reached that will address both safety and homeowner needs and maintain the beauty and
value of our golf communities. The optimal result in this County would be to achieve safety
on golf courses by minimally visually obtrusive means, avoiding disruption to surrounding
residential development.
A golf barrier in the middle of an otherwise pastoral golf course can be damaging, but the
design standards we suggest would manage its appearance so it would be much less visually
obtrusive. This will make Collier County golf courses as beautiful as possible, while safety
considerations are satisfied as well. Collier County could thus serve as a model to other golf
courses throughout Florida by harmonizing these objectives.
That is the goal of our proposed LDC amendment, which would also comply with the existing
requirement in the GC District that recreational uses be compatible in "scale and manner"
with residential land uses —in other words, with the nearby homes. See LDC § 2.03.09.
Our proposed amendment sets forth, among other things, that a 35-foot height limit applies
to accessory GC District uses (except that an errant ball containment barrier in excess of 35
feet in height could now be permitted, but only as a conditional use). This merely clarifies
law that has existed since 1974 for the GC District in Collier County.
The proposal would also define and regulate "errant ball containment barriers" within the GC
District. Such barriers are intended to protect players, spectators and neighboring
properties from the risk of stray balls. These barriers can look industrial, even prison -like.
But in Collier County, any errant ball containment barrier in sight of residences would be
subject to the height, location and design standards we propose in order to make it as
unobtrusive as possible to nearby residential properties, thus preserving the compatibility of
the golf course with the residences nearby.
The existing 35-foot height limitation in GC Districts is essential to making errant ball
containment barriers in residential golf communities proportionate and livable and
preserving property values. At that height, the barriers are not visible from the front of the
homes. They are at the treeline instead of 35 feet above it, and don't block the sky or darken
the sunlight. They are at a height where camouflaging their height with trees is possible.
See Exhibit A.
Reports from not just one, but two, independent golf experts establish that 35-foot barriers
are more than adequate for safety.
One of the golf experts, Joseph Groch, a golf professor at nearby Florida Gulf Coast
University, explains through peer -reviewed trajectory and statistical analysis that a 35-foot
barrier can achieve almost perfect safety, at 99.9962%. "The 35-foot net with an arc -tee
configuration provides superior aesthetics and safe containment with 40% less visual impact
than a 60-foot straight -tee barrier. Incorporating vegetation buffers and standard
operational controls, the design achieves 99.9962% containment, meeting or exceeding
industry standards." Exhibit Bat 10.
Another expert golf report, Stephen Eisenberg, sets forth in his report the many alternative
design options that exist to avoid use of a gargantuan barrier. Exhibit C at 13-14. These
include:
• Using restricted or limited flight golf balls, as previously used by Quail Creek Country
Club on its driving range.
• Making the driving range "irons only."
• Adding a fence or tree barrier in an "L" shape to the right side of the range near
the tee box, close to the point of origin. Such a barriers can deflect both "pushes"
(shots hit directly to the right), and "slices" (shots going straight initially then veering
to the right) headed toward nearby fairways.
In an addendum to his report, Mr. Groch analyzed, from a statistical perspective, the positive
effect that the use of limited flight golf balls would have on safety Exhibit B at 13-15.
Super -high, "skyscraper" barriers placed within view of residences disrupt the status quo
between the golf course and the neighborhood, and can be very damaging to homeowner
values. A certified residential appraiser testifies that any home with a view of an ultra -high
barrier will "suffer due to this external obsolescence, causing negative market value
impacts." See Exhibit D ¶ 9. (Declaration of Burkhard Klein).
Our golf expert points out that "a 60-foot proposed net, when compared with a 35-foot option,
adds little efficacy but at a great cost to the environment." Exhibit B at 12.
Thus, an "ultra -high" errant ball containment barrier exceeding 35 feet in height would only
be permitted as a conditional use pursuant to LDC § 10.08. Where these higher barriers
might actually be necessary, the conditional use procedure is an appropriate vehicle for
considering the installation of an ultra -high ball containment barrier in a residential area.
2
The conditional use procedure would provide notice to affected homeowners when any golf
barrier is planned exceeding 35 feet. This procedure provides actual notice to affected
homeowners of a neighborhood information meeting at which a County planner would be
present, as well as a public hearing. The public hearing would give affected homeowners an
opportunity to be heard. The process we recommend would enable the residential
landowners to be affected by an errant ball containment barrier, the ones who will be
permanently viewing it, to have a voice.
The conditional use process will ensure that any ultra --high containment barrier will be in
harmony with the general intent of the LDC and consistent with the Growth Management
Plan ("GMP"), will benefit the public welfare and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
adjoining properties. For example, many such barriers are installed to actually protect
nearby residents. The circumstances of each ultra -high system will differ, so the conditional
use process is uniquely suited to provide appropriate review.
A conditional use would also be available for deviation from the design and development
requirements of our proposed amendment.
In summary, our proposed LDC Amendment clarifies the existing height regulations for the
GC District, provides design and location criteria to make sure these errant ball containment
barriers can be as unobtrusive as possible, and offers the conditional use process to protect
the compatibility of residences around GC Districts when an errant ball containment barrier
higher than 35 feet is being proposed. That process would help homeowners preserve their
property values as much as possible by giving them input and an opportunity to be heard
when a ball containment barrier is being planned that is very high or deviates from the
design and development requirements.
This will make Collier County golf courses and their adjacent residential communities as
beautiful as possible, while safety considerations are satisfied as well.
Consistency with the GMP
Our legislative proposal is consistent with the GMP because it clarifies existing law on GC
district height restrictions of 35 feet for accessory uses, including errant ball containment
barriers. It is also consistent with the 35-foot height limitation in surrounding residential
development, including the RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4, RSF-5, RSF-6, and RMF-6 districts.
The surrounding homes of the Quail Creek golf course are zoned RSF-2.
Design, location and height standards for all errant ball containment barriers will ensure
compatibility with existing residential land uses as much as possible. See infra 8-11.
Moreover, our proposal integrates existing development with golf course needs by allowing
surrounding residential homeowners to have a voice as provided in the conditional use
procedure where any golf course barrier is planned exceeding 35 feet or deviates from the
design and development requirements.
This will avoid unnecessary depletion of the value and enjoyment of existing residential
development.
3
LegSlative Background.• Heioht in the GCDistrict Has Always Been Restricted
Our proposed amendment clarifies existing law, providing that, consistent with legislative
history in the GC District:
A height restriction of 35 feet applies to all accessory uses in the Golf Course District,
including any golf course or driving range barriers. Errant ball containment barriers over
35 feet high can be permitted as a conditional use. (The existing 35 foot restriction on
principal uses in the GC District will remain in existing Table 2 of LDC Section 4.02.01,
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts.)
It has always been the BCC's intent to regulate height in the GC District, which is one in
which golf courses are typically interwoven with residences. Those restrictions are
especially important now that residential development has grown up around the golf courses
in GC Districts.
In addition, the Zoning Director has recently issued an Official Interpretation finding that
golf barrier barriers are limited to 35 feet.
Legislative History
The BCC restricted heights in the GC District from the very beginning. It called for
"harmony" in such districts in relation to landscaping, location of access streets, parking
areas and buffer areas. Later, the LDC added an overarching requirement that recreational
uses be compatible in "scale and manner" with residential land uses —in other words, with
the nearby homes.
The BCC restricted heights in the GC District from 1974 on.
In 1974, the provision in the LDC defining Golf Course Districts, § 11.22, provided for a
maximum height of 35 feet above grade within 150 feet of any district that was restricted to
30 feet in height, and "except 45 feet elsewhere within the district." Ordinance 74-12 at 77 -
78 (attached hereto as Exhibit E). The height provision was part of the GC District
description and therefore covered everything. It was not limited to certain types of uses.
In 1975, the provision for the GC District on height stayed the same for the most part, but
the BCC took out the confusing word "except," making it even clearer that height was to be
regulated. Ordinance 75-24 at § 26 (Book 9 page 243) (Exhibit F).
In 1991, the Golf Course District was amended to provide that a height limitation of 35 feet
would apply to all permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the Golf Course District.
(Exhibit G, Ordinance 91-102 at 2-6 to 2-7, § § 2.2.1.4; 2.2.1.4.4). The height of lighting
was restricted to 25 feet. §2.2.1.4.10 (Exhibit G).
In 1992, language was added making pro shops in excess of 1,000 square feet and
restaurants with seating for more than 150 primarily for golf course patrons, conditional
uses. Ordinance 92-73, 2.2.1.3. (Exhibit H).
In 2004, the BBC enacted a major recodification of the LDC, Ordinance 04-41. In its recitals,
the ordinance provided that "the revisions to, and recodification of the LDC does not
substantively alter in any way the prior existing LDC text and the substantive provisions of
19
this Ordinance are hereby determined to be consistent with and to implement the Collier
County Growth Management Plan...". 2 -3of 6 (emphasis added) (Exhibit I).
Ordinance 04-41 provided that, and the LDC still provides that:
"in the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or of any
other statute, code, local resolution, regulation or other applicable federal, state, or local
law, the more stringent standard, limitation, or requirement shall govern or prevail to the
extent of the conflict, except that in the event that any provisions of the adopted, re -
codified LDC should result in the unintended consequence of an unresolved conflict with
the provisions of the previously adopted LDC, as amended, the prior provisions will be
considered to apply. " Emphasis added. LDC § 5, Conflict and Severability, Ordinance 04-
41 (Exhibit I).
In the 2004 version, the description of the GC District was for some reason dramatically
curtailed. What had been several paragraphs and sub -paragraphs became one small
paragraph. The paragraph no longer listed specific principal, accessory or conditional
uses. The new description in its entirety was as follows:
"The purpose and intent of the "GC" District is to provide land for golf courses and normal
accessory uses to golf courses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. The GC
district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the agricultural rural
district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. " Exhibit I, 22 of 176.
It was in this same version of the LDC that the table of heights for principal uses in various
districts, including the GC District, was promulgated. Table 2 [of Article 4], Building
Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts provided for a "maximum
building height" of 35 feet for the GC District. Exhibit I, at 2, 3 of 247.
So, when Table 2 was put in place, there was no longer a verbal description of the specific
principal, accessory or conditional uses of the GC District in the LDC.
Obviously, the main principal use of the GC District, a golf course itself, is not a building or
structure with a height that needs to be regulated. Hiking trails, passive recreation areas
(picnic areas and benches) and disc golf are also at ground level.
Since a golf course is by necessity at ground level, Table 2, if taken literally, has no
practical application. Applying the table literally would have the absurd result of
rescinding the previously mandated height restriction of 35 feet for all uses in the GC
District, and resulting in no effective height regulation in the GC District. As set forth on
pages 29-30 of our opposition to Quail Creek's LDC amendment, permit applicants in the
County have long interpreted the 35-foot height restriction to apply to accessory uses.
Because this new version of the Code was expressly meant to be a recodification and did
not intend to make a substantive revision, the prior, 1991 version should control. It seems
likely that the severe shortening of the GC District description in 2004 led to its being
inadvertently included in a table for the heights of principal uses, since the listing of its
specific accessory uses of restaurants, snack shops, driving ranges, and clubhouses and
their ilk was now missing.
5
Indeed, in later versions of the LDC, the full description of GC District uses, explaining that
the "golf course" was a permitted use and that a clubhouse, community center, practice
driving range, snack shops were accessories, was added back. This occurred first in 2008.
See Exhibit J (Ordinance 08-11, 128-129 of 134). Yet Table 2 of the building dimensional
standards remained, and with it the nominal restriction on the height of only principal
uses —which are ground -level uses (and fences).
We have thus proposed that clarifying language be put into the GC District description that
restates the pre-2004 language to the effect that a height of 35 feet would apply to all
accessory uses in the Golf Course District, but that errant ball containment barriers may be
over 35 feet if permitted as a conditional use.
GOIfBarriers Are Also Limited to ,55 Feet
The Zoning Director, in response to the Club's request, has very recently interpreted the LDC
to the effect that golf course barriers are limited to 35 feet. ("01 Decision," Exhibit K).
Mr. Bosi could also have decided that their height was limited to 8 feet, without a variance.
A front yard fence for a property of one acre or less, like our properties, is limited to 4 feet,
LDC § 5.03.02 (C)(1) (b), and 6 feet for larger lots. LDC § 5.03.02 (C) (2) (a). Even in
commercial areas, fences are limited to 8 feet. LDC § 5.03.02 (D) (1). Since golf course uses
are to be compatible in scale and manner with residential uses, these limits make much more
sense where the view of homeowners is involved.
LDC § 5.03.02 (emphasis added).
Fences in all districts are subject to the rules set forth in LDC § 5.03.2, unless specifically
exempted. (emphasis added).
The GC District is NOT exempted.
The fences within agricultural districts are exempted, LDC § 5.03.02 E. showing that
certain districts were considered for exemption, but the GC District is not one of them.
This provides an 8-foot fence height for a commercial district such as the Quail Creek
Country Club. The fence provision in the LDC restricts the height of fences to the single
digits because fences can infringe on and interfere with the view of those nearby.
"Where any provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect
in Collier County, Florida, imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any
other provision of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in
Collier County, Florida, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be
deemed to be controlling."
LDC. § 1.03.01 (d).
So, it could be argued that the lesser of the 8-foot height limit for fences in commercial
districts (LDC § 5.03.02) and the 35-foot limit for principal uses in Table 2 of LDC § 4.02.01
applies.
0
But Mr. Bosi decided that the 35-foot height in Table 2 of LDC § 4.02.01 applied to limit the
height of the Club's barrier. Exhibit K. So that is what we have included in our proposed
amendment.
BuildingA Barrier in a Golf
Community Should Be Guided L yLocation, Height and Design Standards
For Collier County residents with lots abutting or near a golf course in the GC District, an
errant ball barrier, whatever its size, may cause external obsolescence to their homes,
leading to an immediate and precipitous decline in property value. As in the Quail Creek
example, those views would be blocked forever by an enormous black ball containment
barrier, overtly industrial in appearance.
An errant ball containment barrier can dramatically destroy formerly expansive views, and
hence the market value of affected homes.
Golf course views are essential to the value of golf course residences.
A view of an industrial barrier of any size (evocative of factories and prisons) can make
previously valuable homes into second- or third-class properties in that community.
Moreover, people who live in such homes will likely not want to invest in them, so these
houses will not be as well -maintained and up to date as others in the community, cementing
their lowly status in the market.
As Mr. Bosi, the Zoning Director, pointed out in his introductory remarks to the new
regulations for golf course conversions in 2017, "[t]he [Board of County Commissioners]
recognized ...that golf courses have a unique presence within the built environment.
There's a vested interest, there's a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golfcourse . .
.." See Exhibit L at 126-127 (Transcript of BCC hearing on Ordinance 17-10 at 123 (March
14, 2017) (emphasis added)).
Caroline Cilek testified that during the discussions about golf course conversions that were
done in 2016, the Board provided several considerations and a couple of concerns they had
about the potential for conversion. See Exhibit L at 124 (One waspreservingthe valuable
open space resources of golf course, the second was that "the property owners surrounding
a golf course purchased their homes with the expectations that they would have a golf course
viewin perpetuity, and if this view amenityis lost to a conversion project, that there may be
a potential loss in property value; and the third being "recognition that neighborhoods that
surround golf courses should be involved in a conversion process." See Exhibit L at 124-125
(March 14, 2017) (emphasis added).
Ms. Cilek noted that when a conversion is foisted upon residents and they have no input to
the process, there can be long running and wasteful litigation. See Exhibit L at 126-127.
That is exactly what has happened here, as the Quail Creek golf club installed a structure
illegally and has persisted ever since in ignoring the concerns of the immediate community.
Now we have an abandoned variance proceeding, potentially never-ending appeals over the
meaning of the LDC provisions brought into issue by the Club's law firm, many months of
delay and Quail Creek's proposed "skyscraper barrier" amendment, which would endanger
7
the views of homeowners all over the County. Lawyers are profiting from this situation on
both sides, and the situation has been extremely stressful for the affected homeowners.
With the protections of the conditional use procedure, the affected Quail Creek residents
could have provided feedback and helped implement a solution which would have allowed for
better golfer safety than the Quail Creek golf club's extremely damaging proposal. The golf
course could have had safety much sooner, and the homeowners would have been content
with a barrier that would have been as aesthetically pleasing and camouflaged as possible,
thus far less damaging to homeowner values.
Rather than repeat Quail Creek's damaging behavior in other communities by codifying it,
see infra 14-16, let's learn from these mistakes by providing design specifications for errant
ball containment barriers and allowing for the conditional use process that takes into
account the interests of both the golf club and homeowners. This approach could save
hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost market value per home, as it would in the Quail
Creek situation.
ManyAlternativesExist to CombatStngVBalls, Including 55-Foot Barrier
There are many alternatives that can achieve golfer safety while minimizing trauma to the
neighbors' views. Our two independent golf experts discuss the various means that may be
used to alleviate the danger from stray balls. Exhibit B at 11; Exhibit C at 11-12.
As these experts explain, golf barriers can often be avoided altogether by the use of
thoughtful and analytical approaches like landscaping methods such as trees and shrubs,
hedgerows or high berms; adding a much smaller barrier closer to the tee box to catch stray
balls closer to the point of origin; and golf restrictions such as self-limiting balls (which were
formerly used at Quail Creek), repositioning tee stations to be angled away from the area of
concern, and irons -only policies. If barriers are needed, a 35-foot height (or lower) will
suffice. If not, the conditional use procedure would be available. LDC § 10.08.
A local golf professor has undertaken a statistical/probabilistic analysis of a 35-foot barrier
at Quail Creek with the tee stations arced slightly to the left, away from the area of concern, a
very inexpensive and noninvasive change. See generally Exhibit B. This barrier with the
arcing achieves 99.9962% safety, or a .0038% error rate (the risk that a ball will be hit over
a barrier at all). This error rate is much lower than the generalized risk of being hit by a ball
elsewhere on the golf course, which is about 1 in 5,000, or .02%.
Location, Design and Height Standards: Appropriate Fences Make Good Neighbors
The optimal result in this County would be to achieve safety on golf courses in GC Districts by
minimally visually obtrusive means.
In our LDC Amendment, we propose certain design and development standards, including
that the location of any errant ball containment barrier be placed at least 150 feet away from
property zoned or used for residential purposes. Should safety to those homes require a
closer distance, the conditional use procedure is available.
In addition, design requirements would be imposed when the barrier is within 300 feet of
property zoned or used for residential purposes. These relate to the type of netting to be
0
used, the poles, and landscape screening for the benefit of those nearby residences. If the
poles are exposed to residences within 300 feet on both sides, the landscape screening is also
required on both sides of the poles.
Netting should be of a twine thickness of 1 millimeter or less for optimal aesthetic
appearance. This will be almost transparent. One type of netting on the market is called
Dyneema #6, made of polyethylene with a .8 millimeter diameter. This was designed
specifically for the purpose of golf netting. It has a higher breaking strength and better
durability. See Exhibit M, contrasting the coarse, ropelike netting planned by Quail Creek
and the much more transparent, lighter in weight Dyneema netting.
Exhibit M (the last two photos) show an errant ball containment barrier with netting similar
to that planned by Quail Creek, contrasted with a single -panel Dyneema barrier. As shown in
these photos, the lighter, seamless netting does not sag and presents a much better
appearance.
The thickness of the netting dictates how visible it is. We have seen many examples of the
heavier, 2 mm twine fabric in use, and it has several drawbacks, especially its appearance in
a residential area.
The heavier weight of a typical 2 mm netting fabric per square foot makes it sag, especially
over time. Lighter, thinner netting does not sag, allowing for a much more transparent
appearance.
Heavier weight netting also typically needs panels every twenty feet of its height, creating
visible dividers, or seams, that add not only to their visibility but also the industrial look of
the installation. Dyneema netting, for example, allows for single panels of netting up to a
height of 52 feet, so that unsightly dividers are minimized. Therefore, it is much more
conducive to a residential setting, which is the onlyplace that these design requirements
would apply.
Heavier netting also requires a thicker, more industrial pipe style pole, which is evocative of
factories and prisons and is not appropriate in a residential setting. The poles at Quail Creek
are currently a 50-inch circumference, which is unsightly near residences. With lighter
weight netting and a barrier of a height of 35 feet, the poles can be significantly thinner: the
poles can be at a 12-inch diameter (37 inch circumference) and taper to 8 inches (25 inch
circumference).
More poles per foot are needed to support the weight of heavier netting. For example, the 2
mm netting will need a pole every 50 feet, whereas depending on the height of the poles the
lmm thickness will only need one every 60 or 70 feet, cutting down on necessary
landscaping and cost. For example, using Dyneema netting, a 40-foot barrier with wooden
poles can place the poles 60 feet apart instead of 50. A 30-foot barrier with steel poles can
have the poles placed 71 feet apart instead of 50. Fewer poles and less landscaping make a
containment barrier project less expensive as well as less obtrusive to neighboring
properties.
0
Thinner netting does not mean weaker netting. For example, the twine of the Dyneema #6
netting made by Netex is .8 mm thick. Made of polyethylene, its breaking strength is 103
pounds, while the breaking strength of the 1.3 mm polyester product is only 95 pounds.
The polyethylene used by Netex is dyed instead of coated, so it lasts much longer against LTV
degradation (15 year warranty) than the usual industrial netting product, which is coated
black instead of dyed and comes with only a 10 year warranty. The Dyneema polyethylene
has a life expectancy of 25 years, with the life expectancy of polyester nets being only 10 to
15 years.
The thinner netting is really a far superior product for this purpose and is much better to
enhance the compatibility of the golf course barriers in residential communities. Otherwise,
property values would be negatively affected by sagging netting, more poles and partitions
between each panel —creating an industrial look which is incongruous in a residential setting.
Also, our amendment requires landscaping to camouflage the poles of the errant ball
containment barrier. Originally, we had an idea of one large tree with a 35 foot canopy in
front of each pole. That, it turns out, does not work so well because of possible abrasion of
the tree branches against the barrier. And the large trees take up a lot of space. In addition,
views from the left and right of the barrier might still show the poles.
So, with consultation with a landscape architect, we adopted the idea of a "pole cluster
planting" to include at least one tree of a 20 foot minimum canopy spread. Two other trees
are required, but they can be trees or palms.1 All must be chosen to reach an ultimate height
of 35 feet to camouflage the poles from the residences.
The required minimum tree must be in the center of the cluster for best camouflaging of the
poles. More details on spacing as well as a diagram are specified in the proposed amendment
language. We believe that the "pole cluster plantings" will do the best possible job of
camouflaging the poles under the circumstances, taking into account the value of golf course
space as well as money to be spent on landscaping. We are not stipulating that any hedges be
provided along the rest of the fence, which will further economize on landscaping costs.
Individual communities can certainly do more if they wish; the trees specified are a
minimum number and hedging is permissible.
With the poles camouflaged and the netting as invisible as possible, any damage to the
residential neighborhood by an errant ball containment barrier would be minimized. Please
see Exhibit p (diagrams of sample barriers designed in accordance with the proposed
amendments).
' Sabal palms are a commonly used, less expensive landscaping tree. We wanted to include
only sabal palms that are "booted," that is without having their leaf frond bases removed.
They are more attractive, have a larger trunk, bend less and can be longer -lived. But we are
told that such palms can be difficult to find at landscape nurseries. So, we are not specifying
the type of palms that may be used.
10
There are also choices of powder -coated color if steel or aluminum poles are used. We are
specifying a sage green or grayish green to blend in with other landscaping on the terrain of
a golf course. This is a color in keeping with that used on transformer boxes in the Collier
County area. Natural wood poles would not have to be painted.
If poles higher than 35 feet are sought through a conditional use, taller trees as well as a
bluish gray color (to blend in with the sky) for the pole portions above 35 feet would
probably work much better, and this would also be possible through the conditional use
procedure.
The Views in a Golf Residential Comm unity are Crucial
A golf course in a GC District can't be viewed in a vacuum. It is surrounded by homes.
Golf community HOA rules, golf course and real estate sales literature all traditionally reflect
the value that the views, in particular golf course views, are crucial.
This is a common trait of golf course communities. After all, their homeowners bought golf
course homes for the view. Views are how homes in golf course communities are marketed,
and maintaining those expansive, landscaped views in turn supports the market value of
those homes.
Views of the golf course are commonly acknowledged and restricted as particularly
important in HOA documents. There are severe restrictions on obstructing them.
For example:
No fences, hedges or other obstruction shall be constructed at, or near the
boundaries of the Quail Creek Golf Course.
At all times, complete visibility of the Quail Creek Golf Course and its
appurtenances shall be preserved.
Exhibit Nj§ 8.6 (emphasis added) (Second Amended and Restated Master Declaration of
Protective Covenants for Quail Creek).
In Quail Creek, there is also an entire separate set of Architectural Planning Criteria that
govern how things are supposed to look. Again, golf course views are emphasized and cannot
be blocked.
No landscaping, hedges, fences, buffers, walls, or other structural screens or
other obstruction shall be constructed at, or near the boundaries of the Golf
Course, or block another's view of the golf course.
§ 2.5 (emphasis added). Exhibit 0.
Golf course literature like Quail Creek's typically speaks of the "lush, mature trees and
carefully curated landscaping, "picturesque grounds," the "peaceful sanctuary of our natural
surroundings," and the "preservation of natural beauty." Exhibit P.
11
It trumpets the "harmonious blend of sport and nature"...where our "36 holes of golf are
seamlessly woven into the serene tapestry of the ... grounds". "golfing experience . .
.seamlessly blends luxury with nature's wonders."
See Exhibit P.
The Quail Creek Estates community, for example, is known and marketed for its golf course
views.
"Quail Creek is a gated community of 291 estate homes located in North Naples. Every home
in this 640-acre community has views of the golf course and other scenic natural vistas."
https://www.na-plescondoboutique.com/guail-creek/
"Welcome to Quail Creek, a prestigious subdivision located in the heart of Naples, Florida.
Nestled within the beautiful Collier County, Quail Creek offers a luxurious lifestyle
surrounded by lush landscapes and stunning golf course views."
https://vA w.captainchrisswflhomes.com/listings/subdivision/Quail-Creek/homes-with-golf-
course-view/
"One of the standout features of this exclusive neighborhood is the breathtaking golf views
that grace many of the homes. Imagine waking up each morning to panoramic vistas of lush
fairways and vibrant greens, where the beauty of the outdoors seamlessly integrates with
your everyday life. The homes here are designed to maximize these spectacular views, with
expansive windows and spacious patios that invite natural course views light and fresh air
into your living spaces."
https://vA w.theguillettegroup.com/listings/subdivision/Quail-Creek/homes-with-golf-course-
viw/
"There are no condominiums or villas within Quail Creek, so residents here are seeking a
large single-family estate home with views of the 2 magnificent golf courses..
https://vA w.gulfcoastfloridahomes.com/golf-communities/naples-florida-golf-
communities/quail-creek/
GCDistrictsAre NecessaraVIntertwined with Their Residential Neighbors
There are benefits and burdens to being part of a GC District community, on the sides of both
the golf club and the residents.
Like other golf courses in the GC Districts in Collier County, Quail Creek is physically,
economically and from a zoning perspective, inextricably intertwined with the neighboring
residences. Exhibit Q.
A GC District golf course benefits from a substantial income stream from the monthly fees of
local golf and social members, as well as being granted the privilege of running restaurants
and event spaces and pro shops, charging for golf and tennis lessons, and obtaining revenue
from all of those. Without the GC District, these commercial enterprises would not be
permitted to exist in a residential area. In turn, residents benefit from expansive golf views
and the opportunity to be members and socialize at the golf club.
In many instances such as in Quail Creek, the golf club gets a significant number of its
members from the community, but not a majority. Thus, many of the golfers at QC don't
have a vested interest in the community like the residents do.
12
The golf course residents are here, all day every day. These are their homes, in many cases
their largest investment and the embodiment of their life savings, and they are naturally
concerned with the market value of those homes. Meanwhile, the golfers come and go as
they please.
Neighboring residents are usually responsible for adhering to an exhaustive set of
Community HOA standards, including the stringent requirements that golf course views be
preserved at all costs.
These rules and restrictions are part of the recognition that appearances are a vital part of
the enjoyment and value of golf course homes. The idea is to keep the community looking
beautiful and homogenous, to maintain property values and maximize homeowners'
enjoyment of their properties.
In Quail Creek Estates, as with other high -end golf communities throughout Collier County,
there is an entire set of rules that governs how homes and their lots in Quail Creek Estates
should look. See generally Exhibit N at 21-27 (Second Amended and Restated Master
Declaration of Protective Covenants for Quail Creek). An architectural review commission is
in place to "preserve the beauty, quality and value of the community." Exhibit N (page 18-
21, § 6).
Golf communities tend to be high -end areas with more expansive lots and views. The Quail
Creek Estates HOA's website, for one, attests that "The homes are featured on large lots of
almost one acre, providing privacy as well as spectacular golf and lake views rarely found in
Naples." Exhibit R (emphasis added).
In turn, the implicit promise of the golf club to its neighboring homes, is that it maintain the
grounds and appearance of the golf course(s).
The conditional use process that we support for errant ball containment barriers over 35 feet
would require golf clubs to keep that promise by involving the neighboring homeowners in
the process through the neighborhood information meeting and allowing them a voice at a
public hearing.
It should be noted that ultra -high barriers like the one illegally installed at Quail Creek have
no public benefit to balance out their negative impacts on other property owners and the
community at large. The purpose of that structure is to prevent errant balls from hitting
players of golf on a single hole of a thirty-six (36) hole set of golf courses. Thus, the proposed
structure would protect only people who have already assumed the risk of being present on
the golf course. Indeed, only the subset of these club members who have golf memberships
and their golfing guests are allowed on the course when the driving range is open. The Club
thus wishes to impose a huge and widely visible public cost on the golf residential
communities in Collier County, solely for the benefit of its own private golf membership.
13
The Quail Creek Example. Excessive Damage from a Hideous
Barrier and An UncaringLack of Communication
The illegally installed barrier poles at the Quail Creek Country Club, intended to be 68-70 feet
tall by incorporating an artificial berm, is an excellent example of the harm that ultra -high
golf barriers would cause in Collier County. The conditional use process, before anygolf
course applies for a golf barrier permit and begins construction of an ultra high barrier,
would have avoided this situation.
Back in 1981, the original Quail Creek golf course designers carefully provided for a tree
barrier between Hole 10 and the driving range to assure golfer safety. Exhibit S. When we
bought our homes, the tree barrier was robust and beautiful. Exhibit T. The driving range
and the fairway next to it operated without incident for many years.
But from 2013-2020, Quail Creek systematically removed its own tree safety barrier. See
PowerPoint presentation attached hereto as Exhibit U. In 2018, the Club erected an
artificial berm with a row of short, branchless palms, and a 12 foot tall netting fence which it
utterly failed to maintain. See Exhibit V. What had been a functional and attractive barrier
was gone.
As our golf expert states, "The golf course affirmatively created the danger to players
playing the loth hole with the removal of these barrier trees." Exhibit C at 6. "Leaving those
trees in place would have continued to provide a meaningful and effective buffer between the
driving range and the 1Oth hole." Exhibit C at 6.
Upon information and belief, the trees were cut down and the berm built without consulting
with the County, for the required permit.
The Club installed a new driving range, also without a permit, behind the homes of two of the
residents on Coco Plum Lane, placing them in the zone of danger. "This puts the Coco Plum
Lane properties squarely in the crosshairs of the Zone of Danger, necessitating elimination of
the back tee box area completely." Exhibit C at 13. It also expanded its driving range
towards Hole 10 by adding a short-range hitting area, raising the danger level for Hole 10
golfers. To our knowledge, all of these changes were made without permits.
This was continually negligent behavior, just waiting for something to go wrong. See Exhibit
C at 6-8 (explaining how the various changes to the original design of the Club's driving
range enhanced the dangers).
After an accident occurred in 2023, it became a priority of the Club to get a manmade
barrier. But no trajectory analysis was undertaken to determine what size barrier was
actually needed. See Exhibit W at 1 ("Engel & Company Engineers, Inc. were not contracted
to provide a trajectory (ball containment)).
In late April of 2024, and without even consulting with the County to get a permit, the Club
began installing its barrier. An unlicensed contractor placed enormous black poles in the
ground intended to support an 850 foot long, 63-foot high black netting barrier,.
14
Nearby residents were not consulted, nor was any notice provided by the Club, let alone
asking the community to consider plans that would drastically affect them. We saw the huge
black poles going up and tried to contact the golf club right away, to register our concern and
dismay. But the Club refused to take our calls or return our emails.
The Club was stopped only by Code Enforcement, on May 1, 2024.
In a meeting on May 8th, which we were told was set up to hear the concerns of the
homeowners, the Club refused to have a constructive dialogue with the affected residents.
Instead, it began the meeting by telling us that the poles would stay up "no matter what."
So it was clear that our legitimate concerns and the damage they were causing us, didn't
matter to the Club. That they were harming the affected homeowners, with maximal cost to
the community and the natural environment and minimal forethought, didn't seem to bother
them, then or now.
Club representatives did admit to some of the affected homeowners (only three families were
permitted to attend) at the May 8 meeting that even they were taken aback by the visual
appearance of these poles. This is an important admission —they didn't bother to do adequate
research before they installed these horrific poles in full view of our homes.
The Club has studiously ignored the objections of the affected homeowners ever since,
pretending that property values would not be affected. Many, many months of delay have
ensued as Quail Creek tried to figure out a way to push through its illegal barrier without
giving homeowners a chance to be heard. (Over 650 days have now passed since the barrier
poles were illegally installed). They have tried this through a variance proceeding that they
later abandoned, a request for an official interpretation of the height restrictions, and now an
LDC amendment.
LDC amendments require compatibility and consistency with the GMP. Our expert planning
witness Cecelia Ward found that the variance Quail Creek had originally sought was
incompatible with residential uses and inconsistent with the GMP. See her full report at
Exhibit AA at 10-14. The variance they sought is similar to the LDC amendment they now
propose.
During all of this time, homeowners have had to live with an illegally constructed, enormous,
industrial -style barrier.
The views ruined by this "ultra -high," factory-like installation were paid for by residents in
original purchase price, taxes over many years, and in improvements and renovations to
homes that they thought would be worth prevailing market value. A large proportion, if not
all, of the life savings of many of the affected Quail Creek residents is contained in the value
of their homes.
A certified residential appraiser, testifying that an ultra -high barrier such as the one that QC
wishes permission to install, will "suffer due to this external obsolescence, causing negative
market value impacts." See Exhibit D ¶ 9. (Declaration of Burkhard Klein). These are
photographs of some of the affected homes. See Exhibit X.
15
The market value damage to our homes is apparent already. Since the illegal barrier has
been left standing for 20 months, one homeowner was forced to sell during that period of
time, and catastrophically received only 50 cents on the dollar of their initial home price.
The final price was $1.25 million on a home initially marketed with a list price of $2.5
million. We provide the Zillow listing showing how the price was marked further and further
down over time as buyers kept walking away from the newly ruined driving range view.
Exhibit Y. Meanwhile, an unaffected property just one house away sold in a couple of months
for 94% of list price. Exhibit Z.
We have personally spoken with several real estate agents, who have all confirmed the
potential for a substantial decrease in property values for those of us whose views are now
obstructed. Originally this was in the $500,000 to $700,000 range. But the sale that
actually occurred reflects that that amount of damage may be a serious understatement.
And —despite its "safety concerns," the Club has kept right on using its driving range, and the
fairway for golf hole #10 right next to it exactly as before, with no restrictions. Indeed, the
Club has recently shown in plans submitted with an SDPI for a golf course renovation that it
wants to expand its driving range tee box area a full 50 yards toward Hole 10. This would
significantly add to the danger to golfers using that area of the golf course. See Exhibit BB.
Had notice and an opportunity to provide their input been given to residents and had
appropriate planning and research been done, the golf course residents would not have been
saddled with an illegal, inappropriate set of industrial poles for close to two years.
Meanwhile, the golf course would have been able to achieve safety with an appropriately
designed barrier much sooner.
The conditional use process for errant ball containment barriers over 35 feet as well as
deviations from the development and design requirements we have set forth in our LDC
amendment would involve and inform Quail Creek and other affected homeowners in the GC
District, giving them the options to propose compatible alternatives and thereby avoid
unnecessary damage to residential development, as well as a voice at a public hearing.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the Homeowners' proposed LDC Amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Letitia and Frank Accarrino
13057 Coco Plum Lane
Naples, FL 34119
Chad and Natasha Commers
13156 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
16
Goldie and Kenneth Wetcher
13024 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
Dana and Michael Sturdevant
13033 Coco Plum Lane
Naples, FL 34119
Mariam Mars Gulistan and
Lucille Wetlaufer
13002 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
Fahmida Rahman
13056 Valewood Drive
Naples, FL 34119
17
1.08.02 - Definitions
....Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document or documents that provide an objective
evaluation of the impacts of a proposed development or other alteration of the existing natural
conditions on the natural resources, environmental quality, and listed species.
Errant Golf Ball Containment Barrier. An errant golf ball containment barrier consists of a netting
barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to contain stray golf balls so as to protect
Players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties; and is typically located within golf courses
and/or practice driving ranges.
Essential services: Those services and facilities, including utilities, safety services, and other
government services, necessary to promote and protect public health, safety and welfare,
including but not limited to the following: police; fire, emergency medical, public park and public
library facilities; and all services designed and operated to provide water, sewer, gas, telephone,
electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by providers that have been
approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate jurisdiction, and governmental
facilities... .
2.03.09 - Open Space Zoning Districts.
A. Golf Course and Recreational Use District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to
provide lands for golf courses, recreational uses, and normal accessory uses, including certain
uses of a commercial nature. Recreational uses should be compatible in scale and manner with
residential land uses. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and
the agricultural/rural mixed use district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP.
All uses shall be subject to design standards established in LDC section 5.05.15 H, and other
applicable LDC standards.
The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are
allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the GC district.... .
1. (b). Accessory uses. .. .
7. Errant golf ball containment barriers up to and including thirty-five (35) feet in height, subject to
the standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08.
c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the GC district,
subject to the standards and provisions established in LDC section 10.08.00...
11. Errant aolf ball containment barriers exceedina thirtv-five (35) feet in heiaht or that do not
satisfy the design and development standards set forth in LDC section 5.03.08.
1
4412. Any other recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses as
determined by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeal, as applicable.
4.02.02 - Dimensional Standards for Conditional Uses and Accessory Uses in Base Zoning
Districts
A. GC District. d] Accessory uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, unless a
conditional use request is granted pursuant to LDC sections 10.08.00 and 5.03.08 (C)(4).
5.03.08 - Errant Golf Ball Containment Barriers in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning District
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to ensure that errant golf ball
containment barriers do not adverselv affect residential land uses adiacent to the aolf courses
and/or driving ranges by establishing design and development standards. An errant golf ball
containment barrier consists of a netting barrier supported by upright poles and is designed to
contain stray golf balls so as to protect players, spectators, and/or neighboring properties; and is
typically located within golf courses and/or practice driving ranges.
B. Applicability. These regulations are applicable to errant golf ball containment barriers
located within the GC District.
C. Design and development standards.
1. General Height and Location Standards.
a. Maximum Height: thirty-five (35) feet.
b. Required Separation from Property Zoned Or Used For Residential Purposes. The
errant golf ball containment barrier shall be positioned at a minimum distance of
one hundred and fifty (150) feet from any property zoned or used for residential
purposes.
C. Setback. Except as otherwise provided in this section, errant golf ball
containment barriers shall be set back twenty (20) feet from any property line that
is not in common ownership with the golf course or driving range.
d. Required Setback Adjacent to Public Right -of -Way: One (1) foot for each foot in
height, but no less than twenty (20) feet.
2
e. Errant aolf ball containment barriers shall not be located within a Lake
Maintenance Easement.
2. Netting and pole requirements when the errant golf ball containment barrier is within
three hundred (300) feet of property zoned or used for residential purposes:
a. Netting used in the errant golf ball containment barrier shall below visibility, with a
twine diameter of one (1) millimeter or less.
b. Errant golf ball containment barrier poles shall be constructed of wood, aluminum
or steel, and, if aluminum or steel is used, the poles shall be powder coated or
painted a grayish preen or sage green matte color.
3. Landscape screening requirements.
a. A cluster of trees ("pole cluster planting") shall be planted in front of each errant
golf ball containment barrier pole. See Figure 5.03.08 C. If both sides of the
poles are facing property zoned or used for residential purposes that is located
within three hundred (300) feet of the errant aolf ball containment barrier. then
a pole cluster planting shall be required to be installed on both sides of the
poles. Each pole cluster planting shall consist of a minimum of one (1) tree and
an additional two (2) trees or palms clustered and adjacent to each upright pole.
A tree shall be planted in the center of the cluster. The other trees or palms shall
be spaced no less than fifteen (15) feet on center and no more than twenty-five
(25) feet on center. The required pole cluster plantings shall be planted at a
minimum distance of one-half (1 /2) of the tree or palm average mature spread
from the errant golf ball containment barrier, but in any case no less than six (6)
feet from the errant golf ball containment barrier. The required ratio of canopy
trees to palms set forth in LDC Section 4.06.05 (D) (2) (a) shall not apply.
3
1�1
TREE OR PALM
MIN. 15' ON
MAX. 25' ON
�
�BARRIERPOLE
NETTING
- -- - - - - - - - -
/ NO PLANTING ZONE w
LU
Q
J (n Z D
_ IX TREE OR
Z PALM
\
i \l
POLE CLUSTER PLANTING
Figure 5.03.08 C
b. Minimum Plant Standards for Pole Cluster Plantings. All proposed trees and
palms for the pole cluster plantings shall have a minimum mature height of
thirty-five (35) feet. All trees must have a minimum mature spread of twenty (20)
feet. At the time of planting, trees shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in
height with a 1 3/4-inch caliper. Palms shall have a minimum ten (10) foot clear
trunk at planting. Plant material shall follow the native requirements as set forth
in General Landscape Requirements Section 4.06.05 (D) and Figure 4.06.05 D.
c. Existing, native vegetation of the minimum required size and located within a
twenty (20) foot radius of each pole can be used to meet these screening
reauirements. If native veaetation is present but there are not enouah trees or
palms of the minimum required size, supplemental landscaping must be used to
meet the screening requirements.
3. Relief from design and development standards. An applicant requesting a
Conditional Use may request a deviation from the design and development standards
of this section as part of the Conditional Use reauest. Criteria for the deviation will be
the criteria set forth in LDC Section 10.08.00 D.
4. The errant aolf ball containment barrier and related landscaoina shall be shown on
site development plans and construction plans.
5
Exhibit A
I/
� � 1
t
�s
Zia
�i •
�e
i
O
AV
i�Il
s.
NOR
Ar'
Exhibit D
a
APE
t
light Simulation and Containment Analysis:
nail Creek Driving Range
ProfessorJM Groch, PGA, MPS 7/14/25
Flight Simulation and Containment Analysis:
Quail Creek Driving Range
Introduction
This report presents a scientific evaluation of the proposed 60-foot containment net at Quail
Creek Country Club's driving range. The key objective is to assess whether the proposed netting
configuration provides meaningful or necessary safety protection for players —specifically, those
on Hole 10—while considering both performance and aesthetic impact. The data and conclusions
herein focus on the adequacy and necessity of the current design and whether alternative
strategies may provide equal or improved safety with less visual intrusion.
Through rigorous modeling of golf ball trajectories, probabilistic simulations, demographics, and
net interception analysis, this report identifies significant concerns regarding the proposed
design. The goal is to ensure that any containment strategy meaningfully mitigates risk while
aligning with best practices in range safety design. Finally, a more effective containment
strategy, minimal in cost and visual impact, is proposed.
Overview
For many years, Quail Creek Country Club operated its driving range facility with a natural tree
barrier between the driving range and hole number 10. We estimate that this original barrier was
about 30 feet high. Quail Creek now proposes a 60-foot barrier.'
This report evaluates the effectiveness of the original tree barrier, the proposed 60-foot barrier,
and a solution incorporating a new 35-foot barrier with minimal alterations to the driving range
teeing area. A 35-foot barrier can consist of mature trees and hedgerows, with bush layering, or
be constructed, in which case foliage and vegetation can be placed for camouflage.
The 35-foot net with an arc -tee configuration provides superior aesthetics and safe containment
with 40% less visual impact than a 60-foot straight -tee system. Incorporating vegetation buffers
and standard operational controls, the design achieves 99.9962% containment, meeting or
exceeding industry standards.
Methodology:
Determining the netting height for a net that runs parallel to the driving range (often called a side
net) requires a different approach than the backstop net. The primary objective is to catch errant
' At the time this report was written, Quail Creek was stating that its golf barrier was 60 feet high. Since that time,
they have corrected that figure to 63 feet, but 60 feet is what we analyzed. In addition, three of the installed poles
are well below 63 feet, at 20 and 40 feet.
shots (hooks, slices, shanks) that veer significantly off the intended line, not well -struck straight
drives.
Key Factors to Consider
1. Maximum Shot Dispersion Angle
Errant shots can leave the clubface at significant angles. Common estimates:
• Average slice/hook: 10-25' off center
• Extreme mis-hits: 30-40' (more for beginners or kids)
We will use 301 as an extremely conservative maximum deflection angle for the adults using the
Quail Creek driving range.
2. Distance From Tee Line to Net
Let's call this D_side (horizontal distance in yards/feet from the hitting bay to the side net).
3. Expected Carry Distance
Use the max carry of the longest club (usually a driver), denoted as D—carry. For most amateurs:
250 yards. This is an extremely conservative assumption because for the demographic group
using the range, only 1 % can hit it that far.
4. Calculate Maximum Lateral Deflection
Use trigonometry to find the furthest sideways the ball might travel:
Lateral distance = D—carry X tan(0)
Where 0 is the shot dispersion angle (e.g., 300 --+ tan(30°) z 0.577)
Then calculate how high the ball will be when it's at D—side from the teeing area.
Sample Calculation
Scenario:
• Max carry distance, or D—carry: 250 yards
• Side net is 75 yards from the tee center line
• Shot deflection angle: 30'
• Ball apex height (estimated): 90 ft
2
Step 1: Find the maximum lateral deflection point for a 250-yard shot:
Lateral = 250 x tan (301) z 250 x 0.577 z 144.25 yards
So, the furthest the ball might travel is —144 yards from centerline
Step 2: Interception point at 75 Yards Lateral
The net is 75 yards to the right (laterally).
To find where the ball crosses 75 yards laterally, we must determine:
Downrange distance=75/tan(30o)z129.9 yards
So, the interception point is 129.9 yards out.
Step 3: Calculate the height of the ball at 129.9 yards downrange at 75 yards
lateral
For a 250-yard shot at a 30' angle with a 90 ft apex:
The ball crosses the 75-yard lateral fence at a downrange distance of z 129.9 yards
At that point, the ball is z 88 feet high
Calculation:
We use the parabolic trajectory formula (symmetric arc);
Substitute:
2
l X — Xapex
h = Hniax ' 1 —
Xapex
h(129.9) = 90.1 —
129.9 — 150 2
150
2
h(129.9) = 90 • 1 —20.1 — 20.))
150
h(129.9) = 90 , (1 — 0.01796) = 90 - 0.98204 —_ 88.4 ft
Conclusion
Not even a 60-foot-high net would capture this type of shot.
3
Probabilistic Modeling
Now we can add probabilistic modeling, which is useful for understanding risk at different points
along a side net. It combines trajectory physics with shot dispersion data for all golfing
populations to estimate the probability of a ball going over the net at any given location along its
length. Specifically, the purpose is to evaluate the risks associated with the original, natural
roughly 30-foot barrier and to provide a solution that addresses both safety and aesthetic
concerns.
Step -by -Step Overview
1. Define Your Coordinate System
• Place the tee at (0, 0).
• The x-axis represents the distance a ball travels down the fairway.
• The y-axis runs sideways, perpendicular to the target line (left/right). (The target line is
an imaginary line extending from the golf ball to its intended target, used for aiming
during a shot).
• The z-axis is height.
3D Golf Ball Trajectory At 30° Slice
3a Galf Ball Trajectory at 30' Slice
Sall Flight t25a yds. 30°. 90 ft apex)
--- Side Net (y=75 yds)
Net Height (30 ft)
0 50
0hr�9�r5ta150 244
e (y6rds)
250
80
70
64
50
40
30 =
20
10
0
go.W'24-s60
40ti
24 v
011 5
f --oc-,- 'L V-"
So, a golf ball trajectory becomes a function:
(x, y, z) = f(time) — we'll simplify this into 2D slices to start.
2. Collect or Model Shot Dispersion Data
We need a distribution of shot angles (e.g., how often shots go 0°, 10°, 20°, 300 off target). This
can come from:
• Launch monitor data (TrackMan, Flightscope)
• General data (e.g., the average amateur hits 70% of their drives within a 15 degree angle
to the left or right)
• Model shot dispersion as a probability density function (PDF) — commonly a normal
distribution, centered at 0° (straight shot). Specifically, when a golfer hits a series of
shots, the balls don't all go perfectly straight. Instead, they scatter left or right of the
intended line, creating a spread pattern. This left/right spread is known as angular
dispersion, typically measured in degrees from center (00).
3. Calculate Trajectories at Sample Angles
For each angle (0), calculate:
• Lateral offset (y) = distance X tan(A)
• Height (z) at that point = use the trajectory model (parabolic, or measured)
• The "lateral offset" is the distance the ball travels from the point it is hit by the golfer
until it intercepts a the fixed line of the barrier.
You then ask:
"At this lateral offset and height, would this shot clear the net?"
4. Define the Net Profile
At each point along the net, you'll define:
• Distance from tee (x)
• Height of the net (z—net)
• Y location of the net (y_net) = distance from centerline of the tee box (e.g., 75 yards right
means 75 yards to the right of the tee box's center)). This value is fixed.
5. Compare Trajectory to Net Height
For each shot angle 0:
5
• Calculate x, y, and z of the ball at the point where it crosses the y position of the net.
• If z > z net at that point, the shot clears the net.
We now know how golf shots would have to be angled to clear the net at that location.
6. Estimate Probability of Clearance
Once you know which shot angles can clear the net at a given location:
• Use the PDF of shot dispersion to estimate the area under the curve beyond that angle.
• That area = probability of net clearance at that net point.
Add Demographics
By adding demographic information (see below) to the above processes (using flight arc
modeling, probabilistic dispersion, and lateral clearance analytics) produces a model that that
scientifically predicts the probability of "defects" (balls crossing the net).
Add: Population Demographic, Ball Flight Probability and Other Adjustments:
Probability of Rightward Miss by Player Type
Max
Senior
Senior
Senior
<160
250
10 Hdc
20 Hdc
30 Hdc
205
185
160
Offline Max 205 yds 185 yds 160 yds <160
Angle 250 yds yds
100 0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
200 0.03 0.1 0.15 0.18 0.25
300 0.006 0.03 0.1 0.5 0.2
Col
Probability Distribution Club Demographics
0.01
0.19
0.4
0.32
0.08
Max
250
Senior
10 Hdc
205
Senior
20 Hdc
185
Senior
30 Hdc
160
<160
Adjustments
Population
70% Male
Driver
Onlv
While we conservatively estimate that 1 % of the golfing population at Quail Creek can hit the
ball 250 yards, it should be noted that the proposed 60-foot barrier spans a distance of 325 yards
from the tee. This is well beyond the point where it is a mathematical impossibility for balls to
reach that height at the barrier location. The Club has placed a driving range for younger golfers
at the 325-yard distance, so that unprotected children are standing to hit their own practice shots
right next to a barrier intended to be 60 feet high --showing the gross inconsistencies in the Club's
approach to safety. Please see photos immediately below.
?r
7
Flight Simulation and Containment Analysis w/Side spin
Quail Creek Driving Range —Arc Tee + 35 ft Net Configuration
Simulation Type: Probabilistic (Monte Carlo — 500,000 shots)
1.Overview
This report evaluates the containment effectiveness of a 35 ft perimeter net in conjunction with a
16' arc tee configuration, representing a 75-yard offset from the tee centerline under Quail Creek
demographic conditions. Monte Carlo simulation results quantify the probability of golf balls
exceeding the net boundary under realistic dispersion and shot -pattern parameters.
2. Simulation Parameters
Parameter
Tee configuration
Max outward azimuth
Dispersion (a)
Ball speed
Side spin
Carry distribution
Apex height
Net sag/deflection
3. Containment Results
Specification
16' arc
+l50
150 f 12 mph
±3500 rpm (max)
215 yd mean (250 yd = 95th percentile)
85 ft mean (100 ft max)
+5 ft --* Effective capture height = 40 ft
Net Height Probability Ball Balls Over Net (per Containment Rate
Clears Net year)*
35 ft 0.0038 % =46 balls 99.9962 %
*Based on 1.2 million range shots annually.
4. Shot Severity Breakdown
Shot Type % of Shots Clears 35 ft Net? Height at Net
Crossing
0
Normal (<8°)
68 %
No
< 20 ft
Moderate (8-12°)
27 %
No
2030 ft
Severe (12-15°)
4.9 %
Occasionally
30 40 ft
Extreme (>15°)
0.1 %
1 in 260
40 44 ft
Only —1 in 26,000 total shots exceeds 40 ft
at the net line.
5. Containment Comparison (Arc Tee Configuration)
Net Height
Probability Over
Balls/Year (Hole 10
Containment
Net
Exposure)
60 ft
0.00040 %
—5
99.9996 %
50 ft
0.00110 %
—13
99.9989 %
40 ft
0.00110 %
—13
99.9989 %
35 ft
0.00380 %
—46
99.9962 %
6. Risk Assessment
Risk Metric
Airborne balls onto Hole 10
Ground rollers (under net)
Player safety risk
Liability exposure
Value / Interpretation
—46/year (mostly low -energy, descending
trajectory)
—120-150/year (manageable with
signage/buffer)
Low — comparable to on -course errant
approach shots
Moderate — within industry norms with
proper SOPs
7. Final Verdict
Arc Tee + 35 ft Net = 99.9962 % containment
z 1 ball every 8 days clears the boundary — acceptable with mitigation.
8. Recommended Mitigation (for 35 ft Net)
Netting Material: 35 ft black polyethylene (Netex brand netting called Dyneema).
Vegetation Buffer: Layering Effect: Inner Wax Myrtle (low density) + Mid Podocarpus (mid -
height columns) + Outer Sweet Viburnum (tall backdrop) = seamless 20-30 ft visual barrier in
2-3 years.
10
Signage: "Caution: Practice Range Left" posted near Hole 10 approach.
Operational SOPs:
- Rotate hitting mats daily to maintain inward aim.
- Restrict junior/high-spin practice to center bays.
9. Conclusion
The 35 ft net combined with an arc -tee design provides superior visual aesthetics and safe
containment performance at 40% lower visual impact compared to a 60 ft straight -tee system.
With vegetation buffers and routine operational controls, this configuration meets or exceeds
industry containment standards.
Containment Achieved: 99.9962 %
Safety Classification: Low Risk — Operationally Mitigated
Recommendation: Proceed with 35 ft net installation and SOP adoption.
Proposed Solution:
Arc Tee Model: Modern Containment Solution
In any event, the following solution takes away any possibility of error. With a 35-foot barrier
similar to the one used previously and `arcing' the right half of the teeing ground on a 160 degree
arc, an arc -based approach demonstrates superior containment efficacy by proactively orienting
teeing stations toward a shared central point, thereby reducing lateral dispersion and minimizing
the netting footprint. This solution produces 99.9962 % containment. This is due to the
significant reduction in the possible angle that balls may be hit offline.
Additional containment options, including natural barriers (trees, hedges) and procedural
controls could be used for optimal safety and aesthetics.
200
0 10y 20y 30y 40y 50y 60y
30
60
80
110 140 160
0 Angular sectors analyzed: 0-10°, 10-20°, 20-30'
• Arc model function:
• Assumptions: Max carry = 250 yards; Apex = 125 yards; Height = 90 ft Alternative
Netting and Natural Barrier Strategies
Natural Vegetation Barriers
Instead of using an artificial barrier, plant mature trees and tall hedgerows along critical
lateral zones
Use bush layering for height and depth, enhancing stopping potential without visual
obtrusion
Are teeing ground or Practice Range Dividers with Standard Operating Procedures
• Install arc -aligned teeing area to enforce proper tee orientation
• Educate range staff and users on purpose and alignment
• Rotate teeing stations consistently to maintain centerline targeting
200
0 10y 20y 30y 40y 50y 60y
30 60 80 11" 140 16"
Conclusion and Recommendation
The 60-foot proposed net, when compared with a 35 foot option, adds little efficacy but at a great
cost to the environment. While with either option the probability of a golfer being hit by a ball is
very low, the 35 foot plus arcing solution would eliminate any possibility of injury.
Scientific modeling supports:
• Tee arc orientation as a low-cost, high -impact method to reduce dispersion
• Shorter, strategically placed nets combined with natural vegetation buffers
• Operational protocols (SOPs) to preserve directional integrity and maximize player safety
These recommendations will allow Quail Creek to implement a cost-effective and aesthetically
integrated solution that upholds industry safety standards while respecting the integrity of the
playing environment.
12
Addendum to Quail Creek Driving Range Containment
Analysis Effect of Using Limited Flight / Restricted Range
Golf Balls (Arc Tee + 35 ft Net Configuration — January 2026)
This addendum assesses the impact of switching to limited flight range balls (also called
restricted -flight or limited -distance balls) on containment performance. These balls are
commonly used at driving ranges for safety, durability, and space constraints. They are designed
to reduce carry distance while attempting to preserve realistic flight characteristics (trajectory
shape, spin axis for hooks/slices).
Key Characteristics of Limited Flight Range Balls
From industry data (e.g., Top-Flite Restricted Flight, various manufacturers' specs, and launch
monitor comparisons):
• Carry distance reduction — Typically 10-30% shorter than premium golf balls,
depending on club and ball type:
o Moderate limited -flight range balls:—10-15% reduction (common for standard
durable range balls)
o Stronger restricted -flight versions:—25-30% reduction (e.g., proprietary cores
that lower ball speed)
• Ball speed — Lower (due to harder -to -compress cores or materials)
• Spin — Often higher backspin (especially with drivers/irons), leading to more
ballooning; side spin preserved for directional control
• Trajectory / Apex height — Generally lower apex and flatter/more penetrating flight
overall due to reduced speed and carry, though higher spin can cause occasional
ballooning. Peak heights are reduced compared to premium balls (e.g., 10-20% lower
apex in many cases).
• Dispersion — Similar or slightly wider due to variability in worn/abused balls, but
directional control (hooks/slices) remains realistic.
These changes benefit containment because balls fly shorter, lower, and reach the net line with
reduced height and energy.
Updated Simulation Assumptions
• Original parameters maintained (dispersion (T = 8.5°, side spin ±3500 rpm, ball speed
adjusted downward, etc.)
• Carry distribution shift — Mean carry reduced to —172-194 yd (20% average reduction
from original 215 yd mean), with 95th percentile —200-225 yd (instead of 250 yd)
• Apex height — Reduced to mean —68-75 ft (from 85 ft), max —80-90 ft (from —100 ft)
• Height at net crossing — Significantly lower due to earlier descent and reduced overall
trajectory height
• Monte Carlo logic: Fewer shots reach high enough heights or distances to challenge the
35 ft net (effective 40 ft capture)
Updated Containment Results (35 ft Net with Limited Flight Balls)
• Probability a ball clears the net: <0.0005% (l in >200,000 shots) conservative
estimate based on reduced apex/carry
• Estimated balls over net per year: <6 (based on 1.2 million annual range shots) —
down dramatically from original —46
• Overall containment rate: >99.9995%
• This equates to roughly 1 ball every 2+ months (or less) going over the net — a
substantial safety improvement.
Updated Shot Severity Breakdown
• Normal/moderate launch angles (<12°): Heights at net line reduced to <15-25 ft (fully
contained)
• Severe/extreme angles (>12°): Heights 25-35 ft max (very few exceed 35 ft due to lower
overall trajectory)
• Extreme outliers: Rare cases of high -spin ballooning might approach 3538 ft, but
reduced carry prevents many from reaching the net line at all
Updated Containment Comparison (Arc Tee Configuration with
Limited Flight Balls)
Net Height Probability Over Net Est. Balls/Year (Hole 10 Exposure) Containment Rate
60 ft
<<0.0001%
<1
>99.9999%
50 ft
<<0.0001%
<1
>99.9999%
40 ft
<0.0002%
—2
>99.9998%
35 ft
<0.0005%
<6
>99.9995%
Updated Risk Assessment & Verdict
• Airborne balls onto Hole 10: <6/year (extremely low -energy, if any) — negligible risk
• Ground rollers under net: Likely reduced (-80-120/year) due to shorter overall flight
• Player safety & liability risk: Very low — switching to limited -flight balls enhances
safety margins significantly, often exceeding industry standards even with a 35 ft net
• The use of limited -flight balls dramatically improves containment without needing taller
nets, additional offsets, or major redesigns.
Recommendation
Switching to limited flight range balls (e.g., Top-Flite Restricted Flight or equivalent 20-30%
reduction models) is a highly effective, low-cost mitigation strategy. It would:
Restore or exceed the original containment performance of the 75-yard offset
configuration
Allow safe operation even with the reduced 25-yard offset (from prior addendum)
Maintain realistic practice (directional flight preserved) while prioritizing safety
Final Verdict Limited flight balls provide superior containment (potentially >99.9995%) with
a 35 ft net. This change is strongly recommended for enhanced safety, reduced liability, and
operational simplicity — especially if extending the range closer to the fence line or addressing
any residual errant ball concerns.
Curriculum Vitae
JOSEPH M. GROCH, PGA, M.P.S.
450 Widgeon Pt.
Naples, FL 34105
PROFILE
jgroch@fgcu.edu
Cell: 239-825-2896
Background includes a history of lifelong learning combined with successfully managing all
aspects of golf club operations with an emphasis on delivering a high level of profitability,
operational efficiency, and member service. Demonstrated expertise in research, statistical
analysis, analytics, presentation, and writing. Skill set also includes an extensive background
in business, management, leadership, teaching, accounting, entrepreneurship, and
technology. Member of the Accounting Association of America, Expert Witness, and LEAN
Six Sigma Black Belt Certified.
EDUCATION
+ 2013- Hodges University- Master of Professional Studies in Applied Statistics
(Summa Cum Laude)
1981: University of Wisconsin — Master Level Course in Operations Management
1980: Wharton School of Business — Courses in Supervisory Management
G 1976-1980: St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA — Bachelors of Science Degree
Major — Accounting
RESEARCH, PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
4 Satisfaction: A Path to Success for the Golf Industry (2012): Quantitatively assessed the
factors of customer satisfaction in the Golf Industry. Presented at the refereed 2013
Mustang Journals International Academic Conference, Las Vegas, NV. Published in the
conference proceedings. Winner of the Best PaperAward.
0 Motivating GolfEmployees in SWFL (2013): Quantitatively analyzed survey data on
employee satisfaction with recommendations on improvement. This work has been
accepted for publication to the International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration (Taylor & Francis Publishing).
+ GSI.• Key, to Golfer Retention (2013): Established the relationship between employee
satisfaction, operational performance, and golfer satisfaction in order to grow the
industry through increased customer retention. Published in the International Journal of
Social Science Research.
0 BOOK. Employee Satisfaction: The Way to Happy Golfers and Industry Growth (2013)-
Provides strategies for measuring, managing and enhancing the relationships between
employee satisfaction, operational performance, and golfer satisfaction. Published by
Lambert Academic Publishing. Available at Barnes & Nobel and Amazon.com.
0 Measuring Effective Golf Facilities (2014): Established a new paradigm for measuring
organizational effectiveness in the golf industry which includes financial, environmental,
philanthropic, customer service, and employee satisfaction metrics. Accepted for oral
presentation and publication in the refereed conference proceedings of the 2014 Clute
Institute World International Academic Conference in Orlando Fl. Winner Best Paper
Award
G BOOK Effective Golf Management (2014): Determines the financial and operational
attributes of an effective organization and its leadership team in the golf management
industry.
G Establishing Benchmarks for Success in Gol(Tac.&des (2014): Uses multi-
dimensional measures to gauge success in the golf facility industry. Published
in the International Journal of Management Information Systems.
G Current Status and the Determinants of Golfers' Satisfaction: An Exploratory
Study (2015): Published in the International Journal of Golf Science: Provides practitioners
with insight as to the significant drivers of golfer satisfaction in order to plan, organize,
and control better customer service outcomes to grow their business and the industry.
G Presented at the World Scientific Congress ofGolf at the University of St.
Andrews in Scotland, U.K. (2016)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
4 Professor 2012 to Present - Florida Gulf Coast University- Ft. Myers, Fl
Instructor in the PGA Professional Golf Management Program. Responsible for
teaching Managerial Business Analytics, Financial Accounting, Golf Operations,
Executive GolfManagement, Golf Practicum, Golf Instructional Operations, and
Player Development
G Director of Golf Emeritus (Lifetime) - Glades Country Club - Naples, Florida
Responsible for all aspects of this 36 hole golf operation, manage 23 employees, golf
course superintendent, and all merchandising. Retired 1/15/2017.
0 CEO & CFO - DCl/MBS, Inc. 1983 to 1991
Started, owned and operated a value-added microcomputer retail and direct marketing
company with multiple locations and franchises. Responsible for all company financial
and managerial accounting. The company specialized in computerized system
applications for small to medium-sized businesses. Sold in 1990.
G Manager of Cost Accounting - Scott Paper Company 1980 to 1985
Managed all staff accountants and clerks for this multi -million dollar paper plant
operation. Was responsible for financial reporting to government and various reports for
operations, budgets, forecasts, tax and brand cost analysis to the corporate office.
Related Employment
Director of Golf 2001-2003 Twin Isles Country Club- Punta Gorda, FL
Director of Golf 1998 to 2001 Heron's Glen Country Club - Ft. Myers, FL
Head Golf Professional 1993 to 1998 Glades Country Club - Naples, FL
ACHIEVEMENTS
G Horton Smith Education Award 2017- SWFL Chapter PGA
G Horton Smith Education Award 2016- S. Florida Section PGA
G Horton Smith Education Award 2016- SWFL Chapter PGA
0 2016 Presidential Award Best Oral Presentation at FGCU Research Day
G Inspirational Teacher of the Year 2016- Lutgert College of Business at FGCU
G Uncommon Friends Excellence in Teaching Ethics Award at FGCU-2015
G Best Paper Award 2014 Clute Institute International Academic Conference
G Best Paper Award 2013 Mustang Journal International Academic Conference
G Hodges University 2012 Graduate Student of the Year
ACTIVITIES AND SERVICE
G PGA National Speakers Bureau
4 Conducted numerous SWFL Chapter Education Seminars
4 Consultant for several Golf Facilities in SWFL
Exhibit C
PROPOSED DESIGN MODIFICATION
IMPACT AND ASSESSMENT TO PROPERTY
Prepared For
AFFECTED NEIGHBORS ON
COCO PLUM LANE AND VALEWOOD DRIVE
Dated: March 22nd, 2025
Prepared By
Stephen W. Eisenberg, PGA
Golf Concepts Facility Consulting
12061 Wedge Drive
Fort Myers, Florida 33943
Dear affected neighbors:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my experience -based assessment regarding the
proposed inclusion of a barrier net with poles higher than 60 feet, which I personally measured,
in violation of zoning regulations, at the Quail Creek Country Club, in Naples, Florida.
I performed two site visits to the affected property and the driving range/golf course area, to
measure and determine the issues involved, and to also evaluate the adequacy of the solution
provided by the Country Club, and to examine other potential options and remedies to decreasing
the alleged dangers to golfers playing the golf hole adjacent to the driving range, within zoning
regulations and withing PGA of America driving range recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
By way of background, I am a PGA of America Certified Golf Professional, and from 1992 to
the present, I trained over 3,000 PGA Golf Professionals regarding such subjects as: Golf Course
Driving Range Design, Golf Course Safety Practices, Golf Fleet Management, Golf Operations
Management, Risk Management/Safety and Golf Legal Issues, and served as Faculty Head of
Training and Development for the PGA of America in 2001. I have been a subject matter expert
for the PGA of America since 1995. I have been published nationally on Risk Management and
Golf Operations. I have owned my own golf course in New York State, building a driving range
from scratch and modifying the golf course design while an owner. I am a subject matter expert
with the PGA of America on Driving Range Design and Management.
I am the owner of Golf Concepts, Inc., a full -service golf facility consulting service. I have
consulted around the world on matters relating to golf driving range and course design,
management and operations, speaking in China, Jamaica and Korea on this subject, as well as on
behalf of the PGA of America, at their National Conferences. I have trained over 3,000 operators
of golf courses on all facets of golf course and driving range design, operations and golf
management.
I have developed Professional Golf Management Programs in the United States, Korea, China,
and Jamaica, which train on design and operation of golf courses. I have been the owner and
operator of a golf course and golf driving range. Building the driving range, modifying the golf
course design, and developing a golf academy at a facility, including topography and integrity of
design.
In addition to my consultation work, I am presently on the faculty of the Keiser University
Professional Golf Management Program, and the National University Professional Golf
Management Program (where I developed the entire golf course design and
ownership/management curriculum).
I am certified in Golf Operations through the PGA of America and serve as a Subject Matter
Expert for the PGA of America in the areas of Golf Driving Range Design, Golf Management,
Golf Course Design, and Golf Range and Academy design. I have been a featured speaker on
these topics at two Chinese Universities, one in Korea, and one in Jamaica.
I have played golf since I was five, and have been a member at three golf courses, and have
played at literally a thousand or more golf courses during my career. I have competed in
tournaments at the amateur level, as well as on the Professional level through the PGA of
America. I have trained personnel in golf course design and management practices, Golf
Instruction and Academy Programs, Business Planning, Golf Car Fleet Management, and Safety
and Operations for the last 20 years.
I have vast experience regarding golf operation and driving range design experience, and
maintenance practices, from the standpoint of use and experience, and my first job in the golf
industry was as a grounds maintenance employee back in 1978, as well as acting in the capacity
of a utility field employee, mowing greens, fairways, and inspection of the golf course prior to
play. After that time, I managed 4 facilities, owned one, where I designed and developed the
driving range and netting/fencing from the ground up, in New York State, designed and
modified existing golf courses and driving ranges, and became the lead trainer for the PGA of
America in Golf Management and Driving Range Design. I have lectured on liability issues in
the golf industry regarding golf facility operations and for the PGA of America nationally.
In 2013, I was the project manager at Gateway Golf and Country Club during its golf course and
range renovation project, where I helped design and modify the existing range, which resulted in
a major golf academy locating at this facility. Additionally, I have taught golf course and driving
range design for the PGA of America for over 25 years.
As a golf course and driving range designer and subject matter expert for the PGA of America on
Driving Range and Golf Course Design, and Golf Management Operations, I was able to
determine deficiencies in the existing design configuration and tee set-up and determine, through
trajectory analysis, deficiencies in the existing driving range areas that must be addressed. I also
determined multiple options to address those deficiencies in order to stop golf balls from leaving
the driving range and entering the adjacent 1Oth hole.
In accordance with the homeowners' request, I reviewed an abundance of Google Earth
depictions, took measurements of the driving range itself and the poles presently situated on the
property, constructed without proper permitting and in violation of zoning regulations, and other
documents regarding the condition of the premises in the past, and the modifications to the hole
and tee box, adjacent to the perimeter of the golf course, to help assess the existing set-up of the
tee area, to determine the present sufficiency of the tee area from a safety standpoint, and any
trees acting as a barrier, to help in assessing the feasibility of alternative golf course tee
alignments and set-ups and additional potential barrier remedies.
I employed golf ball trajectory and speed analysis to determine whether the extremely large
barrier poles and netting would add any protection to golfers on the 1 Otn hole.
As I measure the installed poles, they are over 60 feet in height, probably 63 feet, with a 50-inch
circumference, and with an intended black netting. I was able to easily see these poles from the
back of affected neighbors' homes. To say they presented an unsightly image is an
understatement. Moreover, the highest poles identified impact an area where golf balls would
have already lost most of their trajectory and force, and the contemplated net would therefore be
totally ineffective.
This driving range is only about 280 yards long, and starts at about 100 yards wide, narrowing to
66-70 yards wide and then even less, 50 yards and below as it approaches the end of Hole 10.
This creates a situation in which there is a larger potential for golf balls to be hit outside the
range.
I understand that the installation of large poles on the driving range was done without consulting
a golf driving range designer, which is problematic as the dangers to be rectified between the
range and the golf hole in question need research before implementation. This solution,
implemented illegally by the Country Club, does not solve the issue of golf balls from the
driving range being hit onto the adjacent IOth hole.
The photographs below show the poles in question at Quail Creek Country Club:
4
The below photograph shows the significant tree buffer that originally protected golfers playing
the 1 Oth hole, with the black dots indicating where the unsightly and permit -violative poles have
been placed:
'_ I
A.:
The picture on the next page shows the same area after REMOVAL of barrier trees that
provided significant protection to golfers playing the 1 Oth hole.
I have learned through historical research of the driving range in question, that trees acting as a
barrier between the driving range and golf hole were removed by the Country Club from 2012-
2022, thus creating a lack of buffering between the range and the adjacent golf hole. Leaving
those trees in place would have continued to provide a meaningful and effective buffer between
the driving range and the 101 hole.
The thick barrier trees were replaced with a 2-to-5 foot berm and a few skimpy palm trees that
offer very little protection, if any, to golfers. The golf course affirmatively created the danger to
players playing the 1 Oth hole with the removal of these barrier trees.
Furthermore, the golf course also removed trees close to the front tee area to add a "short iron"
tee box, which drastically increased the potential for golf balls to enter the 1 Otn hole.
The barrier trees were also removed, in part, to allow creation of a "back" tee to the existing
driving range. Quail Creek increased the danger to players playing the 101 hole by adding a new
tee area at the opposite end of the driving range, while removing the very barrier trees that would
have prevented shots from being hit from the back end of the range toward the 101 hole. This tee
box should be eliminated, as it increases the number of golf balls entering into the 101 hole
playing area and homeowner property.
In addition to the tree barrier removal, Quail Creek Country Club's expansion of its front driving
range tee box in 2014 has affirmatively increased the danger to the golfers playing the 1 Oth hole
by having players hit practice shots even closer to the loth hole than before. The tee box
renovation has pushed the side of the range to the right by 25 yards. In this area, golfers hitting a
"slice" or "push" shot could hit a ball toward the 1 Otn hole. This driving range expansion was
obviously done without considering increased dangers to those playing the loth hole. Therefore,
this renovation should be removed, by eliminating the expansion of the tee box area on the right
side. If elimination of the right side of the tee box is not performed, at the very least it should be
mandated that the tee "stations" be placed on the left side or middle of the tee box only.
Alternatively, if this tee box expansion is not eliminated, an L-shaped netting barrier or
hedgerow should be placed to the right side of this tee box so as to "knock down" golf balls hit
directly to the right, or slicing to the right.
The barrier I am suggesting should be placed at the point of origin, near the tee box, so those
barriers can deflect both "pushes" (shots hit directly to the right), and "slices"(shots going
straight initially then veering to the right) headed toward the 1 Oth hole.
Also, because of the trajectory of typical golf balls being much higher than the 60+ feet poles
installed, the only way to protect golfers is to eliminate shots in that direction immediately, or
decreasing the likelihood that they will reach the 1 Oth hole, by using "limited flight" golf balls,
which I have learned were originally used at the club prior to 2019, and disallowing the use of
longer clubs, commonly referred to as "woods." Common parlance would refer to this as an
"irons only" solution.
To achieve a better understanding of how golf balls travel, it is important to understand BALL
FLIGHT LAWS. Those laws establish how a golf ball may travel, either at its target, or well to
the left or right of the target. In this instance, golf balls going to the right are problematic. A golf
ball can be hit toward the right of target in the following ways: 1) By hitting toward your target,
but the face of the club is aiming toward the right. The ball will "slice," meaning start at the
intended target and end up well to the right of target. This is a very common problem in golf and
experienced by most golfers. Golf balls will end up toward the 1011 hole as a result. Or, 2) a golf
ball is hit DIRECTLY to the right, because the path of the golfer's club is swinging out to the
right. This is also a common issue with golfers. Both of these problems are ameliorated by
having "irons only" and limited flight golf balls in use.
It is my professional opinion that a hedgerow or tree barrier close to the tee box area, in
conjunction with limited flight golf balls and use of irons only, would be the most effective
pragmatic and essential safety elements from a construction and use standpoint to provide
maximal protection to those playing the loth hole.
The barrier placed on the property in violation of zoning ordinances WILL NOT prevent
golf balls from entering the loth hole.
To be effective, nets or fences must have been assessed in a trajectory analysis for their
sufficiency in blocking golf balls at the typical average height for a golf shot hit toward your
property or toward the 101 hole. I have received no information that such a study was done.
From my own expertise, a hedgerow barrier or netting barrier at the front side of the tee box
would knock down most golf shots hit toward the 1 Oth hole.
9
From the front edge of the driving range tee box there is a distance of approximately 100 to 200
yards to the 101 hole. An "L-shaped" fence or hedgerow near the tee box, or, better yet, facing
diagonally to the tee box would offer considerable protection from sliced and pushed shots. A
picture helps demonstrate how this solution would function and is shown below on the left side
of the photograph in black:
THE HEDGEROW WOULD STOP DRIVING RANGE BALLS FROM ENTERING THE IOTH
HOLE. A golf ball, later in its flight, at approximately 150 to 200 yards, has lost most of its
speed and does not have nearly the potential for injuries to patrons.
I have read the variance narrative provided by the Country Club in support of its variance
request. I disagree with many assertions in that document. For one, the barrier they seek
permission to install has a measurable impact on the public interest, in that the 60-foot barrier
would be unsightly, and does not provide the safety elements advocated by Quail Creek Country
Club. Here are my issues with the information provided by the club in their variance request:
0
The 60+-foot barrier would not protect patrons on the 1 Otn hole, since the majority of golf
balls struck will have an apex much higher than 60 feet, and does nothing at the tee box
itself, which is the point of origin and the location of maximal speed of golf balls hit
toward the 1 Oth hole.
2. The Club says that without the variance, it cannot install an effective containment barrier.
My analysis says that the club is approaching this issue from the wrong perspective -it
should eliminate shots that are problematic by using limited flight golf balls and require
players to use only irons while practicing. This is a strategy employed effectively at
thousands of driving ranges across the country.
3. The golf course has removed any trees that would act to hide the 60+--foot proposed
barrier. The use of black poles increases the deleterious effect on adjacent property and is
unsightly. There are a variety of colorways available that fit into the natural elements of a
golf course and would blend into the terrain.
4. Quail Creek Country Club has affirmatively created an increased risk of danger through
its design modifications to the tee box and removal of barrier trees, especially in view of
the clear evidence the club has been notified and is aware that golf balls are going to the
right side of the driving range, toward the 1011 hole.
A discussion of my analysis, addressing barriers, the tee box set up, golf ball trajectories, and the
zone of danger, follows.
1) PERIMETER BARRIERS OFF THE TEE BOX AREA AND THE RIGHT SIDE
OF THE DRIVING RANGE ADJACENT TO THE LOTH HOLE
I examined Google Earth images of the existing driving range and tee box area and made two
site visits.
I assessed the existing perimeter fencing, or lack thereof, on the right -side of the subject hole,
and any existing tree buffer, and assessed what could be done to improve the tee box set-up and
add perimeter fencing/netting. By "set-up," we, as designers, are referring to the way the tee box
area is laid out in relation to the "field" of golf ball travel for the typical golfer. A set-up should
account for golfers of all ability levels. This should consider the length of the golf hole, the width
of the golf hole, and the perimeter barricades on the sides of the tee box as well as on the right
side of this golf hole. It also factors in the way the tee station area is configured, regarding the
direction or directions that a player is suggested or encouraged to aim.
The subject driving range formerly had a substantial tree buffer. It has no tee box barriers.
Other than noting this configuration, I was asked to concentrate my efforts on the right -side area
of the driving range, and back of the driving range. I also examined the tee box configuration of
the driving range. In doing my assessment, I noted the existing violative perimeter fencing on
the right side of the driving range as viewed from the tee box.
10
My immediate conclusion when first examining this area: The 1011 hole would be very protected
with a barrier net or fence adjacent to it in a configuration both diagonal and parallel to the IOth
hole. For purposes of illustration, this could be looked at as a modified "L" configuration. Such
a barrier would provide substantial protection as a deflective barrier to a golf ball because it
would stop "pushes" and "slices" toward the 1011 hole fairway. The exact location and size
of the "L" shaped barrier would need to be assessed and analyzed on site, since the fence must
have a proper effective height and placement angle to be maximally effective.
I would also strongly recommend removal of the "short iron" tee box to the right of the
previously existing tee box. There are no guarantees that only short irons would be used, and,
even if they are, golf balls from this area are MORE LIKELY to enter the 1 Oth hole, as they are
closer to the 1 Oth hole.
2) EXISTING TEEING AREA AND SET-UP RECOMMENDATIONS:
I have these suggestions to improve this area:
In its present configuration, the tee box area presents hazards that must be rectified to make the
range safer.
The tee box renovation should be removed by eliminating the expansion of the tee box
area on the right side. If elimination of the right side of the tee box is not performed, at
the very least it should be mandated that the tee "stations" be placed on the left side or
middle of the tee box only.
2. Also, a hedgerow or tree barrier as described above, should be placed near the tee
box. This is obviously an affordable solution, blocking errant shots at point of
origin.
3) GOLF BALL MEASUREMENT DATA:
To effectively assess the dangers of the existing hole set-up, I engaged in analysis of the tee box
from a point parallel to this tee area, in conjunction with the loth hole. From historical industry
data readily available, it is a simple matter to see the improvement in safety due to the design
modifications being suggested:
A) Elimination of drivers and woods on the range, and the use of self-limiting balls, would
drastically increase safety of those playing the 101 hole.
B) Based on the physics associated with golf ball trajectory, by height and distance, a sample
of ball speeds and trajectories is below and refers to PGA Tour player trajectories.
Average players will be drastically below the height and typical trajectories of a
PGA Tour player:
11
CIu4 Speed
At#aO AVe
gall Speed
Smash
LwirsM Ang
Sp n Pale
Max Hergal
LaW Anoe
Carry
i 0)
ideal
Im*
FaEADr
(ft)
(FW)
Olga
(dea)
(V 1
Driver
113
-1.3'
167
1.48
10.9,
2686
32
38'
275
3-wood
107
-2.9°
158
1,48
9.2'
3655
30
43°
243
5-wood
103
-3.30
152
1.47
9.4°
4350
31
47°
230
Hybrid i5-is'
100
146
1.46
112'
4437
29
47°
225
3Iron
98
-3.1°
142
1.45
10.4'
4630
27
46'
212
4 Iron
96
-3.4'
137
1,43
11 V
4836
28
48'
203
5Iron
94
47°
132
1.41
12,1°
5361
31
49°
194
6Iron
92
,4.10
127
1.38
14.1°
6231
3D
50°
183
7Iron
90
,4.3°
120
1.33
16.3,
7097
32
50°
172
81ran
87
-4.5'
115
1.32
18.1'
7996
31
50°
160
9 Iron
85
-4.7'
109
1.28
29.4"
8647
30
51 °
148
PW
88
-5.0°
102
1.23
24_9"
9304
29
52°
136
The key takeaway from this chart is that a golf ball will travel at a top speed of 167 mph
and, at its apex, reach to a height of approximately 90 feet. That height is significantly
lower as a golf ball approaches the end of its trajectory. Therefore, a barrier adjacent and
diagonal to the perimeter of the tee box area a viable and effective option to ensure safety.
The danger is much greater at the beginning of a golf shot than the end of a shot. As a shot
travels beyond its apex, its speed will be drastically reduced and therefore less likely to
cause injury.
Golfers of all different ability levels hit shots wayward drastically left and right. Thus, the
effective solution is to directly address the safety of those on the right -side of the range
perimeter by providing a hedgerow of trees or a fencing barrier camouflaged by trees.
This would work wonders in eliminating shots hit toward the 10' hole.
To be effective, the barrier must be placed close to the tee box.
4) ZONE OF DANGER ANALYSIS
There is a "zone of danger" or "predictable playing area" utilized in the initial design of a
golf course, and especially with golf ranges in proximity to homeowners. This concept must also
be applied to any modified design of a golf course, and certainly to the incorporation of any new
driving range teeing areas.
12
B
F
G
NEW
I H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
10[
0 Deg
i Do
leg
ht golf
hole,
400+
s
Foc
Gri
inimu
Safe
y Env
I Pe (
SE) B
o n i
red
Cents
ofGrem
Right C
ter Lye (Cl
<@R
t
Q[
Tur
Inge(MQ
')
Left Cents
Lln�()
Center of
-In Tee
1 grl
uare=1"
®
pp0 Dean
There are specific criteria for the establishment of safe zones by virtue of the design. This helps
determine where errant golf balls are likely to fly. The design of a driving range should attempt
to constrict this zone of danger.
This was not done in the extension of the tee line on the front tee box to the right side and is
therefore the reason why the 1011 hole may be receiving more golf balls than before.
Also, as was clearly demonstrated to me, golf balls regularly enter the yards of the Coco Plum
Lane homes. The danger to these properties was increased by the creation of the additional tee
area at the back of the driving range. In the graph chart above, while showing a dogleg to the
right, this graph is still representative of the zone of danger for a golf hole where balls may travel
to the right or left. The zone of danger is approximately 275 feet to the left and to the right at a
point 100 to 200 yards from the tee box. This puts the Coco Plum Lane properties squarely in the
crosshairs of the Zone of Danger, necessitating elimination of the back tee box area completely.
Both new teeing areas should therefore be removed.
In conclusion, the design options I am suggesting are as follows:
1) Remove the unusually ugly and useless 60+-foot poles and net.
2) Use restricted or limited flight golf balls, as originally used by Quail Creek Country Club.
3) Make the driving range "irons only."
4) Eliminate the "short iron" tee box expansion due to its proximity to the 101 hole, and the
lack of guarantee that players will use this area only for what are considered "short"
shots.
5) Add a perimeter fence or tree barrier in an "L" shape to the right side of the range near
the tee box, as pictured on page 9 above.
13
6) If a fence is used, add a tree barrier around it. This will be aesthetically pleasing and
comport with the Audubon -certified nature of the golf course.
These options are the best methods to significantly increase the safety of patrons at this golf
course, in accordance with zoning mandates.
My calculations and assessment are subject to change should additional information be received.
Respectfully submitted:
Stephen Eisenberg, PGA, Golf Concepts, Inc.
March 22ND , 2025
14
Exhibit D
CODE ENFORCEMENT -SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Petitioner,
VS.
Case No.. CESD20240003998
QUAIL CREEK COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,
Respondent.
DECLARATION OF BU.RKHARD KLEIN
_. I am a certified residential real estate appraiser in the state
of Florida (RD2542). I am the President of Collier Residential !appraisal,
Inc. and have been a full-time appraiser in Collier County since 1995.
Please see my attached license and curriculum vitae.
2. I am well-acquainted with the residential real property in the
Quail Creek Estates community, having appraised several homes there over the
years.
3. The homes in Quail Creek are surrounded by more land than .JLn many
other Collier County communities. They benefit from spacious lots, mature
trees and other vegetation, and expansive golf course views.
4. I have personally visited the installed poles of the Quail Creek
Country Clan, barrier and inspected the view of these poles from several of
the affected houses on Coco Plum Lane and Valewood Drive.
�. These poles, large and industrial in appearance, create a stark
contrast to the looks of the rest of the community. also appears that, if
the proposed netting is installed, the existing landscape and golf course
views of the affected homes will be negatively impacted. The poles can also
be seen from the front of several homes within Quail Creek.
6. Only one of the affected homes, 13033 Coco Plum Lane, has sold
since the poles were installed, so there is not enough market related data
for me to do a comparable analysis of the market value of the other affected
comes at this time.
8. I do note, however, that 13033 Coco Plum Lane sold for
approximately half of its original list price.
9. Based upon my knowledge of. the Quail Creek. Estates market and the
appearance of the poles, it is my opinion that any :tome with a view of the
installed poles will suffer due to this external obsolescence, causing
negative market value impacts.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Naples, Florida, October 28, 2025.
BURKHARD KLEIN
Witness:
SHAWN TODD
Exhibit E
c
� • V V
° o ORDINANCE NO. 74 -12
0
�ECEIVE� "
AN ,ORDINANCE ESTABLISHITIG THE COASTAL PLAN-
NING AREA" OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
MAY d X4 1 i2 ADOPTING THE ATLAS OF MAPS DESCRIBING THE
ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE COASTAL AREA
PLANNING ARFAt PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO
SUCH ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING APPEAL,
PENALTY, CONFLICT, SEVERANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
n CLAUSES AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Coastal Area Planning Commission has received
petitions, advertised, held public hearings and recommended zoning
area and.district boundaries to be approved and adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners in public hearings
have approved and adopted such zoning districts and caused the
same to be entered upon the official records of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY TILE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION ONE:
1. That the Official Zoning Atlas of land use districts within
the Coastal Area Planning District be and is hereby adopted. Dated
April 30 1974 and designated as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
2. Changes to the Official Zoning Atlas.
a. Changes to the Official Zoning Atlas of Land Use
Districts within the Coastal Planning Area shall be made by Ordinance
from time to time by designating the land use classification, or
classifications and describing the area or areas of the Zoning
District or Districts so classified -by legal description or official
Zoning Atlas Map or Mapo.
b. Such Ordinance shall be enacted in accordance with
the provisions of Florida Statute Section 125.66.
3. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by this Ordinance or any
decision of any administrative officer or agency in the application -
of this Ordinance, other than the Board of County Commissioners, shall
file a written request to the Board of County Commissioners not later
than thirty (30) days after the date the disputed decision shall have
become final, which shall, at a public hearing, hear the complaint
of such aggrieved person. Said public hearing shall be held within
thirty (30) days of the date of filing of the hearing request. After
the hearing the Board of County Commissioners shall, within fifteen '
(15) days render its decision in writing affirming, overruling, or
modifying the decision of the administrative official, or body, or
grant a variance from the provisions hereof based upon hardship
unnecessary in the public interest.
SECTION TWO:
1. Penalty. Any person violating the provisions of this,
Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall
be punished as provided by general law.
2. Severance. If any portion of this Ordinance is declared
unconstitutional or held invalid in application, the validit o
the remaining portions and applicability to other persons a4
circumstances shall not be affected. " _
rn cn _
BON2 PACE 2O? oCn
0
rn
m "�
(2) Churches and other places of worship, cemeteries,
schools and colleges.
3. MINIMUM LOT AREA: Two and One-half acres (2�)~
4. MAXIMUM LOT C0VERAGE.OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES: 10%
5. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 165 feet average between front and rear
lot lines.
6. MINIMUM YARDS:.
A.. Front - 75 'feet
B. Side - 50 feet
C. Rear - 75 feet
7. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES:
A. Single dwelling unit residence - 1,200 square feet,
one story - 1,600 square feet, two story.
8. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 30 feet above grade
SECTYON.11.22 - GC GOLF COURSE DISTRICT:
1. DISTRICT PURPOSE: The provisions of this district are intended
to apply to areas developed to golf courses and normal
accessory and satellite uses of golf courses, including some
uses of a commercial nature.
2. USES PERMITTED: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall
be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or
in part, for other than the -following:
A. PRINCIPAL USES
N
t'evSs*%1 N-vch i, 1972 'fined J 12, 1973 1
11 t:;,!f Cc':rruo.
.t T? i .
(2) Slwfflcbonrd courts, tennis .courts, sviimmin9,Foo
ls, and other typal
Of facilities intend%d for ouluoor recreation. '
B. ACCESSORY USaS:
(1).Cluhhnuses, pro -shop, practice driving roncdc and other customory
aeeos:.ery ue.cs of Golf cour:,os, or oih x recreational facilities.
(2) Stnoll c0.11m.;rcial i:n1ebli_1;monts, including gift shops, nolf cqui^,rant
soles, restouronts, cocktail Icur.gss, and similar u::es, intendsd to servo
patrons of tho Golf courco or other recreational facilities,nddSubject to the
p:ovisiom of Section 5.10, of i!ras•a 44-ulatiom.
(3) Signs as Permitted in Section 11.34-Sign Regulations.
3. PLAN APPROVAL REQUII?c;Y'2NTS: Pions for the Co!f course o- o.hor
outdoor reeraation faeiliiy and all occes:ory uses skell bs to tiiy
Planning Comrrnission, 011-:1 construction :3•cll 1:0 in occcr&j.,ca with c zorovod
plans end spzci+ico?ions. Such plcns shall be procL.Ssod in the same manner
as a subdivision plot.
A. GENERAL REOUIRVAENTS:
{
(1) Ovcrdll silo dasign sha'ii bo hcrmonicus in tcrr.�s of icndscopin;,
enclosure of structuroa, Ioc.Ldcn of occo::; strews crc parking areas
and location and treatment of burr,,r areas.
(2) Buildings and activities shcil be sat back o 'minirr,un1 of 50 fast from
abuttin3 residorntial districts, cnd the sat -back area sl^oll be attractively
maintained to act as a buffer zcn-s.
(3) Liq'oting facilities $hail ba errargud in a monner which will Froiect
roadways and neEghborIngproportiasfrorndirect gicroorother iatc.rfcrence.
(4) The plan shall incluc'a stonlards showing F,3rcel sizos, floor croo ono
other pertinent construction c:cta.' '
a. MAXIMUM HEIGHT. :35 font above grode within 150 .foot of any district
restricted to 30 foet or loss in hoi,-ht, and except 45 No olsowhero within
the district.
5. MtNIt,'.UM OFF-STREET PARKING: See Off-Str.;ct F'crking
Section VIII.
BOOK Z PACE 99 - .
Exhibit F
° I f
3SZ797
AawOxa FILk
AEf 619 eAcE1191 MAY 12 1975 > 11
ton
umk
Io A��
!�
o o
(Mly( zpn1h
Gcm 4
Nu tah r) S ORDINANCE NO. 75-24
w
AN ORDINANCE ENACTII40 AND ESTABLISIIIN(: COMPREHE
Z014ING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
o
�S �G
TILE COASTAL AREA PLANNING DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY,,
r _
FLORIDA; DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS HEREIN USED; DIVIDING'
SUCH UNINCORPORATED AREA INTO DISTRICTS AND ESTAB-
LISHING THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF AND WITHIN SUCH DIS-
TRICTS REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE ERECTION,
CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, REPAIR
OR USE OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OR LAND OR PLATER;
REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE LOCATION, HEIGHT,
NUMBER OF STORIES, AND SIZE OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER
STRUCTURES; REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE PERCEN-
TAGE OF LOTS THAT 14AY BE OCCUPIED; REGULATING AND
RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF YARDS AND OTHER OPEN SPACES;
REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL
DI•EELLING UNITS; REGULATING AI4D RESTRICTING THE'LOCA-
TION AND USE OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND LAND AND
WATER FOR TRADE, COMMERCE, INDUSTRY, RESIDENCE,
RECREATION, AND OTHER PURPOSES; PROVIDING FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND A14ENDMENT OF THIS
ZONI14G ORDINANCE; SETTING OUT THE POWERS, RESPONSI-
BILITIES, AND DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
UNDER THIS ORDINANCE; SETTING OUT THE POWERS,
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS UNDER THIS ORDINANCE; SETTING A SCHEDULE
OF FEES AND CHARGES UNDER THIS ORDINANCE; DECLAR-
ING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE ARE
MINIIIUM OR MAXI14UM REQUIREMENTS AS THE CASE MAY
BE; SETTING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THIS ZONING
ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZING RESORT TO OTHER REMEDIES
TO PREVENT OR ABATE VIOLATION; PROVIDING TH 7 PRO- ,
SECUTIONS BEGUN UNDER PREVIOUSLY EFFECTIVEy, 1204ING
REGULATIONS I4AY BE CONTINUED; PROVIDING THA THE
REGULATIONS SET OUT HEREIN SHALL SUPERSEDE ANY AND S
ALT, PREVIOUS REGULATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, OR ORDIA ES �
APPLICABLE TO THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COPAL
AREA PLANNING DISTRICT; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCEMryld
C014FLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY; -
TING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. cx aJ
-n
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1(f) of the Cons t gi- .a
tion
of Florida confers on counties broad ordinance
making power when not inconsistent with general or special
law;
v
OFFICIAL AECD1tp BOOK
�RECOP•phG
OLUEa ( 014tTT. FLCRIOA
'MAY 19 2 26 PH'75
HARCARET T. SCOTT
JERK OF CIRCUIT COURT ;h
tk; LLIER COUNTYPFLQj lDA
y - A`r4"'1�,
j V
flE 619 WE1323
Section 26. GC-- GOLF COURSE DISTRICT.
1. District Purpose. The provisions of this district
are intended to apply to areas developed into golf
courses and normal accessory uses of golf courses,
including some uses of a commercial nature.
2. Permitted Uses and Structures. No building
or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered
or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part,
for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures.
Golf Courses.
B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures.
1 Clubhouses, pro -shop, pract ce riving
range and other customary accessory uses of golf
courses, or other recreational facilities.
(2) Small commercial establishments,
including gift shops, golf equipment sales, restaurants,
cocktail lounges, and similar uses, intended to exclusively
serve patrons of the golf course or other permitted
recreational facilities, subject to the provisions of
Section 8.12 of this Ordinance.
(3) Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts,
swimming pools, and other types of facilities intended
for outdoor recreation.
(4) Signs as permitted in Section 20 of
this Ordinance.
3. Plan Approval Requirements. Plans for the golf
course an3 all accessory uses shall bti submitted to the
Director who will review these plans and approve their
construction. All construction shall be in accordance
with the approved plans and specification. The perimeter
boundaries of such plans shall be recorded in the same
manner as a subdivision plat.
A. General Re uirements.
TIT -Overall site design shall be harmonious
in terms of landscaping ,enclosure of structures, location
of access streets and parking areas and location and
treatment of buffer areas.
(2) Buildings shall be setback a minimum
of fifty (50) feet from abutting residential districts
and the setback area shall be appropriately landscaped
and maintained to act as a buffer zone.
(3) Lighting facilities shall be arranged
in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring
properties from direct glare or other interference.
PCX
+ 0 j+•?,
ryl
AEC 619 ME1324
(4) A site plan shall be provided showing
pertinent structure locations.
4. Maximum Height. Thirty-five (35) feet above
the finished grade o the lot within 150 feet of any
district restricted to thirty (30) feet or less in
height, and forty-five (45) feet elsewhere within the
district.
5. Minimum Off -Street Parking. Asper Section
18 of this Ordinance.
Exhibit G
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102
ORDINANCE ENACTING AND ESTABLISHING A LAND
FLEVELOPMENT CODE FOR UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY,
ORIDA PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATION ACT, AND CHAPTERS 9J-5 AND 9J-24, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE
FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SECTION TWO SHORT TITLE AND
CITATION; PROVIDING FOR SECTION THREE ENACTING AND
ESTABLISHING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH PROVIDES
FOR ARTICLE ONE, GENERAL PROVISIONS, RELATING TO
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND INTENT,
APPLICABILITY, INTERPRETATIONS, VESTED RIGHTS,
NONCONFORMITIES, ENFORCEMENT, FEES,- LAWS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, AMENDMENTS TO THIS CODE,
CONFLICT WITH OTHER LAWS, SEVERABILITY, REPEALER,
AND CODIFICATION, EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENACTMENT;
PROVIDES FOR ARTICLE TWO, ZONING, RELATING TO
GENERAL, ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES,
CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, OFF-STREET
PARKING AND LOADING, LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING,
SIGNS, SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ZONING
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; PROVIDES FOR ARTICLE
THREE, DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, RELATING TO
GENERAL, SUBDIVISIONS, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS,
EXPLOSIVES, EXCAVATION, WELL CONSTRUCTION, SOIL
EROSION CONTROL, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
(EIS), VEGETATION REMOVAL PROTECTION AND
PRESERVATION, SEA TURTLE PROTECTION, ENDANGERED
THREATENED OR LISTED SPECIES PROTECTION, COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT, COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE VARIANCE,
VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS, AND ADEQUATE
PUBLIC FACILITIES; PROVIDES FOR ARTICLE FOUR, IMPACT
FEES, RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES, PARK AND
RECREATIONAL IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT
FEES, REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE, AND REGIONAL
SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE; PROVIDES FOR ARTICLE FIVE,
DECISION -MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, RELATING
TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING
COMMISSION, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, BUILDING BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD,
BUILDING CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD, COUNTY
MANAGER, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, GROWTH PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HOUSING AND
URBAN IMPROVEMENT DEPARTMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY
BOARD AND HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
CREATED AND ESTABLISHED; PROVIDES FOR ARTICLE SIX,
DEFINITIONS, RELATING TO RULES OF CONSTRUCTION,
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SECTION
FOUR THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SETOUT HEREIN
SHALL SUPERSEDE AND REPEAL ANY AND ALL RESOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR
SECTION FIVE ADOPTION OF ZONING ATLAS MAPS;
PROVIDING FOR SECTION SIX SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING FOR SECTION SEVEN EFFECTIVE PATE.
Whereas, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes also known
,. as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
ri Development Regulation Act of 1985 and Chapter 9J-5, Florida
;K`• Administrative Code mandates the adoption of land development
® U0� 01
fiDlvti/errs 2 ? ' y'
Zoning Districts. Permitred Uses, Conditional Uses, Dimensional Standard,
N t!DIV.2.2
ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITION
USES, )IMENSIONAL STANDARD
'
This division sets forth the purpose and intent, permitted uses, conditional uses, dimensional
standards, and other requirements for each zoning district established herein.
2.2.1
S;OLF COURSE DISTRICT (GC).
�2.21.1
Pttroose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this district is to provide lands for golf courses
and normal accessory uses to golf cot rsea, inclWing certain uses of a commercial nature. This
"' "'' `•
GC District shall be in accordance will, the Urban Mixed Use District and the Agricultural Rural
District of the Future Land Use Eleme!tt of the Collier County Growth Management Plan.
2.2.1.2
?t <w
Permitted . The following uses are permitted as of right, or as uses accessory to permitted
KI�4 B Fx B rY
in the Golf Courser District
usca, (GC).
2.2.1.2.1
permitted ►,Ises.
1. Golf Courses.
Uses Accessory to Permitted Uses.
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as of right in the
n,
GC District.
2. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral of the use, including but not
part permitted
limited to club house, community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard
courts, swiauning pools sad tennis facilities, snack shops and rest rooms.
3. A maximum of two (2) residential dwelling units for use by golf course employees in
conjunction with the operation of the golf course .
2.2.1.3
ConditionalUses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the GC District,
subject to the standards and provisions established in Division 2.7.4.
1. Commercial establishments oriented to the permitted uses of the District including gift
shops, pro Shops, golf equipment sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses,
exclusively intended to serve patrons of the golf course.
2.2.1.4
Djmenslonal Standards. The following dimensional standards shall apply to all permitted,
•accessory, andconditional uses in the Golf Course District (GC).
I
Minimugn Lot Area. Not applicable.
2.2.1.4.2
Minimum Lot Width. Not applicable.
NORM
pwr Comuy
2.6 October Jo, 1991
taa++d Derrbpanav
Cade
r .
2.2
Zentnr DtsMcrs Permltted Uses Conditional Uses Dimensional Standards
1.4.3
Minimum Yard Requirement. For any yard abutting residentially designated property, the
minimum yard shall be fifty feet (50') with landscaping and buffering as -required for the district
wry.
or use with the most similar types, densities and intensities of use.
;2.2.1.4.4
Maximum ffei U. Thirty -Five (35').
Maximum itr. Not applicable. However, a maximum of two (2) residential units for use by
golf course employees in conjunction with the operation of the golf course as described in the uses
accessory to permitted uses may be allowed in the district.
2.2.1.4.6
Distance Between Structurrs. Not a.plicable•
.2.1.4.7
Minimum floor Area. Not applicablk•.
2.2.1.4.8
Maximum T,&t Corerase. Not applicable.
.2.2.I:4.9
Minimurh Off -Street Parking. As required in Div. 2.3. d
7 i Z.Z.1.4.10
Li2hti. The maximum height of lights shall be twenty-five (25') feet except as otherwise
_
provided for during the review and approval of a site development plan. Lights shall be located
and designed so that no light is aimed directly toward property designated residential, which is
*'
located within two hundred feet (200') of the source of the light.
LandscaoinQ. As required in Division 2.4.
i
SiM. As required in Division 2.5.
SEC. 2.2.2
RURAL At;RICULTURAL DISTRICT (A)•
�,. 2:2.2.1bgR=
d Intent. The Purpose and intent of the Rural Agricultural District (A) is to provide
lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural,
agricultural related activities and facilities, support facilities related to agricultural needs, and
r
+
conservation uses.. Uses that are generally considered compaiible to agricultural uses that would
not endanger or damage the agricultural, environmental, potable water, or wildlife resources of
Collier County, are permissible as conditional uses in the A District. The A District corresponds
�`'
to and implements the Rural Agricultural land use designation on the Future Land Use Map of the
6.;
Collier County Growth Management Plan, and in some instances, may occur in the designated
{
Urban Area. The maximum density permissible in the Rural Agricultural District within the Urban
Mixed Use District shall be guided, in part, by the Density Rating System contained in the Future
Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The maximum density .
permissible or permitted in a district shall not exceed the density permissible under the Density
'
Rating System. The maximum density permissible in the Rural Agricultural District within the
*
Agricultural/Rural District of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth
;`:..
Management Plan shall be consistent with and not exceed the density permissible or permitted
r
under the Agricultural/Rural District of the Future Land Use Element.
040 112
'
CW&r County
2-7 October 30, 1991
Land Dewlopmens Code
Exhibit H
IL
o r,
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 73 p
r,
N
9b£Z1 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, 'fHE
�• r
OLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ADOPTIg7G
r
VARIOUS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AND OMISSIONS AND
~
CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN ARTICLES on,
T
TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX OF SAID ORDINANCE MD
cc
MORE PARTICULARLY PROVIDING FOR SECTION ORE
FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SECTION TWO AMENDMENTS TO
ARTICLE ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIVISION
1.5 APPLICABILITY, DIVISION 1.7 VESTED RIGHTS,
DIVISION 1.8 NONCONFORMITIES, DIVISION 1.9
ENFORCEMENT, DIVISION 1.10 FEES, AND DIVISION 1.22
REPEALER; AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE TWO ZONING RELATING
TO DIVISION 2.1 GENERAL, DIVISION 2.2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES,
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3 OFF-STREET
PARKING AND LOADING, DIVISION 2.4 LANDSCAPING AND
BUFFERING, DIVISION 2.5 SIGNS, DIVISION 2.6
SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND DIVISION 2.7
ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; AMENDMENTS TO
ARTICLE THREE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO
DIVISION 3.2 SUBDIVISIONS, DIVISION 3.3 SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS, DIVISION 3.9 VEGETATION REMOVAL,
PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION, DIVISION 3.11
ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR LISTED SPECIES, PROTECTION,
DIVISION 3.14 VEHICLE ON THE BEACH REGULATIONS, AND
DIVISION 3.15 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES; AMENDMENTS
TO ARTICLE FOUR IMPACT FEES BY ADDING DIVISION 4.6
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES AND BY
ADDING DIVISION 4.7 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM
IMPACT FEES; AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE FIVE
DECISION -MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, RELATING
TO DIVISION 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION, DIVISION 5.3
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, DIVISION 5.14
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD, AND BY
REMOVING FROM DIVISION 5.5 PROVISIONS RELATING TO
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND BY REMOVING FROM DIVISION
5.6 PROVISIONS RELATING TO BUILDING CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD; AND AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE SIX,
RELATING TO DIVISION 6.1 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND
DIVISION 6.3 DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SECTION
THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDED ZONING ATLAS MAPS;
PROVIDING FOR SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR SECTION FIVE,
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Whereas, the Land Development Code may not be amended more
than two times in each calendar year pursuant to Section 1.19.1,
LDC; and
BOOK rJe PA;[ [�1
LDC pg. 2-6
a,
2.2.1.2.1 PCrm; tad Uses.
Y
1. Golf Courses.
2.2.1.2.2 Uses " �gry to Permitted Uses.
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and
incidental to uses permitted as of right
in the GC District.
2. Recreational facilities that serve as an
integral part of the permitted use,
including, but not limited to, club house,
community center building, practice
driving range, shuffleboard courts,
swimming pools and tennis facilities,
snack shops and rest rooms.
3. pro shops with equipment sales uP to 1 000
seuare feet in size' restaurants with a
seating capacity of 15o seats or less and
Phall serve patrons no later than 10:_40
P,m.
34. A maximum of two (2) residential dwelling
units for use by golf course employees in
conjunction with the operation of the golf
course.
2.2.1.3 conditional Uses. The following uses are
permissible as conditional uses in the GC
District, subject to the standards and
provisions established in Division 2.7.4.
1. commercial establishments oriented to the
permitted uses of the District including
gift shopsi pro shops with equipment sales
in excess of 1,000 square feet:
restaurants with seating capacity of
greater than 150 seats; cocktail lounges,
and similar uses, exeluaively primarily
intended to serve patrons of the golf
course.
Delete the stricken language, add the underlined language.
boox r56 PAv 28
Exhibit I
�o
N ORDINANCE NO. 04- 41
IV
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
F COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECODIFYING THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY SUPERCEDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT;
SECTION THREE, RECODIFICATION OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY BY CREATING
THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS,
INCLUDING SEC. 1.01.00 TITLE, SEC. 1.02.00 AUTHORITY, SEC.
1.03.00 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SEC. 1.04.00;'
APPLICABILITY, SEC. 1.05.00 FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND,'
INTENT, SEC. 1.06.00 RULES OF INTERPRETATION, SEC. 1.07.00=
LAWS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, SEC. 1.08.00 DEFINITIONS;
CHAPTER 2 - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SEC.
2.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 2.02.00 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING Tc
DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.03.00 ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.04.00
PERMISSIBLE, CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY USES IN =�y
ZONING DISTRICTS, SEC. 2.05.00 DENSITY STANDARDS, SEC.;
2.06.00 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS, SEC. 2.07.00
TABLE OF SETBACKS FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS;
CHAPTER 3 - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SEC.
3.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 3.02.00 FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION,
SEC. 3.03.00 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, SEC. 3.04.00
PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR LISTED
SPECIES, SEC. 3.05.00 VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION,
AND PRESERVATION, SEC. 3.06.00 WELLFIELD AND
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION; CHAPTER 4 — SITE DESIGN
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SEC. 4.01.00
GENERALLY, SEC. 4.02.00 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS, SEC.
4.03.00 SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND LAYOUT, SEC. 4.04.00
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STANDARDS, SEC. 4.05.00 OFF-
STREET PARKING AND LOADING, SEC. 4.06.00 LANDSCAPING,
BUFFERING, AND VEGETATION RETENTION, SEC. 4.07.00
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS,
SEC. 4.08.00 RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING
OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES, LIST OF
TABLES IN CHAPTER 4; CHAPTER 5 - SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SEC. 5.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC.
5.02.00 HOME OCCUPATIONS, SEC. 5.03.00 ACCESSORY USES
AND STRUCTURES, SEC. 5.04.00 TEMPORARY USES AND
STRUCTURES, SEC. 5.05.00 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR
SPECIFIC USES, SEC. 5.06.00 SIGNS, INCLUDING AN
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5.06.06 POLITICAL SIGNS; CHAPTER 6 —
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 6.01.00
GENERALLY, SEC. 6.02.00 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS, SEC. 6.03.00 WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AND
IMPROVEMENTS STANDARD, SEC. 6.04.00 POTABLE WATER
SYSTEMS AND IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS, SEC. 6.05.00
WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, SEC. 6.06.00 TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM STANDARDS; CHAPTER 7 — RESERVED; CHAPTER 8
— DECISION -MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES,
INCLUDING SEC. 8.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC. 8.02.00 BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SEC. 8.03.00 PLANNING
COMMISSION, SEC. 8.04.00 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, SEC.
8.05.00 BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS,
SEC. 8.06.00 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, SEC.
8.07.00 HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD,
SEC. 8.08.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD; SEC. 8.09.00
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION; CHAPTER 9 — VARIATIONS FROM CODE
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 9.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC.
Page 1 of 6
9.02.00 DEVELOPMENT WITH VESTED RIGHTS, SEC. 9.03.00
NONCONFORMITIES, SEC. 9.04.00 VARIANCES; CHAPTER 10 -
APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION -MAKING
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SEC. 10.01.00 GENERALLY, SEC.
10.02.00 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, SEC. 10.03.00 NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS, SEC. 10.04.00 REVIEW AND ACTION ON
APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND PETITIONS
FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, THE LDC,
OR THE GMP, SEC. 10.05.00 AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS, SEC. 10.06.00 APPEALS, SEC. 10.07.00
ENFORCEMENT, SEC. 10.08.00 CONDITIONAL USES
PROCEDURES, AND APPENDICES A THROUGH H, INCLUDING A
NEW APPENDIX "H" OF CROSS-REFERENCES BETWEEN THE
LDC AND UDC; SECTION FOUR, REPEALER; SECTION FIVE,
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION SIX, PUBLICATION AS
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SEVEN, EFFECTIVE DATES.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 30, 1991, the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC), which became effective on November 13, 1991, and which
has been subsequently amended by numerous ordinances comprising eighteen (18)
supplements; and
WHEREAS, the Board has directed that the LDC be revised to update and simplify
its format, and use; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, acting in part in its capacity
as the Local Planning Agency pursuant to § 163.3194 (2), F.S., in a manner prescribed by
law, did hold an advertised public hearing on May 6, 2004, which was continued for a
hearing on May 20, 2004, which was continued for a separately advertised final
consideration and vote on June 17, 2004, and did take affirmative action concerning
these revisions to the LDC, including finding that the provisions of the proposed
recodification of the LDC implement and are consistent with the adopted Growth
Management Plan of Collier County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, in a manner prescribed by law,
did hold an advertised public hearing on May 11, 2004, which was continued for a hearing
on May 25, 2004, which was continued for a separately advertised final adoption, hearing
on June 22, 2004, and did take affirmative action concerning these revisions to the LDC;
and
WHEREAS, the revisions to, and recodification of, the LDC does not substantively
alter in any way the prior existing LDC text and the substantive provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby determined by this Board to be consistent with and to implement
Page 2 of 6
the Collier County Growth Management Plan as required by Subsections 163.3194 (1)
and 163.3202 (3), F.S.1; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Resolution 97-177 establishing local requirements and procedures for amending the LDC;
and
WHEREAS, all requirements of Resolution 97-177 have been met; and
WHEREAS, all other applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the
law have been met for the adoption of this ordinance and Land Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, that:
SECTION ONE: RECITALS.
The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference herein
as if fully set forth.
SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT.
The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby makes
the following findings of fact:
1. Collier County, pursuant to Sec. 163.3161, et seq., F.S., the Florida Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act
(hereinafter the "Act'), is required to prepare and adopt a Growth Management Plan also
referred to as a Comprehensive Plan.
2. After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Act and in particular Sec.
163.3202(1), F.S., mandates that Collier County adopt land development regulations that
are consistent with, and implement, the adopted comprehensive plan.
3. Sec. 163.3201, F.S., provides that it is the intent of the Act that the
adoption and enforcement by Collier County of land development regulations for the total
unincorporated area shall be based on, be related to, and be a means of implementation
for, the adopted Comprehensive Plan as required by the Act.
4. Sec. 163.3194(i)(b), F.S., requires that all land development regulations
enacted or amended by Collier County be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan, or element or portion thereof, and any land development regulations existing at the
time of adoption which are not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, or
element or portion thereof, shall be amended so as to be consistent.
5. Sec. 163.3202(3), F.S., states that the Act shall be construed to encourage
the use of innovative land development regulations, including transfer of development
rights, planned unit development, and impact fees.
6. On January 10, 1989, Collier County adopted the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (hereinafter the "Growth Management Plan" or "GMP") as its
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 163.3161, et seq., F.S., and
Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
7. Sec. 163.3194(1)(a), F.S., mandates that after a Comprehensive Plan, or
element or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with the Act, all development
undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental
agencies in regard to land covered by such Comprehensive Plan, or element or portion
thereof, shall be consistent with such Comprehensive Plan, or element or portion thereof,
as adopted.
Page 3 of 6
8. Pursuant to Sec. 163.3194(3)(a), F.S., a development order or land
development regulation shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the land uses,
densities or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such order or
regulation are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, and
densities or intensities in the Comprehensive Plan and if it meets all other criteria
enumerated by the local government.
9. Pursuant to Section 163.3194(3)(b) F.S., a development approved or
undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the
land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of
development are compatible with, and further the objectives, policies, land uses, densities
or intensities in the Comprehensive Plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by
the local government.
10. On October 30, 1991, Collier County adopted the original Collier County
Land Development Code, which became effective on November 13, 1991.
11. The Board finds that the Land Development Code is intended and
necessary to preserve and enhance the present advantages that exist in Collier County;
encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources, consistent with the
public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems
that may result from the use and development of land within the total unincorporated are
of Collier County and it is intended that this Land Development Code preserve, promote,
protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance,
convenience, and general welfare of Collier County; prevent the overcrowding of land and
avoid the undue concentration of population; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision
of transportation, water, sewerage schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and
other requirements and services, conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources
within the jurisdiction of Collier County; and protect human, environmental, social, and
economic resources; and maintain through orderly growth and development, the
character and stability of present and future land uses and development in Collier County.
12. It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County to
implement the Land Development Code in accordance with the provisions of the Collier
County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 125, F.S., and Chapter 163, F.S., and through
these revisions to, and recodification of, the LDC.
SECTION THREE: ADOPTION OF RECODIFICATION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE.
The attached Exhibit "A," being the revised and recodified text of the existing Land
Development Code and corresponding appendices, is hereby adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners as the Land Development Code of Collier County, Florida, as
required by § 163.3202 (1) & (3), F.S., and is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein as a part of this adopting Ordinance.
SECTION FOUR: REPEALER.
The Land Development Code set out herein supercedes and repeals any and all
resolutions and ordinances in conflict herewith, specifically including Ordinance No. 91-102,
as amended, except that the legal effect of Section 1.22.1 as specifically set forth in the
existing Land Development Code on the date this Ordinance becomes effective will remain
unchanged as to the ordinances referenced therein being repealed. Furthermore, all
ordinances pertaining to approved Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and all changes to
the Official Zoning Atlas, lawfully approved prior to this Ordinance becoming effective, will
remain in effect and not be repealed by, or be affected by, the adoption of this Ordinance.
Page 4 of 6
SECTION FIVE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY.
In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or
of any other statute, code, local resolution, regulation or other applicable federal, state, or
local law, the more stringent standard, limitation, or requirement shall govern or prevail to
the extent of the conflict, except that in the event that any provisions of the adopted,
re -codified LDC should result in the unintended consequence of an unresolved
conflict with the provisions of the previously adopted LDC, as amended, the prior
provisions will be considered to apply. Determinations regarding such unresolved
cases will be made administratively within ten (10) business days of being
presented in writing to the Zoning & Land Development Review Director by a five
(5) member panel with extensive knowledge of, and significant experience working
with, the LDC, three (3) of whom will be County employees and two (2) of whom
will not, all to be appointed by the Administrator of the Community Development &
Environmental Services Division. If not thereby resolved, the case and all
supporting documentation, may be immediately appealed to, and finally decided
by, the Collier County Planning Commission, and if not thereby resolved, may
then be judicially determined in any manner consistent with the applicable law.
It is the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners in adopting this
Ordinance and LDC that all provisions hereof shall be liberally construed to protect and
preserve the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the
unincorporated portion of Collier County. Should any portion or provision of this
Ordinance or LDC be held to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court or tribunal of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and
independent portion or provision and such holding shall not be construed as affecting the
validity of any of the remaining portions or provisions.
SECTION SIX: PUBLICATION AS THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
The provisions of this Ordinance as set forth in Exhibit A, being adopted and
enacted as the Official Land Development Code of Collier County, Florida, shall be so
published. The provisions of Exhibit A of this Ordinance may be corrected as to any
misspellings, formatting, or numbering errors; and may be renumbered or relettered, and
the word "ordinance" may be changed to "ssctio^," "chapter," or any other appropriate
word, as part of the publishing process, so long as the substance and intent of the
adopted provisions is not altered in any way.
SECTION SEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall become effective, after filing with the Department of
State, at 12:01 AM on September 27th, 2004
Page 5 of 6
coordination of urban services and land uses while minimizing the potential
disruption of the uses of nearby properties.
B. Community Facility District "CF".
The purpose and intent of "CF" district is to implement the GMP by permitting
nonresidential land uses as generally identified in the urban designation of the
future land use element. These uses can be characterized as public facilities,
institutional uses, OPEN SPACE uses, recreational uses, water -related or
dependent uses, and other such uses generally serving the community at
large. The dimensional standards are intended to ensure COMPATIBILITY
with existing or future nearby residential DEVELOPMENT . The CF district is
limited to properties within the urban mixed use land use designation as
identified on the future land use map.
2.03.05 OPEN SPACE Zoning District
A. Golf Course District "GC".
The purpose and intent of "GC" district is to provide lands for golf courses and
normal ACCESSORY USES to golf courses, including certain uses of a
commercial nature. The GC district shall be in accordance with the urban
mixed use district and the agricultural rural district of the future land) use
element of the Collier County GMP.
B. Conservation District "CON".
The purpose and intent of the conservation district "CON" is to conserve,
protect, and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier
County that are owned primarily by the public. All native habitats possess
ecological and physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these
important natural resources. Barrier Islands, coastal bays, WETLANDS, and
habitat for listed species deserve particular attention because of their
ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. All proposals for
DEVELOPMENT in the CON District must be subject to rigorous review to
ensure that the impacts of the DEVELOPMENT do not destroy or
unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values. The CON district
includes such public lands as Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, portions of the Big
Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve,
Collier -Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
Research Reserve, Delnor-Wiggins State Park, and the National Audubon's
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (privately owned), and C.R.E.W. It is the intent
of the CON district to require review of all DEVELOPMENT proposed within
the CON district to ensure that the inherent value of the County's natural
resources is not destroyed or unacceptably ALTERED. The CON district
corresponds to and implements the conservation land use designation on the
future land use map of the Collier County GMP.
Page 22 of 176
RMF-12
43,560
150
None
RMF-1 fi
43,560
150
None
RT
43,560
150
None
VR
S.F.fMH
Duplex
M.F.
6,000
10,000
43,560
60
100
150
None
MH
6,000
60
None
TTRVC Park
site
LOTS
20 acres
S00
Travel trailers/Park models
40
Campsites 30
None
C-1
20,000
100
None
C-2
15,000
150
None
C-3
10,0D0
75
None
C-4
10,000
100
None
C-5
10,000
100
None
I
20,000
100
None
BP Park
site
LOTS
35 acres
20,000
100
45
CON
217, 800
150
None
P
None
None
None
CF
10.000
80
None
Table 2. BUILDING Dimension Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning
Districts.
Minimum
Maximum
Distance
Minimum Floor Area of
BUILDING Height
Between
BUILDINGS
FLOOR AREA
Zoning District
feet
BUILDINGS
(square feet
RATIO
GC
35
None
None
None
A
35
None
550
None
F
30
None
1,000
None
1-story
2-story
RSF-1
35
None
1,500
1,800
None
RSF-2
35
None
1,500
1,800
None
RSF-3
35
None
1,000
1,200
None
RSF-4
35
None
800
1,200
RSF-5
35
None
600
1,200
None
RSF-6
35
None
600
800
None
RMF-6
Three (3) habitable
A
750
None
floors
RMF-12
50
A
Efficiency
450
None
1 BR 600
2+ BR 750
RMF-16
75
A
Efficiency
460
None
1 BR 600
2+ BR 750
Page 2 of 247
RT 10 stories, not to
300
exceed 100'
A
(Max. for hotel units =
None
�aa�
VR S.F. 30
None
MH 30
Non
Duplex 30
None
None
None
M.F. 35
B
MH 30
None
None
None
TTRVC 30
10
None
None
C-1 35
None
1,000 round floor
None
C-2 35
A
1,000 round floor
None
C-3 50
None
700 round floor
None
C-4 75
A
700 (ground floor)
Hotels .60
Destination resort
C-5 35
A
700 (ground floor)
_ 80
Hotels . 00
Destination resort
.80
I 50
A
1,000
None
BP 35
A
1,000
None
CON 35
None
None
None
P C
None
None
None
CF Towers/antennas
i7
1,000 (ground floor)
None
40
her 30
Overla Districts See table of special design
requirements applicable
to overlay districts.
A = 50% of the sum of the heights of the BUILDINGS, but not less than 15 feet.
B = 50% of the sum of the heights of the BUILDINGS.
C = BUILDINGS within 100 feet of an adjoining district are limited to the height of the
most restrictive of
an adjoining district.
❑ = 50% of the sum of the heights of the BUILDINGS, but not less than 25 feet.
B. USABLE OPEN SPACE shall include active and passive recreation
areas such as playgrounds, golf courses, BEACH FRONTAGE,
waterways, lagoons, FLOOD PLAINS, nature trails, and other similar
OPEN SPACES. OPEN SPACE areas shall also include those areas
set aside for preservation of NATIVE VEGETATION and landscaped
areas. Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, STREET
RIGHTS -OF -WAY, DRIVEWAYS, off -STREET parking areas, and off -
STREET loading areas shall not be counted in determining USABLE
OPEN SPACE,
I. In residential DEVELOPMENTS, at least sixty (60) percent of the
gross area shall be devoted to USABLE OPEN SPACE. This
requirement shall not apply to individual single-family LOTS less
than 2.5 acres in size.
2. In DEVELOPMENTS of commercial, industrial and mixed use
including residential, at least thirty (30) percent of the gross area
shall be devoted to USABLE OPEN SPACE. This requirement
shall not apply to individual PARCELS less than five (5) acres in
size.
P� q _ 3 of 247
Exhibit J
ORDINANCE NO. 08- 11
�234567897o
1► �>>
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
R dAAMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER AS
THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDDEVELOPMENT CODE,
MOVED
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
�, Qw
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECT-izzLzoL6� ONE, TALS; SECTION OO
FACTIO SECTION THN REE,
REE, ADOPTION OFAMENDM AMENDMENTS
TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER
1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02
DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 2 — ZONING DISTRICTS AND
USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.01.03 ESSENTIAL
SERVICES, REORGANIZATION OF SECTION 2.03.00
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.01 RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.02 COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.03 INDUSTRIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.04 CIVIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.05
OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICT, SECTION 2.03.06
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, SECTION
2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.09
DISTRICTS UNDER MORATORIUM, REDISTRIBUTING
CONTENTS OF SECTION 2.04.00, PERMISSABLE,
CONDITIONAL, AND ACCESSORY USES IN ZONING
DISTRICTS, DELETING SECTION 2.04.03 TABLE OF LAND
USES IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT; CHAPTER 5 -
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION
5.06.04 SIGN STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC SITUATIONS;
CHAPTER 10 - APPLICATION, REVIEW AND DECISION -
MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.02.02
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS;
SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
SECTION FIVE, PUBLICATION AS THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX,
EFFECTIVE DATE.
� N
Recitals r
WHEREAS, on October 30, 1991, the Collier County Board of`y
cn�� �
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 91-102, the Colliert �;
rn __..
County Land Development Code (hereinafter LDC), which wasn`�, .'
subsequently amended; and `p
cn
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioner4r" r"
(Board) on June 22, 2004, adopted Ordinance No. 04-41, which
repealed and superseded Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which had an effective date of
October 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the LDC may not be amended more than two times
in each calendar year unless additional amendment cycles are
approved by the Collier County Board of Commissioners pursuant to
Section 10.02.09 A. of the LDC; and
WHEREAS, this is the second amendment to the LDC for the
calendar year 2007; and
Page I of 134
Words swdek4hrouo are deleted, words underlined are added
d. Food stores (5411--5499). over 5,000 square feet.
e. Motion picture theaters (7832).
f. Outdoor dining areas, not directly abutting the Golden
Gate Parkway right-of-way.
7. Prohibited uses. Prohibited uses within the GGDCCO include the
uses listed below:
a. New residential -only structures
b. Any commercial use employing drive -up, drive-in or drive-
throuah delivery of goods or services.
L. Sexually oriented businesses (Code of Laws. 26-151 et
seq.)
P. Copeland Zoning Overlay (CZO)
2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts
SUBSECTION 3,J. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2.03.09 DISTRICTS UNDER
MORATORIUM [RESERVED]
Section 2.03.09 Districts Under Moratorium (Reserved], of Ordinance 04-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2.03.09 [Resewed} Open Space Zoning Districts
A. Golf Course District "GC". The purpose and intent of "GC district is to
provide lands for golf courses and normal accessory uses to golf
courses, including certain uses of a commercial nature. The GC district
shall be in accordance with the urban mixed use district and the
agricultural rural district of the future land use element of the Collier
County GMP.
1. The followina subsections identify the uses that are permissible by
right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional
uses in the RMF-6 district.
A-. Permitted uses.
1. Golf courses.
b. Accessory Uses.
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and
incidental to uses permitted as of rioht in the GC
district.
2. Recreational facilities that serve as an intearal Dart
of the permitted use including but not limited to
clubhouse, community center building. practice
driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools
and tennis facilities, snack shops and restrooms.
Page 128 of 134
Words streek d ough are deleted, words underlined are added
3. Pro shops with equipment sales, no greater than
1.000 sauare feet.
4. Restaurants with a seating capacity of 150 seats or
less provided that the hours of operation are no
later than 10.00 p.m.
5. A maximum of two residential dwellings units for
use by golf course employees in conjunction with
the operation of the golf course.
Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as
conditional uses in the GC district, subject to the
standards and provisions established in section_1.0.08.00.
1. Commercial establishments oriented to the
permitted uses of the district including gift shops;
pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000
square feet; restaurants with seating capacity of
greater than 150 seats; cocktail lounges, and
similar uses, primarily intended to serve patrons of
the golf course.
B. Conservation District "CON". The purpose and intent of the conservation
district "CON" is to conserve, protect and maintain vital natural resource
lands within unincorporated Collier County that are owned primarily by the
public. All native habitats possess ecological and physical characteristics
that justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. Barrier
islands, coastal bays, wetlands, and habitat for listed species deserve
particular attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity
to perturbation. All proposals for development in the CON district must
be subiect to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the
development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent
functional values. The CON District includes such public lands as
Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge, portions of the Bin Cypress Area of
Critical State Concern, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Collier -
Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
Research Reserve, Delnor-Wiggins State Park, and the National
Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (privately owned). and C.R.E.W.
It is the intent of the CON District to require review of all development
proposed within the CON District to ensure that the inherent value of the
County's natural resources is not destroyed or unacceptably altered. The
CON District corresponds, to andimplements
„ nts the conservation land use
„ im,.,____,
desianation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP.
1. Allowable uses. The following uses are allowed in the CON
District
a. Permitted uses.
1. On privately held land only, single family dwelling
units, and mobile homes where the Mobile Home
Zoning Overlay exists.
2. On publicly and privately held lands only,
dormitories, duplexes and other types of housing,
as may be incidental to, and in support of,
conservation uses.
3. Passive parks, and other passive recreational uses,
including, but not limited to:
al Open space and recreational uses:
M Biking, hiking, canoeing, and nature trails;
Page 129 of 134
Words stmekc-tfreugh are deleted, words underlined are added
Exhibit K
j& Collier County
Growth Management Community Development
Department - Zoning Division
September 12, 2025
Zach Lombardo, Esq.
Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A,
3200 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 200,
Naples, FL 34103
RE: INTP-PL20250007902, Height limitation for golf course containment fencing within the Golf Course
Zoning District, per Sections 2.03.09.A, 4.02.02 and 5.03.02 of the Collier County Land Development
Code. This request applies to all Golf Course Zoning Districts within the County.
Dear Mr. Lombardo:
PursuanttoLand Development Code (LDC) Section 1.06.01. D, the Planning and Zoning Director has been
requested to render an official interpretation of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), for
Quail Creek Golf Course PL20250007902. The official interpretation centers upon "the height
limitations for accessory uses within the Golf Course Zoning District". Further within the request you
provide the following questions and analysis (designated in italics) pertinent to those questions for
the County to consider in our response.
1. Please confirm the Golf Course and Recreational Use District does not have a height limit for the
practice driving range accessory use and thus that a containment fence for a practice driving range
can be 62.81 feet (actual height) tall by right at the Subject Property consistent with the two
similarly situated golf courses in Collier County.
In the GC District a practice driving range is an accessory use. 2.03.09.A.1.b.2., LDC ("Recreational
facilities that serve as an integral part of a golf course use, including but not limited to clubhouse,
community center building, practice driving range, shuffleboard courts, swimming pools and tennis
facilities, snack shops and restrooms. ") (Emphasis added).
Response:
Section 1.03.01.1) (Exhibit "A") of the LDC provides, "In the interpretation and application of any
provision of these regulations, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the
promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. Where any provision
of these regulations, the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, imposes
greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any other provision of these regulations, the GMP, or
any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, the provision imposing the greater
restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling.
Section 5.03.02.A (Exhibit "B") of the LDC states, "Fences or walls shall be permitted principal uses in
all districts, subject to the restrictions set forth in this section, unless specifically exempted, however, a
ZCollier County
fence or wall shall not, in any way, constitute a use or which permits, requires, and/or provides for any
accessory uses and/or structures."
Section 4.02.01.A (Table 2, Exhibit "C") of the LDC states that the maximum building height within the
Golf Course Zoning District is 35 feet.
As noted Section 5.03.02.A declares that fences or walls shall be permitted principle uses in all districts
(which includes the Golf course Zoning District) and 4.02.01.A (Table 2) imposes a 35-foot height
limitation within the Golf Course Zoning District. Therefore, the determination of the Zoning Director
is that a fence or wall, while not addressed specifically within Section 5.03.02, would be limited to the
maximum of 35 feet within a Golf Course Zoning District.
It should be noted that 5.03.02.E states, "Fences and walls within agricultural districts shall be exempt
from height and type of construction. "This is the only reference Staff could identify within the section
that provides unlimited height to a fence or wall. The applicant's assertion that a golf course
containment fence, while not expressly exempted from a zoning district's height limitations within the
LDC, is allowed to any height without restriction would appear to conflict with Section 1.03.01.D of the
LDC.
2. Alternatively, or in addition to the above, a containment fence at a practice driving range is not a
structure and is not regulated by any height limit and thus that a containment fence for a practice
driving range can be 62.81 feet (actual height) tall by right at the Subject Property consistent with
the nine similarly situated golf courses in Collier County.
The LDC, in section 1.08.02, defines structure as "Structure: Anything constructed or erected which
requires a fixed location on the ground, or in the ground, or attached to something having a fixed
location on or in the ground, including buildings, towers, smokestacks, utility poles, and overhead
transmission lines. Fences and walls, gates or posts are not intended to be structures." (Emphasis
added.) The dimensional standards in the GC District, unless otherwise noted, apply to structures and
thus not fences.
Response: As stated within the first response, Section 4.02.01.A (Table 2) of the LDC states that the
maximum building height within the Golf Course Zoning District is 35 feet for principle uses. As shown
Below:
Collier County
Table 2 Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts.
,� EXPAN➢
Zoning District Maximum Minimum Mini mum Floor Area of FloorArea
Building Distance Buildings Ratio
Height Between (square feet)
{feet) Buildings
GC 135 1 None I None I None
Section 5.03.02.A declares that fences or walls shall be permitted principal uses in all districts. The clear
and unambiguous combination of these two sections is that the maximum height limitation in the Golf
Course Zoning District for a principal use is 35-feet.
Pursuant to Division 10.02.02.F. of the LDC, this interpretation has been sent to you via certified mail, return
receipt requested. A copy of this interpretation and appeal timeframeswill be placed inthe Collier Legal
Notices website. Within 30 days of publication of the public notice, any affected property owner or
aggrieved or adversely affected party may appeal the interpretation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner,
as directed by Section 2-87 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
A request for an appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days of the date of this Official Interpretation
and must state the basis for the appeal and include any pertinent information, exhibits, orother back-
up information in support ofthe appeal. The appeal must be accompanied by a $1,000.00 application
and processing fee. If payment is in the form of a check, it should be made out to the Collier County
Board of Commissioners. An appeal can be hand delivered or mailed to my attention at the address
provided. Please do not hesitate tocontact me should you have any further questions on this matter.
The Exhibits are available at 2800 North Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104. Attention: Mike Bosi.
Sincerely,
Mike Bosi, AICP,
Director, Zoning
Growth Management Community Development Division/Zoning
Cc: Collier County Board of County Commissioners
Amy Patterson, County Manager
Ed Finn, Deputy County Manager
Jamie French, Head, Growth Management Department
Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Exhibit L
March 14, 2017
SECOND HEARING — APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE
STAFF' S RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO THE WATER
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MOVE IT FORWARD
TO THE SECOND HEARING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're moving to Item 9A on your
agenda, and this is a recommendation to consider an amendment to
your Collier County Land Development Code this evening.
We have two amendments to present. The first has to do with an
amendment regarding conversion of golf courses and the second
amendment, which I don't imagine all these people are here for, has to
do with some minor changes in your stormwater management system.
So we'll, obviously, want to begin this evening first with your
Land Development Code having to do with conversion of golf courses.
Mr. Bosi, your zoning director, will begin the presentation this
evening.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Bosi, Planning
and Zoning Director.
Just a few introductory comments --
MR. OCHS: Speak up.
MR. BOSI: Just a few introductory comments before I introduce
Caroline and our LDC team that's going to go over the specifics of the
Land Development Code proposal.
A year ago the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
moratorium related to conversion of golf courses based upon a number
of courses signaling an intent to convert from their current use as a golf
course.
The Board recognized at that time that golf courses have a unique
presence within the built environment. There's a vested interest, there's
a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golf course and,
Page 123
March 14, 2017
because of that recognition, I think it's probably confirmed with the
attendance of tonight's crowd; that there was a need for additional
process, additional communication, and additional dialogue to
facilitate the proper conversion or the options for conversion of a golf
course, and that's what these amendments are truly based upon.
They're based on a proactive strategy that requires, before any
application is submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, that
there's going to be conversation between the community, the
stakeholders, the golf course owner, and the community. That's the
premise.
The research that Caroline and the team has done she'll expand
upon, but what she's found is that the more proactive we are in
addressing these issues before an application is submitted, the better
the outcomes of these proposals normally will be.
And with that, I'll introduce Caroline, and she'll be able to
highlight the -- highlight the aspects of the amendment.
MS. CILEK: Thank you.
Good evening, Commissioners. Caroline Cilek with Collier
County's Growth Management Department.
And before I begin, I just want to say thanks to all the staff and
the advisory boards that participated in this amendment process as well
as thank you to you all for being here tonight. As the chairperson said,
we appreciate you being involved in this process.
So to reiterate a little bit about what Mr. Bosi said, in the spring
of 2016, the Board discussed the potential for golf course conversion
in the county. During the discussion, the Board provided several
considerations and a couple of concerns that they had about the
potential for conversion.
A summary of these main points is: One, that golf courses are
valuable resources of open space in the county and that the process and
design standards need to address how to preserve this resource to a
Page 124
March 14, 2017
reasonable extent;
Two, that the property owners surrounding a golf course
purchased their homes with the expectation that they would have a golf
course view in perpetuity, and if this view amenity is lost to a
conversion project, that there may be a potential loss in property value;
And, three, a recognition that neighborhoods that surround golf
courses should be involved in a conversion process.
Following the discussion, the Board did implement a six-month
moratorium, and in September of last year staff came back and
requested an extension for an additional six months to complete the
public vetting process. At that time we presented a research paper that
detailed what we had found at that time.
The moratorium extends until next month, April 1 lth, 2017.
Research and findings: This amendment is the result of a lot of
thoughtful and thorough research conducted over several months.
Much of this research was documented in that research paper we
presented to the Board in September of last year, and our research
included reviewing lots of municipal codes, Comprehensive Plans
across the state of Florida, as well as reviewing academic resources,
and we spoke to countless planners that had encountered conversion
projects in their local communities, and we learned from them about
those experiences.
The vast majority of what we're presenting here today is based on
our research and what we found in those other communities and those
case studies and those examples.
So a couple of the things that we did identify: First is that
conversions are happening. There is a lot of conversions going on on
the east coast of Florida which provided really valuable insight for us.
We found that obtaining early insight from the residents that surround
the golf course is very important to the approval process. Basically it
opened up the ability for them to build consensus, the stakeholders that
Page 125
March 14, 2017
surround the golf course and the property owner/applicant for the
conversion project.
In key studies where the surrounding residents were not included
early in the development process, the approval process, meaning the
process going through the Board's review and approval, often became
lengthy, contentious, and sometimes litigious, which is not in the best
interest of the neighborhoods surrounding the golf course, the
developer, or the county.
So this amendment does present a very robust structure for
collaboration and documentation for a conversion project. And we
recognize that many land use professionals may actually do some of
these things that we're going to be presenting to you naturally, but it's
always good to have them as a structure in the LDC as well.
So I'd like to next go through two of the main concepts that we're
presenting today. The first are stakeholder outreach meetings. So the
applicant would be required to do or hold or conduct two stakeholder
outreach meetings. The stakeholder outreach meeting is intended to be
a collaborative environment in a transparent process where the
applicant would conduct activities to engage the stakeholders, those
that live around the golf course, and solicit input and feedback from
them to help them inform their conversion project.
There are some benefits to this meeting. It would hold all parties
accountable in being reasonable. It is a transparent process in that
following both the meetings the applicant would prepare a report that
would be then reviewed and analyzed by staff, then the Planning
Commission, and then the board. So it is providing the Board
information to make a decision.
I think it is important to note that the stakeholder outreach
meeting is more robust than a neighborhood information meeting,
which is something that we're all pretty familiar with, and that's
because the impact of a golf course conversion is so great.
Page 126
March 14, 2017
The next main concept that I want to speak to you about is the
100-foot greenway. A greenway is defined in the our amendment as a
contiguous strip of undeveloped land that would include passive
recreational areas. This could be like the pictures illustrate, a multi -use
walking path, it could be a playground, or it could be simply open
space, green space.
And the purpose of the greenway would be to retain open space
views for the residents that surround the golf course prior to a
conversion project.
This standard does address one of the Board's main concerns that
they discussed last spring in that it would help to retain the property
values or potential loss in property values due to a conversion project.
This requirement of a greenway also would retain preserves that
are located in the greenway as well as existing vegetation that many
are -- en. oy looking out from their backyards; they would see those
trees. Those would be retained as well.
One last note about the greenway is that it does come from
looking at case studies and examples of projects that have occurred in
Florida previously.
So we wanted to see what a 100-foot greenway would look like
on several golf courses in the county, and those maps are included in
your packet today. Here is an example. And as you can see here, this
would be a reasonable and appropriate application of a greenway;
however, we recognize that not all cases that this would -- that a
100-foot greenway would be appropriate, and so we have incorporated
some flexibility into the proposed LDC amendment that would allow
an applicant to propose an alternative design for the greenway, vet that
with the stakeholders at the stakeholder outreach meetings, and then
present that to the Board, and the Board would make the decision on
whether that was an appropriate greenway design.
Next I'd like to get into the conversion process and what steps
Page 127
March 14, 2017
would be required. So first the applicant would come forward, and
like any other application today, they would have a pre -application
meeting with the county, and there they're sharing what they are
hoping to do with this conversion project with county staff.
The next would be an intent -to -convert application. This would
be a new application, but it is designed to thoroughly vet and analyze
the proposed conversion project.
This application includes three or four main concepts. The first
would be alternatives. One of the alternatives that we're requiring the
applicant to pursue is to reach out to existing property owners'
associations and see if they're interested in purchasing some or all of
the golf course. The next one would be county purchase. The next
alternative would be the development -- a conceptual development
plan where they would lay out what their idea is for the conversion
project.
In addition, this application requires that encumbrances on the
land are identified so that everyone is aware of what those are.
And last is that we are including a mailed notice as a part of this
application so that the stakeholders are informed very early in the
process that there is someone intending to convert the golf course.
The next step would be the stakeholder outreach meetings, and
there the applicant would engage the stakeholders in activities to solicit
input and feedback on their proposed plans and then, following both of
those meetings, they would be required to present a report
documenting what occurred there, what questions the stakeholders had,
and input the stakeholders provided.
That report would then be analyzed by staff at the next step
through the more traditional rezone PUD amendment or perhaps even
a stewardship receiving area amendment as well.
The last possibility for the conversion project would be for a
compatibility design review. This would be a new process that we're
Page 128
March 14, 2017
proposing today, and it would address those golf courses that have a
golf course as a permitted use as well as residential as a permitted use.
And in this case we would have the Planning Commission and the
Board weigh in on the design of the conversion project rather than the
use because the use is already permitted by right, and so they would
get to make sure that it is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let me just interrupt. So in some
cases the use is not an underlining zoning on a golf courses; in some
cases it is.
MS. CILEK: Correct. There are golf courses out there. There
are golf courses that are zoned residential and actually just have a golf
course on them. They're very small, and there's very few of them, and
there's a map in the binder, and there are very few PUDs, P-U-Ds, that
have residential as a permitted use, and so this process would be
specific to those.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. CILEK: Okay. In conclusion, I just want to wrap up by
saying that, as Mr. Bosi mentioned, golf courses are a unique land use,
and so we feel that because they are unique, they rise to a certain level
of review by staff, for stakeholder input, and for an elevated review by
the Board.
Our robust process provides information to decision makers so
that you all can make an informed decision, and our process requires
early stakeholder involvement so that the meat of the conversation
with stakeholders can happen prior to the land use petition at the board
level so a lot of it is hashed out and agreed upon before it gets to you.
And we have presented several development standards to
preserve open space views for existing residential properties around a
golf course.
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Page 129
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't even get to hit my light
that time.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I may, Caroline, with --
on Page 2 of -- Page 3 of the executive summary, there was some
discussion in the stormwater plan management portion about the
impervious lot coverage. And it was mentioned in -- it referenced
Golden Gate Estates. Does this LDC change -- Land Development
Code change also encompass properties in Golden Gate Estates as
well, or is this just specifically for a golf course conversion?
MS. CILEK: So I believe you may be looking at the second
amendment that we have today regarding Chapter 6, is that correct, or
is it one of the development standards --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. There's --
MS. CILEK: Because if you're looking at something talking
about lots, then that would be our second amendment.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Golf course conversion
amendment, LDC Section 5.05. Now, if this --
MS. CILEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If there's one executive
summary that goes through this, then my question's on the wrong one.
Then I'll ask that on the second one then.
And the other question: I read there was a recommendation by
DSAC about a notification of 500 feet on a regular basis, and we went
to a thousand. And I like the thousand; I just wanted to know the
rationale why.
MS. CILEK: So we took a look at the distances that are already
codified in the LDC, and right now it is 500 for urban areas and 1,000
for rural, but because golf courses are unique land uses, staff felt that
they rise to a different level and that a thousand would include those
Page 130
March 14, 2017
who directly live around a golf course and those individuals or
property owners, rather, that purchased property near a golf course to
utilize it throughout the week to be close to open space. So we wanted
to make sure that it had a -- more people were encompassed in the
process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I do have one more, if I
might suggest, and this is just a question. In the actual ordinance itself,
it talks about a maximum -- a maximum of two residential units to be
provided for employees of the golf course facility, I believe that's how
I read this, for maintenance and such. Is -- do we have the capacity of
increasing that if we designate that as maximum? Because there may
be instances, as we all know when we're talking about housing
affordability where we can allow for employees and things to be
housed here. It stipulates maximum, and I just wanted to know how
arduous it was for us to increase that if it were conducive.
MS. CILEK: Sure. And you're referring to LDC amendment
2.03.09 which outlines the permitted accessory and conditional uses
that are allowed in the golf course zoning district.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
MS. CILEK: The A. I.B. 5 addresses the maximum of two
residential dwelling units. That is existing language that is there today.
And it could be amended through a PUD process if a PUD wanted to
address this -- or include this as an accessory use, but for straight
zoning this would be the standard that they would go by.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You mentioned
compatibility.
MS. CILEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And like, for instance, most of the
golf courses that we're talking about right now are abutted or
Page 131
March 14, 2017
surrounded by or in the middle of, whatever, single-family homes.
So does that mean that the applicant who wants to buy that land
and change it to homes must build a single-family home?
MS. CILEK: Well, that's something that would be evaluated
through the conversion project and through this process that we have
outlined today. So when they're reaching out to the stakeholders,
they're going to get input as to whether single-family, multifamily, or
any type of land uses is appropriate for that neighborhood.
It also will need to be consistent with the Growth Management
Plan that we have today. So there are several factors that will weigh
in. But the great thing about this process is that it allows stakeholders
to evaluate what the applicant is considering to develop there and say,
yes, we agree or, you know, we think something else would be more
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because in a lot of these instances
that we see before us right now, they're 55-and-older communities, and
they're fearful that an applicant wants to come in and, of course, make
the biggest bang for a buck and then go back to whatever state he lives
in, but build a three-story condo, you know, with 16 units per acre in
the middle of their --
MS. CILEK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- peaceful community. So, you
know, that compatibility -- we'll be able to judge that compatibility,
and will we be able to decide, I mean, or will they take us to the courts
and say you can't -- you can't keep us to that compatibility, we change
it or something? I just want to know how much -- how much power
the residents will have.
MS. CILEK: Well, this process provides them a voice,
ultimately. The applicant is required to conduct activities to find out
what they want to see there. Now, they may not agree, and that's
where the Planning Commission and staff and the Board will weigh in.
Page 132
March 14, 2017
But this process is supporting a collaborative effort because at the end
of the day the best thing is is for them to agree so that something gets
approved, if that's what the applicant is looking for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question -- and I don't know
that you'll have the answer to this. It just popped into my head -- and
that is, as you were checking with all the -- by the way, I appreciate all
the work that you went through --
MS. CILEK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- checking on all the other counties
around the state of Florida to see what they're doing. You know, that
gives me a lot of comfort to know that you went that far to do your
work, and I appreciate that.
Did you find out what happened to those neighborhoods when
they converted? What happened to the people who were living there?
MS. CILEK: That's a really good question. We took a look at
projects that -- we took a look at all kinds of projects. And so, the ones
that we utilized to base the best practices off were successful. The
stakeholders were involved very early on, and they were supportive of
the project at the end.
Now, we put together a very comprehensive proposal for you. So
in those situations, there was often green space attached to that
development project, i.e., the greenway. So it was very much a
collaborative effort that we saw happening by the developer when they
were able to get a project approved.
In some cases, you know, they provided some green space, and it
didn't work out because people weren't being reasonable. But the goal
here is to support a collaborative process and to hold parties
accountable so that they are reasonable and then allow the Board to
make the decision as to what can and cannot be constructed there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last fear is, I worry that some of
these public golf courses that want to go up because they want to make
Page 133
March 14, 2017
a lot of money, they're going to take away the ability for people to play
on a public golf course anymore. Because when they're gone people
say, oh, well, golf is dying. You know what, there are going to be
people here who will always want to play golf, but there will be no
place for people to go. And that's a worry for me, too.
Is there something that we can do as we form these plans to make
sure there's enough public golf for people and, you know, maybe stop
the ability to sell when -- you know, when there isn't enough for our
residents to play anymore?
MS. CILEK: I'll just put something out there which is that there
are 69 golf courses in Collier County, and looking at many of these --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but people can't get onto to
them. You know, I mean, they're private, so many.
MS. CILEK: Well, in looking from the viewpoint of that most
likely not all of them will convert simply because they are PUDs and
that the community that lives around them is a part of that golf course.
So I think from that level, some may convert and others will not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions. I want to
ask the County Attorney a couple questions and I think also staff.
If we do nothing, what happens to a golf course -- there's two
different scenarios. One is where there's, by right, the ability to build
some housing. That's the underlying zoning. So first question deals
with where there is no underlying right to build anything, zoned as a
golf course, or it's zoned as open space, whatever the designation is. If
we did nothing, what happens from a legal standpoint? Property
owner wants to come in do something and we say, no, you can't do it.
There's no process for that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of this proposed LDC
ordinance is to put arrows in the quiver for the Board of County
Commissioners. If you do nothing, you're limited to your current
Page 134
March 14, 2017
rezoning review, which is largely compatibility oriented. This LDC
amendment is specific to golf course conversions.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me go back to what you
just said. We'd be limited to the current reviews --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- but does a property owner
who is operating a golf course with underlying zoning that is open
space, or whatever the designation is, have any right to a change in that
zoning at any point in time?
MR. KLATZKOW: The owner would have to come forward
showing the need to convert. For example, I'm losing money here
would be a typical response. You know, you can't force me to continue
a business that's losing money. I need to do something else.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have an obligation to
assist them in doing something else by change their zoning? Even if --
MR. KLATZKOW: Eventually, given the circumstances, I'm not
sure obligation's the right word, but they will be entitled to rezoning of
some sorts. I mean, a landowner is entitled to a productive use of his
property. And if his property's become unproductive because of the
underlying zoning then, yes, there is going to be a rezoning.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So from a legal standpoint, we
really have no other alternative but to provide some mechanism,
because if we don't do it, the courts will do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that -- I think that sort of
addresses my question I was going to ask staff is what, in their view,
would happen to these golf courses if a conversion wasn't permitted,
but it sounds like, from what the County Attorney has indicated, that
there would be a conversion at some point, even if it was imposed on
the county by the courts.
MR. KLATZKOW: At some point in time, yes. It's -- that is the
Page 135
March 14, 2017
concern that we've had that have led to this moment in time here.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No questions for me at this point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
I do have some questions about the environmental aspect, and I
know that I probably need to discuss this. I understand that we can add
some testing requirements to this LDC; is that correct?
MS. CILEK: So I'm going to have Danette with Pollution
Control speak to your questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good.
And the reason I'm bringing this up is that we all know that golf
courses use probably a little bit more pesticides and fertilizers than
houses would because they want everything to be perfect and green,
and the lakes will have the runoff, and at the bottom of the lakes will
be the stuff that we always try to dig out because it may contaminate
water.
So I really want to address that now to see if some protection for
homeowners can -- that surround the area can be weaved into this LDC
amendment. So I'm going to turn this over to you. You know my
questions.
MS. KlNASZCZUK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control
Manager.
The current LDC provision requires testing for organochlorine
pesticides and the eight RCRA metals. And what we requested was
some additional contaminates, emerging contaminates of concern,
including petroleum products in the maintenance areas,
organophosphate pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and some common
pesticides like triazine and carbamide. So we did ask for some
Page 136
March 14, 2017
additional.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
And then I know that -- I know that when you do the soil
sampling, if there's contamination then you look at groundwater, is that
right, or am I correct?
MS. KINASZCZUK: You are correct. If the soil samples come
back above or at cleanup contaminant levels, then we would give that
information to DEP and coordinate a remediation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And we're going to determine
that; Collier County is determining. We don't have to send it off to
have it determined.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Right, correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good.
Then, finally -- well, help me with this. Can we be more
restrictive? But you suggest that we're not more restrictive because it
becomes more problematic in terms of what we're doing here; is that
correct?
MS. KINASZCZUK: We would have to come up with some
exceptional science and prove a good reason to become more
restrictive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Now, the fertilizer ordinance I
was referring to was the one that was proposed by the Conservancy
several years ago which had to do with the use of, I believe it was,
nitrogen --
MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- in fertilizers, and that's probably not
a conversation we should have now, but if we make our fertilizer
ordinance stronger, then it would apply to this; is that correct?
MS. KINASZCZUK: I think we -- I think I have a better vehicle
to get that point across. We are looking at a draft pollution control
ordinance, and I think there --
Page 137
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Which is this one, which I don't
understand at all, so maybe you can just briefly explain it. I read it, but
I was like, okay.
MS. KINASZCZUK: I don't think you have the draft pollution
control ordinance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I had the pollution control review
of environmental site assessment.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. That's just our process when we get
the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
MS. KINASZCZUK: -- environmental site assessments from a
contractor or a company that does the groundwater sampling or the soil
sampling. That's just our internal process of how we --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, okay.
MS. KINASZCZUK: -- process that and coordinate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're suggesting that we could
have a draft pollution control.
MS. KINASZCZUK: We have a draft pollution control
ordinance. We're still working it through --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. KINASZCZUK: -- some internal vetting, but I think we can
accomplish what you want to accomplish but through a different
vehicle.
Okay. And it would apply to this LDC amendment, so I'm very
comfortable with that.
So, Commissioner Solis, because I can't see you, do you have any
questions now?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One question with regard to the uses
with regard to different activities. I mean, one of the options would be,
as I understand it, would be for the landowner to offer the golf course
to the county. And I just want to make sure that the list of permitted
Page 138
March 14, 2017
uses would be broad enough for what the county would want to do
with the property. And I hope that makes sense.
But there's certain references to, I think, pickleball and some other
things. There's a reference to parks and recreation, and I just want to
make sure with staff that there's enough in the ordinance that gives the
county enough flexibility if it was to end up purchasing the property.
MS. CILEK: I would like to answer that.
So in 2.03.09, which is the golf course and recreational zoning
district, we have included several new conditional uses. And as
Commissioner Solis mentioned, one of those is court sports.
We did not include, like, field sports or anything like that;
however, those could be included through No. 11, which is any other
recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses
as determined by the Hearing Examiner or the Board. That provides
some flexibility there.
And the county would be able to also rezone or go through a PUD
process if they were seeking very specific uses outside of the golf
course and recreational zoning district. That option is always
available.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just wanted to have a
quick discussion. Commissioner Saunders brought up a really good
point about if we do nothing, and this I found to be a very nice
compromise.
There are underlying uses that travel along with real estate
ownership both for folks that live on golf courses and for folks that
actually own golf courses, and I thought our staff did a very good job
in developing an ordinance here that provided for participation on both
sides, both the property rights of the folks that live on the golf course
and protection with those values that were there, along with the
Page 139
March 14, 2017
property rights of the landowners that have the underlying land use
that's currently used as a golf course.
I did want to ask, if I may, about concurrency. When we're
talking about the conversion, assuming that it, in fact, goes through --
and I couldn't find it in here, so forgive me if I'm asking a silly
question.
But oftentimes the golf courses are utilized as -- in an aggregation
of a density for an entire piece of property, and the units that
potentially could have been in the area where the golf course is located
are counted for the entire project but they're accumulated on the
perimeter around the golf course. And that was done at a time when
our infrastructure was different than what it is now and the
development was different than what it is now.
I couldn't find in here any discussion about concurrency with the
existing infrastructure that we have and the new densities that are
currently in place and whether or not that was even a portion of the
criterion for someone that wanted to ask for a conversion.
MS. CILEK: So that's a really great question, and what we did
was address that in the intent -to -convert application. So included in
here are several administrative codes for land development -- or for
land development sections. They're new. And what we have included
are standards that they would have to provide information about.
So if density -- density would be one of those on the conceptual
development plan, and they would have to analyze it a little bit at that
point in time but most certainly through the regular rezone or PUD
amendment component.
All of those regular LDC standards would still apply to any type
of conversion project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So yes is the answer?
MS. CILEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you.
Page 140
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many -- how many speakers do
we have, please?
MR. MILLER: At this point, Madam Chair, I have 12 registered
speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'm going to do something
unusual. And I'm not going to try to mute at all the speakers, but I
want to take a consensus right now or maybe even have a motion
without -- I think a consensus is -- and I'd like to kind of frame it that
we would agree to what is being presented to us by staff with the
modification of maybe increasing the amount of -- the type of
pesticides by name that was put on the testimony by our pollution
control specialist, and I don't think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we going to ask the audience
what their --
MR. KLATZKOW: I would not include the pesticide on this one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If and when the Board enacts any
regulations on this, it will cover this anyway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine. So then we would
-- that we agree to this LDC amendment as presented by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I like to hear from the
audience.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, we're going to. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to vote on anything till I
know --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not voting. We're just getting a
consensus.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not going to give one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner
Page 141
March 14, 2017
Fiala. Let's go ahead and hear the public, and then we can --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine.
MR. MILLER: All right. Madam Chair, we're going to call two
names. We're going to use both podiums. The first name will come to
one podium and speak. If the second name will go to the other podium
and be ready to speak. Please remember to state your name for the
record.
Our first speaker is Edward Tappen. He'll be followed by Bob
Norton.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And maybe if they're upstairs --
MR. MILLER: I only have received one slip so far from
someone that's on the fifth floor, and neither one of these names
indicated that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tappen was in my elevator, but he
was told to go upstairs.
MR. MILLER: Okay. So let's -- his slip came in early this
morning. So are you Bob Norton, sir?
MR. NORTON: I am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, good.
MR. MILLER: Let's go ahead and go with Bob Norton.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And Mr. Tappen's coming in?
MR. MILLER: We'll wait for him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or you can read a third name.
MR. MILLER: And the third name, in case he's not ready, would
be Dwight Kehoe.
Mr. Norton.
MR. NORTON: Thank you. I am Bob Norton of 136 Estelle
Drive, Naples. I'm also Chairman of the Riviera Golf Course Advisory
Committee.
I'm strongly opposed to the conversion of any golf courses in
Page 142
March 14, 2017
Collier County to residential use. I left that out; I'm sorry. But if we
must consider such conversions, then the LDC amendment suggested
is a better approach over the current code. Our association and
community strongly support it. If golf course conversions are to be
allowed, this amendment is critically important.
Many residents of our communities are here tonight to support
this amendment, and I would like them all others, regardless of which
community they represent, to raise their hands to show the committee
the breadth of our collective support.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We could make a motion now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let the record show that the majority of
people here standing and seated raised their hand.
MR. NORTON: I have a count of people in overflow, and it is
150. I think we can assume that they probably would have raised their
hands as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ask the other question. Ask the
opposite and let's see. How many -- how many people would oppose
this amendment?
MR. NORTON: How many people would oppose this
amendment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They're either brave or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only one. And we won't identify the
person. So I'd say 149 won it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was a brave soul who raised
his hand there in the back.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was, very. Or she.
MR. NORTON: We also have petitions with over 640 signatures
in favor of this amendment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You'll give that --
MR. NORTON: I will give that to her, yes, later.
Page 143
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. NORTON: Many of us bought our houses specifically
because of golf course views. We paid a premium for those views and
have paid property taxes on those higher premiums since; thus, the golf
course is an important part of our environment and quality of life.
Many of our homes completely surround it.
We are very concerned about possible effects of a golf course
housing development on our community. It would negatively affect
both the values of our properties and our status as a federally approved
over-55 community.
Stormwater drainage, compatibility, and increased traffic are also
an issue, and our quality of life would be affected significantly.
We greatly appreciate the efforts the Collier County planning
board has expended in drafting the Land Development Code changes
that are before you. In particular, the requirement that a developer must
notify the residents of their plans before they are finalized and discuss
those plans in open meetings with the stakeholders is a critical feature.
This provision will preclude the residents being blindsided by a fully
formed and finished development plan.
Provision of a 100-foot buffer around the existing properties
would, if a development went forward, provide a modicum of privacy
and an opportunity to plant a visual buffer of trees or other flora. This
buffer should not be reduced in size below the proposed 100 feet.
We as residents who surround a golf course urge you to pass this
important legislation just as it is written. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker -- well, has Mr. Tappen
arrived?
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Edward Tappen?
(No response.)
Page 144
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: So your next speaker is Dwight Kehoe. He will
be followed by Shirley Sackett.
MR. KEHOE: Good evening. My name is Dwight Kehoe,
K-e-h-o-e, and I live at 870 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf
Estates.
Since my home borders on the Riviera golf course, my wife and I
are very interested in preserving our investment and the tranquility it
provides given its location on the golf course. We strongly oppose
conversion of the Riviera golf course to residential or commercial use.
I believe the Collier County Planning Commission has
understood the desires of homeowners like us and has, through their
proposed amendment to the Land Development Code, considered our
interests as well as the interests of potential developers.
We support all the Collier County Planning Commission's
amendments to the LDC and in particular, the following, as Bob
Norton has said: The proposal that a potential developer of a golf
course for non -golf use be required to hold at least neighborhood
meetings to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the property;
notification of all homeowners within 1,000 feet of a golf course
perimeter; and the concept of a I00-foot buffer zone between homes
and possible residences a developer might propose.
And I might add, if residential use is proposed, the developer
should submit a plan that is compatible with the surrounding
community.
In conclusion, I would request that you, the commissioners, adopt
all aspects of the Collier County Planning Commission's proposed
amendments to the Land Development Code.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Shirley Sackett.
(Applause.)
Page 145
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: She will be followed by Ed Navarre.
MS. SACKETT: My name is Shirley Sackett. I live a 141 Fleur
de lis Lane in Riviera Golf Estates. I have been a resident full time in
Riviera for 29 years now. I have owned eight homes in that same
community. My mother has owned two, and my sister has owned two.
I do live on the golf course. I probably have the best view, and I
do not want that interrupted. And I do thank you for the work that all
of them have done to present.
And we do ask you, please, to consider this and pass it for our
benefits. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ed Navarre. He'll be
followed by Ronald Sbrocco.
MR. NAVARRE: Good evening, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. I'm pleased to be here.
I did have a -- I'm from -- originally from Maryland, Maryland
National Capital Park of the Planning Commission which operated
planning and zoning and -- around Montgomery Prince George's
County adjacent to the District of Columbia. And there we operated
nine golf courses and a recreational facility where Sugar Ray Leonard
trained.
So I do want to compliment you. I did go to your Finance
Department yesterday, and they provided me a copy of your financial
report for the year ended September 30th, 2015. Very impressive to
see that you all have a fund balance of $178 million. And I think
Conservation Collier has a fund balance of $33 million. Some of that
may be committed. I couldn't decipher that. But you certainly have
been running a very healthy county.
So I would -- and I've already learned quite a bit from the
presentation from staff. I would hope that you would consider
Page 146
March 14, 2017
acquiring the golf courses. They could be operated profitably in one of
your enterprise funds. They would -- they would attract your tourist
development, which is a major part of the county's attractiveness.
Again, the 100-foot buffer sounds fine, but if you're living on a
golf course looking out at a hole, 100 foot's not very much, especially
if it's a high-rise.
So I'm here a little bit to speak for Riviera Golf Estates, and I'm a
member of another course that's also being considered.
So, again, it seems the county is very healthy. Golf courses can
be run profitably. They are an attraction to both the residents who use
them and the tourist attraction.
So I would just hope you would consider the possibility of setting
up in one of your enterprise funds that would operate golf courses,
public courses.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Sbrocco. He will be
followed by Kevin Walsh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one question.
Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you could please leave us
your contact information. At our early meeting today we had a
discussion with regard to viability of purchasing and the county
owning a municipal golf course, and you, obviously, have experience
with regard to that. And I know that the consultants that we hired
really only looked here predominantly in Southwest Florida. So as we
move through that process, that knowledge and experience would be
invaluable. So if you'd please make sure somebody, even me, has your
contact information, please.
MR. NAVARRE: Thanks again.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Page 147
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Sbrocco. He'll be
followed by Kevin Walsh.
MR. SBROCCO: Good afternoon. My address is 537
Charlemagne Boulevard.
It's a very difficult situation for you as well as us. And should
you be voting against our 700 families here, it's going to hurt. And I
just learned a lesson from a movie I saw: When a person gets hurt,
they have to get strength to forgive you, and I'm hoping that doesn't
happen.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kevin Walsh. He'll be
followed by Charles Holloway. And we're still looking for Edward
Tappen. Have you come into the room yet, sir?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Mr. Walsh.
MR. WALSH: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Kevin Walsh, and I live on Frosty Way, which is part of the Winter
Park development off Davis Boulevard.
And as you may know, we are abutters to the old Ironwood golf
course which is now going under the name of Evergreen and has been
closed for a while. In addition to that, I'm a frequent golfer at Golden
Gate, Riviera, and Lakewood, all of which are represented by other
owners and golfers from those communities.
But weighing in on behalf of Winter Park, we are 696 units, many
of which abut the old Ironwood golf course which is now known as
Evergreen. We know that that's been sold. We know that the
developer is planning to ask for a conversion process, and we've met
with him a number of times with little confidence, I guess, that there is
going to be the cooperation that is outlined in this amendment without
the county imposing that amendment. So we are a strong advocate that
the rules you're considering here today be adopted.
March 14, 2017
So, first and foremost, the rezoning concerns you've heard from
others, the loss of green space is an issue, the loss of property value as
a result of the changes that we'll lose, confidence of the people that
bought golf courses as an investment.
Our main concern is the minimum I00-foot buffer; not an
average, but it should be a minimum, in our perspective, so as to
ensure the quality of life for those that are close by.
Especially with Evergreen, one of our concerns is drainage. We
are just barely above the floodplain. Much of our drainage is related to
and intertwined with the Evergreen golf course, and we would like to
make sure the drainage concerns are adequately addressed.
The other issue is that Evergreen, in particular, is a standalone
golf course in pockets throughout our neighborhood and throughout
Lakewood and Glades, which are also abutters to that course. If you
take the I00-yard buffer, literally, they could almost build no homes on
any one of those holes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, well.
MR. WALSH: Oh, well. I love your reaction.
The traffic, the access issues to those small pockets are a serious
concern that we've not seen anything close to accommodated in our
discussions.
So the communication that you built in here, your concern, and
your advocacy for offering it to the abutters and offering it to the
county are admirable, and we hope you adopt it.
We would love to see a public course. Any one of the four I
mentioned would be great. It would a great opportunity for the
technical schools or for the public schools to learn golf course
management and still make a profit, as the gentleman from New Jersey
indicated.
So we support and hope you will pass this. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 149
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Charles Holloway. He will
be followed by Marguirite Wegner.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Hello. My name is Charles Holloway. I
live at 830 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf Estates. I do live
on the golf course, so I have a personal interest in the value and
continued value of my property.
In addition to being a resident of Riviera Golf Estates, I'm also a
realtor with Caldwell Banker on 5th Avenue. The majority of my
business is in Riviera Golf Estates. And I was asked by some of my
community members to address my opinion of the effect that the
conversion could have on our collective property values. I'm going to
speak specifically about Riviera Golf Estates.
The first thing I'd like the Commission to take note of is -- and in
the last 28 months, I've sold 30 homes in Riviera Golf Estates, so I
have a pretty good feel for the value of the properties in there.
I can tell you, as the community exists currently, with all things
being perfect, typically the professional appraisals adjust the homes on
the golf course as opposed to those that back up to other homes or on a
privacy wall, such as County Barn, I've seen the adjustment be up to as
much as $20,000. So the value of being on the golf course or one of
the lakes in the community has significant value.
There's been a lot of discussion about the greenway or buffer
zone, as some people have referred to it, of 100 feet. As the previous
gentleman made reference to, it's my interpretation of the amendment
that it's an average of 100 feet but could be as little as 75 feet.
And what I'd like some clarification on is it allows, I believe, for
some of the lakes on the golf course to be included in the greenway
zone. So if you're taking an average, and a lake is 150 feet, does that
mean that two other similarly size will be taken down to the 75 feet?
Because I believe it's reasonable to expect that the developers are
going to develop every square foot they can. So now we're talking
Page 150
March 14, 2017
about 75 feet. And what impact does that have on your view and
especially the value of your home?
I stepped it off when I came in, and I think that you folks from
your seat, if you're sitting on my lanai -- first of all, I'm currently on a
five par, 1,350-foot fairway, so just imagine looking down
four -and -a -half football fields over the golf course and the birds and
everything.
Seventy-five feet is approximately that wall right there. So put a
three-story condo up there and tell me that I'm not going to lose
property value, okay.
So -- and then I know that the Commission is concerned about
making whole the developers, and I certainly understand and
appreciate that, but it shouldn't be at the expense of 692 residents of
Riviera Golf Estates.
I think a collective estimate would be $10,000 per property could
potentially lose times 692 is -- we could collectively lose $6.92 million
in property value. I think you should consider our financial well-being
as well as the investors and owners.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marguirite Wegner, and she
will be followed by George Danz.
MS. WEGNER: Good evening, Commissioners. I am Marguirite
Wegner. My husband, Paul and I, live at Winter Park in a
condominium that abuts the Evergreen Golf Course.
Several of other folks from Winter Park have been attending the
Planning Commission meetings and -- during which the amendment
was discussed and defined. The detailed research and thought
incorporated into the amendment was inspiring.
We feel that the adoption of the amendment would enhance our
county greatly and be favorable to all homeowners.
Page 151
March 14, 2017
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Danz, and he will be
followed by William N. Cannon.
MR. DANZ: Madam Chairperson, Commissioners, my name is
George Danz. I am President of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners
Association.
First of all, I want to commend your staff and Mark Strain and the
Planning Commission for the efforts that they have done. Some of us
have attended all those meetings, and the detail that they go through on
all of these things is tremendous, and they've done a fantastic job.
I have a list of points here that I would like to cover, there's about
a page of them, but most people have covered them already so I'm not
going to bore you and take up a lot more of your time.
I don't live on a golf course. I don't play golf. I can't see chasing
a little ball around a golf course, but I live in a community that is
vibrant, that has a lot of activities going on, a lot of activities for other
than golf in our community, and thus, needless to say, we're opposed
to any conversion of the golf course. If conversion is necessary,
however, we respectfully request that you approve the proposed
amendments as presented.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William N. Cannon. He
will be followed by Jeff Price. Mr. Price was on the fifth floor, but I
think he's headed down this way. Mr. Cannon?
MR. CANNON: Good evening. I'm William Cannon, 169 Fleur
de lis Lane. That puts me on the 1 I th green at Riviera golf club.
I just want to make four quick points, and my first one, I did not
Page 152
March 14, 2017
coordinate this with George.
I have just read a recent article that reported that the Urban Land
Institute in the study found that 92 percent of the people living on golf
courses do not play golf. They bought there for open space. And that's
-- you know, the Urban Land Institute. They gave you a very good
report not too long ago.
The second item, Collier County has active constituencies for the
beach, parks, playing fields like baseball and soccer and pickleball. I
know of none for public golf. We golfers depend on you, our
commissioners, to protect our recreational interests.
Looking at how hard it is now to find suitable land for playing
courts, think about 10, 15, 20 years from now when Collier County
approaches a million residents. You will have a lot more golfers. At
that time building a new public golf course would be extremely
difficult and expensive.
I would recommend that this commission buy one or more golf
courses now, rather than letting them go to development, to provide
recreation for the current and future Collier County residents and our
tourists.
I oppose residential conversion of golf courses and support
strongly the LDC amendments that you're addressing tonight, and I
want to thank all who worked hard to develop them. And I want to
thank you for your time and dedication to us, the residents of Collier
County.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeff Price. Mr. Price was on
the fifth floor. I don't know if he's made his way down. Let me call
Dwight Delahunt. I'm sorry. I'm having a difficult time with that last
name, sir.
Are you Mr. Price?
Page 153
March 14, 2017
MR. PRICE: Yes, I am.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Price, right here. Yes, right here, sir. Mr.
Price first and then...
MR. PRICE: Hello, everybody. I'm Jeff Price. I live at 4050
32nd Avenue Southwest, Green No. 5 is in -- or 4 is in my backyard on
the Golden Gate course.
We had a little discussion last night at the civic meeting with Mr.
Saunders, and it came up about this sports park. And a lot of us are
against that. I think we have enough sports parks, ball diamonds in
this county.
I'm a member of several groups, and -- the Moose, Eagles, and
when I -- and I have a second home in Highlands County. And when I
travel, I meet a lot of people up there that used to do the weekends at
the Quality Inn and how much they love coming down here from all
over and how many people from here go up there because it's cheaper
to play golf, okay.
I would really like -- I'm pushing for the county to make this a
municipal course. I think if it's run by the right people, it's a gold
mine. I think something happened where our tees and our greens were
destroyed -- I don't know if it was the wrong fertilizer or what -- and
everybody quit playing there. So that's why it was empty for so long.
And it seemed funny that the chickee bar at the Quality Inn tripled
in size. They remodeled it a few years back, remodeled the bathrooms,
and I would think a place that's going out of business wouldn't be
doing that.
But I'm strongly pushing for the county to make that a municipal
course. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dwight...
MR. DELAHUNT: Delahunt.
Page 154
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Delahunt. Thank you, sir. He will be followed
by William Smith.
MR. DELAHUNT: Hi. My name's Dwight Delahunt. I live at
124 Bacardi. I back on the 15th hole of the Riviera golf course. And
when I'm in my lanai, I can't see anything but water and the golf course
behind me, and the homes on the far side of the lake.
I share that property with a lot of birds. I share it with fish in the
water, the odd alligator once in a while, usually not too big. Just little
fellows coming in to visit.
I have a couple of questions. If I was a developer and I wanted to
get community involvement and have community speaking, if I was in
Collier County I'd probably set up my meeting for June or July. Might
be a good time.
Although I'm a part-time resident, I am a full-time taxpayer in
Collier County. I've been coming down since '76. I've owned here
since 2004. I fully support LDC amendments that have been put
forward to you.
I am a realtor as well. Not here, but in Canada. My estimation is
very close to what I heard from the gentleman earlier, about $20,000 it
would affect my property value. It's a lot of money when we've saved
for so long to have a place to retire.
I ask for your support on the LDC. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William F. Smith, and he
will be followed by Ed Tappen, hopefully.
MR. SMITH: Good evening. I live at 4372 27th Court
Southwest in Apartment 206, Unit 206.
First I'd like to remind the Council that zoning was established by
this community to protect the citizens from contrary adjacent uses, and
that's really what this is all about is the protection of existing uses from
things that are very opposed to what exists today and what was zoned.
Page 155
March 14, 2017
The golf course has a minimum of two fairways between the
housing at the pars and the private housing along the perimeter. That's
probably 4- to 500 linear feet of open space.
I would suggest that any future amendments be made, if this goes
through, that at least a 100-foot buffer be created and that that 100-foot
buffer go from property line to property line, not building to building.
Make sure that the green space is public space, in essence.
If allowed, any adjacent housing, because the housing adjacent to
the pars is two stories and most of the housing within the pars is two
stories, that we hope that that would be likewise limited to two-story
construction and probably a single unit within the two stories so that
it's a townhouse type of situation.
The utilities in our area, I can't imagine, would support the
number of units of housing that were being proposed for the Quality
Inn golf course. Who's going to pay for those upgrades in utilities? I
would hope that the developer is and not the community and not the
county are going to pay for the upgrade for those utilities. Water,
sewer, storm drainage, power, all of those things are -- they're barely
making do with what exists there. There are still private homes
adjacent to us with septic systems in the front yards.
And students going to local elementary schools, middle schools,
the traffic in our neighborhood is already difficult as we exit 27th
Court onto 44th. So we'd ask you to study that as well.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Ed Tappen is the last registered speaker I have,
Madam Chairman. Edward Tappen. I did receive this slip at 9 o'clock
this morning, so I know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was here when I walked in.
MR. MILLER: That's what you had said.
Page 156
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Other than that, that's all we have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I have a couple of questions for
our county attorney. We've heard about financial well-being and yet
we have property rights, but there are property rights of the folks who
own these houses, and I'm sure there could be proof given that in
former golf course conversions that property values have fallen. If that
could be part of an argument, would we be on firm ground to say no to
golf course conversions?
MR. KLATZKOW: Funny you asked that, because I just walked
over to Mr. Bosi and said, you need to put this on the record.
So for purposes of this question, since his testimony -- mine's
only an opinion -- I'd like Michael to answer your question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director, again.
And a point that Jeff wanted me to clarify -- and some of the
questions and comments, I think, were pertinent to this clarification, is
the notice to intent. That's supplemental activity that goes on before an
application is even submitted.
They'll provide additional benefits to the process, but the point is
that once they submit an application, they will still have to satisfy the
criteria of the rezone findings, the PUD findings. And one of those
criterias is the effect from a property valuation that that use would have
upon the surrounding area. And, also, within Collier County any
development that moves forward is subject to concurrency
management. So roads, school, water, facility, parks, libraries, all
those would have to be adequately addressed to make sure that there
was -- infrastructure capacity would be available to satisfy whatever
demands that the development proposal would be required.
So the traditional evaluations of a PUD or a rezone are still
applicable to this process. It's just there's additional steps that are put
Page 157
March 14, 2017
before an application is even submitted hopefully to arrive upon a
better proposal that meets the needs of all parties involved. That was
the design of this amendment.
MR. KLATZKOW: So these are supplemental standards,
correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you understand the answer to
your question?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I understood it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't. So in other words, if the
property values decrease by $20,000, tell me in plain English, what
does that mean?
MR. BOSI: There is an opportunity for the Board of County
Commissioners to deny a petition if sub -- if competent evidence is
submitted that shows that there will be a significant decrease within
valuation upon the surrounding properties. That would be one of the
factors or one of the criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
would utilize to evaluate the proposal.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's very good.
Now, let's say that folks live on a section of the golf course which
is an open fairway. There aren't any trees and whatnot, and there's a
buffer of a 100 feet. Within this LDC amendment, is there a
requirement that it needs -- that rather than looking at 100 feet of
fairway or former fairway and then have a house, is there a
requirement to plant that as a buffer?
MR. BOSI: There are options that are available for that, and that
gets to the heart of the nature of the compatibility review and
evaluation. Of course, the neighbors are going to have their
perspective as to whether they feel that what's being suggested in that
buffer within that greenway, whether it be vegetated or whatever that
is, whether they feel that it adequately meets the compatibility and
protects their neighborhood. Then staff would make an evaluation
Page 158
March 14, 2017
upon it, the Planning Commission would make an evaluation upon it,
and then the Board of County Commissioners would be the ultimate
arbitration of those perspectives, and you would make the final
decision as to whether you thought that the design of that buffer met
the intent of the compatibility to provide for the protections of those
surrounding neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that would also go and apply to the
buildings that are being built on this golf course. If it's a four-story
apartment building next to single-family homes, that's a problem.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that gets back to the compatibility.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're in a single-family development,
your argument for the Board of County Commissioners is -- it's always
the Board's decision -- would be that a four-story unit's not compatible.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it also assumes that the
conversion has gotten through the application process where they've
met concurrency and substantiated that there isn't a reduction in
property values, and those are protections that are put in place before it
ever gets to the Board of County Commissioners for the ultimate
protection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We've heard testimony that there is a
process, or there is underway -- a conversion underway at a golf course
right now. Can these rules be applied to that conversion that is
underway?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. That's not retroactive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so that leaves everything back to
MR. KLATZKOW: Our current standards.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Chair, if I could interject. What that means is there's
Page 159
March 14, 2017
not an intent -to -convert process that would be imposed upon that
application, but those same criteria that we talked about within a
rezoning finding or a PUD finding would be applicable to that action.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The devaluation of homes.
MR. BOSI: All of the same criteria that we just spoke about that
are traditionally part of your rezoning application process would be
part of the evaluation factor upon -- that the Board would arrive upon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my comment was back when
they first were finishing, and so I'll just say to you, I was so proud of
all of these people here from Riviera and from Winter Park, and they
were so respectful, strong; they knew what they wanted to say, they
said it, they came to the point and, yet, they were never yelling or
unkind or anything. And I'm just so proud that you're part of my
district.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to say.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, there's no lights
on, so I'm going to turn to you. Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not at this time, but I would like to
commend the staff on the presentation and the work that they've done.
I thought it was very thorough.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amazing, amazing.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I think it would
be appropriate to make a motion to move this on -- to approve with the
staff presentation, the document that's in front of us, and move this on
to the second hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would agree. Do I have a second?
Page 160
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And for purposes of clarity, we're limiting
this to the LDC amendment relating to the golf course conversion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then because we have one --
Commissioner Solis who is communicating to us by telephone, I
would prefer to have a roll call here just so that we make sure that
Commissioner Solis is part of the -- that he has said yes or no. So if we
could call the roll for a vote.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's looking at our signs.
MR. MILLER: We've never done this. I'm sorry.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Chairman Taylor?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it, ladies and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: St. Patty's Day is coming up, and
they're wearing the green.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the motion passed unanimously, and
this will go in the process, and I hope you clearly understand what the
intention is. You've brought some extraordinarily perceptive and
cogent arguments to this, and it helps us in our deliberation going
Page 161
March 14, 2017
forward. So thank you very, very much for being here this evening.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to take five minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll take, like, a couple -minutes
recess. We have another issue to discuss, which is stormwater. You're
welcome to stay for it, but if you leave --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really interesting. It's really
interesting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just think of how much fun it could
be.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When are we coming back,
Madam Chair?
MR. OCHS: Five minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five minutes. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats if you're staying, or leave quietly so we can continue the meeting.
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike. We're still on Item 9A. The
second of your two Land Development Code proposed amendments
has to do with stormwater planning, and the staff has a very brief
presentation on the nature of that change.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. FRANTZ: Good evening. Jeremy Frantz with the Growth
Management Department. I am just going to give you a really brief
overview of the amendment, and then we can get to any questions that
you might have.
So this amendment began with stakeholders and staff identifying
that the current stormwater plan requirements were overly restrictive in
some areas, like the Estates, and just didn't actually provide any
protection against stormwater impacts to other homeowners.
Page 162
Exhibit M
A♦
Y
r w
R
T• � 6
' ♦ ♦ ii
OF w
Yal
r ♦f. ` � 'may •ram '. r+ � .a, it
rr. • ;`'- `--.•P' �+ • = i - � = y + •'t j � � +,M��_�R.1`��'`� fit..` 4.�ira``�`• � "� � � �
�. _ •" r. _ � \''�c. mil_+f �F'Y `•'x� t
' „_�' _,-_ ,•_•,. _`y �. 'fr �� � �.. tM . �• icy►,
�• - • ♦ �4 Ala r., i.. .. � .= a � , �'
�_ `. •� ; �` �P.'- try t � . ,",.. � � � r a y t � a. a.
y•{ r - . ♦ 4 tin � � �. ! � • �`�
� r '\ 'ter � •y F � '♦ \ �. f1
z
�r •
'' �.. \ J � `, �\ ~+•! / . t\ �' ` ,wl \` � � i � to � \tl
L p' i+ �' �. � � irk ' \, ~� M �' �. a ..� •\
COMPLETE
ENGINEERED
SOLUTIONS FOR
SPORT STRUCTURES,
FACILITIES, AND
NETTING SYSTEMS
Connor Beauchemin,
NATIONAL SALES MANAGER
Toll Free 1800 936 6388
p. 604 946 8679
c. 778 8819634
www.netexnetting.com
netexsportsystems@gmail.com
r'1L(l1
►11
NETEX CANADA NETTING INC. 5128 CENTRAL AVENUE DELTA, B.C. V4K 2H2
Toll Free 1 800 936 6388 Tel 604 946 8679 Fax 604 946 8690 m.wi son cone .com
Website: www.netexnettinq.ca
Dl'NEEM.4 CjOLF g.4RRI5R NET
Uses: Driving range barrier fence
MATERIAL: Dyneema SK78 high molecular weight polyethylene (HMPE)
MESH SIZE : 2 1/8" diamond or 1 1116" square (#6 gauge
MESH DESIGN: twisted double knot!
TWINE DIAMETER. .8 mm
COLOR: black solution dyed yarn
WEIGHT: .012 LB. PER SQ1FT
KNOT BREAKING STRENGTH: 248 lbs.
MESH BREAKING STRENGTH: 103 lbs.
COLD WEATHER RESISTANCE: 10% drop in elongation and 10% increase in
tensile strength at -60 C
HOT WEATHER RESISTANCE: 20% drop in tensile strength and no loss in
elongation at 60 C
SHRINKAGE & EXPANSION RATE: boiling water shrinkage < 4%
LIFE EXPECTANCY: 25 plus years
WARRANTY.- 15 YEAR pro rated against U.V degradation
Certified Wind Funnel Tested
DYNEEMA PERIMETER ROPE BORDER
MATERIAL: DYNEEMA SK78 12 strand braided Ultra high molecular weight
polyethylene (HMPE)
DIAMETER:5116" 8mm}
COLOR: Black solution dyed yarn
TWINE: 1.9 mm braided black with 550 Ibs break strength (250 KG)
BREAKING —STRENGTH: 6,000 LBS7�2721 KG)
ADVANTAGES: improves service life, excellent abrasion, prevents contamination, high
tenacity, low stretch.
■ This net is made from DSM yarn. The original developer of Dyneema fibre. The
highest quality HMPE yarn available and only in Netex #6 golf barrier nets.
■ Dyneema'is both the world's strongest fiber and the only HMPE fiber scientifically
engineered to overcome abrasion, bending fatigue, compression, and creep fatigue
• Dyneema SK78 has 4X longer abrasion life than generic HMPE
• Dyneema SK78 matches its claim strength of 35 cNldtex batch after batch
• Dyneema SK78 massively outperforms all other HMPE in fatigue abed creep
lifetime comparisons
0188
Exhibit Mm I
aj
N
E
N
E
C6
U
0
J
N
co
O
Q
O
Q
co
N
O
N
E
O
2
0
M IJ
L- _0
o
CY
bn0
a) (L) +�
0 cu
z �10 � 0-
m
u
Exhibit N
OR 5162 PG 449
NOTE: SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT OF ENTIRE DECLARATION TO
THE MASTER DECLARATION FOR QUAIL CREEK
SEE AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER DECLARATION
FOR PRESENT TEXT.
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
MASTER DECLARATION
OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS_ FOR QUAIL CREEK
Approved on the 26th day of May, 2015
OR 5162 PG 467
maintaining any other condition which, in the Board's judgment or discretion, has a negative
aesthetic or economic impact on the Property or constitutes a hazard to other property or to
resi dents.
(E) Any modifications, alteration, installation or addition to the Lot or
Common Areas made by the Owner or his predecessors in title with ARB or Board approval
including but not limited to, any decks or concrete pads. The Owner shall be responsible for
insurance, Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of such modifications, installations or
additions and the cost of removing and replacing or reinstalling such modifications if their
removal by the Association becomes necessary in order to maintain, Repair, replace or protect
other parts of the properties for which the Association is responsible.
5.3 Enforcement of Maintenance. If the Owner of a Lot fails to maintain his
Lot as required above, the Association shall have the right to fine and/or suspend the Owner as
provided herein, or to institute legal proceedings to enforce compliance, or may take any and all
other steps necessary to remedy such violation, including but not limited to entering the Lot and
remedying the violation, with or without consent of the Owner but only after ten (10) days
written notice of intent to do so. The Association may Repair, replace or maintain any item in
violation of the covenants contained in the Governing Documents or which constitutes a hazard
or negative aesthetic impact to other property or residents, prevents the Association from
fulfilling its Maintenance responsibilities, or which has a materially adverse effect on the
appearance of the Properties. Any expenses so incurred by the Association shall be billed
directly to the Owner of the Lot to which such services are provided, and shall be an individual
Assessment charged against the Lot, secured by a lien against the Lot as provided in Article 3
above.
5.4 Negligence; Damage Caused by Condition in Lot. Each Owner shalt be
liable to the Association for all costs and expenses it incurs for Maintenance, Repair or
Replacement to the Common Areas, personal property, or any Lot or Home made necessary by
the neglect or negligence of the i7wner, any member of the Owner's family, or his or her Guests,
employees, invitees, agents or Tenants. In the event the Association is required to incur
expenses to Maintain the Lot, including the provision of any landscape services, or any expense
necessary in the Board's discretion to maintain any Home, such costs shall be an Individual
Assessment charged against the Lot, secured by a lien against the Lot as provided in Article 3
above.
5.5 Reimbursement. All costs and expenses incurred by the Association
under Sections 5.3 and 5.4 above, including attorney fees and costs connected with such matters,
shall be reimbursed to the Association by the Owner and shall constitute a service Assessment
against the Owner and his or her Lot.
6. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL TO PRESERVE THE BEAUTY
QUALITY AND VALUE OF THE COAEW NiTY
6.1 Improvements Requiring Approval. No building, Structure, roof,
enclosure or other improvement shall be erected or altered, nor shall any grading, excavation,
DECLARATEON
PACE 1.8
OR 5162 PG 468
driveway, landscaping, change of exterior color, or other work which in any way alters the
exterior appearance of any Structure or Lot shall occur unless and until complete and accurate
plans, specifications and location of saute shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing
by, the ARB. All plans and specifications shall be evaluated as to harmony of external design
and location in relation to surrounding Structures and topography. The ARB shall have thirty
(30) days after delivery of all required information, complete and accurate plans and materials to
approve or deny any such plan, and if not denied within such period, said plans shall be deemed
approved unless within the same period the Board of Directors denies the plan in which case
regardless of any action or inaction by the ARB the plan shall be deemed denied. The Board
may adopt reasonable Rules and Regulations the timely completion of various modification and
improvements based on the nature and scope of the modification or improvement_ The failure of
an Owner to timely complete any approved modification of improvement is a violation of the
Governing Documents and the Association may enforce the violation as provided herein,
including the right to enter the Lot and remedying the violation or removing any unapproved
improvements, with or without consent of the Owner, but only after reasonable notice of the
Association's intent to do so. All changes, alterations or modifications to an approved plan must
also be approved pursuant according to these same requirements. In the event that any
construction or improvement requires the presence of a dumpster, the ARB shall be permitted to
adopt reasonable Rules and Regulations concerning the duration, location and size of said
dumpster.
6.2 The ARS. The architectural review and control functions of the
Association shall be administered and performed by the ARB, which shall consist of at least
three (3) persons, all of whom shall be members of the Association_ No more than one (1)
Director may serve on the ARB at any time. All members of the ARB shall be appointed by and
shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors of the Association. Three (3) members of
the ARB shall constitute a quorum to transact business at any meeting of the ARB, and the action
of a majority present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall constitute the action of the
ARB. Any vacancy occurring on the ARB because of death, resignation, or other termination of
service of any member thereof, shall be filled by the Board of Directors. The members of the
ARB shall receive no compensation for services other than reimbursement for actual expenses
approved in advance by the Board of Directors incurred by thew in the performance of their
duties hereunder_ The ARB shall, with the prior approval of the Board of Directors, have the
power to engage the services of professionals for compensation for purposes of aiding the ARB
in carrying out its functions. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or
elsewhere all decisions of the ARB are subject to review by the Board of Directors and the Board
of Directors has the authority to overrule, void or otherwise modify in all respects any decision
of the ARB.
6.3 Powers and Duties. The ARB shall have the following powers and
duties:
(A) To recommend, from time to time, to the Board of Directors of the
Association the creation or modification and/or amendments to the Architectural Planning
Criteria. Any Architectural Planning Criteria or modifications or amendments thereto shall be
consistent with the provisions of this Declaration, and shall not be effective until adopted by a
DECLARATION
PAGE 19
OR 5162 PG 469
majority of the members of the Board of Directors of the Association at a meeting duly called
and noticed and at which a quorum is present. Notice of the adoption, modification or
amendment to the Architectural Planning Criteria, including a verbatim copy of such adoption,
change or modification, shall be delivered to each member. However, receipt of notice of a
Board meeting concerning the Architectural Planning Criteria or a copy of any adoption of or
modification or amendment to the Architectural Planning Criteria shall not affect the validity of
such change or modification.
(B) To require submission to the ARB of two (2) complete sets of all
plans and specifications the approval or disapproval for any improvement, Structure of any hind
or any other work which in any way alters the exterior appearance of any Structure, or Lot
including without limitation, any fence, well, swimming pool, roof, driveway, paint color of any
exterior Structure or home, screen enclosure, drain, landscape material, object or other
improvement, the construction or placement of which is proposed upon the Properties. The ARB
may also require submission of samples of building materials proposed for use on or as part of
any Home, and may require such additional information as may reasonably be necessary to
completely evaluate the proposed Structure or improvement in accordance with this Declaration
and the Architectural Planning Criteria. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the ARB or Board
of Directors shall have the right to make written request to the Board of Directors of the
Association within thirty (30) days of the decision, for a re -review thereof. The determination of
the Board upon re -reviewing any such decision shall in all events be final-
(C) To adopt a procedure for inspecting approved changes during and
after construction to insure conformity with approved plans. If it is determined by the ARB that
the improvement or work is not in compliance with the approved plans and specifications, then
upon written demand from the ARB the work shall be suspended until such time as the ARB
authorizes the work to be recommenced.
(D) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, if an
Owner is delinquent in the payment of Assessments, foes or other charges or has failed to
correct a violation of these covenants or the rules of the Association for which they have been
given notice, the processing of an application for approval of the ARB may be denied or
withheld pending payment of the Assessments, fines or other charges or correction of the
violation.
6.4 Variances. The ARB may authorize variances from compliance with any
of the architectural provisions of this Declaration when circumstances such as topography,
natural obstructions, hardship, aesthetic or the environment, which must be signed by at least
two-thirds (213) of the ARB. If such variances are granted, no violation of the covenants,
conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to have occurred with
respect to the matters for which the variances were granted. The granting of such a variance
shall not, however, operate to waive any of the terms and provisions of this Declaration for any
purpose except as to the particular property and particular provisions hereof covered by the
variance, nor shall it affect in any way the Owner's obligation to comply with all governmental
laws and regulations affecting his use of the Lot, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances
DECLARATION
PAGE 20
OR 5162 PG 470
and setback lines or requirements imposed by any governmental or municipal authority. The
Board of Directors may overrule and void any variance granted by the ARB if such action is
taken within twenty (20) days from the date the variance is received by the Board.
6.5 Non -liability of ARB Members. Neither the ARB nor any member
thereof, nor its duly authorized ARB representative, shall be liable to the Association or any
Owner or any other person or entity for any loss, damage, or injury arising out of or in any way
connected with the performance or nonperformance of the ARB's duties hereunder, unless due to
the willful misconduct or bad faith of a member, and only that member shall be liable therefore.
The ARB shall review and approve or disapprove all plans submitted to it for any proposed
improvement, alteration, or addition solely on the basis of aesthetic considerations and the
overall benefit or detriment which would result to Quail Creek and the immediate vicinity. The
ARB shall take into consideration the aesthetic aspects of the architectural designs, placement of
buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior finishes and materials and similar features, but
shall not be responsible for reviewing, nor shall its approval of any plan or design be deemed
approval from the standpoint of structural safety or conformance with building, health, or other
codes.
6.6 Violation. In the event an Owner installs improvements or modifies the
Owner's Lot without obtaining approval as required in this Article, the Association shall have
the right to institute legal proceedings to enforce compliance, or may take any and all other steps
necessary to remedy such violation, including, but not limited to, entering the Lot and remedying
the violation or removing any unapproved improvements, with or without consent of the Owner,
but only after reasonable notice of the Association's intent to do so. Any expense incurred by
the Association shall be billed directly to the Owner of the Lot to which such services are
provided, and shall be an individual Assessment charged against the Lot, secured by a lien
against the Lot as provided herein. The Association shall not be required to provide the Owner
with a hearing prior to enforcing this Article as provided herein, but may, in the Board's sole
discretion, elect to do so if requested by the Owner.
7. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8. USE RESTRICTIONS
The following rules and standards apply to Quail Creek and shall be enforced by the
Association pursuant to Section 13 hereof.
8.1 Air Conditioning Units. No window or wall air conditioning units shall
be permitted on any Lot_ Compressors and fans for central air conditioning or heat pump
systems which are located outside the exterior of a building shall be adequately screened to
prevent their being viewed from any street_
8.2 Antenna. No antenna of any kind shall be placed or erected upon any Lot
or affixed in any manner to the exterior of any building other than a satellite antenna less than
one meter in diameter, an aerial designed to receive over -the -air television broadcast, or an
antenna designed to receive multichannel, multi point distribution service which may be installed
DECLARATION
PAGE 21
OR 5162 PG 471
only at a location on a Lot approved by the ARB. In approving the installation and location of
any antenna the ARB shall comply with all applicable laws, whether state or federal.
8.3 Clotheslines. Clotheslines or drying yards shall be located so as not to be
visible from the streets or adjoining properties, or from the golf course.
8.4 Drainage. No changes in the elevations of any Lot or right-of-way shall
be made which will interfere with approved drainage or otherwise cause undue hardship to
adjoining property or the Quail Creek Golf Course.
8.5 Driveways. All driveways and off street parking areas installed on or
after the date Declaration is recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida shall be
constructed of concrete or pavers as approved by the ARB. The above provision shall not apply
to reconstruction efforts pursuant to Article 9.3 below or the Replacement of an existing
driveway not in compliance with this Section 8.5. Owners shall be responsible for the
Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of said driveway, including, but not limited to, peeling
paint, cracks, and heaving concrete or pavers.
8.6 Fences and Hedges. No fences, hedges or other obstruction shall be
constructed at, or near the boundaries of the Quail Creek: Golf Course_ At all times, complete
visibility of the Quail Creek Golf Course and its appurtenances shall be preserved. Fences and
other structural screens located elsewhere must be visually attractive, in keeping with the
architectural character of Quail Creek and must be approved by the Association through the
ARB. The ARB may authorize a variance from compliance with this Section in accordance with
Section 6.4 above when circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, hardship,
aesthetic or the environment, or other grounds deemed acceptable to the ARB in its sole
discretion_
8.7 Fuel Containers. All butane, propane or other fuel containers must be
permitted by Collier County and all fuel installations must be approved by the ARB.
8.8 Garage Sale. No garage sale, estate sale, flea market, auction, or similar
event shall be held on any Lot.
8.9 Garages.
(A) No garage shall be enclosed or converted to other use, including
residential use, without the approval of the ARB, which said approval must require construction
of another garage on the Lot meeting the requirements of this Declaration.
(B) All garages installed on or after the date of this Declaration is
recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida are prohibited from facing the street
of address of the Home. The above provision shall not apply to reconstruction efforts pursuant to
Article 9.3 below or the Replacement of an existing garage not in compliance with this Section
8.9(B)_
DECLA RATION
PAGE 22
OR 5162 PG 472
(C) Operable automatic doors will be provided for 0 garages. Garage
doors shall be closed except when vehicles are entering or exiting.
(D) Garage spaces are intended to be utilized for parking the number of
vehicles for which they are designed, and they shall be utilized in the following manner:
(i) No vehicle shall be parked in the driveway unless all garage
spaces at the Home are used for the parking of:
a. Permitted Vehicles.
b. Golf carts and motorcycles, except that in the event an
Owner owns a combination of two (2) golf carts and/or
motorcycles, the Owner must use one (1) parking space
for golf carts and/or motorcycles before any Permitted
Vehicles may be parked outside of the garage.
(ii) If all garage spaces are used in satisfaction of this Section
8.6, other Permitted Vehicles may be parked in the driveway.
(iii) All vehicles required to be kept in a garage must reasonably
fit in the garage space, as determined by the Board in its
discretion. If, as of the date this section is recorded, an
Owner owns a vehicle which is too large to reasonably fit in
a garage space, the Owner may park the vehicle in the
Owner's driveway until such time as the Owner sells or
otherwise disposes of the oversized vehicle, at which time the
Owner shall thereafter be subject to the size requirements of
this section. Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall a
Prohibited Vehicle or Recreational Vehicle be parked in the
driveway except as expressly provided in Section 8.14 below.
(iv) An Owner may utilize a single garage space for storage up to
thirty (30) days, and no more than one (1) time per calendar
year, with prior written notice to the Board, or for greater
than thirty (30) days only upon prior written approval by the
Board, which may be granted pursuant to standards adopted
by the Board from time to time.
(v) As long as there are no vehicles parked in the driveway,
garage spaces can be used for any lawful purpose, except that
no garage may be converted to residential or other use
without the approval of the ARB as provided for in
subsection (A) herein_
(vi) Upon written notice from the Association regarding a
DECLARATION
PACE 23
OFF 5162 PG 473
specific violation of this Section 8.9, the burden shall be on
the Owner to show that he or she is in compliance. An Owner
failing to verify his or her compliance with this section will
be presumed to be in violation.
(E) There shall be no vehicles parked in driveways with "For Sale"
signs inside or outside vehicles, or with car covers. Owners may wash and wax vehicles in the
driveway and all other Maintenance or Repairs of any vehicle shall be conducted inside the
garage.
8.10 Home. Each Home shall be occupied by only one Family at any time.
Each Home shall be used as a residence and for no other purpose. However, "no impact" or
"low impact" Home based business in and from a Home, such as receiving mail at the Home or
corresponding from a Home office, is allowed. Such uses are expressly declared customarily
incident to residential use. Examples of businesses which are prohibited and are considered
"impact" businesses are businesses or commercial activity or ventures that create excessive
customer traffic to and from the Home, create noise audible from outside the Home, the use of a
Home as a promotional item or commercial perk, using the Home as a temporary residence for
employees of a Tenant or Owner, or generate fumes or odors noticeable outside the Home,
including but not limited to, a home day care, beauty salon/barber, and animal breeding. Signs
and other advertising material visible from the street are prohibited. This provision is intended to
be and shall be retroactive to and effective from the date of recording of the original Declaration,
however any persons in violation of this amended provision on the date it is recorded in the
Public Record shall be given a grace period of up to ninety (90) days to comply before
enforcement action shall be commenced_ to order to avoid undue hardship the Board of
Directors may, in its sole discretion, extend the grace period once for up to an additional ninety
(90) days.
8.11 Landscaping. All areas of Lots not covered by Structures, walkways or
paved parking facilities shall be maintained by their Owners as lawn or landscaped areas to the
pavement edge or any abutting streets and to the waterline of any abutting lakes, canals or water
management areas. Stone, gravel, artificial turf, or paving may not be used as a substitute for
grass in a lawn. All lawns and landscaping shall be completed at the time of completion of the
Structure as evidenced by the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the appropriate
governmental agency, and shall thereafter be kept in good condition by the Owner. Lawns must
be regularly cut and mulched areas regularly re -mulched. The landscaping on Lots, including
without limitation, the trees, shrubs, lawns, flower beds, walkways and ground elevations, shall
be properly trimmed and maintained by the Owner thereof in good and healthy condition, shall
not be allowed to remain if diseased, dead or dying, and shall otherwise comply with Article b
herein.
8.12 Lot Structures. The floor area of any Home constructed on any Lot shall
contain not less than 3,500 square feet of living area except for buildings located on Rosewood
Lane which shall contain not less than 4,000 square feet of living area. The living area shall be
defined as the portion of the Home which has finished walls, ceilings and floors and which is
insulated, heated and/or air conditioned. A minimum of a two -car garage is required. The floor
DECLAAA.TtON
PAGE 24