Objection to TCP 24-04 Adoption Date Extension

April 7, 2026

RE: Formal Objection and Notice of Standing Regarding Unauthorized Extension of Adoption Deadline for TCP-24-04 (RSAOD Revisions)

Dear Commissioners,

We are writing to you as "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Having provided substantial public input and formal comment throughout the proceedings for Application TCP-24-04, we are appealing to this Board to address a serious procedural and legal error regarding the timeline of this amendment.

Records obtained from the County show that on March 19, 2026, planning staff concurred with an applicant's request to delay the final adoption hearing until February 28, 2027.[1] On that same evening, County staff sent an after-hours email to the Florida Department of Commerce to transmit this request.[2] By March 30, 2026, the State responded that it had updated its records to reflect this new 2027 deadline.[3] It appears the State processed this change without hesitation, operating under the assumption that the request was supported by official Board authorization and that all statutory requirements—including mandatory public notice—had been satisfied.

We object to this extension for the following reasons:

• Lack of a Valid Agreement and Board Authority: Under Section 163.3184(3)(c)1, F.S., the 180-day adoption window is mandatory "unless extended by agreement with notice to the state land planning agency and any affected person that provided comments on the amendment."[4] While the staff’s after-hours email provided "notice" to the State, there is no evidence of an "agreement." In the context of a Comprehensive Plan amendment—a legislative act—such an agreement necessitates formal action by the Board. Furthermore, Charlotte County Code Sec. 3-9-10(a)(1) explicitly limits applicant-requested postponements to one of the next four (4) scheduled public meeting dates. This staff-level decision to grant an extension to nearly one-year after transmittal bypasses the Board’s jurisdiction and violates the plain language of the County Code and Florida Statute 163.3184(3)(c)1.

• Failure of Statutory Notice: The statute explicitly requires that any extension agreement include notice to "any affected person that provided comments on the amendment." As affected persons who have commented throughout this process, including during the window following the December 9, 2025 transmittal hearing, we are entitled to this notice. No such notice was provided, rendering the purported extension procedurally and legally void.

• A Persistent Failure to Demonstrate Utility Concurrence: On May 12, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of this petition, largely because the applicant failed to demonstrate utility concurrence. Despite being aware of this deficiency for over a year, and despite the Board's conditional transmittal on December 9, 2025, the situation worsened on February 10, 2026. On that date, the Board rescinded the Bulk Sewer Treatment Agreement (AGR 2025-261) and the Utility Developer’s Agreement (AGR 2025-262) involving Pulte Home Company, LLC and CSWR-Florida.

Despite this collapse of the reasonable assurances of utility infrastructure concurrency, the applicant admitted on March 19, 2026, that they still have not finalized service plans. If the decision is postponed to February 28, 2027, the applicant will have been granted more than 21 months and two weeks (1.8 years) to address utility concurrence that should have been secured when the application was initially filed. In fact, since the original application for amendment was submitted on September 17, 2024, the applicant will have had a total of 2.42 years to work out a requirement that is a fundamental prerequisite for such an amendment.

• Election Year Implications and Public Perception: It has not escaped public notice that we are in an election year. Postponing this decision until February 2027—well past the November elections—raises a significant concern that this extension is a strategic move to wait for a potential change in Board composition. Specifically, it appears aimed at bypassing the seats of the two members who voted for denial at the transmittal hearing.[5] Allowing an unauthorized staff decision, satisfying the request made by a developer, to delay a controversial vote until after an election creates an unfortunate appearance of political maneuvering to achieve a more favorable outcome for the developer applicant.

Requested Action: We respectfully request that the Board bring this matter to a public meeting for immediate discussion. Because the 180-day statutory clock is running and the "agreement" to extend it was made without Board approval or the required notice to affected persons, this application should be held to a timely adoption hearing or be deemed withdrawn by operation of law.

The Board—not staff—must decide if an applicant who has failed to provide utility concurrence since September 2024 (2.42 years) deserves yet another year (11 months) of special treatment, particularly when that delay shifts the final vote to a future Board.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Robbins, PhD

Colonel Mary Ann Tipton, USAF (ret.)

[1] See March 19, 2026 DeLisi, Inc. letter attached.

[2] See March 19, 2026 staff e-mail attached.

[3] See March 30, 2026 Florida Depart of Commerce e-mail attached.

[4] § 163.3184(3)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The local government shall hold its second public hearing, which shall be a hearing on whether to adopt one or more comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to subsection (11). If the local government fails, within 180 days after receipt of agency comments, to hold the second public hearing, the amendments shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the state land planning agency and any affected person that provided comments on the amendment.

[5] District 2 and District 4.