Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>



  • pg 1


REZONING:                     DR12011-00004
APPLICANT:                    WCI COMMUNITIES, LLC., in reference to GATEWAY DRI & PUD
HEARING DATE:                 NOVEMBER 9, 2011


       This matter came before the Lee County Hearing Examiner as an Application for a Notice of
       Propose Change (NOPC) to the Gateway DRI and Amendment to the Gateway PUD
       pursuant to the Lee County Land Development Code (LDC).

       Walden Center Drive, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (Applicant/Owner); RWA, INC., c/o
       PATRICK VANASSE, AICP, 1550 Carson Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901; RWA, INC., c/o
       CHRISTOPHER O. SCOTT, AICP, LEED-AP, 1550 Carson Street, Fort Myers, Florida
       33901; PAVESE LAW FIRM, c/o NEALE MONTGOMERY, P.O. Box 1507, Fort Myers,
       Florida 33902; PASSARELLA & ASSOCIATES, 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200, Fort
       Myers, Florida 33912; DAVID PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES, 2271 McGregor Boulevard, Suite
       200, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Agents).

       Request is for a Notice to Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Gateway DRI (State Number DRI
       1-8384-36) AND Amendment to the Gateway PUD (PUD ZAB 85-43 as amended), to amend
       the boundary of the DRI by removing 185 acres located in the City of Fort Myers.

       The subject property is located south of Colonial Boulevard and SR 82, east of 1-75 and north
       of Daniels Parkway, Fort Myers Planning Community, Sections 1 and 2, Township 45 South,
       Range 25 East, Section 31, Township 44 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17,
       18, and 19, Township 45 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. (District#5)


       The Department of Community Development Staff Report was prepared by Nettie M
       Richardson. The Staff Report is incorporated herein by this reference.


       The undersigned Lee County Hearing Examiner recommends that the Lee County Board of
       County Commissioners APPROVE the Applicant's request for Notice of Proposed Change
       (NOPC) to the Gateway DRI (State Number DRI 1-8384-36) AND Amendment to the
       Gateway PUD (PUD ZAB 85-43 as amended), to amend the boundary of the DRI by
       removing 185 acres for the real estate described in Section IX. Legal Description WITH THE

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 1
      A.       CONDITIONS:

              1.     The development of the Gateway DRI must be consistent with the one page
      Revised Map H Plan entitled "Gateway - PUD/DRI NOPC," stamped received by Community
      Development on November 22, 2011 and attached as Exhibit "B," except as modified by the
      conditions below.

                2.     The development of the Gateway DRI must be in compliance with the
      Gateway DRI Development Order#1-8384-36, as amended. All terms and conditions remain
      in full force and effect except as may be otherwise modified herein.

              3.     The terms and conditions of the original Gateway PUD Ordinance, Ordinance
      85-15, as amended, remain in full force and effect except as may be otherwise modified by
      this approval.

            4.       The density of the remaining portion of the Gateway Community DRI may not
      exceed six units per acre.


      This is a request to modify the Gateway DRI to remove about 185 acres from the northwest
      side of the 2,485-acre development located north of Daniels Parkway, east of 1-75 and west
      of State Road (SR) 82. The DRI is abutted on the north by the now-closed County landfill,
      on the south by Daniels Parkway, on the east by SR 82 and Lehigh Acres, and on the west
      by Pelican Preserve and The Plantation residential communities. It is zoned PUD, and is
      deSignated New Community, Wetlands and Public Facilities in the Lee Plan.


      There were no outstanding issues between Staff and Applicant in this request. However,
      several Gateway residents and members of the Gateway Services Community Development
      District (CDD) raised a couple of concerns about language changes to the DRI Development
      Order (DO), and the loss of revenue from the transfer of the 185 acres.

      PLEASE NOTE: Both the Hearing Examiner and County Attorney advised these residents
      that the Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to determine the rights and obligations
      of WCI and the CDD, with regard to the DRl's roads. In addition, the Hearing Examiner
      clearly has no authority to order another legal or governmental entity to reimburse the CDD
      for its anticipated lost revenue. The discussion was included herein to give the BOCC some
      background on these issues, as the public was not satisfied with the Hearing Examiner's and
      County Attorney's explanations, and are expected to attend the BOCC zoning hearing to
      bring these matters up.

             1) The CDD was very concerned about proposed revisions to Section 3.10 in the DRI
      Development Order (DO), which relates to the ownership, maintenance and operation of
      Gateway Boulevard, Commerce Lakes Drive and Griffin Boulevard. Section 3.10 in the Ninth
      DO Amendment was badly revised, and the result was that neither the language nor the intent
      was clear. Applicant was proposing language that would clarify the intent of that requirement.

Case DR12011-00004                                                        20-Dec-11 - Page 2
      Sections of Gateway Boulevard, Commerce Lakes Drive and Griffin Boulevard are owned,
      maintained and operated by both WCI and the COD. At some point in the past, the COD
      obtained ownership, with maintenance rights and obligations, for specific segments of these
      three roads, with WCI having ownership and maintenance rights and obligations for the
      remainder. Both WCI and the COD will be involved in whatever action is taken relating to the
      future ownership, operation and maintenance of these roads.

      The COD fears that WCI will dedicate its portions of these roads to Lee County, without
      providing for the safety of the residents, and are adamant that this not be allowed to happen.
      They noted that the COD has been negotiating with Lee County DOT (LCDOT) about
      accepting their portions of these roadways, but with stringent conditions intended to protect
      the residents and their quality of life. They are trying to get LCDOT to enter into an interlocal
      agreement about the use and maintenance of these roads, and WCI has not been party to
      those negotiations. If WCI dedicates their portions of these roads without those conditions,
      it will undermine the COD's efforts to bring LCDOT around to their way of thinking.

      The COD is also concerned that WCI will try to give those roads to the COD, without dOing
      any improvements to them. They would accept WCl's roadways, provided the roads have
      been brought up to the County's standards. However, they do not want language in the DRI
      DO that appears to give WCI the right to give the roads, but does not give the COD the right
      to refuse them. They also wanted the language changed to give the COD the right to enter
      interlocal agreements with LCDOT for the future maintenance and use of the roads and the
      ability to stop WCI from giving the roads away, without the COD's consent.

      The COD also wants the roads reclassified to collector or local, as an effort to reduce some
      of the traffic flow through this site. In the alternative, they want the ability to install some type
      of traffic calming devices, on these roads, to slow down the traffic.

      The residents and COD's concerns relate to the safety of the residents, the destruction of the
      residential nature of their community, and the cost of the maintenance, which will be borne
      by the Gateway residents, if the roads are not accepted by the County. They pointed out
      there is already a lot of non-Gateway traffic using those roadways, which adversely affects
      their community. They also fear that their roads will become the primary shortcut for Lehigh
      and other east Lee County residents to get to the Red Sox stadium, when it opens next year.
      They believe that WCI is almost built out and does not want to have any ties to the
      community, once the build out happens.

      They asked the Hearing Examiner to require WCI to work with them and LCDOT about the
      future ownership and maintenance of those roadways. They also wanted the Hearing
      Examiner to confirm, in the DRI DO, that the COD has the right to enter into independent
      interlocal agreements with Lee County about these roads.

      Applicant had no objections to including a sentence in Section 3.10 that reflected the COD,
      as a standalone legal entity, has the right to enter into an agreement with Lee County about
      the COD's roadways. They also had no problems including a sentence that acknowledged
      that COD has the right to refuse to accept the portions of roadways owned by WCI. However,
      neither Staff nor the Applicant accepted the rest of the demands being put forth by the COD.
      They both asserted that the Hearing Examiner has no jurisdiction over private entities with
      disputes over certain property or contract rights. They argued that neither the Hearing
      Examiner nor the BOCC could grant the COD's requests.

Case DR12011-00004                                                             20-Dec-11 - Page 3
      LCOOT advised that they will not accept the roads until the roads are improved to meet the
      County's standards, and they will not agree to reclassifying those roads to collector or local
      roadway status. Those roadways were classified arterials when the ORI was approved, and
      LCOOT will not downgrade that classification. Also, Lee County is not amenable to the use
      of traffic calming devices on the roads, as it will hinder the flow of traffic, which is not
      consistent with the intent of arterial roads.

              2) The COO also argued that Staff was incorrect when they found that there were
      no impacts to sewer and water, because the removal of the 185 acres definitely affected the
      COD's ability to fund the provision of sewer and water to the remainder of the Gateway lands.
      The COO's second concern related to the loss of revenue the COD would experience, when
      the 185 acres were transferred into the City of Fort Myers. Once that acreage is transferred
      into the City's boundaries, the property will no longer be serviced by the COD.

      The COD stated that the 185 acres were intended for development with residential units, and
      the COD was to supply the sewer and water services to those units. When the 185 acres are
      transferred into the City, the COD will "lose" those "customers." According to their
      calculations, the COD will lose about $650,000 in water and sewer connection fees, as well
      as about $600,000 in consumption fees - over the 12-year life of the public bonds financing
      the Gateway water/sewer project - that would have been generated by the number of houses
      that were to be built on that 185 acres. The COD wants "someone" to compensate them for
      those monies. They asserted that the loss of $1.2 million is certainly an adverse impact,
      caused by Applicant's removal of the acreage from the Gateway ORI.

      Staff responded their finding was that the transfer of the 185 acres did not create new or
      unaddressed regional demand for or impacts of water and sewer services; any demand for
      water and sewer services to the 185 acres would be accommodated by the City.

      The COD initially requested that the Hearing Examiner order the City to pay the monies,
      which the Hearing Examiner has no authority to do. It was suggested that the COD take its
      concerns and demands to the City Council. Then, the COD wanted to know if the Hearing
      Examiner could order WCI to reimburse them, since it is WCI's actions that are going to result
      in those losses. Again, the Hearing Examiner explained that this matter is not properly before
      her, and that she has no authority to do what they are requesting.


      The Gateway ORI was originally approved in May 1985, for a mix of residential types and
      business/commercial/office uses, with support facilities and ancillary non-residential uses.
      It was zoned PUO at that time, as planned development zoning districts had not been
      adopted in the County's zoning Ordinance. The ORI Development Order (~O) has been
      amended nine times, since 1985, to address changes in the plans of development and mix
      of uses, to establish a conversion ratio between office/commercial and residential units, to
      extend the build-out and commencement dates, and to amend the legal description for the
      ORI to remove acreage annexed into the City of Fort Myers.

      The changes requested herein affect only the ORI DO; no changes are proposed to the PUO
      approval. This request is to remove the 185-acre parcel, identified as Area 2, Unit 6 in the
      Gateway Master Site Plan, from the Gateway ORI so that it can be added into the Pelican

Case OR12011-00004                                                        20-0ec-11 - Page 4
        Preserve DRI, which lies on Gateway's west boundary.' Since Pelican Preserve and the 185
        acres are within the City of Fort Myers, the addition of the 185 acres and revision of the
        Pelican Preserve's boundaries will be handled by the City.

       It was explained that both Gateway and Pelican Preserve are owned by Applicant, and the
       185-acre parcel was developed as part of the Pelican Preserve golf course. That parcel is
       physically located within the Gateway boundaries, and has been governed by the Gateway
       DRI DO. Inclusion of that acreage into the Pelican Preserve DRI will place the entire golf
       course under the terms of the Pelican Preserve DRI DO.

       This 185 acres was annexed into the City in 2004, as part of a 417 -acre parcel that Applicant
       had intended to add to the Pelican Preserve property. However, the boundaries (legal
       descriptions) of the Pelican Preserve and the Gateway DRI's were never adjusted to reflect
       that annexation. Recently, Applicant decided to de-annex 232 of that 417 acres and "return"
       them to Gateway, which is in unincorporated Lee County. That is the reason the NOPC filed
       herein encompasses only the 185 acres, that are being transferred. The de-annexation
       petition was to be heard by the City during November 2011.

       Applicant explained that the removal of that 185 acres from the Gateway DRI property will not
       result in any increase in density, intensity or changes to Gateway's previously approved plan
       of development. In addition, it will not result in any increase in density, intensity or significant
       changes to the Preserve's plan of development.

       Basically, this amendment is to correct the legal description of the Gateway DRI, but
       Applicant has requested several minor corrections/changes to the DRI DO, as well. For
       instance, statutory monitoring requirements have changed from annual reporting to biennial
       reporting, and the DRI DO needs to be updated to reflect a biennial reporting requirement,
       and a current monitoring report needs to be filed with Southwest Florida Regional Planning
       Council (RPC), state agency and other local agencies/governments. Also, the DRI Map H
       needs to be updated to reflect the latest boundaries resulting from the removal of that 185

       Applicant was also asking to reduce the setback along the landfill property from 660 to 40
       feet. They explained that, when they prepared Map H for the original approval, the landfill
       was still in operation and they put in the 660-foot setback. That setback was really classified
       as a "holding area" that would be designed and developed after the landfill finally closed. The
       landfill has been closed for a number of years now, and Applicant wants to reduce the
       setback to the 40-foot depth. That way, they can develop that remaining 620-foot-wide strip,
       instead of having it remain vacant acreage. That 660-foot-wide strip was never used toward
       meeting any of the DRl's open space, buffer or environmental requirements. Thus, the
       reduction to a 40-foot width along the north boundary does not trigger any of the DRI
       substantial deviation criteria.

       1   The Pelican Preserve DRI was approved in 2000 by the City of Fort Myers, under the
name of "Sun City Fort Myers DRI." It lies on the west side of the Gateway DRI, and the east
side of Treeline Boulevard. Although an interconnection is shown on the aerial photographs, the
two ORis are separate and independent of each other, and do not share any cross access

Case DR12011-00004                                                             20-Dec-11 - Page 5
      Applicant asserted that requested changes do not constitute a substantial deviation, under
      the provisions of Section 380.06(19), Fla. Stat. They advised that the Southwest Florida
      Regional Planning Council (RPC) reviewed and approved the proposed boundary changes,
      finding that the proposed changes did not constitute a substantial deviation and would not
      require any additional regional impact review. They noted that the RPC requested the
      revisions to Map H and the updating of the monitoring requirements and other language.

      Staff concurred with Applicant's assertions and arguments, finding that the request, as
      described herein, is consistent with the intent of the Lee Plan, the Land Development Code
      and Section 380.06, Fla. Stat., and will still be consistent and compatible with the mix of uses
      in the area. They also found that the proposed changes will not adversely affect any of the
      existing or future uses or environmental conditions in the area, or affect the public health,
      safety and welfare. Staff confirmed that no changes were being made to the PUD approval
      or approved plan of development.

      They agreed with Applicant and the RPC that the proposed changes do not constitute a
      substantial deviation under the provisions of Section 380.06(19), Fla. Stat. As did the RPC,
      Staff found that the changes would not create nor result in new regional impacts in the area,
      and that no additional DRI review is necessary.

      Environmental Staff determined that the reduction of the 185 acres from the Gateway DRI
      would not reduce open or preserved space, and would not adversely affect any
      environmentally sensitive areas or protected species. They made the same finding about the
      inclusion of the 185 acres into the Pelican Preserve DRI. Those findings were consistent with
      the findings made by the RPC Staff.


      The public's discussion is set out in the Issues section above.

      Hearing Examiner Analysis

      The undersigned Hearing Examiner concurs with Staff's analysis, findings and
      recommendation of approval of the requested changes, finding that the requested changes
      are consistent with the intent and provisions of the Lee Plan, the Land Development Code,
      and Section 380.06, Fla. Stat. She also finds that the changes will not adversely impact the
      persons or properties in the vicinity of the properties, or the public health, safety and welfare.

      In this case, amendments to the DRI DO do not follow the common amendment process of
      other ORis, because this DRI was adopted as a PUD - not a planned development. In the
      customary procedures, the previously adopted or amended DRI DO is used as the foundation
      document for the new amendments. Any provision not being changed is simply brought
      forward "as is" into the "new" amendment. Thus, only the provisions relating to the NOPC
      amendment at issue are changed, making it easy to track all the provisions of the DRI DO
      from the original approval to the latest amendment.

      In this case, each DRI DO amendment relates only to the changes being requested in the
      current NOPC; these amendments do not bring forward the unrevised provisions from the
      original DRI DO or preceding amendments. This results in numerous DRI DO amendments,
      which are all applicable to the DRI development. Thus, to understand all the requirements

Case DR12011-00004                                                           20-Dec-11 - Page 6
      in the ORI ~O, Staff has to pull all the previous amendments and compare them. That was
      how the language in Section 3.10 got messed up.

      Applicant realized that the mistakes that had been made in the Fourth and Ninth
      Amendments were because there had been no comparison with the previous Amendments.
      They were trying to straighten out the language to achieve the intent of the language in the
      original ORI ~O, without losing any of the requirements added through those two
      Amendments. This proposed change gave rise to the objections from the public discussed
      in the Issues section hereinabove.

      In addition to the objections discussed above, certain residents argued that the public notice
      was insufficient to place the public on notice of the ALL the proposed changes to the ORI ~O.
      They noted that the published notice said nothing about "text changes" and, when discussing
      the matter with the public before the hearing, Staff never told the public about the text
      changes, either. They wanted the Hearing Examiner to declare the notice to be insufficient
      and to continue the hearing until all Gateway residents could be re-noticed of all the proposed
      changes to the ORI ~O. They asserted that many of the residents were concerned about the
      future ownership and maintenance of their roads, and would certainly have been at the
      hearing, if they had known about the proposed text change. The re-notice would give more
      residents the opportunity to attend the rescheduled hearing to tell the Hearing Examiner how
      they felt.

      The Hearing Examiner denied the COD's request to postpone the hearing, so that new
      notices could be provided to other Gateway residents. She found that the COD was not a
      party to this case, and was not under the jurisdiction of the County or the Hearing Examiner.
      As such, the COD has no standing in this proceeding. In addition, she found that the public
      was not being denied due process, or being prejudiced, in any way, as several residents and
      members of the COD were at the hearing and were provided the opportunity to speak on
      these matters, even though these matters could not be resolved by the Hearing Examiner or
      the BOCC. She found that the COD, particularly, had other legal Uudicial) means to resolve
      their concerns, which did not involve Lee County government or the Hearing Examiner zoning

      She noted that Applicant and Staff had made two changes to Section 3.10 based on the
      COD's request. In the first change, they recognized that the COD had the right to enter into
      interlocal agreements with Lee County about the roadway sections owned by the COD. In
      the second change, Applicant and Staff acknowledged that the COD could refuse to accept
      the dedication or donation of the roadway segments owned by WCI. Applicant explained,
      in the hearing, that the COD is a legal entity and WCI was not trying to usurp or disrupt any
      of the powers and rights of the COD with regard to these matters.

      Staff, Applicant and the SWFRPC agree that the NOPC is not a substantial deviation, under
      the provisions of Section 380.06(19), Fla. Stat. The Hearing Examiner concurs with their
      finding that the changes proposed in this NOPC does not constitute a substantial deviation,
      so, no additional regional review is necessary.

      It is the opinion of the Hearing Examiner that the conditions imposed in the ORI DO are
      rationally related to any impacts associated with the NOPC changes, and, with other
      regulations, will provide sufficient safeguard to the public interest.

Case OR12011-00004                                                         20-0ec-11 - Page 7

      Based upon the Staff Report, the testimony and exhibits presented in connection with this
      matter, the undersigned Hearing Examiner makes the following findings and conclusions:

      A.     That the Applicant has proved entitlement to this request, as conditioned in the DRI
      DO, by demonstrating compliance with the Lee Plan, the Land Development Code, Florida
      Statutes, and other applicable codes or regulations.

      B.      That the requested changes meet or exceed all performance and locational standards
      set forth for the potential uses allowed by the request.

      C.      That the requested changes are still consistent with the densities, intensities and
      general uses set forth in the Lee Plan, and remain compatible with existing or planned uses
      in the surrounding area.

      D.    That approval of the requested changes, as conditioned in the DRI DO, will not place
      an undue burden upon existing transportation or planned infrastructure facilities, and the
      development will be served by streets with the capacity to carry traffic it generates.

      E.     That the request, as conditioned, will not adversely affect environmentally critical
      areas and natural resources, and the use of the 620-foot-wide strip, of the previously
      deSignated reserve area, will not result in the loss of any preserve areas, open space or
      required buffer.

      F.      That the proposed mix of uses, as conditioned, are still appropriate at the subject

      G.      That the recommended changes and conditions in the DRI DO are rationally related
      to the impacts anticipated from the proposed development, and, with other regulations, will
      provide sufficient safeguard to the public interest.

      H.     That urban services, as defined in the Lee Plan, remain available and adequate to
      serve the remainder of the DRI, once the 185 acres have been transferred to the Pelican
      Preserve DRI.

      I.     That the requested changes do not create new or additional unreviewed regional
      impacts and do not constitute a Substantial Deviation under Section 380.06(19), Fla. Stat.

      J.      That the Hearing Examiner has no authority to require WCI or any other legal or
      governmental entity to accede to the demands for reimbursement of anticipated loses being
      made by the Gateway Services Community Development District. Such authority rests solely
      with the Florida judicial system.



      1.     Two (2) 2011 aerial photograph, prepared by Lee County Department of Community
             Development, printed November 2011 (8.5"x11 ")[color]

Case DR12011-00004                                                      20-Dec-11 - Page 8
       Resumes of Lee County Staff are on file with the Hearing Examiner's Office and are
       incorporated herein.


       1.     Eleventh Development Order Amendment - Draft - Development of Regional Impact
              #8384-36 (multiple pages - 8.5"x11 ")

       2.      Original & ten (10) amended Development Order for Gateway - Development of
               Regional Impact #1-8384-36 (multiple pages - 8.5"x11")

       3.      Pelican Preserve Annexation Exhibit, prepared by RWA Consulting, updated by June
               16, 2011 (11 "x17")[color]

       4.     Gateway PUD/DRI aerial photograph depicting the 185 acres to be removed,
              prepared by RWA Consulting, dated August 5, 2011 (11"x17")[color]

       5.     Landfill/Residential Separation, prepared by RWA Consulting, dated November 7,
              2011 (11 "x17")[color]

       6.     Aerial of north corner at Landfill (8.5"x11 ")[color]

       7.     Conservation Areas, prepared by RWA Consulting, dated November 7, 2011
              (11 "x17")[color]

       8.     Memorandum from Nettie Richardson to the Hearing Examiner, dated November 29,
              2011, of revised Map H (1 page - 8.5"x 11" & 1 - page 11 "x17" & 1 page -
              24"x36"){post hearing submittal}

       Resumes of Applicant's consultants are on file with the Hearing Examiner's Office and are
       incorporated herein.


       1.     Pires letter with attachments, dated November 9, 2011


       The Hearing Examiner introduced herself and the case, after which the Assistant County
       Attorney, Michael Jacob, made his opening comments about the public hearing process. He
       explained that today's hearing was one of two hearings in this matter, and, if they wanted to
       speak before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), they had to speak in this hearing.
       Their concerns, questions and objections would be addressed by the Hearing Examiner in
       her Recommendation.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 9
      He asked that anyone wishing to speak or receive a copy of the Hearing Examiner's
      Recommendation fill out a Public Participation Form and submit it to the Hearing Examiner
      before the end of the hearing. At the conclusion of Staff's presentation, the Hearing
      Examiner would open the floor for public comment and that was the time the public could
      address the Hearing Examiner on this matter. He asked that they indicate the location of
      their property on the aerial photographs displayed on the bulletin board, if possible.

      At the close of those opening remarks, the participants seated at the front table introduced
      themselves. The County was represented by: Nettie Richardson, Principal Planner with the
      Lee County Zoning Division, and Mr. Jacob, Assistant County Attorney. The Applicant was
      represented by: Patrick Vanasse, a Planner with RWA, Inc.; Neale Montgomery, Attorney;
      and Barry Ernst, the Director of Planning and Permitting with WCI Communities.

      At that point, the Hearing Examiner explained that cell phones needed to be turned off, and
      that water was the only beverage allowed in the hearing room. She advised that all comments
      and concerns raised by the public need to be relevant to the matter before her; neighborhood
      disputes and personality differences have no bearing on her decision. The Hearing Examiner
      then placed all of the participants under oath.

      Ms. Montgomery re-introduced herself, and referenced a letter written by Mr. Pires to Ms.
      Richardson on November 9,2011. She wanted to discuss the first item in that letter with the
      Hearing Examiner and Mr. Jacob, but the Hearing Examiner commented that she did not
      have a copy of that letter. A copy was then handed to her for the record.

      Ms. Montgomery noted that paragraph one suggested that the hearing could not be held as
      scheduled. She noted that Mr. Jacob and the Hearing Examiner had a copy of the
      Administrative Code AC 2-8, which relates to notice, and inquired whether it was the County's
      opinion that the notice provided in this case was appropriate and sufficient. Mr. Jacob
      responded that, with regard to DRI Development Orders (DO) and DRI amendments, the only
      items advertised in the Notice were the substantive matters before the Hearing Examiner.
      The discussion in Mr. Pires' letter related to proposed changes regarding traffic. In Mr.
      Jacob's opinion, the proposed changes were not substantive; they were merely clarifications.
      He pointed out that Mr. Pires would have his own position regarding that.

      Mr. Jacob explained, in many DOs and DRls, the changes proposed were clarifications and
      restatements, and some were just to clean up the language. Those types of changes were
      not advertised, as the County did not try to include everything being amended in the DRI DO.
      He could not imagine how long those advertisements would be if they did. It was the
      County's position that it should only be included if it was substantive. For that reason, he was
      leaving, up to the Hearing Examiner, the decision of whether the proposed changes were
      substantive or merely clarifications.

      Ms. Montgomery noted that the language referenced by Mr. Jacob was located on page five
      of the Administrative Code, under "D," at the top. She then read the following: "a description
      of the substantive request with sufficient detail so as to advise the public as to what the
      application may encompass, but it need not describe the proposed plans or details thereof"
      She did not know if the Hearing Examiner wanted Mr. Pires to address this issue now or wait
      until public partiCipation was allowed. The Hearing Examiner wanted to know if Mr. Pires
      meant his letter to be a challenge to jurisdiction, since she had not had an opportunity to read
      it. Ms. Montgomery stated that it did not say that explicitly. Then, the Hearing Examiner
      called upon Mr. Pires.

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 10
      Anthony Paul Pires Jr., introduced himself for the record, noting that he was with the Law
      Firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. He was representing the Gateway Services
      Community Development District (CDD) at this hearing. The Hearing Examiner commented
      that she had not had an opportunity to review his letter, and asked Mr. Pires to explain to her
      the purpose of the letter.

      Mr. Pires stated there were a number of aspects for the letter, but the initial aspect was as
      mentioned by Ms. Montgomery and Mr. Jacob. Mr. Pires provided copies and noted that item
      number one referenced a notice in the Fort Myers News-Press, which he printed from the
      online version. There was no reference in that notice that there would be any proposed
      changes to any portion of the text of the DRI DO. It merely stated that the purpose of the
      DRI and PUD amendment was to amend the boundary of the DRI by removing 185 acres
      located in the City of Fort Myers.

      He and his clients believed that the proposed changes could be construed as substantive,
      rather than a mere clarification. They also had some additional comments that he would make
      during the course of the hearing as to some other clarification aspects of the language. Mr.
      Pires thought that the public, as a whole, was not put on notice that there would be any
      changes to the text of the DRI DO. He pointed out that one of the areas in there was that the
      CDD did not have zoning or land use powers, but there was also language in the text that
      addressed setbacks. Mr. Pires did not know if Mr. Jacob would believe that to be non-
      substantive either. He explained that was not an issue that the CDD gets involved in, but
      maybe the public as a whole would consider that to be a substantive matter.

      The Hearing Examiner wanted to confirm that Mr. Pires' objection to the content of the notice
      was not necessarily on behalf of his client, but was on behalf of the general public. Mr. Pires
      stated that it was on behalf of his client, adding that one party might think it was a
      clarification, while another party might think it was substantive. His client believed the
      transportation issues were substantive - agreeing that some parts of it were clarification.
      There were other provisions that could be construed to be substantive when they were
      changing setbacks.

      Mr. Jacob asked Mr. Pires to go over the portions that he thought to be substantive;
      specifically he wanted Mr. Pires to clarify to which DRI DO he was referencing, as there is
      a total of 11 amendments on this DRI. After copies were distributed, Ms. Montgomery
      indicated to the Hearing Examiner that all of the changes were required to be indicated in
      Item 13 of the Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) form. She then advised that she had
      given the Hearing Examiner the draft of the DRI DO, and referred to page 2, Condition 10,
      noting there has been an ongoing email dialogue about Condition 10.

      First, Ms. Montgomery referred to the original language, which she knew the Hearing
      Examiner was familiar with, and then she referred to the Fourth Amendment, which changed
      the original language. In the Ninth Amendment, the language was again changed when
      Worthington came in and took out the residential to become Stoneybrook. Since the Ninth
      Amendment did not follow the language from the Fourth Amendment, it created a little
      confusion in future amendments. Ms. Montgomery made some adjustments to what they had
      put in the NOPC in an attempt to try to clarify that situation and in an attempt to address the
      concern that Mr. Simmons raised. She thought that she was addressing Mr. Pires' concerns,
      but she was not sure that she had.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 11
      Next, she referred to the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4, which was language being
      changed by the Applicant. Ms. Montgomery stated that the matter of to whom the roads get
      dedicated has kind of vacillated for a period of time. They were trying to finally clear up the
      situation and have all the changes that had happened consolidated into one change. WCI
      is obligated to turn the roads over to somebody at some point in time. Originally, they were
      going to turn them over to the County, but instead of clearly saying: "You are going to turn
      it over to the County," it said: "Exempted from this requirement." Ms. Montgomery said that
      it was like saying something positive in a negative way, which was not particularly clear.

      It was made very clear in the Fourth Amendment that they would turn the roads over, but,
      then, the Ninth Amendment changed that. The thought was that, maybe, they would turn the
      roads over to the Gateway Services District instead. Then the language vacillated between
      that and "No, we are going to go back to giving them to the County." Ms. Montgomery stated
      that she had gotten calls and information that she understood to be that the Gateway
      Services District wanted to remain as an option for receiving the three arterials. However,
      she had just learned from Mr. Pires that the District does not want the roads. Therefore, she
      thought the DRI amendment could just clearly indicate that Griffin Drive, Commerce Lakes
      Drive, and Gateway Boulevard were to be given to the County.

      Mr. Simmons wanted to make it clear that the Applicant had to follow the County's
      Administrative Code, which the Applicant knew they had to do. Therefore, the Applicant did
      not mind saying that in the amendment. It was a true statement, regardless of whether it was
      or was not put in the amendment. The Applicant had to follow the rules. Ms. Montgomery
      stated that the issue was the clarification of that language of substantive change.

      The Hearing Examiner surmised that Mr. Pires did not want the dedication of the roads to
      him, but Mr. Pires indicated that was a misunderstanding. At the present time, the policy of
      the District's Board of Supervisors was for the referenced roads to be turned over to Lee
      County; the District had no problems with that occurring, however, the problems the District
      had related to the language changes. He pointed out that what was being handed out at this
      hearing was different from what was contained in the NOPC and Exhibit "H" to the Staff

      He thought that, by the nature of the detailed discussion, it showed that it was a substantive
      matter in this DRI DO. As such, it should have been advertised, so that everybody would
      have had a clear understanding of the request. Mr. Pires understood that many people had
      called to ask for information on the NOPC. He conceded they were members of the public,
      not of the District's Board of Supervisors, per se, and those people were told that it was just
      to change the boundaries. He indicated the some other members of the community who
      were present and wanted to speak could confirm his statements. Mr. Pires asserted that,
      from the standpoint of the public being on notice and the interested parties being involved,
      the hearing may not have been properly advertised. They had concerns about that.

      Ms. Montgomery commented that Mr. Pires was correct that the language being handed out
      was different from that in the NOPC, but she did not mind if they went back to the language
      in the NOPC. She had been trying to make everybody happy; if she had not done that, and
      they would be happier with the other language, she was okay going back to it. She just
      believed the latest language was better. Mr. Pires appreciated Ms. Montgomery handing the
      changed language to him out in the hall a few minutes earlier, but he had not really had an
      opportunity to adjust it or discuss it with his client, the District's Board of Supervisors.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 12
      Then, Mr. Jacob noted that they had a couple of options. If everybody thought the text
      change was substantive, the option was to strike all the text changes and proceed with just
      the removal of the property. He believed there were differing opinions on the text changes,
      but that the hearing was really about the removal of the property lying within the City's limits.
      That was really the matter before the Hearing Examiner at this time; OR, if the Hearing
      Examiner thought they were substantive changes that needed to be advertised, then she
      could remand the case to Staff for additional notice and it would be rescheduled for public

      The Hearing Examiner referred to Mr. Jacob's first option, but Ms. Montgomery stated that
      option was not acceptable, since the Applicant will have to file another NOPC and go through
      the process all over again. The Hearing Examiner added that the Applicant would need to
      make this clarification/correction in the DRI DO at some point in time. She thought it would
      be easier to make it now, since they were already in the system, than it was for them to have
      to file another NOPC, pay more money and come back to hearing sometime in the future. Ms.
      Montgomery pOinted out that every time they did a new NOPC, they had to pay a whole new
      application fee, which was based on the acreage of the DRI. That got really pricey for just
      a little text amendment.

      The Hearing Examiner did not want to say that it was not substantive, but this was a public
      hearing and now was the proper time for the public to bring up any concerns they had with
      the proposed changes. She did not feel that their rights were going to be abrogated in any
      way, nor did she feel that the Applicant or Staff were going to be boxed into a corner by
      allowing the public to speak on this issue. She stated that she did not want to continue the
      hearing for another day, because she did not know that this particular language change was
      sufficient to stop the amendment to the DRI Development Order.

      She thought that this hearing was going to give them all the opportunity to make the
      arguments that they wanted to make. If the Hearing Examiner had jurisdiction over them,
      then, she would consider them and render a decision in accordance with her authority. She
      thought that they needed to go forward with the hearing and they could make whatever
      presentation they needed to make during the public input. Mr. Pires thanked her for her
      consideration and indicated he just wanted to make sure it was noted for the record.

      At that time, Ms. Montgomery indicated she had a copy of all of the DRI DO Amendments,
      but did not know if anyone was going to be referring to any of the older versions. If the
      Hearing Examiner wanted a complete set, she had them available. The Hearing Examiner
      stated she did want a set, as she would go back through and look at them in her review of
      the case. With that, she advised the Applicant's Draft DRI DO would be Applicant's Exhibit
      1. Mr. Pires' letter and attachments were admitted as Pires' Exhibit 1. The compilation of the
      DRI DO Amendments were admitted as Applicant's Exhibit 2.

      Ms. Montgomery referred to the aerial photograph, noting that Gateway, in its original form
      on the County's Future Land Use Map, was just a big blue area extending eastward from 1-
      75. Area nine was the conservation area on the west side of 1-75. Looking at the aerial, Ms.
      Montgomery pOinted out the green area that was originally part of Gateway, but which had
      been removed to become the Pelican Preserve DRI. She also pOinted out the 417 -acre
      parcel that had been taken out of the County and adopted into the City of Fort Myers. They
      had intended to include all of the 417 acres into the Pelican Preserve DRI, but things did not
      go as planned.

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 13
      Ms. Montgomery had the annexation agreement, in case the Hearing Examiner decided that
      she needed it. The annexation agreement stated that up, until the time this property was
      included in a City Comprehensive Plan Zoning and Development Order, it will remain under
      and had remained under the Gateway DRI DO. She knew that some of the residents called
      the City, but was not sure if they called the County. They were concerned about the notices,
      because the notices said that they were going to take 185 acres out of Gateway. They
      wanted to know if that meant more land was being added to the City. Ms. Montgomery
      explained that was not what was happening, but she could understand the confusion, adding
      that the lands were already in the City, but they were still in the Gateway DRI, not the Pelican
      Preserve DR!.

      In short, the Applicant was going to take the salmon colored area out of the Gateway DRI,
      out of the PUD. Hopefully, it will go into the Pelican Preserve DRI and will go into Special
      Development Area (SDA) zoning in the City. Under that annexation agreement, the Applicant
      was allowed to get approvals for the use of that parcel; there were actually four golf holes on
      this property that were part of the Pelican Preserve DRI golf course. Therefore, it made
      perfect sense for these golf holes to go with the rest of that community.

      The Applicant submitted 232 acres of the original 417 -acre parcel for de-annexation from the
      City, after which it would go back into Gateway and Lee County. The Hearing Examiner
      wanted to clarify that it was still all part of Gateway, but it was just according to governmental
      jurisdiction, whether it was in the City or in unincorporated Lee County. That was the
      difference in the colors; the salmon colored area has been developed under the DR!. In
      response to the Hearing Examiner's question, Ms. Montgomery stated that once the acreage
      becomes part of Pelican Preserve, it will no longer be subject to the Gateway DRI provisions.
      It will become part of the Pelican Preserve DRI and subject to that DRI's provisions. She
      added that, just like they have filed an NOPC here, they have also filed one with the City.

      There would be a text amendment, referring to the SDA, which is a special section in the Fort
      Myers Code for what had originally been known as Sun City, but is now known as Pelican
      Preserve. When the Applicant amends the legal description for the Sun City / Pelican
      Preserve DRI, they will include the acreage into that legal, and the 185 acres will become
      subect to the same regulations as the rest of the Pelican Preserve development. Ms.
      Montgomery reiterated that Pelican Preserve had also gone through the DRI process, and
      its DRI DO had a long list of conditions, which will govern the current and future use( s) of the
      185 acres.

      The Hearing Examiner understood that, once the lands were transferred into Pelican
      Preserve, it would go under their DRI DO rules and regulations, as well as under the City's
      zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Montgomery stated the annexation provided for all
      that. She replied to the Hearing Examiner that the de-annexation of the area colored purple
      in the aerial photograph, simply took those lands out of the City and returned it to the County.
      That property was still subject to the terms and conditions of the Gateway DRI DO.

      Ms. Montgomery explained that, even though the 185 acres had - technically - been within
      the City limits for a long time, the Applicant was asking to amend the Gateway legal
      description to actually remove it from the Gateway DR!. The Applicant was also asking to
      amend Exhibit / Map "H" to reflect the removal of these lands. She explained that, when Mr.
      Jacob talked about the substantive change, it was a big change, because the Applicant was
      focused on trying to get those boundaries and approvals straightened out.

Case DR12011-00004                                                           20-Dec-11 - Page 14
      Ms. Montgomery indicated that she was trying to track the two NOPC applications together
      for obvious reasons. They have to work on the timing, because, because each had to get
      into the right jurisdiction when the final decision was made. She believed they were in the
      correct jurisdiction, and the Hearing Examiner has authority over the matter. The tracking
      was Ms. Montgomery's concern; it was not something the Hearing Examiner had to worry
      about in the hearing.

      Next, she referred to the text amendments. She thought the Hearing Examiner probably
      remembered that the property to the north, in the original DRI review, had been a landfill.
      The County kept saying they were going to close it, but nobody knew when that was going
      to happen. So, the Applicant depicted a 660-foot-wide setback / reserve / buffer area along
      that north property line to buffer against that landfill use. Now, however, the BOCC has
      closed the landfill and some of their later exhibits would show that the area is now all grassed

      Mr. Vanasse had done some research about the re-use of lands associated with landfills. He
      had found that other communities were putting parks and golf courses on landfill territory.
      Ms. Montgomery reiterated that the area was now all grassy, and the Applicant was seeking
      to adjust the 660-foot-wide setback / reserve / buffer area down to just a 40-foot-wide buffer
      setback. The County had already done something similar to that for Stoneybrook, which in
      some parts of that development, were adjacent to active areas. The subject property was no
      longer adjacent to any active areas; it was adjacent to the closed landfill.

      The Hearing Examiner asked if the setback was only for the 185-acre parcel, or if it was for
      both those parcels that had been annexed or for anything that bordered the landfill property.
      Ms. Montgomery explained that it was originally for anything in Gateway that was adjacent
      to the section of land marked Industrial on the FLUM. Therefore, the area will not be subject
      to that, and when it is in the City, it will apply to the boundary she indicated.

      The Hearing Examiner inquired about what had been developed in the purple area, and Ms.
      Montgomery pointed out a construction road that connected to Gateway Boulevard.
      Originally, the City and the County wanted an east-west road that connected Pelican
      Preserve to Gateway Boulevard, but that created an issue between the folks in Pelican
      Preserve and the City. The residents did not want that interconnect, and she pointed out that
      the construction road would stop at the Gateway boundary, once the approvals are given for
      these NOPCs. She felt that some of the Pelican Preserve residents would want to talk about
      why it was an issue for them.

      Ms. Montgomery explained that, when the project originally went through, certain roads were
      going to be arterials and would be public roads. All the internal roads would be maintained
      by the Developer and then would ultimately transfer to the Gateway Services District. The
      arterial roads were set up so that they could be turned over to the County for operation and
      maintenance. That was the original language in the first DRI DO. Those roads were:
      Gateway Boulevard, Commerce Lakes Drive and Griffin Drive.

      Ms. Montgomery noted that she understood some of the concerns, but, somehow, missed
      that the residents are not that crazy about those three roads being public roads. They noted
      that many non-residents cutthrough Gateway, and, apparently, drive faster than the residents
      like. The Hearing Examiner mentioned speed bumps, to which Ms. Montgomery suggested
      that was an issue the Hearing Examiner had to take up with the Department of Transportation
      (DOT), without getting the Applicant in the middle of it. From WCI's standpoint, those roads

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 15
      are public arterials and WCI needed to turn them over for County ownership and

      At one point in time, the language was changed so that those three roads would be turned
      over to the Gateway Services District, and changed the language so that they would turn it
      over to Gateway Services District. Then the District said they were not going to take them,
      and the County expressed strong opinions about whether it was going to take the roads. The
      situation sort of went along, and the District suggested that the roads be designated
      collectors, but the County had strong opinions about not making them collectors.

      The Developer did not want to be in the middle of what seemed to be a dispute between the
      Services District and the County, and preferred the District and the County carryon that
      dispute without involving the Developer. Gateway just wanted to turn the roads over to the
      County, in accordance with the County's Administrative Code. That was what the Applicant
      was trying to clarify in the text amendments in the NOPC. It was really not any more
      complicated than that. They did need to have text amendments, and they needed to have
      the substantive major amendment to make sure they got all of the boundaries correct.

      At that time, Ms. Montgomery asked for Patrick Vanasse, to be accepted as an expert in
      planning and zoning forthe hearing. Hearing no objection from the Assistant County Attorney
      or Staff, the witness was accepted as such by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Vanasse
      introduced himself for the record. He indicated he was a certified planner and had been a
      professional planner for 14 years. He noted that he had previously testified before the
      Hearing Examiner and his resume should be on file with her office.

      Mr. Vanasse handed out some exhibits, which the Hearing Examiner accepted as Applicant's
      Exhibit #3. Ms. Montgomery explained that Exhibit #3 was the document that she had
      referenced that had the yellow, green, salmon, and purple colorations on it. Mr. Vanasse
      noted that this Exhibit gave the background and was used to demonstrate the relationship
      between Gateway, Pelican Preserve, and the annexations that had occurred.

      The next Exhibit on the board focused on the Applicant's current request for the PUD/DRI
      amendment for Gateway. The general location of Gateway is south of Colonial Boulevard,
      north of Daniels Parkway, east of 1-75, and west of State Road 82. The site was initially
      ±2,485 acres. Referring to the adjacent zoning, Mr. Vanasse noted that to the north was the
      closed landfill that Ms. Montgomery had discussed. That parcel was zoned AG-2 and CF-3
      (Community Facilities). Beyond that were some existing, inactive industrial uses and
      Stoneybrook RPD. To the west was the Pelican Preserve DRI/SDA that abuts the Gateway
      DRI. South was the Arborwood IPD and The Plantation, a mixed use development zoned
      MPD. Along that western boundary, to the south, were some AG lots and conservation

      Mr. Vanasse indicated the location of Daniels Preserve residential development, to the south.
      That development contained both residential and commercial uses. Beyond that Daniels
      Parkway and the Southwest Florida International Airport lands. The other remaining
      boundary was State Road 82, which was lined by vacant commercial lands in the Lehigh
      Acres community. There were a mix of residential and agricultural uses beyond the vacant
      commercial parcels.

      Mr. Vanasse mentioned that this PUDIDRI was first approved in 1985 and had undergone
      many amendments, being the 10lh Amendment, in which WCI requested a 4-year time

Case DR12011-00004                                                        20-Dec-11 - Page 16
      extension, as authorized by the Florida Statutes. Currently, the Applicant was asking for the
      11 th Amendment.

      The first request was for the boundary change to the PUD/DRI boundary, with the removal
      of the 185 acres shaded in the pink (salmon) color in the exhibit on the board. The
      Amendment was also asking for some text changes in the DRI DO. He was not going to go
      into a lot of detailed information because it would simply complicate things, and Ms.
      Montgomery had already addressed it. The text change related to the turnover of the roads,
      and which entity should take the maintenance and operation responsibilities for Gateway
      Boulevard, Griffin Road [sic - Drive] and Commerce Lakes Drive.

      The Applicant was also asking for a setback change to the reserve area, which had been
      established because of the active landfill operation when the project was first approved. This
      area is identified, on Map H, as a general reserve area with a depth of 660 feet. The
      Applicant was asking for a 40-foot setback in place of the 660-foot feet reserve area and he
      indicated the boundary where that reserve area was located. He reiterated that the landfill is
      no longer active, and the only active industrial uses were more than 2,000 feet away - north
      beyond the landfill.

      Under the current LDC, the 40-foot setback exceeds buffering requirements between
      industrial and residential uses. Those buffers were the most stringent buffers in the LDC.
      Research was conducted on reclamation of landfills and how they could be used, once they
      are closed, and they found that, in many parts of the country, they were used for parks and
      golf courses. Therefore, humans could be on the landfill without any negatives effects on
      their health.

      Mr. Vanasse noted that, in Charleston, a mixed use project is being built directly on top of
      an old landfill. Apparently, through mitigation, those property owners were able to ensure
      public health and safety. The residential uses will be the stories above the ground-level
      commercial uses, because there was a concern about gas. Mr. Vanasse mentioned that, if
      the mitigation was addressed properly, there should be no health or public safety impacts.

      The last text change was to change the annual DRI monitoring reports to biennial reports.
      Since Florida Statutes allowed for that, the Applicant wanted to take advantage of it. Also,
      Gateway was mostly built out, so there was not going to be a whole lot of development in the
      future. For that reason, the Applicant thought that providing the report every two years would
      be sufficient.

      Mr. Vanasse wanted to point out that the proposed amendment would not modify currently
      approved uses and would not change densities or approved intensities. Also, it did not affect
      open space or conservation areas that are currently required. In his opinion, it would not
      affect the character of the area, nor will it creates any compatibility issues with surrounding
      properties. Through their application and as supported by the Staff Report, the Applicant
      demonstrated compliance with the Lee Plan and the LDC.

      He noted that, from a substantial deviation standpoint for the NOPC, they reviewed Florida
      Statutes Section 380.06 (19), which dealt with substantial deviations. It was Mr. Vanasse's
      opinion that they did not trigger any of that criteria. The Applicant submitted their NOPC and
      it was reviewed by the RPC, which approved it and determined that it was not a substantial
      deviation. The RPC also found that the Applicant refuted the presumption of substantial

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 17
      deviation by demonstrating that the abandonment of the 185 acres did not create reviewable
      impacts to the area.

      To conclude his presentation, Mr. Vanasse stated that the 185 acres will be part of Pelican
      Preserve, which is also a DRI and will be subject to those DRI regulations for the future. It
      will also be subject to Fort Myers Code requirements.

      Ms. Montgomery then inquired about the reduction in the 660-foot-wide reserve area to a
      width of 40 feet, wondering if he had a chance to look at any other developed property
      around the closed landfill to see if they were closer than 660 feet. Mr. Vanasse replied that
      they created an exhibit about that, and he provided the Hearing Examinerwith a 11 "x17" copy
      of that exhibit.

      Referring to the exhibit, he noted the boundary between Gateway and Pelican Preserve, and
      mentioned that both of the DRI's were identified. To the north was the closed landfill. Then,
      he explained that the first dimension depicted there was a dimension of 2,385 feet, which was
      the separation between the Gateway boundary and the closest industrial uses to the north
      that were currently active. Stoneybrook was to the right of the landfill on the exhibit and they
      were approximately 1,000 feet from those industrial uses. Therefore, the Applicant's 660-foot
      separation was much greater than the existing homes in Stoneybrook. Also, the Stonebrook
      separation from the existing landfill was approximately 170 feet. The Hearing Examiner
      wanted to clarify that distance was from the rear property line of the residences to the actual
      property line of the landfill, to which Mr. Vanesse said yes.

      Mr. Vanesse indicated another exhibit that showed an aerial photograph of the area where
      the setback would be. It was all vegetative and the vegetation provided a significant buffer.
      The Hearing Examiner inquired about the clear area asking if it was a service road for the golf
      course, but Mr. Vanasse was not sure what it was. He thought that it might have been used
      when they were doing construction on the golf course. Mr. Ernst indicated it was an old haul
      road that was no longer in use.

      The Hearing Examiner then inquired if the width of the green area up to the road was the 660
      feet. Then, Mr. Vanasse explained that the 660 feet fell south of that road. When she asked
      for the distance between the haul road and the landfill boundary, the Applicant indicated that
      it was the 40 feet they were requesting.

      At that time, Mr. Jacob inquired about the potential for other industrial uses that could be
      carried on within the subject area. In response, Mr. Vanasse explained that the landfill was
      closed and was zoned AG-2 and CF-3. Referring to the AG-2 zoned area, he noted that
      there were no heavy industrial uses, but there was some AG related industrial type of uses.
      Mr. Jacob wanted to know if that encompassed the whole area abutting the area where the
      Applicant was requesting the reduction, and Mr. Vanesse said it was correct.

      The Hearing Examiner noted that Mr. Vanasse was more familiar with the DRI Development
      Order than she was, and asked if the 660-foot reserve area counted toward the DRI's open
      space requirement. He said it was not counted toward the DRI buffer requirement, nor
      toward the open space requirement. The Hearing Examiner explained she was asking about
      that because of the substantial deviation criteria. Therefore, as long as it was not part of
      those requirements, the Hearing Examiner did not have any problem with the reduction.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 18
      Ms. Montgomery added that it was described as a holding area because nobody knew, at that
      time, when the landfill was going to be closed. It actually got extended one more time that
      everybody thought it would. It was at that point that the EPC said the landfill had five more
      years and not to come back for another extension.

      Now, the landfill is closed and it belongs to Hendry County, but, when they started, nobody
      knew what was going to happen. Everybody said that it was going to be a holding area and
      they were going to take a look at this and see what was really going on when the Applicant
      came through for their final approval. Ms. Montgomery indicated that it had been modified
      as they have gone along. They had a 660-foot setback when they started to look at it, but
      there were here now, and they had to tell the Hearing Examiner what was currently there was
      the green hill.

      The Hearing Examiner reiterated that she felt better knowing that the reserve area was not
      counted toward the DRI requirements. She then asked if Mr. Vanasse was familiar with the
      Bay Colony Gateway case, in reference to Gateway DRI in May 2007 and the hearing
      regarding the removal of the 417 acres. Mr. Vanasse said he was, that he had worked with
      Bob Mulhere, a planner with RWA, on that case. The Hearing Examiner mentioned that she
      had done an analysis on the abandonment issue that arose in that case, and asked if he had
      a chance to review that analysis. It was contained on pages five and six of her
      Recommendation to the BOCC. Mr. Vanasse could not recall having gone back and
      reviewing that analysis, but thought his memory might suffice.

      The Hearing Examiner recalled that Mr. Vanasse had stated, in this case, the parcel
      abandonment would not create any impact and also because it was going from a DRI to a
      DRI, any impacts would have been caught by that second DRI. That was the reasoning set
      out and argued in the prior (2007) hearing for the removal of the 417 acres. Therefore, the
      basis of Mr. Vanasse's argument had not changed, which he affirmed.

      Referring to the impacts, Mr. Vanasse explained that the parameters, other than boundaries,
      remained the same. They were not creating additional trips, and they were not changing
      intensities/densities. Ms. Montgomery asked Mr. Vanasse if he was aware of whether a back
      flow water management system had been put in to control the Gateway Services District.
      In response, Mr. Vanasse noted that he was familiar that there was portable water and sewer
      provided for both Gateway and Pelican Preserve projects. However, Ms. Montgomerywanted
      to know if there was a back flow water management system; Mr. Vanasse's understanding
      was that there was, but he did not know the details.

      The Hearing Examiner wanted to know if they were separate and distinct systems, but Ms.
      Montgomery explained that a lot of the work for this area, in terms of the master drainage and
      those kinds of things, had already been put in place. Mr. Vanasse noted that he would rather
      leave this issue to the engineers.

      At that time, Ms. Montgomery asked Barry Ernst to begin his presentation, asking that Mr.
      Ernst be qualified as an expert in planning and zoning, as he has been in the past. Mr. Ernst
      introduced himself for the record. He identified himself as the Director of Planning and
      Permitting at WCI Communities. The Hearing Examiner wanted to know if he was an AICP,
      to which he replied he was. Since there were no objections from Staff, the Hearing Examiner
      declared the witness to be an expert in the fields indicated.

Case DR12011-00004                                                        20-Dec-11 - Page 19
      Mr. Ernst noted that Ms. Montgomery had done a good job going over the road questions,
      but he wanted to mention a few other things. The roads in Gateway were primarily owned
      by WCI Communities. Portions of the road were already in the District's ownership and
      responsibility. Then, the Hearing Examiner wanted to clarify who the District was, and Mr.
      Ernst indicated that he was referring to the Gateway Services District.

      Pointing to the approximate location on the map, Mr. Ernst noted that the roadway, from State
      Road 82 to the entrance to Hampton Park, was currently owned and maintained by the
      District, but the District does not own all the roads within the community

      The road situation has a long history. About 10 years ago, Ms. Montgomery and Mr. Ernst
      met with Margaret Lawsen to discuss the turn over of the roads and how it would be
      accomplished. That was the start of the process by the Applicant. The arterial roads must
      remain arterials. For that reason, they probably would not be able to put gates on them, or
      do other kinds of traffic calming to slow down the traffic. The County usually intended on
      keeping the traffic moving freely, if the road was an arterial.

      Since 2001, the Applicant has been working with the District and Lee County to determine
      the best entity to take over the roads, because WCI would not be the end holder of these
      roads. Through the years, they had worked with the District and the Gateway traffic
      committees and tried to understand what their needs were. One of the biggest things that
      the District wanted to do was to convince the County that the roads in Gateway, primarily,
      Gateway Boulevard, needed to be reclassified from an arterial to a collector. In doing so, that
      would allow certain traffic calming situations to be installed, whether it would be roundabouts
      or other compact sensitive type calming devices.

      In 2003, the Applicant had a big meeting including Ms Montgomery, WCI Communities,
      representatives of the District and some of the residents. They met with DOT and the District
      to discuss the turnover and the potential for these calming devices. At the end of the
      meeting, Lee DOT said that the road was going to stay an arterial; it would not be reclassified
      and no calming devices could be installed or used. A couple of years after that, the District
      made the County aware that they were still interested in the reclassification of these roads.
      A resolution by the District - specifically, Resolution number 2007-01 - was adopted to
      continue trying to convince the County that reclassification was a good idea. After that
      Resolution, the District and their Traffic Committee came before the Board Management and
      Planning Committee to hear their request for traffic calming.

      The Hearing Examiner asked about the Board Management Committee, which Mr. Ernst
      identified as the Lee County BOCC, acting as the Management and Planning Committee.
      Ms. Montgomery clarified that it was M and P. The Hearing Examiner indicated that she had
      not understood his use of the term. Mr. Ernst mentioned that Lee DOT reaffirmed that these
      roads were going to be public roads and could not be gated and would not be reclassified to
      collector status.

      In 2008, WCI again met with DOT to discuss what needed to be done to get the roads turned
      over to the County. There was a two-year period when WCI Communities was in Chapter 11
      and certainly nothing was really happening. Their goal was to conserve cash; not to spend
      it. Therefore, nothing happened with regard to turnover or bringing the roads up to the
      standard that they needed to be.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 20
      In 2010, they met with Howard Coachman and the staff, where they developed the punch list
      of what exactly needed to be done to get the roads up the standards and in conformance with
      AC-11-7, which was the Administrative Code for road maintenance and acceptance. The
      Applicant fully understood that they needed to bring the roads up to that standard for turnover
      to either the District or Lee County

      Mr. Ernst noted that, in the past eight months, they have spent more than $50,000 re-milling
      and trying to fix these roads. It was a temporary patch situation, but it was quite a bit of
      money to get these roads to at least pass with conditions. He was sure that some of the
      residents were going to say that they still need a lot more work. Mr. Ernst agreed the roads
      need more work, and they will try to complete that within the next two years, when funding
      becomes available. The cost to improve the five miles of roads that WCI still owns will be
      about a million dollars and it was not an easy task to set aside that money.

      Mr. Ernst stated that he had wanted to provide the Hearing Examiner with a little history of
      what they had been doing for the last ten years. It had taken a long time and hopefully this
      hearing and the new wording would resolve a lot of things.

      Next, Ms. Montgomery questioned if, to the best of his knowledge, there was a master water
      management system installed for Gateway.         Mr. Ernst explained that he was not an
      engineer, but Gateway, from day one, had a master water management system. Gateway
      was 5,000 acres at one time and certainly the area indicated by him and Pelican Preserve
      were included in that system.

      Referencing the Map H, Ms. Montgomery wanted to know if that area was depicted as a
      conservation or a preserve type area, and if it was going to be set aside as green space in
      that map. In response, Mr. Ernst explained that the reserve areas were simply a holding
      category in the original DRI DO; they were set aside ahead of time, and was never
      considered a portion of the open space requirement. He added that open space was
      certainly plentiful on Map H.

      Mr. Ernst affirmed that the aerial Ms. Montgomery had given him had conservation areas
      depicted on it in yellow line. In response to her question, Mr. Ernst explained those
      conservation areas had gone through all their monitoring and were currently under a
      conservation easement. Then, Ms. Montgomery wanted to know if those conservation
      easements were depicted in the aerial consistent with the exhibit that was part of the Gateway
      DRI & PUD conservation areas, and Mr. Ernst said that they were. He said that, because of
      the scale of the map, it was hard to tell if they were identical. However, all the wetlands were
      originally set aside, either under conservation easement or were in the process of being put
      under conservation easement.

      Ms. Richardson, referring to the Environmental Science Staff Report, noted that some of the
      conservation areas had been left off Map H. Staff wanted to make sure that, when Map H
      came in for the revisions, all the conservation areas were correctly shown. She wanted to
      know if Mr. Ernst was aware about it, and Mr. Ernst explained that one conservation area was
      such a small sliver that it cannot be seen, given the scale of the Map H. However, he would
      certainly put them or some indication of them on the revised Map H.

      The Hearing Examiner questioned when they were going to revise it, because she preferred
      to have it approved by Environmental Sciences Staff before it went to the SOCC. Ms.
      Richardson asked for the record to be left open at the end of the hearing for the Applicant to

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 21
      resubmit a revised Map H so it would delineate all the conservation areas and Staff could
      check them. Mr. Ernst noted that it may need to be an attachment, but they would identify

      Ms. Montgomery indicated that Stephen Leung was present in case there were any
      transportation questions. The Applicant was not changing the development parameters, and,
      therefore, there were no changes in the development's external trips. The Hearing Examiner
      noted that Mr. Leung did not need to do a presentation since they were no changes in the
      uses and no increases in the denSity or the intensity of the uses that were already approved.
      Staff indicated that they had no questions for Mr. Leung.

      Next, Ms. Montgomery wanted to know if Staff had a chance to look at Mr. Pires' letter and
      item number two. Mr. Pires was asking to add language to the DRI DO, which said: "The
      County and the Gateway Services District may enter into an interlocal agreement relating to
      the operation and maintenance of said roadways to allow authorized special features and
      treatments to maintain and enhance the residential nature of the area." Ms. Montgomery did
      not know what the County's opinion was relating to that matter. On one hand, she did not
      know that WCI cared, while, on the other hand, WCI did not want to be in the middle of
      whatever interlocals the County and the District got into. It was Ms. Montgomery's
      understanding from the Florida Statutes that the County and District were able to do that at
      any time; so, it did not need to be in the DRI DO for them to do it. The Applicant did not want
      to be hindered in any way because of an ongoing dispute about whatever special features
      and treatments might be. Therefore, the Applicant would like to not have that language in,
      if it was going to be a "stumbling block."

      The Hearing Examiner indicated that she was going to let Mr. Pires address his thoughts with
      regard to the recommended language. Then, she asked for County Staff to begin their

      Nettie Richardson re-introduced herself, stating her resume was on file with the Hearing
      Examiner's Office and she has been declared an expert in land use planning and zoning
      matters and asked to be accepted again in that capacity. Hearing no objections, the Hearing
      Examiner accepted the witness as such.

      Ms. Richardson noted that she did not have a whole lot more to add to what had already been
      said during the Applicant's presentation. The reason for the public hearing request was to
      remove the 185 acres, with the text amendments, to the DRI DO. During Staff's review
      process, after the notices went out to the 4,000 Gateway property owners, Staff received
      numerous phone calls, because the map on the back of the notice just showed all of
      Gateway; the 185 acres was not pin pointed.

      Most of the residents' concerns and the questions were about the possible annexation of
      Gateway into the City of Fort Myers, because they did not want to be part of the City. Ms.
      Richardson reassured them that they were still in unincorporated Lee County. They, also,
      wanted to know about taxes and if they were going to be increased. Ms. Richardson noted
      that she was not an appraiser and could not say much about the taxes, but, with the
      economy, it did not seem like anybody's taxes were going up.

      They had other questions about the "road" between Pelican Preserve and Gateway
      Boulevard, wondering what was going to happen with that road. Ms. Richardson explained
      it was a maintenance road to be used only for maintenance vehicles, after which the residents

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 22
      were happy. She did not go into a lot detail about the road issues like the classification or the
      maintenance and the operation issues. Staff did not believe it was a substantial issue. Nor
      did they get into the 660-foot setback reduction on the reserved area. The main issue Staff
      focused on was the removal of the 185 acres.

      After the notice was sent setting the date and time of the hearing, Ms. Richardson got phone
      calls from residents who had not called after the first notice. Those residents had mostly the
      same questions as the original callers, but some had questions about the Red Sox stadium,
      which was currently under development. The Applicant had left that area out, and it had not
      been discussed in the hearing. The Red Sox stadium was southwest of the DRI, right off
      Daniels Parkway. A lot of the residents were curious about what was going on there and if
      there would be more commercial development, because they want more things out their way.
      Those were the types of questions that Staff went through during the public notification
      process. Once Ms. Richardson explained the majority of the information to the property
      owners, they were satisfied. The property owners within a 500-foot radius around Gateway
      were notified, as well.

      Ms. Richardson noted that the Hearing Examinerwas familiar with the property since she had
      been involved with some of the previous zoning cases. She was not going into a history of
      the project during this hearing, as the Applicant has already explained the history. The land
      use category for the site was New Community, and the DRI plan of development was
      determined a long time ago to be consistent with the Lee Plan. The conservation of the
      wetland areas was consistent Lee Plan Policy 114.1.1 and Objective 114, which relates to the
      natural functions of wetlands and wetland systems. Based on the Lee Plan provisions, Staff
      found the requested amendment to the DRI DO and the PUD to be consistent with the Lee

      Ms. Richardson stated that the Environmental Science Staff reviewed the request and had
      no concerns with the removal of the 185 acres. Other County Staff present at the hearing
      were: Susie Derheimer, Environmental Science; and Andy Getch and Clay Simmons, Lee
      County DOT.

      The amendments the Applicant was proposing had no effect or impacts on utilities, including
      water or sewer services. Staff was recommending approval of the NOPC to remove the 185
      acres and to amend the Gateway PUD, with four Conditions. The first Condition stated that
      the DRI DO needed to be consistent with Map H. If the record was left open for revisions,
      the date of the Map H would change from "August 10" to the new date it was received. The
      DRI development must comply with the DRI DO, as it has been amended throughout the
      years, as well as all the terms and conditions of the original Gateway PUD Ordinance 85-15,
      that has also been amended through the years. The DRI's density cannot exceed six units
      per acre, and they are not to increase the density or the intensity of the development.

      Ms. Montgomery wanted to know if, at the time Staff did their review, a determination was
      made as to whether or not this change was or was not a substantial deviation. In response,
      Ms. Richardson stated that she made the determination that it was not a substantial deviation.

      Then, the Hearing Examiner indicated that she had a few questions. She indicated that this
      was the first time she had ever seen an NOPC and an amendment to a zoning document
      where they had conditions. She wanted to know if the conditions went in the PUD document
      or the DRI Development Order. She did not think she had ever seen that layout before. Ms.
      Montgomery explained that it was a different zoning which was its own separate Ordinance,

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 23
      and not a Resolution adopted pursuant to the Lee County Land Development Code. The
      zoning approval became an adopted Ordinance for the PUD, and so that would have to go
      to the local planning agency.

      The Hearing Examiner was still confused, because, normally, in an NOPC request, the DRI
      DO did not contain any conditions that went with the zoning document. If there were
      conditions relating to the zoning document, they were in the zoning document. However,
      what they had done in this case was to put them all together and she was not sure where it
      was supposed to go.

      Ms. Montgomery explained that Map H was the same attachment to the PUD. Therefore, the
      revised Map H would be attached to the DRI DO, which would address Condition 1.
      Regarding Condition 2, Ms. Montgomery stated that it was okay to add into the 11 TH
      Amendment that it will remain in compliance with all the existing terms, as well as with the
      DRI DO.

      The Hearing Examiner noted that she understood what Ms. Montgomery was saying, but her
      concern was that she did not know into what document those conditions were to be placed.
      She wanted to know if the County Attorney understood what she was saying, after which, Mr.
      Jacob confirmed it. The Hearing Examiner further explained that the DRI had its own set of
      rules and regulations, and the zoning had its own set of rules, regulations and conditions as
      well. What they had was sort of something halfway in between and she did not know what
      document was going to carry these forward and actually be placed in a file somewhere to
      document that these things were going to happen.

      Consequently, Mr. Jacob mentioned that, normally, it would be done as a zoning resolution.
      There would actually be a draft Ordinance that will carry those conditions, which the Hearing
      Examiner understood. But that was not what would happen in this case. The Hearing
      Examiner also noted that she received the language for the changes in the DRI, but she did
      not receive the DRI Draft DO. Mr. Jacob stated that it was a completely different case than
      the normal case in which the Hearing Examiner would get a draft copy of the 11th DRI DO,
      which would be a codification of the DRI DO. Gateway had 11 amendments and they were
      not done the way that other DRI amendments were done.

      Ms. Montgomery explained that the first one was the original approval, after which they got
      the first Area Master Plan. Now, there is a big deal about whether they should do the new
      amendments as a codification of the previous ones, or as its own separate DO. They created
      a whole set of conditions for the first Area Master Plan, which got derailed when they did the
      second amendment, because it was adopted by the Florida Division of Administrative
      Hearings (DOAH) as a final order. That final order was not even a County document. Then,
      there was the Fourth Amendment, which was for Pelican Preserve. There were one or two
      that were for time extensions granted by Florida Statutes, and one where they simply
      corrected the legal description.

      They tried to go back and codify the DO's. Many hours and thousands of dollars later, it
      would always be open to dispute and they could never get from "here to there." Therefore,
      if the Hearing Examiner made them track them, there would be a lot of people that would
      "cringe." Ms. Montgomery noted that she gave them all to the Hearing Examiner and she
      could take a look at them, and the Hearing Examiner stated that she would go through them.

Case DR12011-00004                                                        20-Dec-11 - Page 24
      The Staff Report contained a summary of the 2006 NOPC, which had been withdrawn before
      they came to public hearing. Brian Kelner was the planner and he had compiled a little of
      the history in the Staff Report. It was cut out and pasted into the Staff Report for the Hearing
      Examiner's benefit. Ms. Montgomery referenced the aerial photograph, noting how it was
      depicted and that there was not much left to be developed within the DRI community. It was
      essentially going to be the purple area and in the PUD, there was a process, which was kind
      of a final plan approval process where they allocated densities. They went through that
      process so the County actually had a document that was more specific than that page, where
      they had gone through in conformance with the PUD. It was not like they did not know where
      all the things are going to be; they are in the process of designing what goes in the last purple

      Ms. Richardson advised that Staff has a very thick Gateway book in the Zoning Division. The
      Hearing Examiner inquired if Staff had to go all the way back to step one and come forward
      for every amendment being requested by the Applicant. Ms. Richardson answered no,
      adding that was why Brian Kelner had prepared that history summary years ago - so that
      Staff would not have to go through the entire process every time.

      The Hearing Examiner wanted to know about the terms and conditions in the DRI
      Development Order. Mr. Jacob noted that they were all stacked together; in some ways it
      was easier to do the process, but, in other ways, it was difficult - especially if a piece in the
      middle gets lost. Then, they reviewed and had no idea of what was going on. He mentioned
      that Ms. Montgomery did a great job on setting out the different trappings. It was possible
      to do a codification if they could go through all the documents and map it out. However, they
      have come to realize that codifying these DRI DO's into one document was not worth the
      energy it would take to do it.

      Referring back to the Hearing Examiner's questions, Ms. Richardson mentioned that, in the
      2006 hearing, they went through the same process, which meant the conditions were placed
      in the same place in 2006, as in 2011. The Hearing Examiner noted that she was
      concentrating on the abandonment issue in that case and overlooked this issue. Ms.
      Richardson noted that Ms. Derheimer wanted to make a clarification regarding the
      conservation areas that were previously discussed, and the Hearing Examiner stated that
      would have some questions for DOT Staff after Ms. Derheimer's presentation.

      Ms. Derheimer introduced herself and was sworn in, after which she asked to be accepted
      as an expert witness in environmental planning, as she has been in the past. Hearing no
      objections from the Applicant, the Hearing Examiner accepted the witness as such.

      Ms. Derheimer advised that she did not really have a presentation; she just wanted to make
      a clarification. From what she heard, Staff was saying the conservation areas needed to be
      amended on the Map H. However, she believed that it had been done, and referenced the
      August 10th Map H that was attached to the Staff Report. During the review process,
      Environmental Sciences requested that Map H include all the conservation areas that had
      been depicted in earlier approvals, as well as the existing conservation easements required
      by South Florida Water Management to be put on Map H, which the Applicant did.

      In terms of the location of the conservation areas, it did not need to be amended as it looked
      the same. The Environmental Sciences' Staff Report was addressing the actual acreage,
      and it did not have to be determined until the time the Applicant comes in for final plan
      approval. Consequently, the Hearing Examiner inquired about the two "slivers," after which

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 25
      Ms. Derheimer asked if they could be pointed out to her since she did not see them earlier.
      After they were pointed out, Ms. Derheimer said that she did not see them as a requirement
      in any of the approvals.

      Ms. Montgomery mentioned that Map H originally showed all the same conservation areas
      that were in the original Map H, but what Ms. Derheimer wanted the Applicant to do was to
      add in the areas set aside by the WMD that were not originally on the Map H. Ms. Derheimer
      stated that she just wanted the Applicant to label them correctly; they were actually drawn in,
      but were not labeled as conservation areas, and that was what she wanted.

      The Hearing Examiner wanted to know if they were labeled correctly, to which Ms. Derheimer
      replied yes, but she was not sure about the ones the Applicant was identifying there. The
      Hearing Examiner noted that if one was missing, it needed to be documented, and she would
      leave the record open for the revision of Map H.

      With regard to the open space, Ms. Derheimer said she was not going to claim to be an
      expert in Gateway's open space, because it was very confusing. However, regarding the
      660-foot-wide reserved area, the interpretation of the Code is that the reserved area was not
      specifically set aside for open space. Based on her knowledge and communications with her
      supervisor and other Staff members - all of whom have more information or experience with
      Gateway that she has, there are some limited areas. The Hearing Examiner clarified that it
      was not designated to meet any of the requirements for open space or buffer area. Ms.
      Derheimer confirmed that, adding that its ultimate use was to be determined at the time of
      the final plan approval. If the Applicant could not provide open space in the 660 feet, it could
      be provided elsewhere within the development area that had been brought in for approval.

      The Hearing Examiner mentioned that it was one of the criteria that she had to evaluate. If
      there was a reduction in open space or buffer, it could change the upcoming DRI. Ms.
      Derheimer explained that she had a concern with that but it will have to be provided
      elsewhere on the DRI site, if it was not going to be provided there.

      Andy Getch, with Lee County DOT, introduced himself, noting that he is a registered
      Professional Engineer in the State of Florida. He then asked to be accepted as an expert
      witness in transportation engineering and transportation planning. Since there were no
      objections from the Applicant, the Hearing Examiner accepted the witness as such.

      The Hearing Examiner inquired about the road, adding that Mr. Ernst had given a short
      history of what had been happening between the County, WCI and Gateway Services District.
      She wanted to know what County's current position was regarding the roadways out there,
      and whether the County was looking as some but not others, She knew that some of the
      communities were gated and, therefore, their roads will be taken care of by the community
      itself. She guessed she was asking about the "back bone" roads, and whether they had any
      more discussions on what to do and how to do it.

      Mr. Getch indicated the main roads, especially Gateway Boulevard, Griffin Drive and
      Commerce Lakes Drive, were the ones being discussed by the entities. However, in terms
      of the actual package submitted to the County for acceptance of road maintenance, that was
      just Gateway Boulevard, which was in for the "punch list." The other two roads were under
      consideration, but not the same as Gateway Boulevard. He was not sure if the other side
      streets were still under WCI, or have been taken over by the Gateway Services District, but
      they were not an issue for the County.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 26
      The Hearing Examiner recalled that the Applicant had indicated they owned a 5-mile stretch
      of Gateway Boulevard from SR-82 down to Commerce Lakes Drive. Mr. Ernst clarified that
      a portion of Gateway Boulevard is owned by the District; the remainder of that road,
      Commerce Lakes Drive and Griffin Drive are owned by WCI, which was approximately five
      miles. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner noted that the portion that was still owned by WCI
      was the bulk of the roadway out there, which was confirmed by Mr. Ernst.

      The Hearing Examiner inquired if the County cared who had ultimate control, whether it was
      the District or WCI, and whether the roads were collectors or arterials. In response, Mr.
      Getch explained that the ownership did not matter. The classification of whether the roads
      were classified as arterials or collectors was determined pursuant to the criteria set out in the
      County's Administrative Code.

      Mr. Ernst had indicated earlier that Lee County DOT was against the roads being classified
      as collectors, and the Hearing Examiner asked why. Mr. Getch responded that the DRI DO
      had specified that these would be arterial roadways, and that language could be found in the
      copies of the DRI DO's given to the Hearing Examiner by Ms. Montgomery.

      Mr. Getch referred to Administrative Code 11-1, which set out the provisions for the functional
      classification of highways. Administrative Code 11-14, which established traffic calming,
      contained a prohibition against traffic calming on arterials and collectors. Over the next year
      or so, the County was going through amendments to the LDC and the Lee Plan, relating to
      complete streets as part of a lot of changes in transportation. Those were some of the things
      that would look at.

      The Hearing Examiner asked if Mr. Getch foresaw Gateway Boulevard being gated at either
      end, and Mr. Getch understood that it was a public road and had been since the beginning
      of the project. In response to the Hearing Examiner's question if he had reviewed Ms.
      Montgomery's alternative language in the draft DO, Mr. Getch said yes. The Hearing
      Examiner inquired about his position regarding that particular language, and he responded
      DOT's main concern was that an understanding was reached and the subsequent process
      had to be followed. The BOCC had the ultimate decision on acceptance of the roadways, as
      part of the Administrative Code process. Staff would make a recommendation to the BOCC
      on that matter, which was a different process than the DRI NOPC process.

      The Hearing Examiner inquired if DOT would accept those roadways from WCI now, if they
      met Administrative Code 11-1. Mr. Getch stated that they would take them to the BOCC for
      their consideration; however, it was a discretionary decision by the BOCC. Mr. Jacob asked
      Mr. Getch if the language in the text amendment was in the form of clarification as to the
      requirements on the County or the Applicant, to which Mr. Getch replied that had been the
      intent of the language.

      Since there were no other County witnesses, the Hearing Examiner opened the floor for
      public participation and asked William Fish to proceed. Mr. Fish introduced himself, noting
      that he resides in the Pelican Preserve area. He mentioned that the residents of Pelican
      Preserve were not involved in the "texted amendments," which was mainly the balance of
      Gateway, and didn't really have any position on that. However, they do have a position on
      the extraction of the 185 acres and addition into the Pelican Preserve. They were in support
      of the request. They have spent three years, gone through11 public hearings, and spent
      $130,000 or $140,000 of their own money to reach the point where they were assured that
      the construction road would not become a permanent road, and would end at the boundaries

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 27
      of the Pelican Preserve. Their interest was that their golf course remains in its current
      location with its natural boundary.

      They did not want the road running through their community because they are a 55 and older
      community. There are pedestrians, pedestrians with walkers and golf carts on their
      roadways. A "thru" street would enable public access on their roads and would endanger
      their residents. Furthermore, he mentioned that this was established through a long process
      with the City, and therefore, they strongly support the boundaries created between the
      Pelican Preserve and the Gateway DRI, and the road not going through their community.

      Tamara Sendewicz was the next witness. She introduced herself and stated that she is an
      8-year resident of Gateway, and is also the Chairman of the Gateway Traffic Committee. She
      did not oppose the 185-acre de-annexation property; what she wanted to talk about were the
      roads being handed over to Lee County. She was not in favor of that, explaining that their
      community is unique, in that, they have a rather wide road (Gateway Boulevard) running
      through it, and their homes are not set back far from it. They also have walking and biking
      paths that people use on a regular basis, as well as three elementary schools. Therefore,
      the safety of their residents is their primary concern.

      They have entered into discussions with Lee County, about an Interlocal Agreement to turn
      over a portion of the roads currently owned by the District, but the two have not come to any
      consensus. She mentioned that they were negotiating separate and apart from WCI and had
      not participated in any of WCI's negotiation or discussions with Lee County.

      She mentioned there is a long history, as previously discussed, about this matter. Recently,
      however, there has been no discussion of gating Gateway Boulevard nor would they consider
      the suggestion that they install speed bumps. However, their goal remains the safety of their
      residents and the people who travel through their community and they expect that will
      increase with the Red Sox Stadium opening in March. They were told by Lee County that the
      stadium will be available for use 365 days a year; that will bring traffic through their
      community to get to the stadium. Her concern - as a resident - is that turning the roads over
      to the County will limit the District's ability to keep the residents safe. That will also keep
      them from asking for traffic calming devices - even at their own expense - which was
      something that had been recommended and suggested in their Interlocal Agreement, so it
      strips them of that right.

      The Hearing Examiner then inquired if Ms. Sendewicz thought the District would be better
      able or more focused on the rights and concerns of the residents, if the District was
      responsible for the maintenance and operations of these roadways. Ms. Sendewicz
      confirmed that was her feeling, adding that the County's objective, as has been repeatedly
      stated to the Traffic Committee, was to move as much traffic as they can from point "A" to
      point "B." The objective of the residents is to maintain the safety and integrity of their

      Ms. Montgomery wanted to verify if Ms. Sendewicz, the Traffic Committee and the District
      were working with the County to turn over the roads owned by the District - particularly their
      portion of Gateway Boulevard - to the County. Ms. Sendewicz mentioned that there were
      conditions and stipulations they were looking for and concessions that they wanted the
      County to make before doing that. Then, Ms. Montgomery wanted to know if Ms. Sendewicz
      was saying that it was okay for the District to turn them over to the County, but it was not
      okay for WCI to turn their roads over to the County. Ms. Sendewicz said that was not her

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 28
      position; her position was that WCI intended to turn over the roads with no stipulations and
      conditions intended to safeguard the residents of Gateway.

      Ms. Montgomery inquired if the County had indicated that their agreement with respect to the
      District's and residents' conditions and stipulations, and Ms. Sendewicz stated they were still
      in negotiations on that. Ms. Montgomery asked if the County had indicated they were going
      to agree, and Ms. Sendewicz responded that the County never said they would or would not
      agree; the parties were still in negotiations on the matter.

      Mr. Jacob clarified that the turnover of the roads had nothing to do with the subject case. The
      turnover of the road, by either the District, WCI or anyone in the County, was not addressed
      in the subject case. As Mr. Getch had indicated, it was in a separate proceeding before the
      SOCC. The Hearing Examiner had no authorization to do that, and, therefore, all this
      testimony was irrelevant to the case and what was happening in this proceeding today.

      Ms. Sendewicz only brought it up because she was objecting to the language change in the
      DRI; her discussion was based on her objection to that change. Mr. Jacob stated, for
      clarification purposes, the language, as he asked Mr. Getch, was stating specifically what Mr.
      Jacob had just said; it was a separate process, regardless of whether it was WCI or the
      District. Mr. Jacob mentioned that it was why he hated changing language and provisions
      just to restate the obvious, because people think the County is dOing something they aren't.

      Ms. Sendewicz stated that it was not clear to her. She just found out about it this Sunday,
      so with a short notice and with minimal time to investigate in any depth, the language, as it
      appeared, did not seem to suggest what Mr. Jacob was saying. The Hearing Examiner
      thanked her and asked if she had any other comments, to which Ms. Sendewicz indicated
      she did not.

      At that time, the Hearing Examiner called upon Rod Senior, who introduced himself. He noted
      that he is an active member of the Gateway community and has attended most of the
      Gateway Services Community Development District (CDO)meetings. He tries to stay in close
      touch with the main issues facing the residents there.

      It was his opinion that the current hearing involves five stakeholders: Lee County; the City
      of Fort Myers; WCI; Gateway Services COO; and the Gateway residents. In a situation like
      this, some stakeholders lose and some gain. He clarified that Pelican Preserve (colored
      green on the aerial) had water services supplied by the City of Fort Myers. The orange and
      purple area was the 417 acres in the Gateway ORI, which was slated to have water provided
      to the homes there by the COD.

      Once this is adopted, the orange area will become green (part of Pelican Preserve), and will
      fall under the City's Codes. He was at the hearing because when that happens, the COD will
      not be supplying water services to the homes that will be built in the orange/green area. Their
      COD was created in 1986, under Statute 190, to build infrastructure for the Gateway
      community by low-cost bond financing. At that time, the Gateway ORI included the 417

      The COD has already invested bond proceeds in building its capital structure, like pumping
      stations and force mains, and has based its economics on a certain EIU buildout plan,
      including the 417 acres. Their current EIU count in the COO is around 9,000, and the 417
      acres, on the basis of 2.25 homes per acre, represent around the 1,000 more EIU's.

Case OR12011-00004                                                         20-Oec-11 - Page 29
      This application was proposing to remove 185 acres from the 417 acres, which represented
      a 44 percent reduction - to 232 acres remaining in Gateway, which he identified as the purple
      area on the map. The 185 acres being added to the Pelican Preserve ORI represented
      approximately 325 EIU's, which is 325 homes, according to the COO engineer. These 325
      homes represent 325 connections for portable water and sewer service. Their COO receives
      the connection fee or impact fee of approximately $2,000 per connection. Therefore, the loss
      of that 185 acres means a loss of about $650,000 to the COO, because their COO does not
      supply Pelican Preserve Community with water services. That loss is the City's gain.

      That was the reason he believed this hearing was the proper forum to raise his objections,
      since all the stakeholders are being considered in this discussion. The COO needed to be
      compensated accordingly and he would prefer the City do the compensating, instead ofWCI,
      since the City was gaining the connections.

      WCI was the prime mover in this proposed de-annexation. Mr. Senior understood that WCI
      stands to gain, because the 232 acres remaining in Gateway ORI will be completely isolated
      from the Pelican Preserve community to the west. In that way, WCI can build homes more
      profitably on that acreage and not be restricted to the over 55 age groups demographic.

      If WCI was to compensate the COO, as opposed to the City, then Mr. Senior wanted that
      compensation to be in the form of cash. The new WCI entity has recently emerged from the
      ashes of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the old WCI. Given the current economy, Mr. Senior
      was not sure of WCl's capacity to make a cash settlement with the COO. The COO, per its
      management firm ( OMS), owes approximately $1.5 Million in prepaid connections to the old
      WCI - as a result of the 2003 bond arrangement. It was unclear to him whether the COO was
      in debt to the new WCI entity for these prepaid connections, as the COO had not been listed
      as a debtor in the WCI bankruptcy documents.

      Given all this uncertainty, Mr. Senior opposed any arrangement where the COO is
      compensated by WCI by way of trading in prepaid connections rather than cash. Therefore,
      Mr. Senior was asking that the Hearing Examiner to consider, firstly, if the COO will be
      compensated for damages and how much. Secondly, which party will be dOing the
      compensating, and, thirdly, whether the compensation would be made in cash.

      With regard to the last part of their submission, if the Application was approved, the COO was
      expected under each Charter to provide portable irrigation and sewer water services to the
      future homes on the 232 acres in the purple area, which will be part of unincorporated Lee
      County. The COO had already invested in infrastructure capacity to service the 417 acres
      in its 2003 Bond issue. The COD obtains its return on this investment and provisions for
      future replacement by way of connection fees, already mentioned, and the incremental
      contribution from water usage charges. Therefore, by removing the 185 acres, the COO
      enterprise fund revenue from the sale of water was reduced by 44 percent or 325 homes, and
      was also losing 44 percent of future water usage charges. Thus, the incremental loss in
      contributions from 325 homes needed to be factored into the COO compensation on a OCF
      basis for a 20-year life expectancy.

      Therefore, Mr. Senior was asking the Hearing Examinerto take into consideration the COO's
      loss of water usages charges, which would be a direct gain by the City. He wanted the City
      to directly compensate the COO in that matter. He understood that the turnover matter was
      outside the scope of this hearing, but he fully supports the turnover of the roads to Lee

Case OR12011-00004                                                        20-0ec-11 - Page 30
      Ms. Montgomery wanted to clarify that the presentation was outside the scope of the issues
      before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner explained to Mr. Senior that she had
      no authority over the City and, because the CDD and WCI were two independent
      organizations, she had no authority over either of them. Therefore, she could not require the
      CDD to do something or require the Applicant to do anything, and she certainly could not tell
      the SOCC that they have to do something. She understood what he was asking, but it was
      the wrong forum to be asking that. Then, Mr. Senior inquired about the correct forum,
      however, the Hearing Examiner was not able to tell him. She mentioned that he may need
      to talk to the City first, because, if he wanted the City to pay for the losses that the CDD was
      going to incur, they would need to talk to the City.

      The Hearing Examiner further explained, that neither she nor the County could make the City
      or WCI give the CDD the money. If an agreement was not reached between the CDD and
      WCI, that dispute would end up in the Florida judicial system - not before the County Hearing
      Examiner. She reiterated that he needed to address the City directly on these issues.

      Mr. Senior wanted to know if the agreement or approval of the application could not be
      conditioned upon a party that had been damaged to get reasonable compensation. The
      Hearing Examiner clarified that she did not have the authority to impose that kind of condition.
      It was not a factor that went into her consideration on whether to approve or deny the
      Applicant's request. The issue that Mr. Senior was referring to was private property rights
      between the two entities.

      At that time, the Hearing Examiner called upon Ed Tinkle, a retired professional engineer who
      lived in Gateway. His address is 11180 Sent Pine Drive, approximately 1.5 miles south of the
      subject area. Mr. Tinkle mentioned he wanted to clarify an issue brought by Staff. Staff
      stated this change would not have any impacts on water and sewer, and he believed Mr.
      Senior just described a negative financial impact. He would echo everything that Mr. Senior
      said, in the interest of time, and agreed with Mr. Senior's estimated $650,000 loss of
      connection fees and another $600,000 revenue loss over the 12-year life of the bonds taken
      out to finance the provision of sewer and water to the 417 acres. Therefore, the total financial
      impact against the CDD and the residents was a little over 1.2 million dollars.

      Additionally, Mr. Tinkle noted that, if it was not the right forum, they would look at another
      place, but he did not understand Staff's position that there was no ramification, because a
      financial ramification was significant in the CD D's opinion. Ms. Richardson clarified that the
      reduction in the acreage would not impact the availability of water and sewer in either DRI;
      that was what she meant by her general statement. She then confirmed that her statement
      did not include any financial ramifications to the CDD.

      The Hearing Examiner added that they were looking at two different entities, which were the
      CDD and WCI. She reiterated that she does not have the authority to make the CDD supply
      water; if they decided not to supply water to anybody in that purple area, she could not make
      them do it. The matter that they are describing is actually a determination of property rights.
      Monetary loss or gain was also a form of property, and property rights can only be determined
      in the Florida judicial system.

      Mr. Tinkle then mentioned that there were negotiations going on between WCI and the CDD
      on a dollar value exchange. He heard that it was not instituted by this group and he wanted
      to know if it was perhaps done by the City of Fort Myers. The Hearing Examiner did not know

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 31
      and told him that whatever negotiations WCI had going on with the CDD were outside the
      scope of this hearing and her authority.

      At that time, a 10-minute recess was taken, and when the hearing reconvened, Anthony
      Pires, Counsel for the Gateway Services Community Development District, introduced
      himself. He noted that a copy of his letter, with attachments, had been provided earlier to the
      Hearing Examiner and the County Staff, and he provided a copy to the Court Reporter.

      Mr. Pires reiterated their objection and explained that it was the District's position that there
      was not adequate notice; therefore, the Hearing Examiner did not have jurisdiction over the
      case. Based on the presentation that had occurred during the hearing, their chaos and
      confusion appeared to be a prevailing order. By way of example, Ms. Montgomery had a
      document that she was discussing in reference to the 11Th Development Order Amendment.
      His understanding was that they were here under the 10T Development Order Amendment,
      and the Staff Report, in their chronology, talked about nine prior amendments. It talked about
      the 2006-2007 hearing process that went to a hearing before the Hearing Examiner, but was
      withdrawn before it went to the BOCC; therefore, there was no 10T Amendment.

      Furthermore, Ms. Montgomery had introduced during the hearing, and he was given a copy
      ten minutes ago, of a 6-page document that had language changes substantially different
      from what was proposed in the application, and attached as Exhibit H to the Staff Report. No
      notice of any text changes were referenced in any of the legal advertisement, so his client
      was still objecting to having this hearing.

      At this time, Mr. Pires wanted Staff to clarify if this was the 10lh Development Order
      Amendment - not the 111h, and Mr. Jacob responded that it was the 111h The 10lh
      Amendment was recently approved / adopted by the BOCC for a time extension, based on
      House Bill 7207. That was about three weeks ago. The State Legislature gave automatic
      extensions to DRls and WCI incorporated those extensions under the House Bill as a
      separate Amendment to the DRI Development Order. Therefore, this was the 11 T        "

      Mr. Pires questioned if a notice had been provided to the Gateway residents about the 10lh
      Amendment, because he, as counsel for the District, was not aware of it. Mr. Jacob advised
      that the matter had been brought before the BOCC on a Blue Sheet, which provided the
      required notice of hearing. He was trying to find the actual adoption date for Mr. Pires, to
      which the Hearing Examiner stated that it appeared Staff received the request to extend on
      July 111h, and that request was duly passed and adopted by the BOCC on October 111h Mr.
      Pires mentioned that it was appropriate to have an addendum or adjustment to the Staff
      Report to reflect the 10T Amendment; otherwise, it just created additional confusion. Mr.
      Jacob clarified that the Staff Report was prepared before the 10lh Amendment was actually
      adopted, and Mr. Pires indicated his understanding.

      With regard to what was being proposed during the hearing, there were a number of
      additional comments that the District would like to make. In doing so, it was also important
      to clarify the roadway segment. Mr. Pires noted that Mr. Ernst was incorrect as to the
      roadways owned by the District. The District owned the one side pOinted out by Mr. Pires on
      SR-82 to the FPL easement. That area was outside the boundaries of the DRI. There was
      another segment about 2,170 feet long, around the general area of Gateway Boulevard,
      which was owned by the District. Mr. Pires' materials included those segments. He pointed
      out other sections of Griffin Drive that are owned by the District. When it was platted and

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 32
      conveyed in 1994, it was known as (partially) Griffin Drive and (partially) Commerce Lake

      Therefore, the District has three roadway segments; two of which are within the boundaries
      of the DR!. That was why the District felt it had a substantial interest in this particular
      proceeding. The District's Board had taken the position that both roadways - the segments
      owned by the CDD and by WCI - should be turned over to Lee County.

      He felt Mr. Ernst and Ms. Montgomery were trying to go back in time to paint the District as
      a bad actor. There has been no discussion about gates, since it was discussed in 2003. The
      issue of road turnover has been a long, fruitful discussion between Staff and District
      personnel over the last two years. The District thought they needed some Interlocal
      Agreements that would recognize the unique character of Gateway and the substantial
      residential character of the communities that use these roads. Those Agreements should
      recognize that Gateway Boulevard and Griffin Drive traverse the Gateway communities and
      should contain provisions to protect the integrity of those communities, while maintaining the
      roadways in the functional category that Lee County wants.

      In his letter, Mr. Pires suggested language to be added to the DRI DO and the inclusion of
      which he believed was critical for the District. Others may say that Lee County could always
      enter into an agreement with them, as nothing precluded them from entering into an
      agreement. However, Mr. Pires believed that adding the language supported by the
      Applicant would create an opportunity for dispute, which would hold up WCI from conveying .
      the roadways to Lee County. Mr. Pires thought that it was a fiction.

      Referring to his letter, he noted that paragraph two about the proposed language, changes
      in the transportation section did not reflect the extensive interaction between the District and
      Lee County over the last several years. Therefore, Mr. Pires was requesting that the
      following language be added to Section 3.10 of the Gateway DRI Development Order and be
      recommended to the Lee County BOCC: "The County and GSO may enter into inter/ocal
      agreements relating to the operation and maintenance of said roadways to allow and
      authorize special features and treatments to maintain and enhance the residential nature of
      the area." Mr. Pires reiterated that language did not have any adverse consequences for
      WCI, but it would have substantial benefits to the District and the residents of the District.

      Then, referring to Paragraph 2.B in his letter, he noted that it was about the proposed
      changes as were set out in the Staff Report and the NOPC application Exhibit H. It did not
      correlate to the Applicant's proposed changes handed to him at this hearing. Those changes
      were radically different, and he was not even able to comment on those, as he has not had
      time to really review them.

      The proposed language that was suggested in Section 3.10 and Section 8, paragraph 3, of
      the DRI DO stated that the language was intended to revert back to the existing language.
      Ms. Montgomery, in her 6-page document, tried to go through the history of how the language
      in the 9th DRI DO came into being. However, in Mr. Pires' opinion, upon a closer reading and
      comparison of the language in the 9TH DO, with what she was proposing in the 11th DO,
      showed that was not totally correct.

      Under the current DO, there was language that needed to be clarified. There was proposed
      language making the County responsible for the operations and maintenance for arterial and
      collector roads that were built as a result of the Lee County Official Traffic Ways Map. He

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 33
      noted that the two sentences that immediately preceded that could be construed as being
      inconsistent with the new language. Mr. Pires read as follows:

              All roads, regardless of whether or not they are local, collector, arterial or
              freeway, excluding interstate highways, build by the developer within the
              community, shall be considered internal roads. All internal roads shall be
              constructed to Lee County standards, operated and maintained by the
              developer or/and the community development district.

      Mr. Pires interpreted the paragraph to state that the local, collector and arterial roads were
      all internal roads, which were to be maintained by the developer or the District. However, the
      sentence proposed makes the County responsible for the operation and maintenance of
      arterial and collector roads. Then going further down in that proposed paragraph, the roads
      "build as a result of the Lee County Official Traffic Ways Map" were to be maintained by the
      developer. For that reason, Mr. Pires thought the paragraph needed some clarification. He
      suggested that the phrase "except that the County is responsible" or something along those
      lines be added, if the language was going to be maintained in Section 3,10.

      It was key, from the District's perspective, to have language in there making it clear that the
      County and the District may enter into Interlocal Agreements relating to those roads. There
      has been some testimony about Lee County taking the maintenance and operational
      responsibility for roads that are not roads within a gated community. As an example, Mr.
      Pires mentioned that The Brooks have an Interlocal Agreement in which Lee County is to
      maintain certain roadways that had an enhanced level of vegetation, landscaping that
      provided an opportunity to recognize unique character of the community, and unique
      characteristics that may exist, whether at signage, landscaping or otherwise.

      Mr. Pires wanted to make sure the issue about gating was long gone; they needed to refocus
      on what has happened in the last two years. While the District has had extensive discussions
      with Lee County about turning over the roads, they have not had the same discussions with
      WCI. That was part of their source of irritation; nothing had been brought to the District's
      Board. The only discussions with WCI had been about Pelican Preserve and what would
      happen with the City.

      As far as the District was concerned, this lack of discussion gave rise to the public notice
      issue. In Mr. Pires' opinion, the notice was deficient. Neither the District nor the community,
      as a whole, were adequately apprised of this request and its ramifications. Mr. Pires wanted
      the opportunity to provide additional documentation if the record was left open or the hearing
      was continued. Then, he mentioned the 11TH Amendment DO, commenting that the DO left
      a lot of language from the prior DO's, but added limiting language.

      The language that Ms. Montgomery indicated at the top of page four said: "The developer has
      the option of dedicating the arterial roads under the Developer's ownership that serve a
      County-wide function of the County or the GSD." It did not reference whether the GSD had
      the ability to dedicate or convey its roads to Lee County. Therefore, he thought that
      substantial work needed to be done and the hearing needed to be continued for the public
      to have their opportunity to comment, and the District to have its opportunity to participate.

      At that time, the Hearing Examiner understood that WCI had no control over sections of
      roadways owned and maintained by the District. Referencing the section quoted by Mr. Pires,
      the Hearing Examiner inquired about WCl's ownership of those roads. In response, Ms.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 34
      Montgomery explained that WCI owned certain segments, and that, at some point in the near
      future, WCI needs to turn those road segments over to an operating entity for maintenance,
      etc. Once WClleaves the community, they are not supposed to be owning any of the roads.

      The Hearing Examiner wanted to know if the statement in the DRI was intended to say that
      WCI was going to turn over all the roads, even the portions that were owned by GSD. Ms.
      Montgomery answered no, as that could not happen since WCI did not have control of those
      roads. It was why she used the big "D" in Developer, because that represented WCI and not

      Mr. Pires stated that his comments were directed more toward it being a limiting sentence,
      which did not address whether the District could turn over the roads to Lee County. The
      Hearing Examiner explained that WCI did not have any authority over the District's roads, but
      Mr. Pires wanted the sentence to read "Developer or the District" have the option. Ms.
      Montgomery stated that she was fine with that change if Mr. Pires felt it was necessary to add
      that language to clarify that both entities could turn over their roads. Mr. Pires noted that the
      difficulty was due to the revised 11th DO draft being handed to him that morning. The Hearing
      Examiner indicated her understanding.

      The Hearing Examinerwanted know if Mr. Pires' concern was that, in that paragraph, in some
      way or another, WCI was trying to limit the rights that the District had over the segments they
      owned. Mr. Pires noted that it appeared to say just that. Also, he stated that, on page three,
      he had written in words that had been deleted, but now references were being deleted in that
      area, too. If the 9th DO Amendment was supposed to go back to the language in the 4th DO
      Amendment, then they needed to have more deletions and strike throughs. The Hearing
      Examiner indicated that she would look through all of the previous DO Amendments. Ms.
      Montgomery explained that was the reason she provided the chronology explaining what she
      was doing.

      Mr. Pires stated that the chronology would not help the Hearing Examiner because when the
      document was looked at, it was assumed that he put back in the deleted language, and it
      should have been in strike through format. The Hearing Examiner indicated that she would
      do comparison of the documents, but explained what the District and WCI did with their
      respective roadway segments will have no bearing on whether she recommends approval of
      the removal of the 185 acres. This matter was more of a neighborhood dispute, which
      needed to be worked out between themselves, since she did not have the authority to resolve
      it. She reiterated that she understood the concerns raised by Mr. Pires, however, the matter
      was beyond the scope of her authority.

      The issue before the Hearing Examiner was whether or not there was a reason to keep that
      185 acres from being removed from the DR!. Who owns the roads in the Gateway DRI, and
      who ultimately gives the roads to the County, is a side issue. It was not a substantial issue
      requiring the denial of the removal of the 185 acres. The Hearing Examiner noted that, if
      they were trying to do a codification, then, she might have been a little more amenable to
      doing this. The Hearing Examiner told Mr. Pires that he may go to the SOCC or City of Fort
      Myers Council about this matter, but, for the purposes of this particular hearing, she does not
      have the authority to resolve the matter. She pointed out that Ms. Montgomery had said she
      had no problem with them adding a statement that WCI or GSD could dedicate the roads to
      Lee County.

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 35
      Mr. Pires mentioned that this dispute was brought to the Hearing Examiner when the
      Applicant proposed text changes in their application. In Mr. Pires' opinion, it was not just a
      matter of removing the acreage from the DRI; it also included changing the terms of the DO.
      He was asking for two things: first, the clarification of the language in Section 3.10, which
      he believed was within the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction, so that the SOCC can say that
      the County and the District can enter into an interlocal agreement for the operation and
      maintenance of the roads.

      At that moment, Mr. Jacob explained that the County had no "dog" in this fight. Trying to
      avoid any more angst over Section 10, Mr. Jacob referred to the 9th DO Amendment and the
      language adopted by the SOCC in 2002-2003. He suggested that language be reviewed and
      rewritten, as necessary. Consequently, the Hearing Examiner mentioned that she would
      have the secretaries put the full language and then do the normal strike through and

      Then, Mr. Pires stated that the language was not acceptable to the District since it had been
      added without their knowledge. Mr. Jacob explained that what had already been adopted in
      prior Amendments was over. He was suggesting that the Hearing Examiner go back to the
      9th Amendment and recommended she not make any text changes to Section 10 in these
      proceedings. The County was okay with that. He added that he was not sure how much
      Ms. Montgomery wanted to fight in the SOCC for these clarifications.

      Ms. Montgomery stated that, if they went back to the language in the 9th Amendment, the
      Applicant would not have the ability to dedicate the roads to the County. The Applicant needs
      to be able to dedicate them to the County. If there was a complaint about her proposed
      language, she had no problem with using the language that was contained in the NOPC. She
      was merely trying to fix some bad language from the 9th Amendment; that was why she had
      given the Hearing Examiner copies of the different Amendments, so that the Hearing
      Examiner could track the language. At this point in time, Ms. Montgomery was thinking
      about striking through completely what happened in the 9th Amendment and starting fresh to
      have it make sense, even though she did not do it earlier so that everyone would not be
      hesitant about accepting the change.

      The Hearing Examiner stated that she has found that the easiest way, when they are making
      multiple changes in one paragraph, was to strike the entire paragraph and re-write it. Ms.
      Montgomery explained when they made changes in the 9th Amendment to resolve other
      issues, they left parts of the paragraph out, but added in other parts. The part that they took
      out helped explain that transition from the part that was there, so something was "missing."

      The Hearing Examiner asked Ms. Montgomery to look at page two of Mr. Pires' letter at the
      language he wanted added. That language was specifically to allow both the District and
      WCI to enter into interlocal agreements. She inquired if Ms. Montgomery had any objections
      to the District entering into interlocal agreements with the County, and Ms. Montgomery
      replied that the District could enter into any agreements they wanted for the District's
      property, but not for WCl's property.

      Mr. Jacob asked about using some generic language like: "The owners of the roads may
      choose to enter into Interlocal Agreements or Development Orders." Ms. Montgomery was
      okay with that, and Mr. Jacob asked about the possibility of leaving the record open.

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 36
      The Hearing Examiner reiterated that Ms. Montgomery did not have a problem with GSD
      doing whatever they wanted to do on their segments of the roads. However, Ms.
      Montgomery did not want the District entering into Interlocal Agreements binding her client
      to certain actions and requirements for their sections of the roads. Maybe, the roads were
      all going to be turned over to the County at some point in the far future. Therefore, the
      language that Mr. Pires had proposed included the recognition that the District had the right
      to do that for the roads owned by them.

      Mr. Pires inquired about the proposed language in the application in Section 10 would add:
      "The County is responsible for the operation and maintenance cost for arterial and collector
      roads that are built as result of the Lee County Official Trafficways Map." It mentioned three
      roads and the majority of those roads were owned by WCI, but portions of those roads were
      owned by the District. The next sentence would be: "The County and GSD may enter into
      Interlocal Agreements relating to the operation and maintenance of said roadways." It went
      back to the County being responsible for these roads.

      The Hearing Examiner understood what they were saying and asked for them to work on it,
      recognizing that each had ownership and each had certain responsibilities. Mr. Jacob
      explained to Mr. Pires that one of the main reasons, as they go through these proceedings
      with DRI DO's, that the conditions or situations change and the people want to make changes
      in the text to clarify "things." With the prior changes, pieces got taken out and other pieces
      were dropped in and the provisions no longer made sense; that was why they were revising
      the text in this NOPC request. The process is fluid, in a lot of ways, as Ms. Montgomery did
      two drafts coming up to this hearing. It was all designed to get it out here in this forum and
      then get the final document / language to the BOCC.

      Mr. Pires mentioned that there are a number of documents associated with this DRI, and to
      try to redo all of them creates the opportunity to miss something substantial. He felt WCI was
      asking for the changes to help them further their development scheme to remove the 185
      acres and have a different development scheme. He believes WCI needs to bear the cost
      of this action, because, at the end of the day, WCI will be gone and the residents, the District
      and the County will be left with whatever document WCI created.

      Keeping things straight is not a fun task, and it does not get any better with age. This case
      is a classic example of that. Therefore, Mr. Pires was encouraging that it be one of the
      conditions. He stated they discussed this matter in 2007 and the District was told that it had
      to be re-codified, but, four years later, nothing has been done. Mr. Pires thought that it
      needed to be done and he was requesting that it be made a requirement.

      Mr. Jacob mentioned that DRI DOs go away, after the project is found to have been
      substantially built-out. The Hearing Examiner pOinted out that some provisions, like buffering
      and water management, will still carry forward, and Mr. Jacob stated the continuation of the
      DRI DO depends on the conditions in the DRI DO. Mr. Jacob indicated that the zoning
      conditions will remain the same. In addition, Mr. Jacob stated that, once adopting a
      procedure for determination for substantial build out, that will take Applicants through the
      process and explain Chapter 380 and the requirements. Ultimately, however, everything· that
      they were arguing over today, was going away in the future.

      The Hearing Examiner wanted to know if there were any other questions of Mr. Pires. Mr.
      Jacob mentioned, for clarification purposes, that the County, the Applicant, and Mr. Pires, as

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 37
      far as his revision to the provision, will get together within the time frame that the Hearing
      Examiner gave them to work it out. It was going to be a simple provision.

      Peter Doragh was the next witness. After being sworn in, Mr. Doragh introduced himself,
      noting that he has been a resident of Gateway for about 20 years. He has also been a
      member of the Board of Supervisors, on and off, for the last decade. For a considerable
      portion of the time period in which these events were occurring, he was the chairman of that
      Board. He advised that he was present at this hearing for a couple of reasons. He did not
      think there was any basis for objection to the removal of the 185 acres, but he did have
      serious objections to the notice provided. Mr. Doragh heard the previous discussion and
      understood the Hearing Examiner did not agree with them. However, he believed she would
      have seen a lot more residents, if that notice had said the DO amendments would impact the
      operation, maintenance and ownership of the roads within Gateway.

      The Notice said that the PUD and the DRI were being amended for the purpose of changing
      the boundary to exclude property, which was already in the City of Fort Myers. A well
      educated, thoughtful person reading that notice would be very surprised to hear that the
      ownerShip, the operation or the maintenance of their roads was at issue today. He did not
      think that it was too much to ask that a correct notice be given and that the hearing be
      continued so that anyone that wanted the opportunity to come and say so, can say what they
      think about those proposals.

      Mr. Doragh thought that the Hearing Examiner would find that this was a very active subject
      of conversation in Gateway, and has been since at least 2002. He mentioned that Mr. Ernst
      had given the Hearing Examiner a description, from his point of view, of what happened, but
      there was two sides to every story. From Mr. Doragh's side, going back to about 2006 or so,
      there has been effectively no communication between the District and WCI about this,
      because they had been essentially at an impasse for a long time. What they had been told,
      whenever they inquired, was that WCI was not in a position to deal with the maintenance
      needs of the roads and that was, ultimately, reflected in some sort of a punch list, which he
      had never seen.

      However, Mr. Doragh understood that the decision was essentially made not to pursue it, and
      the consequence was that the whole topic was kind of on hold. It has been stuck on hold for
      a very long time. If the residents had understood that WCI was proposing to take it off hold,
      then, there would be a lot more input in this hearing.

      The Hearing Examiner was given some information regarding gating and entrances to
      Gateway as an issue. He mentioned that the topic about reclassifying the roads was a red
      herring; there have been efforts over time by the residents seeking assurance that the roads
      in Gateway will be properly classified. The residents did not want to be put in the position of
      paying the District to maintain the roads, only to be told later that the District had no control
      over the roads.

      In 2002, they were "shocked" to find that an amendment to the DO had been adopted,
      through a process in which they had no participation, that stated the District was going to take
      over ownership and control Gateway Boulevard and Commerce Lake Drive (aka Griffin
      Drive). A provision was added to that DRI DO that said that those roads would be public
      roadways, which would not be gated. As a practical matter, gating these roads had never
      been feasible from an engineering point of view or from a public funding standpoint.

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 38
      Substantial portions of these roads were built with public bonds, restricting them (by gating
      the entrances) was probably illegal.

      Mr. Doragh indicated that gating had not been a real issue. What had been the real issue
      was the residents having to pay to maintain the roads that are open and used by everybody
      in the County, but not having the ability to control what happens on the roads. Therefore, the
      2006 or 2007 Resolution basically stated that the position of maintenance and operation of
      these road was unclear, probably because the residents did not want to be put in the position
      of having to pay for the roads, while having no control over them. It was saying, either they
      will pay for it and would have control or they would not pay for it and would have no control.
      Therefore, these other topics came up in conjunction with trying to achieve one of those two

      They had no success over time in getting to a point where they thought they could get any
      kind of reasonable control; DOT had been very persistent and very consistent about that
      view. The BOCC told them that they would work with them on traffic calming, and that was
      their view of the result of the management planning meeting. Because the process ended,
      from WCI's point of view, and they were the primary driver, nothing has really happened
      beyond that. Mr. Doragh noted that it was a long-standing issue and it was on the Hearing
      Examiner's plate because she was being asked to make modifications to the language.

      The residents agree with some of the modifications. For instance, the Applicant was
      proposing to delete the language that drove them crazy from 2002, but some of the other
      modifications were not as clear, in Mr. Doragh's opinion. With regard to Ms. Montgomery's
      effort to give the history during the hearing and make some further changes, Mr. Doragh
      noted that he rather be in the position where they could look at the real changes before they
      commented. Also, he mentioned that they would not have been at this quite so late if they
      had any idea that this issue was on the table. They had no idea; he just found out this

      At this point, the Hearing Examiner wanted to know who was he referring to by "we." He
      responded that it was the residents. Once the notice came out about this hearing, there was
      a lot of email traffic and phone calls asking what it was about. Mr. Doragh's understanding
      was that people were told that the point of the hearing was to handle the release of the
      acreage from the DO. He was sure that there were other kinds of conversations, but that was
      what people were basically told it was about. That was essentially what the notice said, too.

      The residents never received any information from WCI or any other source that operation,
      ownership and maintenance of the roads was at issue or any condition relating to those
      terms. That was the language that the Hearing Examiner was being asked to modify. It had
      to do with who owns it, who operates it, and who maintains it. Mr. Doragh thought that there
      had to be a fair chance for people to review what was being proposed on those topics, and
      then give her comment on the ultimate proposal.

      He only had a brief chance to see the language that was submitted today, and he shared the
      concerns that Mr. Pires had expressed. Also, he objected to there being any language in the
      DO, which stated that the District was supposed to take ownership or maintenance of roads,
      which were the main roads in Gateway.

      Ms. Montgomery mentioned that she added that in because that was what she thought they
      wanted from her telephone conversations and from Mr. Pires letter. She was happy to take

Case DR12011-00004                                                        20-Dec-11 - Page 39
      that out, since she had misunderstood what their problems were. Then, Mr. Doragh
      explained that the relationship with WCI had been cooperative, in the past, but of late it has
      not been. Hopefully, they would get back to that kind of relationship. The residents had
      taken some segments since starting down a path that no longer seemed to apply. He agreed
      with Mr. Pires that it should be clear that there was expectation or an intention that the
      segments of these roads that the District controlled, ultimately were going to be dedicated to
      the County, as well.

      The Hearing Examiner indicated that Mr. Jacob, Mr. Pires and Ms. Montgomery were going
      to work on language for that. If Mr. Pires wanted to involve him into his end of the loop, then,
      Mr. Pires and Mr. Doragh could talk about it in another room. Mr. Doragh understood about
      the Hearing Examiner being reluctant to deal with this, but he thought that, as long as it was
      going to end up in her Recommendation, there needed to be a chance for people to see the
      language and to come to testify about it, if they had testimony to give.

      They were facing a time where WCI was nearing the end of the development of the
      community. As a practical matter, the amount of property that they had left to sell in a
      market, as a company, was relatively small compared to what it was in the beginning. The
      roads have not been well maintained for a period of time. Just looking at the punch list, which
      was prepared to show the work that needed to be done for Gateway Boulevard, it was
      extensive and expensive.

      As a practical matter, the Applicant may be obligated under the DO, but the County's practical
      ability to cause them to live up to those obligations, and their own ability to finance those
      obligations when they start having no product to sell, obviously there was a diminishing return
      there. Mr. Doragh thought that it was an important issue and he thought that the Hearing
      Examiner would find that there was a lot of interest in the community.

      At that time, the Hearing Examiner stated that she was going to have her ruling stand as far
      as the notice was required, whether or not this was going to be a problem. She did not need
      50 people saying the same thing to get the point, and really did not need to see the room
      filled up with people that all want to make the same statement. However, Mr. Doragh
      thought that the Hearing Examiner will find it to be an important topic that should have been
      in the notice. The Hearing Examiner understood Mr. Doragh's concern, but with the people
      that had spoken there today, the whole issue had come out adequately and the point had
      been made. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner did not think that the hearing should be left
      open for Mr. Doragh to bring in all his neighbors to sit in the hearing room and stand up and
      say the same thing.

      At this point, Mr. Jacob wanted to clarify, once again, that the Amendment to the DRI DO with
      regard to Transportation Section 10 was not going to change anyone's maintenance
      responsibility, ownership's responsibility, or anyone's ability to do whatever they wish with the
      County as far as the roads are concerned. He was just clarifying that each party or
      stakeholders have certain rights with regard to the roads. He did not believe that statement
      needed to be said, but they were going to say it in a generic way, so that everybody would
      be okay with it. He advised that it could be removed (stricken) completely, and it would not
      change the relative responsibility of the parties.

      Mr. Jacob asked for Mr. Pires to share the information with anyone, but as Mr. Doragh said,
      if people had known this had something to do with the roads and the changes of
      responsibilities, they would have been here. Unfortunately, this was not about the roads and

Case DR12011-00004                                                           20-Dec-11 - Page 40
      so with that statement said, they would not have been here anyway. Therefore, holding the
      hearing open to tell more people about a provision that had nothing to do with the actual
      responsibility or maintenance of the road, will be a waste of everyone's time and energy
      because they would not show up anyway, if they get the right information.

      At that moment, Margaret Fineberg was called upon. Before Ms. Fineberg introduced herself
      for the record, the Hearing Examiner inquired about any other Public Participation Forms from
      members of the public that wanted to speak and had not given her the form. Since there
      were no others, the Hearing Examiner indicated that Ms. Fineberg was the last member of
      the public that was going to be speaking.

      Next, Ms. Fineberg introduced herself for the record, and indicated she had been sworn in.
      She was on the Board of Supervisors for the Gateway Services COD. However, she wanted
      to speak as a member of the public, and not as a representative of the COD. She lives in
      Stoneybrook at Gateway and she was on the Board there, also.

      She noted that she was probably going to throw a "little monkey wrench" into the words
      because she had many phone calls and many emails with residents that were concerned.
      Starting Monday, the residents realized this was happening and they started reading the
      language. The residents were the ones that funded and were represented by the COD. Up
      until the language changed in this, the residents always had the option of being able to take
      over the ownership of all of the roads, but, once this language got changed, that option was
      taken away. The roads that WCI owned can only revert to Lee County.

      There were a lot of people, even the ones that had to leave earlier, were glad that she was
      going to speak to that item. The language needed to be clear that the Services District did
      maintain the right to take over those roads, if they chose. They can revert to either Lee
      County or the Services District, as the operating entity into the future. Then, Mr. Jacob noted
      that it was going to be clear in his revisions.

      Ms. Fineberg stated that the way that this language read, it sounded like Lee County was the
      only choice; that there was no other choice. The Services District, and many of the residents
      that were there, wanted to keep that option. The Hearing Examiner reiterated that it was
      going to be cleared up and wanted to know if there were any other concerns. Consequently,
      Ms. Fineberg mentioned that there were two other things.

      As far as the 185 acres, she did not think that anybody was disputing the relocation of the
      boundary line. She wanted to say that the email blast that went out to the residents from Ms.
      Richardson said just the boundary line was being relocated. Nobody was notified of any other
      language changes in the DRI, which she thought was unfortunate. Ms. Fineberg would like
      for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider allowing people to speak, once the language changes
      are finalized.

      Ms. Fineberg thought that the Hearing Examiner would hear what she had heard today from
      the few people that did show up; that it was okay because they did not want to own the roads.
      However, she would also hear a lot from the other side that wants to retain the right to own
      the roads. Mr. Jacob reiterated that ownership and the right to control the roads had nothing
      to do with the subject case or the provisions that they were changing.

      Ms. Fineberg responded that, if the only thing the Hearing Examiner could hear and rule on
      was the 185 acres, why were they even talking about the other language. It should go

Case DR12011-00004                                                         20-Dec-11 - Page 41
      through the proper channels, and if this hearing was not the proper channel, then it should
      not even be a part of this hearing. Mr. Jacob wished it was not, but, unfortunately, somebody
      tried to clean up previous provisions that had not been clear when adopted. As Montgomery
      had indicated, there were only two cases in which the amendments had to be done this way-
      Gateway and Gulf Harbour. Because of this unique process, some changes in the past were
      not properly done, and the Applicant was trying to clarify those matters by simply making
      whole sentences out of partial sentences.

      Those minor changes have resulted in people believing the County was changing the rights,
      responsibilities and ownerships of roads. However, Mr. Jacob indicated that was not in the
      language, was not intended to be in the language, and, after he was done with it, there would
      be nothing to give rise to that suspicion. Everybody was talking about opening the hearing
      back up for more residents to come in, just like the majority of the members of the public had
      done, to talk about something that had nothing to do with what the County and the Applicant
      were doing in this case.

      The Hearing Examiner told the members of the public that she understood why they brought
      it up, because they thought certain rights were going to be determined, and this would be the
      only time they could talk about it. However, she indicated that the Applicant and County were
      simply revising the language to restate the obvious; they were revising it to be clear that
      "nobody's toes were being stepped on." This was the appropriate time to make the revision
      to the provision, unless the Applicant wanted to withdraw it and bring it back later as a new
      NOPC. Ms. Montgomery stated they would not do that.

      Ms. Fineberg stated that the concerns held by the other group was that the language had to
      say the roads owned by WCI can convert either to Lee County or to the District. Ms.
      Montgomery indicated that was the language she had distributed. Mr. Jacob reiterated that
      they tried to over clarify, and asked the Hearing Examiner to have her office send him the
      email addresses of the public. He would send them a copy of the revised language, so the
      people could see exactly what was intended and how it was being cleared up. Hopefully, by
      his office doing that, the public will not inundate the BOCC with this matter. He understood
      their concerns, but assured them that was not what the Applicant or the County was trying
      to do. Maybe the emails will alleviate their concerns.

      Ms. Fineberg advised that her last concern would not affect her personally, but she was
      looking at the setback change to 40 feet at the landfill property line. If a person did not live
      there now, they could not understand that the landfill is a 1OO-foot tall mountain. She thought
      it was crazy to place somebody's private property 40 feet from the landfill boundary. She
      reiterated she lived in Stoneybrook, where they were lucky enough to have a visual buffer.
      Otherwise, they would be staring at that 100-foot-high mound of wastes.

      Despite what they were saying about the landfill possibly ending up as a park, that land was
      never going to be used for anything recreational. Ms. Montgomery responded that people
      were recapturing and using old landfills. Ms. Fineberg thought that it would be very difficult
      to do that with this landfill, because no lime had been used on the wastes. The owner was
      still capturing the gases from it now, and burning them off, because the gases were so dirty
      that they could not be used to create energy. She reiterated that, in her opinion, nobody was
      every going to take that mount of garbage and make it into something pretty. At best, it will
      be a green hill.

Case DR12011-00004                                                          20-Dec-11 - Page 42
        She was thinking of the people that might move into housing that would be constructed next
        to that landfill property line. There would be less buffer between those properties than there
        was between the Stonebrook properties and the landfill, and she was concerned about
        protecting those people. In response to Mr. Jacob's question, Ms. Fineberg indicated that
        she lived on the other side of the lake in Stoneybrook. When she first bought in that
        community, she lived nearer the landfill and had the "pleasure" of smelling the landfill on
        more than one occasion.

        Mr. Jacob wanted to know how often she smells it now, and she stated not very often, unless
        they were having problems with the flare. The owner has done a better job containing the
        smell, since it has been capped.

        At that time, the Hearing Examiner inquired if there were other members of the public who
        desired to speak; there were none. She then inquired if Staff or the Applicant had any closing
        comments they wanted to make; there were none. The Hearing Examiner announced that
        she would hold the record open until Wednesday, November 30th , at 4:30 p.m. to allow Staff,
        the Applicant and Mr. Pires to work on the language for the DRI DO.

        Ms. Montgomery wanted to know if Mr. Jacob could send it to the Hearing Examiner, then she
        would not need to submit it downstairs, if an email would be accepted. The Hearing
        Examiner explained that if there was a situation where Staff and Applicant were working
        together with a member of the public on this and there was any disagreement, the Hearing
        Examiner always gave the different groups the opportunity to file their own language, if they
        could not agree with what Staff was recommending. Ms. Montgomery understood.

        It was reiterated that the record was left open for clarification of the language in Section 3.10
        and Map H to show the conservation labels. The hearing was then closed.



        1.     Barry Ernst, clo WCI Communities, Inc., 24301 Walden Circle Drive, Bonita Springs,
               Florida 34134

        2.     Stephen Leung, clo David Plummer & Associates, 2149 McGregor Boulevard, Fort
               Myers, Florida 33901


        1.     Susie Derheimer, Lee County Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 398, Fort Myers,
               Florida 33902

        2.     Andy Getch, Lee County Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 398, Fort Myers,
               Florida 33902

        3.     Michael Jacob, Assistant County Attorney, P. O. Box 398, Fort Myers, Florida 33902

Case DR12011-00004                                                            20-Dec-11 - Page 43
      4.     Clay Simmons, Lee County Department of Transportation, P. O. Box 398, Fort Myers,
             Florida 33902



      1.     Margaret Fineberg, P.O. Box 60274, Fort Myers, Florida 33906 (Boundary Change)

      2.     William Fish, 10511 Bella Vista Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913


      1.     Pete Doragh, 12071 Wedge Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      2.     Margaret Fineberg, P.O. Box 60274, Fort Myers, Florida 33906 (Road Language

      3.    Anthony P. Pires, Jr., 3200 North Tamiami Trail #200, Naples, Florida 34103

      4.    Tamara Sendewicz, 12779 Stone Tower Loop, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      5.     Rod Senior, 11190 Bent Pine Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      6.     Ed Tinkle, 11180 Bent Pine Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      General: NONE



      Against:       NONE


      1.    Albert Abdo, 13240 Griffin Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      2.    Silvio Di Folco, 11760 Pinewood Lake Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      3.    Richard Owens, 11730 Pinewood Lakes Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      4.    Ed Sichel, 12898 Vista Pine Circle, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

      5.    Richard Steiaman, 11711 Pinewood Lakes Drive, Fort Myers, Florida 33913

Case DR12011-00004                                                     20-Dec-11 - Page 44

      See Exhibit A (scanned legal description).


      Unauthorized communications shall include any direct or indirect communication in any form,
      whether written, verbal or graphic, with the Hearing Examiner, or the Hearing Examiner's
      staff, any individual County Commissioner or their executive assistant, by any person outside
      of a public hearing and not on the record concerning substantive issues in any proposed or
      pending matter relating to appeals, variances, rezonings, special exceptions, or any other
      matter assigned by statute, ordinance or administrative code to the Hearing Examiner for
      decision or recommendation. . . . [Administrative Code AC-2-5]

      No person shall knowingly have or attempt to initiate an unauthorized communication with the
      Hearing Examiner or any county commissioner [or their staff] .... [LDC Section 34-52(a)(1),
      emphasis added]

      Any person who knowingly makes or attempts to initiate an unauthorized communication ...
      [may] be subject to civil or criminal penalties which may include: [Section 34-52(b)(1),
      emphasis added]

      Revocation, suspension or amendment of any permit variance, special exception or rezoning
      granted as a result of the Hearing Examiner action which is the subject of the unauthorized
      communication. [LDC Section 34-52(b)(1 )b.2.]; OR

      A fine not exceeding $500.00 per offense, by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not
      exceeding 60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [LDC Section 1-5(c)]


      A.     This recommendation is made this 21'( day of December, 2011. Notice or copies will
      be forwarded to the offices of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners.

      B.     The original file and documents used at the hearing will remain in the care and
      custody of the Department of Community Development. The documents are available for
      examination and copying by all interested parties during normal business hours.

      C.        The Board of County Commissioners will hold a hearing at which they will consider
      the record made before the Hearing Examiner. The Department of Community Development
      will send written notice to all hearing participants of the date of this hearing before the Board
      of County Commissioners. Only participants, or their representatives, will be allowed to
      address the Board. The content of all statements by persons addressing the Board shall be
      strictly limited to the correctness of Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law contained in the
      recommendation, or to allege the discovery of relevant new evidence which was not known
      by the speaker at the time of the earlier hearing before the Hearing Examiner and not
      otherwise disclosed in the record.

      D.     The original file containing the original documents used in the hearing before the
      Hearing Examiner will be brought by the Staff to the hearing before the Board of County

Case DR12011-00004                                                           20-Dec-11 - Page 45
       Commissioners. Any or all of the documents in the file are available on request at any time
       to any County Commissioner.


       A verbatim transcript of the testimony presented at the hearing can be purchased from the
       court reporting service under contract to the Hearing Examiner's Office. The original
       documents and file in connection with this matter are located at the Lee County Department
       of Community Development, 1500 Monroe Street, Fort Myers, Florida.

                                                   DIANA M. PARKER
                                                   LEE COUNTY CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER
                                                   1500 Monroe Street, Suite 218
                                                   Post Office Box 398
                                                   Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398
                                                   Telephone: 239/533-8100
                                                   Facsimile: 239/485-8406

Case DR12011-00004                                                       20-Dec-11 - Page 46
                                                        LEGAL DESCRIPTION

                                                                   (GATEWAY DRI)

5,6,7,8, 17, 18, AND 19, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LEE COUNTY,

THENCE N26"43'12"E, FOR 22,55 FEET;
THENCE N36'03'29"E., FOR 110,'17 FEET
THENCE N29'37'59"E, FOR 74,56 FEET;
THENCE NA1"39'23"E" FOR 58,11 FEET;
THENCE N,33'20'13"E" FOR 100,09 FEET;
THENCE N,84"28'07"E" FOR 96,88 FEET;
THENCE N62'18'41"E" FOR 75,66 FEET;
THENCE NA1"3T12"E" FOR 113,91 FEET;
THENCE N.28"38'02"E" FOR 52,58 FEET;
THENCE N,Q6"28'39"E" FOR 89,64 FEET;
THENCE N,01 "06'25"E" FOR 72,22 FEET;
THENCE N,01 '51'58'W, FOR 84,51 FEET;
TelENCE N,04'OO'45"E" FOR 156,87 FEET;
THENCE N,08'10'35"E" FOR 59,60 FEET;
THENCE N,QO"41'27"E" FOR 100,52 FEET;
THENCE N,03'51'37"E" FOR 50,88 FEET;
THENCE N,89'30'23"w', FOR 21.48 FEET;
THENCE N.70'11'58'W" FOR 36,91 FEET;
THENCE N,30'38'29"W" FOR 33,49 FEET;
THENCE N,21 "13'45"W" FOR 45,96 FEET;
THENCE N,09"33'45'W" FOR 57,83 FEET;
THENCE N,00"20'33"E" FOR 62,72 FEET;
THENCE N23'32'36"E" FOR 41,70 FEET;
THENCE N,22"16'47"E" FOR 71.77 FEET;
THENCE N,14'23'40"E, FOR 41,24 FEET;
THENCE N,19"02'35"E" FOR 14,16 FEET;
THENCE N05"30'03'W" FOR 66,59 FEET;
THENCE N,02'26'40"E, FOR 67,89 FEET;
THENCE N,44"18'16"E" FOR 18,67 FEET;
THENCE N,20"19'56"E" FOR 15,12 FEET;
THENCE N,14'22'0T'E., FOR 40,14 FEET;
THENCE 1'139"37'09"[, FOR 51.21 FEET;
THENCE N,60"34'25"E" FOR 60.78 FEET:
THENCE NA9'37'19"E" FOR 30,84 FEET;
THENCE N35"Ol'01"E" FOR 139,86 FEET;
THENCE N.33°17'48'E" FOR 79.04 FEET;
THENCE N05'58'51"VIJ, FOR 95.82 FEET;
THENCE N25'45'44'W" FOR 33,77 FEET,
THENCE N 11'06'54'W" FOR 92.16 FEET;
THENCE N.05'53'01'W, FOR 101.70 FEET:
THENCE N.OO"'22'30"E., FOR 1 09, 12 FEET;
THENCE N,OO'46'03'W. FOR 56.29 FEET;
THENCE N 20'25'22''E., FOR 51.68 FEET:
THENCE N06°14'49"E, FOR 51,84 FEET;
THENCE N02"26'14'W" FOR 36.59 FEET:
THENCE N03"43'04"E, FOR 94.21 FEET,
THENCE N 11"54'08"E, FOR 37,50 FEET:
THENCE N,08'44'40"E" FOR 13408 FEET

                                                                        PAGE j OF
 (!.(!0~;:-"i)~0L)iF;) (,3I'd,~,1Il PI~"'J'<C'   SD:\ DRl &.   (ja(~\>:,,'!'   iD',mi'_' SliP   EXHIBIT A
                                                                    ([\'."'\'DRI U:(j,\i.
THENCE N.01 "49'49"E., FOR 38.11 FEET;
THENCE N.16'36'49"W .. FOR 29.35 FEET;
THENCE N.2r02'49'W., FOR 37.12 FEET;
THENCE N.29"44'39"W., FOR 32.04 FEET;
THENCE N.18"12'26"W., FOR 32.71 FEET;
THENCE N.07"32'51'W, FOR 52.30 FEET;
THENCE N.02'05'57"E., FOR 97.03 FEET;
THENCE N.03'15'37"E., FOR 70.14 FEET;
THENCE N.14"11'30"E, FOR 96.75 FEET;
THENCE N.06"54·3'1"E, FOR 1'16.34 FEET;
THENCE N.00"38'31"W .. FOR 29.36 FEET;
THENCE N.05"47'10"E .. FOR 70.71 FEET
THENCE N.81"06'27"E., FOR 46.60 FEET;
THENCE N.14'30'22"E, FOR 48.91 FEET;
THENCE N12"47'54"E, FOR 24047 FEET;
THENCE N05"46'11"W. FOR 71.32 FEET;
THENCE N.12'09'56"W., FOR 77.36 FEET;
THENCE NOW23'56"E., FOR 60.08 FEET;
THENCE N.03'30'57"E .. FOR 57.81 FEET;
THENCE N.10"28'55"E., FOR 221.23 FEET;
THENCE N.05"55'39"E., FOR 100.64 FEET;
THENCE N.08"30'29"W., FOR 77.08 FEET;
THENCE N.04"11'20"W., FOR 341.65 FEET;
THENCE N.17"51'57"W., FOR 72.48 FEET;
THENCE N.25"44'31"W .. FOR 10840 FEET;
THENCE N.17"42'01'W, FOR 68.03 FEET;
THENCE N.06'06'37"W .. FOR 26.74 FEET;
THENCE N.03'34'02"E., FOR 47.09 FEET;
THENCE N.02"45'49"W., FOR 27.98 FEET;
THENCE N.04"20'55"W .. FOR 56.38 FEET;
    1. THENCE S.37'57'04"E .. FOR 2.37090 FEET;
    1. THENCE S.46'06'51"E., FOR 2,810.39 FEET TO A POINT ON II CURVE:
       CHORD WHICH BEARS S.55'20'03"E. FOR 1,866.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SECTiON 8, FOR 3,028 35 FEET:
THENCE N89'34'"14T. FOR 605 03 FEET.
THENCE SOl'01'22"E, FOR 1.800 10 FEET;
THENCE S88'49'36'W FOR 140.73 FEET;
THENCE S.6n S'53'W. FOR 145.49 FEET:

                                                                        PAGE        ~   or    7
 (:.'':ibS'05!H '" 'II 'n !-cb':m   1""';~iY~   SDA I mJ .'::   '-iat~,\~yP;!D\()(I(j:; S[;j'\,':YIil~   S~I\ 1~~"n""";lip,i('l1"'(Jate,\"a)   DR, ',;,!:i(:(} U! 0_\ ow.;
                                                                     (,,,VY:)R,' U:(;J\!..<l<x.\
THENCE S.48'08'38"W" FOR 154,13 FEET;
THENCE S,56'44'43"W" FOR 897.10 FEET;
THENCE N.35°59'17"W .. FOR 858,81 FEET;
THENCE S.54°00'43"W., FOR 2,533.72 FEET:
THENCE S.00'53'33"E, FOR 955.84 FEET:
THENCE N,89'21'52"W., FOR 316,92 FEET:
THENCE S.OO"53'33"E, FOR 310,37 FEET;
SECTIONS 7, 12, AND 18;
LB F642;


OF S,89'56'14"W.



                                                             ('" \ i..;   l'

                                 PAGE 3 OF -:
                                                        THIS IS NOT A SURVEY


                                                 lDO.OS'       -1       :"4'                                      3.3.77'

~ ___!:2_____ l--,-N~'8=4~-2~S~'O:7~-:E_~-,-9~5.~S:8_'--! ,---.:L~,.:2'---l_.:.:Nl ,'06'54'\'1'                   92.16'

i-_~La=-_-I-,--N::.::'6Z 1 I..~i:'E'--'----.:7~5.:.:,6~6~·_' i-,--L~':3'---l_::N:C:5'~5:3~'O~1_":W_~
                          Ef                                                                                     101.70'
        ~;_:9_ _i-~N~'4:'~'O~-7~'~1~2'~'E,--+,--t1:3.91'                L'~4          NCO'22'.30~E               109,12'

        UO              N2S\38'CZ"E                 5258', I            L45           ~OO'46'03"W                 56.29'
i--=---i--'-~=-:::'''-                      ._l-. _ _ _ _ ~
f-_L~-~'1-'--l_~N~'O~6~'2~8~'3~,9~":C_~!-~B:9,~6=4----!i f---.:L~4~6:""-l_~N~'2~O~-2:5~'2~2~"~E_+-..::.5~"~6=8_·--!
                                                                        L47           ~06'14'49"E                 5L84'

                                                                                                                 L23        V         a,~
                                                                                                                   12'-';, II "
                                                                                                                   i...20           .1:
        '...19 '_"""_1_~r'~'7~O~'1~'_'5:8:"~'/f___   '_'_,9_,_-_.                                                      :..1"/----
                                                                                                                                            - .'


                                                     4- .70'
I       .2'-       .    NH32'36'E                                                                                      LU                  o        \-'>0'    300'
~"'-'---I--~ "22'10'4/"'[                            7'.77'                                                            :".12-

                                                                                                                                               GRAPH:C SCALE
~~~(}_                  ~ 1 ;·;3:~J-"~E--I-'--,-~·~,~,-·--!
                                                                                     SOVTH LINE
                                                                                   SO;,,',dW;:S"     lit..                                         I'~ )00'

        L27             ;'<"-;;'02'35-:::                                       -:"()\'i"lSHiP .1.5 SO\.,Tf.',
                                                                               , - RA,,::;E 25 ::.457

                                                                                                             , ... 7


                                                                           ________ l.l __ _
                                                                                   MATCH LINE
    LEGEND:                                                                       SEE SHEET 6
    ~\    c.i',E I 3£[ ;"';~E :,:,2:.E
    ". ': ~lJRVE 1 SEE: C.u':';'/i: 7.\9:.1:

                                                                                                   WCI COMMUNITIES, LLC
                                                                    =   3vO'
                       NOR;d LINE                           THIS IS NOT A SURVEY                                                       WEST   _1~t::.......1                  I
                  ~O;?Tf-,EAST          1/4                                                                                            SEC~'ON 3'~ ~                          I
                        SECTION :~
                                                                                                                                              L83     36      ~
                                                                                                                                                               ,6             I
                                                       1-----                       LINE T,18LE                                                                I              I
                                                                UNE                    BEAR,,<G                                                                               I

 L7C-                                                           L~9                  N03'43'04"[                    942;'                                                     I
   ~75                                                          L50                  Nl1'54'08"<:                   37.50'
                                                       1        L51                  NOS'44'"C"E                    ',34.08'

                                                       I        L52                  NO','A9'49"E                   38.,    j'

                                                                L53           i     ;-i1tY36'49''W                  29.35'         ,
                                                       ~~---                  l     N2T02'49"\V                     3r, ,2'

     !...73                                            i        L55                 N29' 44'39 '\'{                 32:.04'

                                                       1        L56                 N1S'12'26'\v                    32_71 '

                                                       [        L57                 NOT32'Sl 'W                     52,30'
                                                       ,        LS8                  N02'CS'S7"E                    97.03'
                                                       I        L59                  NCY,S',37"C                    7C.l~·

  L7C                                                           l50                  N14'11';;O~£                   96.75'
  L59-----                                                      Lai                  NOB"54'31"E                    1 i 5,,34'

  l..68                                                         L62                  NOO'38'31"W                    2936(lHl
                                                                L63                  N05'47'10"£                    70.71'
                                                                L64                  N81'CS'27"[
                                                                                  _-,==-=--=--+-,':.:6:.:.60 ........ j
                                                                Las                  N14'30'22"[                    48,9~     .

                                                                L56                  N:2'47'S4'"E
                                                                l67                  ;":05'46'11'"\11
              -i..02                                            L5B                  ;-':'t2'09'58"W                77,36'
                                                                L59                  NOo'23'5B"E                    60.08'

                                                                L 71



                                                       !----+--.:.:-=--------+I'-7~7~_O-,8. ----,
                                                                                                        ....i.I ·

                                                                                                                                                      W       -t--c s
                                                           L73                       NOS' 30'29"W
                                                                                                                                                       I)          ;.:.0-         ,ISO
                                                       !        ;74                  ;\04'; "20"'Ii         ,       341.55'                            l ..=,,=
                                                                                                                                                            GRAPHIC SCoI,lE

                                                       I--:;;-~_' _                                        !        7V1S'
                                                                                                                                                                   ;>. 3CC'

                                                           _"   V'S           1      ,"'25'4t;31~'N                 ,·::to.'"{)"
                                                                L77           ;      Nl7"42'Ol"'W                   oB.eS

                                                       I        LIE                  ~06·.?~?_:~_~: ___ _
                                                       1-       L79                  \(;3'34'02-"[                  47 :=:9'

                                                       L.._- 83
                                                       1   -

 C': : ~~f~,:~ ~E~E~I;ZU~~~l_~"B'-~
CO:--<SULTING                     CivuEnP=ing
                                                                                                                    WCI COMMUNITIES, LLC
A. "" f V.J... A                  Survej-1n.g & MEpping
                        ;~5(: ~'t$ :ivoo:                                     ",,"         HL£                       GATEWAY DRI
                    Fort Ml~'~_ F¢:'.l;)3~~:
               (rn)Z's-"~.; FAX: ,"S) :iTo-".-<'~
                                                                       bc~~"D~"'--. -I
                                                                                                                SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION
                F:;{mC<:<1~W~o:     /l;.t:ra,.:a,.".
                       ::515'03   L.S&'<:
                                                                 THiS           is          NOT A SURVEY~

                                                                                                                                                        GR,;P,.;,C SCALE
                                                                                                                                                               1"" 12CC'

                                                                                    OR :ZS0S. PC 656

                                                                 i                                                      j
              - - . . ____ - ____ 1-- _____ - _. ___ , _ - . - - - - -
                                                         CURVE TABLE
I   cuRVE              LENGTH             RADiuS                       DELTA                     CHORD SEARING                CHORD

!    _:"",-"-+-..:'S:.'''4=-.'.:.S'-·+-S''.''''''.''2::.'_'-.J-+c.-_-_-_-,:.8.:'~2::.6"'~O~"~~~j~~.:.S.:.55.:'-20::'~03~·~E~~~~~18~6~6~.7=O=,j   ~AST   UNE.
                                                                                                                                                 W::S-: 1/2
                                                                                                                                                 SECTION 5

                                                                                                                                  COMMON 1/4 CORNER:
                                                                                                                                    SECTIONS 5 & 8-~

                                                                                                                                  --        - ---- - - ~,.-- - -
                                                                     1500.10'                                                                    [AS'   .J~E
                                                                                                                                                 WES" HALF

                                                                     605.0.3'                                                                    S:::CT:ON 8____


                                                                                                                                         COMMON liNE
                                                                                                                                     S.'::(TI0',5 S & • 7 ";

                                                                                                                             S;}V'HI'/E:STERL. Y i.L\j~
                                                                                                                              JR 1\)05, FG i 275 --;

    '-,       '" _i~';::: 1 SE::- :..:'E :AB_E                          GR      ~   GCF:CIA'_      ~c.C{)R::   800-<
    :::       '" CUR'          S;:[ C;RVE 7"2~:                         PC   -~     .=>,V::;::

                                                                                                                      WCI COMMUNiTIES, LLC

                                                        NOT A SURVEY

                                                                        ,-----                                                T

                                                                                                             31C . .17'


                  4" CQ:>!GRETE
              ~,m·~;J.v,E!..JT LB 542
              C;;:t\,ER SEC:ION 1/.                                     CQI,;MQN L;N[
                                                                      SEC7'ONS 7 & 12
                        COMMON CORNER                   <t:I
                           SECTIONS                     ~
          I                7.12, &         '8~g

          ,                                           12" 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
     " - ] - - - - - - - - - - -13

                                                                                                            ..........-L9 7

"  ---
                 ,-.                                     '"
                                                                       \l"RTl-'''''::"$T 1 / 4
                                                                         "SEC'TiG~ 1     d       Lse.


                                        ():~   ~   2.c>:ClI'L ;';:-::;CRD 8-:)0"
                                        PC         PAGE

                                                                                WCI COMMUNITIES, LLC
                                                      . 200'
                                                               T'L'               GATEWAY DRI
                                                                             SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION
                                                                                                              ~'~f~SER: 0003 GWYDRj

                                                                                                                                                  :~~         "i
                                                                                                                         .~        3-       JQ    ~:

                                                                                                                                                  '" "
                                                                                                                                                  ~ :~        !;.:
                                                                                                                                                  1" ' ,


 (                                                                                                                                                ",' "
                                                                                                                                                  li" ,"

                                                                                                                              II!!!! if!!


                                                                                                    ,1""                      ,,             j;       l
                                                                                                                                                           ,    i"}.


                                                                                                    "I                        ,I        ,                       !;.-

                                                                                                                                                      ji,       g~
                                                                                                    ~~I~   ,   ,              'I                      ,
                                                                                                                                                      I , t;'"
                                                                                                    ~~,    ,,                                         ,    i "
                                                                                                                                                                c ~

                                                                                                    !j     ~~~
                                                                                                                              ,1    '0
                                                                                                                                             1'" "
                                                                                                                                                 J';            1;;;

                                                                                                    ,,I, ,                              ,
                                                                                                                                                      ,;,       Ii~

                                                                                               11    ~I::~i;~      'J;        ,I,,~          ~::::~   ~"

                                                                      '"   ."   '" " " ., ,.

, '" N
  :-    <0

                  , ,

                                     WCI COMMUNITIES, INC   GA TEWA Y PUDIDRI
                                        REVISIED MAP H I
                                          EXHIBIT "8.2"

To top