HEX Transcript 10/26/2017 October 26,2017 HEX Minutes
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
October 26,2017
LET IT BE REMEMBERED,that the Collier County Hearing Examiner,in and for the County of
Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION at 2800
North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN
ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Fred Reischl,Principal Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 6
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2017 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610
AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING & REGULATION BUILDING, 2800 N.
HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING
PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED T O
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT,
PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING
EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A
COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS,
AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO
RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
3. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: This item was continued from the September 14, 2017 and September 28, 2017 HEX
Meetings due to Hurricane Irma and further continued from the October 12, 2017 HEX Meeting
and the October 26, 2017 HEX Meeting to the November 9, 2017 HEX Meeting.
A. PETITION NO. BD-PL20170000541– David Bautsch requests a 36.46-foot boat dock extension
over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total
protrusion of 56.46 feet, to accommodate a new docking facility, including a new boathouse, for the
benefit of Lot 9, Block F, Replat of Unit No. 3 Little Hickory Shores, also described as 297 3rd
Street, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:
Fred Reischl, Principal Planner]
NOTE: This item was continued from the September 14, 2017 and September 28, 2017 HEX
Meetings due to Hurricane Irma and further continued from the October 12, 2017 HEX Meeting.
B. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20160003062 – Foxfire Community Association of Collier County,
Inc. requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 93-31, the Foxfire Planned Unit
Development which amends and supercedes Ordinance Nos. 75-10 and 80-10, the prior Foxfire
Planned Unit Development, to show on the Master Plan the parcel lines to the maintenance building
parcel known as platted Tract 9 of the Foxfire Unit Three Subdivision at the northwest corner of the
project in Tract B Low Intensity Multi-family Residential Development and establish setbacks and
clarify the height limitations for the maintenance building. The subject property, consisting of
385+/- acres, is located between Radio Road (CR-856) and Davis Boulevard (CR-83) approximately
one mile east of Airport-Pulling Road (CR-31), in Section 1, Range 25 East, and Section 6, Range
26 East, both in Township 50 South, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Principal
Planner]
C. PETITION NO. NUA-PL20170002192 - Petitioner, RS Management Corp. of Livonia, Inc.
requests a non-conforming use alteration pursuant to LDC Section 9.03.03.B. to allow the removal
of 2 duplexes and replacement with 2 duplexes in the existing building footprints on Lots 45 and 46,
Block 68, in the Naples Park Unit 5 subdivision. The subject property consists of .31 +/- acres of
land located on the south side of 100th Avenue North in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Principal Planner]
4. OTHER BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6. ADJOURN
October 26,2017 HEX Minutes
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,October
26th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Some housekeeping matters from the agenda: The speakers
will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived,decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of
County Commissioners,and a decision will be rendered within 30 days.
The review of the agenda: We have three items on today's agenda. The first one,3A, is the Bautsch
DBE,boat dock extension. That was continued. It's going to be continued to possibly November 9th,and at
that date we'll announce any changes at that point.
The continuation is because of deficiencies in the staff report and conflicts with the applicant's
package: Some of the documents had different setbacks;some of the documents were illegible;some of the
documents were incomplete. The applicant is in the process of completing that work. So that will be
continued until that next November date.
The Foxfire PDI,which is 3B,will be continued indefinitely. That particular PDI did not have final
review by County Attorney's Office.In the language that was submitted by the applicant that was included in
the staff report,elements of the PUD that required review were not included in the staff report. A survey was
not included in the staff report so setbacks could be checked.
The applicant is assembling those documents now,and we'll expect it will have to be readvertised for a
new date when all those documents are finally collected.
***That takes us to the one remaining item on today's petition,or today's agenda. It's Petition No.
NUA-PL20170002192. It's RS Management Corporation of Livonia,Inc.,requesting a nonconforming use
alteration for two duplexes in Naples Park.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I know by looking at the audience there are no members of
the public here other than the applicant either in opposition or support of this,so we won't need a formal
presentation.
I would ask that the applicant come up,identify themselves for the record,and I have a few questions
I'd like to ask of Mr.LaGrasta.
MR.LaGRASTA: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You'll have to come up to this microphone,sir.
MR.LaGRASTA: Yeah. I'm here representing the owner. Nick LaGrasta from LaGrasta Homes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And this particular application is so you can tear down
and rebuild some duplexes on two different lots in Naples Park. In the analysis that was provided to me by
staff,I reviewed it last night. I actually had more information that I'm going to discuss here today.
One of the questions was the alteration,expansion,and replacement will not increase the density on
the parcel or lot which the nonconforming single-family dwelling,duplex,or mobile home is located and,
basically,the answer was,or the answer stated,the petitioner will rebuild the structures in the same footprint.
A new building permit will be issued only with the same density.
Another one,C,the alteration,expansion and replacement will not further encroach upon any
nonconforming setback.
Answer: The new structures will not encroach further upon any nonconforming setback.
Staff requests a condition which will limit the further encroachment.
Now,what that says is,basically,I have a survey,and instead of 10-foot setbacks as required by the
current code,you would have the latitude by this to build to the setback you have today,some of which are just
a little bit over eight feet. Is that your intention?
Page 2 of 6
October 26,2017 HEX Minutes
MR.LaGRASTA: No. Our intention is to bring it up to the current code,to the 10-foot setback.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That certainly changes a lot of the situations that we had
today,because there was a ZVL sent to you back on December 9th saying that a variance would be needed.
There was an email sent to the County Attorney's Office from Ray Bellows—actually,no.It was from a Geoff
Hitchen. Does he work for you?
MR.LaGRASTA: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. He said,hi,Heidi. There will not be a companion
variance to the NUA because the duplexes will meet the current setbacks. Ray Bellows confirmed that if we
meet the current setbacks,we could rebuild the duplexes without a variance. Will you need any additional
info? Thank you.
So I wanted to confirm with you that that statement from your employee was correct.
MR.LaGRASTA: That is correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And also to confirm,then,that the staffs--staff report is,again,
in error;it is not accurate in regards to the same footprint because you will be keeping with the new setbacks.
MR.LaGRASTA: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Which then will expedite a lot of things today,because one of
the concerns I had,if the staff report was accurate,the question of the variance would have had to come into
play. In order to avoid the variance,documentation should have been included in the staff report to show the
setbacks in 1960 that your buildings were properly built to.
The setbacks in 1960 were eight feet,so they were properly within that standard,but that-then that
information I had dug up on my own. It was not part of the research done by staff. It should have been
because,basically,the staff report was relying on those setbacks and not on the required setbacks that you're
not going to provide.
So that takes us to a stipulation that's in the staff report. It says,the replacement structures will be
built within the existing building footprints and shall not encroach further into the setbacks. You are going to
adhere to the setbacks that the new code requires for the side setbacks;is that correct?
MR.LaGRASTA: Correct. We're going to abide by the new setbacks but the buildings will be a
little bit larger than what's existing,but we'll stay within the current setback code.
So,like,if an--if the building that's there now was 40 feet long,the new one might be 50 feet,but we'll
still be within our current setbacks.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Now,that's a little--okay.
MR.LaGRASTA: No,we're not going to be encroaching.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No. You're going to be enlarging the nonconformity,which is
why you have the nonconforming use application.
So I'm trying to make sure everything still fits like it does and doesn't require another staff review.
MR.LaGRASTA: Right.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: This first review was based on a premise that is not true. No
fault of yours. It obviously just didn't get communicated somehow.
MR.LaGRASTA: Right. I mean,currently,if the existing structure is 1,000 square feet,for
example,and we build a new one at 1,200 square feet,as long as we stay within current code as far as the
setbacks are concerned,and the 10 feet--we're not asking to go to the eight feet. We'll abide by the current
code at 10 feet.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The problem with the current code is there are other restrictions
for duplexes that don't fit on the site you're at.That's why you need this nonconforming use application.
MR.LaGRASTA: Correct,because they want it on top of two lots.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yeah,that's exactly right. So the enlargement of the
nonconforming use is why the NUA is in play.
MR.LaGRASTA: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And we understand that you'll actually be,then,
Page 3 of 6
October 26,2017 HEX Minutes
performing--producing a better product--
MR.LaGRASTA: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: —by being in conformance with the current setbacks--
MR.LaGRASTA: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --and the current code.
Well,I think that might be all the questions I have. Let me make sure. Oh,the height. Are you still
staying with the single story?
MR.LaGRASTA: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You have no problem if we stipulate that?
MR.LaGRASTA: No problem at all.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the other questions all involve the fact that a variance wasn't
requested. I can see why you didn't put it through. I didn't learn this until this morning because one was
originally required,and then when you decided to meet the setbacks on the side,the variance isn't necessary
anymore,so we're good with that. And the NUA covers the rest of the standards and deviations that you're
asking for.
So I'm comfortable with the information you provided. Thank you.
Anything else that you'd want to say for the record?
MR.LaGRASTA: No.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.LaGRASTA: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
Is there a staff report?
MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr. Strain.
Fred Reischl,Planning and Zoning.
Some questions. I was writing the staff report under the assumption that duplex was not a permitted
use on this size of a structure. That's why it was a nonconforming use.
And according to the way I wrote it,I thought the--that either way,whether it met today's setbacks or
the 1960 X setbacks,that it would--that that stipulation would fit either situation.Is that not correct or not your
understanding or--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No. There's a difference. Based on the ZVL written in
December,based on the comment Ray made to the employee of the applicant saying that if they adhere to the
current setbacks they wouldn't need a variance,there's no variance in this package.
In discussing it with Mike Bosi,he said that the changes that were allowed by—the changes could
have been allowed by an administrative variance by staff.
So I pulled that documentation,and it's under 9.04.04 under minor after-the-fact encroachments;
where a structure was lawfully permitted within a residential zoning district under a previous code and where
said structure is considered nonconforming under the current Land Development Code due to changes in
required yards.
The County Manager or designee may administratively approve a variance in the amount equal to or
less than the existing yard encroachment.
There is no evidence in the package reflecting any changes in the current yards. I hear your
statement,but there's nothing in the record that shows what the standards were in 1960 to compare to what they
are now--
MR.REISCHL: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --in 2017. Without that information,the staff report is,again,
incomplete.
I do not know how to--how to encourage you guys,how to guide you,how to ask you any more than
I've been saying for a long period of time now. These staff reports have to be complete. I am not here to
make the applicant's case. The applicant should be told things that are needed by staff so staff has a complete
case and package that can come as a staff report.
Page 4 of 6
October 26,2017 HEX Minutes
1 shouldn't discover this on the 11th hour.It's inappropriate,and from now on it's going to be called
out. So I don't care how you guys fix this,but we've got to be more careful in the evidence that's provided.
And when documents require things to be provided,for example,the Firefox--the Foxfire PDI,it says it will
be consistent with the architectural standards by the--from the covenants and restrictions for those properties.
That's rare to have that in a PUD. The Briarwood PUD had it,too,and look what trouble it caused them. No
one checked that.
So the applicant didn't check it. Pve asked the applicant since to supply that information so I can
check it. That is not what I should have done.It should have happened before the staff report even got to me.
So I don't know who's reading these--I don't know who's reading these documents when they're
finally gurgitated to get to the point that they're ready for public hearing,but someone needs to be looking
closer at the required documents,because I'm getting tired of having to do this at the 11th hour and trying to
correct it on the fly in these meetings. It's not appropriate.
And if I need to say that from the dais at the Planning Commission meeting,I will. But one way or
another it's got to get corrected. It can't go on like this.
So from the perspective of the staff report today,you don't have any needed changes based on what
you heard from Mr.LaGrasta today,do you?
MR.REISCHL: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Ray,do you see anything that,from your perspective as zoning
director or zoning manager,there are any issues with the testimony we heard today and the changes that are
being provided to us to by the applicant?
MR.BELLOWS: No. The corrections or clarifications presented today are consistent with the
process that's before you today.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,I don't have any other questions,and there's
no members of the public.
So,Mr.LaGrasta,I hope that within a very short period of time we'll have a decision to you.I will be
attaching the appropriate information to make sure that we're consistent with what you're planning to do.
Appreciate your time today.
And that will close the public hearing.
And that takes us to the end of our agenda today. There is no other business. There's no members of
the public here to comment,so this meeting's adjourned. Thank you.
*******
Page 5 of 6
October 26,2017 HEX Minutes
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:14 a.m.
CO LIE CO,,NT HEARING EXAMINER
ou,,Li C--...
k
STRA ,HEARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on I t '7 —I ,as presented l''
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 6 of 6