Letter to Commissioners March 18 2026

March 18, 2026

Dear Commissioners,

These comments and objections to the proposed Hutton Planned Development are made by Percy Angelo and Rob Robbins on behalf of themselves and the Friends of Cape Haze.

A preliminary matter.  The applicant represented at the Planning and Zoning hearing that "virtually the same" project before you now was approved by the County in 2022, and therefore PD 25-12 should be approved today.  This is not true. 

• The County Workflow Status report for this application says that "the complete site has changed."  See attached.

•  A comparison of the attached site plans for the 2022 project with 108 units and the 2025 project with 135 units shows that they are very different. 

•  While there was an initial 2022 approval with open issues in DRC 22-0040, this was followed by a further review in DRC 22-0109 in which the project was denied.  See the attachment.

•  The 2022 108-unit project also failed to get necessary stormwater and wetlands ERP approvals from SWFWMD.  SWFWMD has indicated that even a 108-unit project with the site design would have more difficulty getting approval today.   See the attached email from Dan Golus of SWFWMD.

History

·         This project was first proposed in 2022 with only 108 units in much smaller buildings.  There were townhouses along the southern border.  DRC-22-0040.  (The project is mostly aligned with the entrance to the north and the descriptions in these comments will assume that alignment.  Most project maps have an alignment with north to the left, not the top).  The buffer facing the Cape Haze Resort community was undulating and landscaped.  Less parking was needed. It doesn't appear to have a stormwater retention pond.  See again the attached site plans.

• The County Workflow Status report for DRC-22-0040, attached, shows approval but rejections for some issues and many open issues.  Environmental and wetlands portions were rejected.    A County letter dated May 20, 2022, listed a number of conditions for approval, including stormwater, wetlands, fire access etc.

•  A revised application was filed later in 2022.  DRC-22-00109.  It was denied.  A number of reasons were given including stormwater, landscape plans, utilities, fire and environmental questions.   The cover sheet for the 2022 denial is attached.  This was the last County action until the current application.  

• Also, in 2022 Hutton filed an application with SWFWMD for an ERP for the 108-unit project.  App. 857208.  In a letter dated November 20, 2022, attached, SWFWMD asked for more information, including information about the possible impact to surface waters, wetlands and the dog park.  The letter stated that the permit would be denied if Hutton did not respond.  Hutton did not respond and the ERP was denied on April 26, 2023.

• On December 14, 2022, SWFWMD Environmental Scientist Tasha Dailey visited the site and performed a wetlands review at the southeast corner.  She determined that the area had wetlands, including 10% black mangrove and 40% white mangrove.  A copy of her investigation and pictures of the open waters at the area were supplied in our January 27, 2025 email to you.  

• Rob Robbins recently communicated with Dan Golus, the SWFWMD Compliance Engineering Supervisor, about Hutton's 2022 ERP application.  Mr. Golus states that the application was "substantially incomplete" and if the applicant intends to reapply "it will likely need to modify their site plan to address new statewide water quality treatment rules."  (emphasis supplied).  He notes that the presence of Brazilian Pepper does not exclude considerations for wetland protection.  The Hutton contractor had dismissed some areas as mostly Brazilian Pepper.  Mr. Golus' email is attached.

• In 2025 Hutton filed a new County application, asking for 135 units and proposing three larger buildings with parking.  Because of the increased density 40 additional parking spaces are required.  The townhouses and undulating buffer are gone.  A stormwater pond is evident. This is the application before you now.

Hutton and the County staff have not disclosed in their paperwork and staff report that the project was denied in 2022 or that SWFWMD has reviewed the site, made a wetlands examination or required more information.  The County's report does not mention wetlands at all, even though, as discussed below, it is required to do so.  

Hutton claims it is offering better buffers, but this is highly misleading since the only buffer that counts for residents is the one to the north across from Cape Haze Resort and here Hutton has replaced the landscaped undulating buffer.  To the south neighbors are protected by a drainage easement and a greenway on the neighboring properties.  To the west a strip shopping center is protected by a drainage easement on the Hutton site.   Unfortunately, at P and Z County staff did not correct any of these statements about the similarity of the 2025 project with the 2022 project.

Planned developments are intended to be desirable because they provide better and more flexible projects than conventional zoning.  This application fails that basic requirement.  It also violates multiple provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations, including those designed to protect wetlands, and coastal lands and waters.  

Surrounding Properties and Uses 

An attached aerial shows that the Hutton project is in an area of conservation and park land, Don Pedro State Park Land Base and Lemon Bay to the west and the County's Amberjack Environmental Park to the northeast. There are single family homes to the south.  A tree farm and small strip mall are to the west and east.  The south and west sides of the Hutton property have a drainage easement serving the strip mall property.  The only multifamily housing is Cape Haze Resort (CHR) to the north.  CHR has chosen to develop at approximately half its allowed density in order to preserve more open land.  It is 144 units on approximately 24 acres.  The proposed project would be the only high density in the area.  

The area to the east is occupied by extensive wetlands connecting to Amberjack Cove/Creek and then to Coral Creek and Gasparilla Sound/Charlotte Harbor.  The wetlands continue to the northwest to Amberjack Park where they connect to Lemon Creek and then to Lemon Bay.  This wetland system is shown in the Hutton Environmental Assessment, hereinafter Hudson Env, p. 16.  They are also shown in the Hutton Desktop Review, below, and in the attachment.  Both are from the National Wetlands Inventory Mapper.  

The County in its report does not identify the County owned Amberjack Park at all and does not mention the Don Pedro State Park Land Base by name.  The County claims, incorrectly, that the nearest county park is Ann Dever, many miles away.  (The County also says the local hospital is in Port Charlotte, rather than Englewood, and the local hurricane shelter is at Lemon Bay High School-false, there is no shelter in West County).  These obvious omissions and misstatements are concerning.

County FLUM Appendix maps identify a continuous series of wetlands and streams extending along the east of the property from tidal Coral Creek to Lemon Lake, Lemon Creek and Lemon Bay.  The site intersects these wetlands.  They also show the site is in the County Coastal Planning Area.  FLUM Maps 13 and 18. These important facts are also not mentioned in the County Staff Report

Hutton Admits Key Features About Wetlands on and Adjoining the Site

Hutton's Environmental Assessment report admits a number of important facts about wetlands on and adjacent to the property.  The statements below are from Hutton.

• Onsite, within the northeastern boundary, there is a low-lying tidal area that likely connects to Kettle Harbor (Amberjack Cove) and eventually Coral Creek west branch. Hutton Env. pp 3 and 18 (Hutton Wetland Map).  This "stream feature" receives runoff from a drainage easement along the west and south property line.  Id.  This Hutton map is also attached. 

• This stream is visible within the Hutton property in the aerial attached to the Hutton Environmental Assessment, at 4.  Attached.  It is also shown in Hutton Wetland Map attached.

•  If it doesn't percolate into the soil stormwater onsite likely flows to the northeast to the lowest elevations within a low-lying tidal area.  Hutton Env. at 7 

•  The stream is connected to "Lemon and Coral Creek."

•  The stream has a berm possibly allowing overflow during significant rain. Id at 7. 

•  The site has Pompano fine sand along its eastern border.  This soil type 27 is described in Hutton Env., pp.7-10.   It is described as "frequently ponded."

•  An area generally similar to the NWI Mapper wetlands is shown on Hutton Env. p. 13, and labeled as FLUCCS 422) where it is described as "Mostly Brazilian Pepper (Not Wetland)."  This description is in conflict with SWFWMD's 2022 wetland determination supplied in our January 27, 2026 email.  It also conflicts with Hutton's own map of surface water and wetlands at Hutton Env. 18.

• The dismissal of Brazilian Pepper is incorrect and will be discussed below.  

•  Hutton lists other vegetation in the FLUCCS 422 category, including swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum).  Hutton Env.12.   Swamp fern appears on the list of wetland species.  

•  The Florida State Land Use and Cover Map shows a possible wetland onsite.  Id at 15

•  National Wetlands Inventory (NWI mapping) shows a freshwater pond, freshwater forested shrub wetlands and a Riverine feature at the site.  "According to the NWI site the onsite wetland is part of a greater network of wetlands to the northwest (Amberjack Environmental Park) and to the southeast (Coral Creek).  Id at. 16 A map from the NWI is also supplied at Id. at 16.  A copy is attached.

•  Black mangroves were identified near the stream feature. Id. 

•  Coral Creek is an estuary and is Waters Not Attaining Standards for bacteria, dissolved oxygen and nutrients. 

These are all observations and admissions by Hutton.

There is therefore no question that the site borders and contains wetlands and an open water stream.  These wetlands and waters are connected to tidal waters which discharge to Coral Creek and then to Charlotte Harbor, an Outstanding Florida Water, an Aquatic Preserve and a Class II water.  The wetlands also are admitted to appear to connect to Lemon Creek on the County's Amberjack Environmental Preserve.

The Hutton Environmental report doesn't mention it but Lemon Creek eventually connects to Lemon Bay, also an Aquatic Preserve, an OFW and Class II water.  

The Hutton contractor performed a "desktop review" and prepared a site map showing an extensive continuous area of wetlands extending from Amberjack Cove, across the site and into Amberjack Environmental Park.  The map shows the wetlands actually running across the eastern portion of the site.  Rob Robbins superimposed the site plan on top of the map and it is shown and discussed below.  It is also attached. This is consistent with the other Hutton data and admissions discussed above indicating that the eastern border of the site is wetlands connected to the larger wetland system on Amberjack Environmental Park and to Coral Creek.  This Hutton map was not included in the County's report for the Planning and Zoning hearing agenda.

SWFWMD Wetland Identification.  

In response to Hutton's application to SWFWMD in 2022 actual wetlands identification work was done December 14, 2022 by Tasha Dailey, an Environmental Scientist with SWFWMD   She identified wetlands in the southeast  corner of the site and determined that the area qualified as wetlands with standing water and 50% mangrove coverage.    This official determination was provided in our email to you of January 27, 2026. When SWFWMD asked Hutton for more information regarding a number of issues, including wetlands, Hutton abandoned its ERP application.   

The County's Wetland Identification

In connection with is Comprehensive Plan Process the county has prepared a FLUM map identifying County wetlands.  The map attached shows the site superimposed on the County wetland map. FLUM Map 18.  Rob Robbins added the site outline to the County map.  

Applicant and County Duty to Investigate Wetland Presence.

The neighbors and citizens are not responsible for investigating wetlands at the site. Numerous provisions require this to be done by the Applicant and the County

ENV 3.3.1 says that the County shall require the presence of wetlands to be identified by the Applicant and must review its work.

ENV 3.1.2 says that the County shall use all available resources from state and federal sources to identify current and historic wetlands.  This means that data like the National Wetlands Inventory mapping are to be used.  Precise categorization is then verified using specific studies or field determinations.  

ENV 3.1.10 says the County will coordinate with other agencies to review wetland delineations.  

As part of its Coastal Planning process the County has prepared a map of its Coastal Planning area.  FLUM Map 13.  The site is within this area.  Comp Plan policies requiring the County to look at coastal resource impact, onsite and beyond the site boundary.  CST 1.1.5 states that where appropriate the County shall "require applications for development approval to include a specific evaluation of coastal resources..." including coastal wetlands. And CST 1.1.7 says that "all preliminary site plans...adjacent to surface waters to depict the location of...submerged aquatic vegetation, coastal wetlands...and other natural resources and features...within the...site or within 200 feet of the development boundary.  The Hutton Environmental Assessment admits there is a stream feature connecting to Coral Creek onsite.  It was the obligation of applicant and County staff to identify and respond to the wetlands and stream features from the very beginning, both on and offsite.  The County's own FLUM maps would have been a good start.

Wetland Requirements Apply Regardless of Wetland Categories

While the Comp Plan provides for categorization of wetlands, the categories have very limited purposes.  Category 1 wetlands must be protected unless no other feasible alternative exists.  Category11 wetlands are isolated.  Impacts within Category 11 must be first avoided and then mitigated.  ENV 3.3.3.  While the wetlands associated with the Hutton project are clearly Category 1 since Hutton agrees they have surface water connections to specially protected waters and to parks and conservation lands, the bulk of the wetland protection rules apply to all wetlands, regardless of Category.  See, for example, ENV3.1.5 (All Wetlands Impact Limitations).

Unlikely that the Hutton Project Be Approved if it were 108 units using conventional zoning.

It is telling that Hutton abandoned its application in 2022 when it was shown that wetlands were present.  

Rob Robbins recently exchanged emails, attached, with Dan Golus, the SWFWMD Compliance Engineering Supervisor, about Hutton's ERP application in 2022.  Mr. Golus states that the application was "substantially incomplete" and if the applicant intends to reapply "it will likely need to modify their site plan to address new statewide water quality treatment rules."  (emphasis supplied). 

It is therefore not clear that even the 108-unit 2022 project would be able to receive an ERP permit without a redesign.  

The Hutton Contractor Attempts to Mislead About the Wetland identification Rules.

As mentioned above, the Hutton contractor identifies areas on its site map as "Brazilian Pepper."  It apparently attempts to suggest that Brazilian Pepper cannot be in wetlands.  This is incorrect.

In the email mentioned above, and attached, Dan Golus of SWFWMD states that the presence of Brazilian Pepper does not exclude considerations for wetland protection.  

The Environmental Assessment, p. 27, also claimed that the tested location had "minimal black mangroves.  In fact, SWFWMD had identified 50% mangrove coverage, 40% white and 10% black.   Both count.  (And add to 50%) Hutton's statements about black mangroves and Brazilian Pepper are misleading since they are irrelevant even if true. 

Wetland Buffers

There are many Comp Plan and LDR requirements to protect. wetlands and surface waters.  The most basic are described below. 

The Land Development Regulations require at least a15 foot naturally vegetated upland buffer zone along the perimeter of wetlands and natural surface waters.  Section 3-5-348 (b).  In addition, Section 3-5-348 (a)(2) states that permitting standards adopted by state and federal agencies are adopted by the County.  State rules require an average buffer of 25 feet but never less than 15 feet. 3-5-348 (a)(2); SWFWMD Applicant's Manual, Vol.1, p. 10-14.  (hereafter A.H.).   

In the case of the Hutton project, in order to fit its 25 % density increase, and required parking, into the 9-acre site Hutton must use land that is required for use as the wetland buffer.  In fact, the site trash compactor, the dog run and a good amount of parking are actually located in the required wetland buffer zone.

Using the Hutton map as a base (the map found in County files but omitted from the Hutton Environmental Assessment) Rob Robbins prepared a site map showing the outline of the wetlands identified by Hutton in its desktop review using the National Wetlands Inventory and added the site outlines.  That map is shown below.  It is also provided as an attachment.  It is abundantly clear that the Hutton project does not comply with even the most minimal protection for wetlands.  

 There are also buffer rules for hazardous substances and substances such as nutrients causing eutrophication.  The Comp Plan ENV Policy 3.1.7 states that the "use, storage, transmission or generation of hazardous substances, or substances which may artificially accelerate the eutrophication of wetlands and waterbodies, is prohibited within 200 feet of wetlands. This 200-foot limitation applies to the waste compactor area which can produce leachate (with nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, hazardous substances such as cleaning products and pesticides, fecal coliform from diapers, etc.)  The 200-foot limitation also applies to the dog run with dog waste and to the retention pond.   Our January 27 email explains the source of the term "hazardous substances" and the kinds of substances covered.  It also includes a state study showing that the retention pond will be the source of nutrients causing eutrophication.  Percy Angelo has over 30 years’ experience in environmental law to back up those statements and her expert qualifications are attached.

Rob Robbins prepared a site map showing the Hutton Environmental Assessment version of the wetlands with the project superimposed, the 15' and 25' buffers marked, and the dog run and waste area outlined in magenta.  It is attached.  It demonstrates again that the site can't be developed as proposed.  And it shows that the Hutton application makes no attempt to provide wetland buffer protection for pollution from these areas of high potential. 

At the Planning and Zoning hearing the Hutton attorney Rob Berntsson attempted to respond to this problem with humor, claiming that the hazardous substance provision in question was an artifact of his own attempt in the 1990s to obtain approval for a petroleum pipeline. He also joked that the section wasn't applicable to dog runs...even though Dan Golus of SWFWMD specifically raised concerns about dog runs near wetlands.   Mr.Berntsson has made this argument before.    In fact, it is highly misleading.  The Comp Plan sections at issue were readopted in the 2010 Comp Plan rewrite and then again in the 2014-2016 Comp Plan amendments, during which Percy Angelo and Mr. Berntsson were both involved (including in appeals).  In the 2014-2016 amendments the County tried to remove many wetland protections including the 200-foot rule.  FDEP and FFWC pushed back.  See the FDEP comments attached.   Friends of Cape Haze filed appeals, and, in settlement, the section was expressly considered and eventually adopted the way it reads today.  We believe Mr.Berntsson participated in that appeal and settlement on behalf of his client.  It is way past time for him to stop claiming that the section was a leftover from the 1990s and should be ignored.   

These rules for protection from hazardous substances and nutrients causing eutrophication are fully applicable and should be enforced.  And County staff should shut down attempts by applicants to misrepresent their status. 

Water Quality Impacts

The Comp Plan has several provisions barring the discharge of contaminants which may violate water quality standards.  See ENV 1.4.1 and ENV 1.4.3.   And ENV 2.2.4 explicitly states that the County may deny an increase in density if such change would be harmful to natural resources, including water quality.  

Because of its extra density request any portion of the site not occupied by building or parking lot is necessarily given over to the stormwater retention pond.  (There is a substantial area on the west and south sides of the site which is a required drainage easement for the neighboring shopping center).  The Hutton application states that this retention pond will discharge to the tributary of Coral Creek on the southeast corner of the site.  In our January 27 email we supplied data that multifamily sites may be expected to have quantities of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous which can contribute to water quality impairment.  Apart from the stormwater easement and the retention pond this Hutton site is mostly buildings and concrete.  

Wetland and Water Quality Impacts Must be Considered at the Initial Site Plan and PD Review Stages.

County FLUM Maps show wetlands on and bordering the site.  The Hutton application did as well.  There is no support for an argument that it is up to some other agency to protect wetlands, or that the County can do so at a later time.  This is the only point where the public may participate and raise these issues.  

SWFWMD makes it clear that the County should not rely on SWFWMD to do the heavy lifting.  Its Applicant's Handbook states "...it is strongly recommended that an applicant obtain the necessary land use approvals...prior to or concurrent with the ERP application..." since the approvals may affect the design. A.H. 1-16.  

Density Transfer 

Even if it weren't asking for additional density the Hutton project on this location can't meet Comp plan and LDR standards.  The project envisioned by the 2022 so-called approval had too many conditions that Hutton didn't and couldn't meet.  But the additional density violates the Comp Plan in a fundamental way. The Comp Plan, CST Goal 3, requires that the County "direct population concentrations away from the Coastal High Hazard Area."    In contrast, Hutton's August 25, 2025 submission justifies its PD request with the claim that it will provide a public benefit by providing "new rental opportunities in a growth area." But the Hutton site is in a Maturing Neighborhood 1100' from Lemon Bay.  Hutton's project fundamentally fails to comply with the Comp Plan.

Conclusion

The Hutton project is nothing but three large boxes and a parking lot which overlap and threaten wetlands and waters discharging to Coral Creek and Charlotte Harbor and Lemon Creek and Lemon Bay.  Hutton has made no attempt to provide buffers which will ease its impact on its neighbors, both its human neighbors and the two County and State Parks nearby.  And it fails to even attempt to comply with rules designed to protect wetlands and surface waters.  We ask that the Commission deny approval.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service.

Very truly yours,

Rob Robbins and Percy Angelo on behalf of themselves and the Friends of Cape Haze.