Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Greenway Fritchey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenway Fritchey project approved after debate over whether developer must pay fair‑share for nearby signal
Summary
The board approved the Greenway Fritchey overlay, growth‑management amendments and related road vacation and developer agreement; public comment and counsel exchanged over whether the developer must contribute a 'fair‑share' to an existing traffic signal, but commissioners declined to mandate additional cost‑sharing.
The Collier County Commission voted Dec. 9 to approve a multi‑part packet for the Greenway Fritchey residential overlay project, including a rezoning to allow up to 1,299 dwelling units, growth‑management plan amendments, a vacation of a county interest in Laredo Street, and a developer agreement to coordinate roadway improvements with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
During public comment, Tony Piers (Woodward Piers Lombardo), representing Fiddlers Creek Community Development Districts, urged the board to require a fair‑share contribution toward the traffic signal at Greenway and Sandpiper/US‑41, citing earlier rezonings that carried fair‑share obligations and an estimated signal cost of about $1.9 million. Piers asked that language similar to prior approvals be inserted in the developer agreement.
Petitioner counsel Rich Yovanovitch responded that historical documents and the original PUD obligations made signal costs the responsibility of the original CDD and that there is no present legal requirement to force the new petitioner to share in the historical cost. “There’s no legal requirement for my client to pay for that traffic signal,” he said, adding that his client would fund the intersection upgrades required by this project but would not accept a retroactive cost‑sharing demand.
Commissioners debated precedent, the burden on property owners, and the difficulty of retroactively reallocating costs for existing infrastructure. Several commissioners expressed sympathy for the Fiddlers Creek districts’ concerns but worried about setting a precedent that would obligate future developers to pay for past improvements. Commissioner Locastro said county staff and commissioners had reviewed the record and that mandating a contribution could create unwanted precedent. Commissioner Hall said he favored protecting precedent and noted the county’s long history of not requiring later developments to pay for previously completed signals.
After discussion, the board approved the full companion package in one motion. The developer and staff will finalize the developer agreement language; the petitioner noted a clerical correction to deed references and agreed to revise the resolution text before final recording.
Why it matters: The decision settles a recurring tension between older infrastructure obligations assigned to previous developments and new rezonings that benefit from that infrastructure. The board’s choice not to mandate retroactive cost‑sharing preserves past contract allocations but leaves nearby districts to pursue other remedies or negotiations.
What’s next: Staff will finalize the developer agreement and corrected deed language; affected CDDs and the petitioner may continue to negotiate fair‑share contributions outside the rezoning approval process.
