Commissioners keep existing golf-course conversion code after weeks of debate; no change adopted

Collier County commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to leave the county’s existing golf-course conversion procedures in place after extended debate among commissioners, planning staff and residents.

Background: The board had previously directed staff to explore changes to Land Development Code provisions that govern conversion of private golf courses to other uses, with the stated goal of making the process less vulnerable to “Bert Harris” takings claims. Staff’s draft recommended eliminating many of the additional prerequisites the code currently requires — including stakeholder outreach reports, multiple conceptual plans, developer alternative statements and purchase-option provisions — arguing that the extra layers had exposed the county to litigation. Planning staff described a “simple” rework that would instead require a Neighborhood Information Meeting before application submittal and preserved board discretion on greenway widths.

Planning Commission and public response: The county’s Planning Commission rejected staff’s proposal, saying the draft removed too many public‑engagement safeguards and urging stronger protections for adjacent homeowners. Several residents of Riviera Golf Estates and other neighborhoods urged commissioners not to diminish the greenway buffer and to preserve the public‑engagement features. Peter Ozinski, vice chairman of the Riviera Golf Estates board, told commissioners the 2017 conversion rules were intended to reduce litigation and protect abutting homeowners. “These regulations are there for a very good reason,” Ozinski said.

Board discussion and vote: Commissioners debated competing priorities: protecting neighboring homeowners’ expectations and reducing potential litigation exposure. Commissioner Nick Kowal said the county had few qualifying golf-course properties and noted existing case history suggesting limited litigation success. Commissioner Kristine Locastro said, “There’s no such thing as Bert Harris proof,” and cautioned the county against over‑streamlining protections in ways that would make residents more vulnerable. Ultimately the board voted 5–0 to retain the current ordinance language and not to adopt the staff’s simplified rewrite.

Next steps: Staff will maintain the existing conversion process. Commissioners asked staff to return if there are targeted, narrowly tailored edits that can reduce litigation risk without eliminating the public‑engagement and greenway provisions that neighboring residents rely on.

Bottom line: The county retains its more prescriptive golf-course conversion process after residents and the Planning Commission urged preserving public-engagement requirements, and the board asked staff for any narrowly tailored changes that could reduce vulnerability to land‑use claims without removing protections.