Loading...
HEX Transcripts 04/25/2019April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida April 25, 2019 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 James Sabo, Principal Planner Gil Martinez, Principal Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting PROCEEDINGS HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, April 25th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office. If everyone will please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. Some housekeeping matters: Speakers are going to 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, and sometimes -- usually a lot less. And with that, we'll move right into the balance of the agenda. Review of the agenda: We have three cases on for today. The Villages of Stella Maris will be the first case; the second one is Godfrey and Patricia Turner, and it's a boat dock extension; and the last one would be the Audubon Country Club. ***And with that, we'll move right into the first case. It's Petition No. BDE-PL20150001366, Villages at Stella Maris Association, Inc., for a 10 -foot boat dock extension. 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: Those of you who have just been sworn in, are any of you here in opposition of this project? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The reason I've asked is I have -- I usually read everything. In fact, I was up till late last night re -reading it again. And I don't generally need a presentation by the applicant, but when there are people here who are needing to have some clarification, I ask the applicant to make a formal presentation, and that you will have, so you'll be able to see what this is about. And with that, my disclosures: I did talk to staff. I read not only what was in the packet but extensive documents involving the amendments that have occurred, the minutes from Board of County Commissioners' meetings and things like that. I've also talked to the applicant's representative, Jeff, on the phone, about some issues I came -- and I found I had questions on that hopefully he'll be addressing today. So with that, we'll move right into the applicant's presentation and, Jeff, I'll turn it over to you. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Mark. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning. MR. ROGERS: For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates here representing the Villages of Stella Maris down at Port of the Islands, Florida. We're here today to request a 10 -foot boat dock extension for the allowed 20 -foot protrusion mark. The shoreline is an existing seawall -- concrete seawall shoreline, so the most restrictive point is the actual seawall. The property line and the water line are at the face of the seawall. So the 30 -foot protrusion mark is from the existing seawall. First and foremost, I'd like to thank staff for their hard work on this one. This one's been a long time coming. We're finally here. We have a good plan in front of you. Basically there's two phases. The exhibit's a little bit fuzzy, but basically the red area with the docks is Phase A and, basically, the reason we have different phases is due to the existing on-site unique conditions that were done in -- during the original development. So, basically, we had to work within the parameters of the Manatee Protection Plan, which Page 2 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting has a section outlined for the Port of the Islands, which is a high -use manatee area, well known, well documented. You could go there daily and see manatees. So we had to work in those restraints and come up with a plan that -- the HOA of Stella Maris, the president, and other members of the Board worked with county staff a long time to come up with this plan. Basically, Phase A consists of 912 feet of shoreline, and we were able to take -- based on the other projects that have been approved in the area, referencing Sunrise Cay, which is on the other side, there was a precedent set there in regards to calculations of vessels along the shoreline, which was followed in this case as well. So we took those parameters and came up with a calculation based on that for vessel numbers and associated docks with that, which basically came out to be approximately 68 total slips for the whole unit; I believe 42 within the Phase A, and the rest are in Phase B, which is the green area to your right of the screen. So right now we're basically -- everything's consistent. There's an average of 22 -foot boats allowed there up to, you know, 30 feet overall, length overall. That includes the anchor, pulpit, engine, everything. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, now, just so you know, your note says "boat length 28 feet." MR. ROGERS: That's the max that we're allowed. The average is 22. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Right. So it's not 30 feet; it's the 28 feet. MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir. So LOA for the boat would be 28; LOA, everything. Length overall is what LOA stands for. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that it includes all appurtenances on the boat? MR. ROGERS: Everything: Motor, props. If you put your engine up when it's on the lift, that counts, too, because you could go past the protrusion line with an engine up. So if you're a larger vessel, that's something that you cannot do. So we understand that. And there is a system that the HOA is going to work with, the Resort Management Company, to document the registration of all the vessels which has the vessel length on it which will be readily available. If county staff needs to review those documents, they'll have that ready for you at all times. So the HOA will keep track of that and work with code. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And in the settlement agreement -- and when I talked to you the first time, I've only seen the original agreement. Subsequent to that, I found out later on there were two other amendments to the agreement, and I've reviewed those in detail. And before I go too much further, the County Attorney's Office had wanted to put something on record about the process today so that everything is buttoned up. And I'll let -- why don't we do that right now since we're talking about the settlement agreement. MR. ROGERS: Please. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is this on? Okay. We're adding two documents to the record that were not in the package. The first one is the second amendment to settlement agreement and general release, and that ties the 42 boat docks to the area along the seawall in Phase 3. That's abutting the former conservation easement, because today you are covering a portion of Phase 3 that was not encumbered by the conservation easement. So you can hear that today because it's not part of the settlement agreement. But when this is written up, the Phase 3 that's covered by the settlement agreement will continue to be entitled to the 42 slips that will have to be specified in the decision, and then the remaining is part of your decision today. I also -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm also adding into the record the executive summary that went Page 3 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting with the second amendment which was dated January 1 st -- I mean, excuse me, January 24th, 2017. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. And part of the settlement agreement that I also noticed is there was not only a limitation on the average length, but the accumulated length couldn't exceed the length of the shore area for each phase -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- or the lineal seawall area. MR. ROGERS: Seawall footage, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So in this -- how this resolves itself, that will have to be referenced -- MR. ROGERS: In the resolution. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- before we finish today, yes. MR. ROGERS: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I didn't mean to interrupt you, but while you were on the settlement agreement, I thought we'd talk about it. MR. ROGERS: No, definitely. So, basically, right now there have been some objections to the proposed project with the surrounding neighbors. I have gone down on site and met with a handful of them, maybe three or four of them, tried to resolve the issues and discuss it with them. They're here to voice their concerns. We are within the required setbacks of the -- per the LDC. Fifteen -foot setbacks are required. On the top north corner we're 32 feet setback, and then on the southwest corner over here where you can't really see it very well, it's 16.7 feet setback, which we're a foot -and -a -half over what's actually required. So there should be -- there will not be any interference with ingress/egress for any surrounding existing docks on this canal. The canal is 304 feet wide. It's plenty of room for navigation. There's no marked channel, so the canal is consistent in regards to depth for navigation with these size vessels. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Seagrass beds. MR. ROGERS: Seagrass beds. There are no -- I did dive this place a handful of times throughout the years, saw a couple of alligators. Did not see any seagrasses except for there are some floating grasses that will come over the weir during high water times of the year, basically mostly during the summer when the water over the weir in the Miller Canal is flowing into the Faka Union and, ultimately, out into the Gulf of Mexico. So it will bring some grasses into there and warm water, which is why the manatees are, ultimately, there. And everyone that lives down there, that's -- my opinion is that's part of living down there. It's the joys of it. You have the manatees and the surrounding environment. So there are no actual seagrasses growing on the bottom that I've ever found, but there will be pods of grasses that the manatees do feed on certain times of the year that come floating down the canal. We're required to do a 200 -foot radius from the project site for swimming, so I did do that a few times, like I said before, and did not find any resources. Here's a transect map approximately of where we swam, my staff and I, over the years. So it's a large waterway. Plenty of room for navigation. The adjacent Stella Maris, we did do a BDE for them. I did myself, my firm did, approximately, I want to say, about five years ago, and we -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I do remember that, yes. I was here. It came to the Planning Commission. MR. ROGERS: Yes, exactly. So with that --we were granted 35 feet for that, but that was -- the 35 feet was mostly -- was for just the vessels that overhang, not the docking facilities. Page 4 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting The docks were limited to 20 feet. That was a little bit of a unique situation due to the fact that the docks were existing, most of them. If not, 90 percent of them were existing when we did the BIDE. So the boat dock extension was required later. It was found out that the county was issuing building permits and -- mistakenly was issuing building permits, so we were doing after -the -fact to bring those into compliance. So that was done, and their docks have been in the water, and we've worked to design around those. So no interference with navigation should occur. Happy to answer any other questions you might have. If I can address something, Mark, please let me know. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yes. There are a few things. First of all, the ability to use these docks for commercial vessels, that's something that is not allowed. MR. ROGERS: Not allowed. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are you acknowledging that? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The extent of all the elements, I think you've answered that. All the appurtenances and everything, it will be -- will not exceed 28 feet. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: These are stipulations that will probably come out of any discussion today. In the phasing on one of your plans you talked about Phase 1, but the average length will be 22 feet not to exceed accumulated length of 912.5, and 42 slips that will be limited to the unit owners in Parcel M1 as shown on Plat Book, Pages 26 to 27. That means the unit owners are the ones within that M 1 tract, which is that northern tract, would be the ones that would have the rights to utilize these docks. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure there's no dispute on that. On Phase 2 it reads similar, but there it would be M2 is the OR book and page for the tract that the units to the east are sitting on. So those unit owners would have the right to utilize those docks. Nobody else. MR. ROGERS: Correct; yes, sir. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Strain, I think you need clarification, though, because you need to break it down as to how many docks they get in Phase 2 and then how many they get for the one in Phase 3. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yeah. I read that the first time, and that was 42 slips. I'll read the next phase. The second phase -- on the second phase by his phasing, not by the Stella Maris phasing. There's condo phasing. You have Phase 1 and 2; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Your Phase 1 is 42 slips not to exceed 912.5 feet. Your Phase 2 is 26 slips not to exceed 573.76. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And, collectively, on top of the not to exceed the maximum length of that seawall area, they can't exceed the average length of 22 feet; is that what you're getting at, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I don't recommend mixing up what's in the staff report versus what's in the map, because in the staff report they're talking about Phase 3 and Phase 2, and then they switch, and now they're calling Phase 1 and Phase 2, and Phase 3 is now part of Phase 2. So it creates significant confusion. Page 5 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, in order to avoid the confusion, when a decision is rendered, we utilize the exhibits that you provided, and all your exhibits reference Phase 1 and 2. So the conditions and call -outs on any writeup will reference those exhibits which will match up to the phasing. That will, I think, be the cleanest way for staff to look at it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the settlement agreement refers to Phase 3, by the way. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe we can -- MR. ROGERS: I can work with you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- put some language to work it out. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I'd be happy to revise an exhibit if that's necessary. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you want to use this exhibit, you're going to have to overlay and explain what is Phase 3 per the settlement agreement. MR. ROGERS: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So it's here. MR. ROGERS: These exhibits were submitted a long time ago, and they haven't changed much. So I apologize for the confusion. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because there's one slip, I believe, that comes out of phase -- MR. ROGERS: Phase 3. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- the existing phase that's approved that's added, and you're saying M2 can get that, but M1 should really get that, correct? MR. ROGERS: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And one's got 42 slips. MR. ROGERS: Right. Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So you divide -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Plus 1. MR. ROGERS: Plus -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct? MR. ROGERS: Well, it's 42 is what we're allowed in Phase 1, Phase A. Phase B is the 26. Phase 3, I'm a little confused on where that is exactly, to be honest with you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'm not -- that's something I wasn't -- I'm working on your plans and your map -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- so I'm going to have to defer to Heidi to try to answer that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, staff is going to have to answer where Phase 3 is. I can't answer exactly where that is. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, all I know is I'm working on a Phase 1 and 2 by his plans. If there's a legal issue involving renaming the phases or correlating them, we'll address that -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- but, staff, does the phasing issue bother your analysis at all? Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I was trying to review the staff report with Mr. Sabo. What was the questioning again? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The phase, did you -- in your analysis, whether we call Phase 1 or Phase 2, Phase 3, or whatever, this map portrays the actual phases. That's what I Page 6 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting used to analyze this project because that's what was in the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: Correct, and that's my opinion as well. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So we're all on the same page as to what can be contained in each phase. From a legal viewpoint, we may have to provide some annotation as to there's overlapping or different phase references in different documents. MR. BELLOWS: Correct, and I think we can do that. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I'm just going to check one thing, Jeff. MR. BELLOWS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I just ran the calculations again. You've got the right number of slips that's allowed by the Board of County Commissioners in the settlement, especially the second amendment -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- for each phase, 42 and 26. MR. ROGERS: Twenty-six, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So I'm not sure what this one boat -slip issue was, so that's what I was trying to check. You haven't gone over where you're supposed to be, at least in regards to what the Board's dedicated. MR. ROGERS: Correct; yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And at the time the Board did the second amendment, there was a footnote -- or not a footnote -- a sentence at the end of one of paragraphs in the executive summary indicating this was the manner in which staff can proceed to review other like facilities in this area -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- which is the basis for the quantity that we're dealing with today. MR. ROGERS: Right; yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So we have two issues: The quantity, which really was settled by the Board -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- and we've got the extension criteria which is what your dock extension has analyzed. MR. ROGERS: Correct; yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: May I add one thing, an exhibit to show you real quick, Mark? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Sure. MR. ROGERS: This is the north -- or, excuse me, the southwest corner, where we abut the adjacent Stella Maris. I just wanted to show you the setback. I don't know why it's so blurry; I apologize for that. But it's the 16.7 -foot setback, and the slip is, you know, perpendicular to the shoreline pulling in, bow into the seawall and reversing out. So it's showing that there is -- should never be any interference with anybody navigating that corner. Go ahead. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You're 15 feet -- 16.7 feet back. That dock to the south, I know that was one of the parties who sent a letter of objection. Actually, I think there were two involving that corner. Their dock isn't 15 feet back. Ray, is that -- does that 15 feet apply to both sides of that property line? MR. BELLOWS: The riparian line setback of 15 feet is where the dock -- or the lot width is 60 feet or greater, then it's 15 feet. It's seven and a half -- if there's some kind of lot frontage where it's less than 60, then it's seven and a half. So I'm not sure how the setback applied to the southern one. MR. ROGERS: May I step in? This morning I reviewed the resolution for that Stella Page 7 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting Maris, because that's -- I did do that as well, so I had a copy of it, and that's the way it was, and that's the way it was approved. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure it was approved, but generally that would have required a setback -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- comparable to the one you're dealing with. MR. ROGERS: Correct. And I went through the history relatively quickly. There was no requirements for a setback waiver or anything like that discussed. It was basically an existing after -the -fact BDE. And the Stella Maris that -- Villages of Stella Maris that we're here representing today were totally good neighbors and didn't object to that dock being there because it was existing. And they have no reason to tell the -- you know, to not want it there, because it doesn't interfere with their docking facility. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So that facility was part of the original -- sorry. This mike keeps going out -- original approval by the Planning Commission when we did this back in 2014 or whatever year it was that we did this. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to understand it. Jeff, I have a few questions from the document. I just want to make sure I've asked everything. Actually, I've got some staff, and we'll get to that in a minute. First of all, by the BCC allowing boats at an average of 22 feet, can you fit a 22 -foot boat in the 20 foot allowed for the docks without a boat dock extension? MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Which is part of the reason that I believe you're here today is because with that allowance, even if you don't use -- if you do a 16 -foot boat, you could have allowed it -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- but the Board has already recommended -- or already approved a longer length for that area. MR. ROGERS: That is correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. We've talked about the second amendment. I'm going to be going to staff in a little bit. I've got your documents. In your seagrass report, on your conclusions, there are no resources observed within the proposed project area, the resources you're referring to or any of the seagrasses. MR. ROGERS: We're mostly looking for not the floating seagrasses. We're looking for established paddle grass, turtle grass, manatee grass, things like that which are the most common food source for manatees. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And in your professional opinion, the conclusion was the subject property or shoreline will not have any impacts to any submerged resources. MR. ROGERS: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And at this point, Jeff, I don't have any other questions, but there may be an opportunity for questions after we hear from the public and staff. MR. ROGERS: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And if you have -- you will have an opportunity for rebuttal for anything you hear as well. MR. ROGERS: No problem. Thank you, Mark. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll turn to staff and see what we have for a staff report. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, James Sabo, principal planner, for the record. The Zoning Division recommends approval for BDE 2015...1366 with conditions listed: Page 8 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting No commercial vessels, vessels not to exceed 28 feet; average length's 22 feet; Phase A, 42 slips; Phase B, 26 slips. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the "no boat length to exceed 28 feet," just so it's clear, that includes all appurtenances on the boat, whether it's a bow -- a rider, transom, or a dive board, or an engine. That would be all of them. And so I just want to make sure that is made clear in the decision. Is there anybody here from the Environmental Review side of -- Craig, would you mind coming up, and identify yourself for the record. MR. BROWN: Craig Brown, Environmental Planning Review. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Were you sworn in when we started today? MR. BROWN: Yes, I was. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. I know I spoke to you about some questions I had after I read the Manatee Protection Plan. And at the time I read it -- for many times in the past I've read it, but it's a big document, so I could remember everything. I read it again each time. I had read -- I had gotten the first -- the settlement agreement. I had not gotten the amendments. Well, since that time I've read the amendments, and I know your department has signed off on this. Can you tell me how you approached the quantity of boats and whether or not an extension in this particular area is acceptable, and in that I mean you have a moderate and a protected level that we were involved with. And I believe this one, in discussions with you and staff, it's a moderate level, and maybe you can help clarify that discussion. MR. BROWN: Yes. The Manatee Protection Plan is an evaluation of the amount of boats that could be potentially placed in a certain area. So there's criteria that is part of that review. There's -- you're looking at the water depth because, obviously, you want to prevent any potential for impacts to manatee, and then you're looking at potential vegetation that may be submerged that the manatee may be using to forage. And then the other criteria is the -- I got the setback. The other criteria is the mortality impacts with relation to boats. So in evaluating for this particular project, you're looking at the length, and there's a 10 slipper 100 linear feet. And this particular project fits well beyond that -- below that. And the settlement agreement supports what we've discovered in our analysis for this particular project. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So if you went by the Manatee Protection Plan's calculation of the table, it would fit. The moderate can have 10 slips per 100 feet. So that's one boat every 10 feet. MR. BROWN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And, instead, the settlement agreement got initiated based on a boat length of 22 feet. So the average now use is over twice -- two times more restrictive than the Manatee Protection Plan provides. Is that -- MR. BROWN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Also, as to the extension and protrusions into the waterway, the Manatee -- from what I read in your report, it says, the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan is to limit the number of boat slips in proportion to the length of the available shoreline. There was no intent for the Manatee Protection Plan to limit protrusions into the waterway in the Port of the Islands. And, for that reason, a boat dock extension is something that could have been applied for. Is that how your -all -- your department looked at it? MR. BROWN: Correct. It's a numbers thing. It's not necessarily a structural thing. It's a number that's limited to protect the manatee. Page 9 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And you were -- there was no seagrasses there. We've had testimony of that. Let me see if I have anything else that might apply to your side of things. MR. BROWN: I'm looking at the exhibits for this particular application, and it shows water depths that go to eight feet, and seagrasses are typically found in depths that the -- I mean, you can find them, but it's rare. And this is probably a maintained dredged canal, so the chances of seagrasses being presented are limited. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Craig. That's all I need at this point. Thank you. MR. BROWN: Okay. Thanks. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And is there anything further from staff? MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we have five speakers registered. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. For those of you who are going to speak, I'm going to ask you to acknowledge you were sworn in. Please come up to the microphone on that podium and identify yourself for the record. And unless your last name is real simple, please spell it so we get it accurate for the court reporter. And with that, as you get called, please come on up. Go ahead, James. MR. SABO: First speaker, Samuel Leishear -- Leishear (pronunciation). MR. LEISHEAR: Leishear. MR. SABO: What he said. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Mr. Leishear, I'll have to ask you if you were sworn in. MR. LEISHEAR: Yes, I was. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Please spell your name. MR. LEISHEAR: Sure. It is L -e -i -s -h -a -a -r. My address is 231 Cays Drive, which is just around the corner and part of the Stella Maris Master HOA. I'd like to speak to the projection. I don't think we have a problem, or I have a problem, with the projection of 30 feet. We have a problem, or I have a problem, with the extension of the finger piers to 30 feet. In Stella Maris Master HOA, all our docks are at the 20 -foot level. We do have an extension projection to 35 feet; however, we only allow our docks to go to 20 feet, so we do not extend out into the canal any further. Boats do sit on their lifts and can project out an extra four, five, six feet into the canal, but they're on the lift, and it's not a 30 -foot dock. We do not allow them to dock any farther than 20 feet. So for the examiners to approve this extension, at least four of the primary criteria must be met and at least four of the six secondary criteria must be met. I would like to say that I don't think this application meets Criteria 1, 2, and 5 of the primary criteria. Criteria No. 1 requires that the number of boat facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length. The Stella Maris Master HOA immediately to the south has approximately 2,100 linear feet of seawall, and in that we have 50 docks, for a density of one dock per 40 linear feet of seawall. The Villages of Stella Maris has approximately 1,485 linear feet of seawall, and they desire to put 68 docks, for a density of one dock per 22 linear feet. We feel that this -- or I feel that this is more in keeping with the density of a marina rather than a neighborhood. I think the question was brought up about Sunrise Cay. They do not have finger piers there. They just have pilings. It would also add more congestion, we feel, to this manatee zone, and this zone is used quite extensively for recreational -- not recreation, but for observation of manatees. We have a number of manatee boats in here. Sometimes during the year it's quite a Page 10 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting few. Criteria No. 2 requires that the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at low tide. By their own drawings of depth, there's at least five feet at mean low tide at the 20 -foot length away from the seawall. An average boat at this length from the seawall with an outboard motor approximately draws two feet, enabling the boat to be moored or removed from that mooring during mean low tide. Longer boats, of course, get into deeper water within several feet of the 20 -foot length, allowing longer boats and deeper draft boats to adequately moor at mean low tide. Criteria No. 5 requires that the facility would not interfere with the neighborhood docks. The docks closest to 245 and 249 Stella Maris Drive South, which has already been addressed, shows only 16.7 feet from the proposed dock to the Villages of Stella Maris and their existing docks at the Stella Maris Master HOA. I feel this makes it difficult to dock and should be extended. And for those -- for these reasons, I only see that there are two criteria being met by this application and, therefore, I feel that the application should be rejected. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: A couple followup. MR. LEISHEAR: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The docks to the south in the corner. MR. LEISHEAR: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: If he had left the 15 feet that's the setback, or even if it was seven -and -a -half, that would have provided more space that would have been navigable for him to use. If there's anybody that probably has not provided what was needed it would have been that dock to the south that exists today. Now, I know the process you went through to get that approved. I'm not saying that was wrong or right. It's just that if the guy to the north is required to have a setback and you're not, that's not quite equitable, and I think that's probably why, at 16.7 feet, they're providing more than what I think the gentleman or the project to the south has provided. That's one thing to consider. The other thing is, when we look at docks, we look at the amount of coverage that the dock has. Your docks to the south -- I vaguely remember some of this discussion at the Planning Commission level. They have a lot of deck. MR. LEISHEAR: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I don't know if you've done or somebody's done an analysis to Show how much deck area is being provided by the properties to the north versus what you've got for what your project was approved for. But from a depth perspective, their finger piers may not have that much excessive deck compared to yours, and that's another factor we like to consider when we look at the fingers in the decks that go in. So just as a followup, I wanted to mention that to you, okay. MR. LEISHEAR: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. LEISHEAR: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Next speaker. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Frank Lee. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Mr. Lee, were you sworn? MR. LEE: Yes, I was. Frank Lee, L -e -e. I'm the vice president of the -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You might want to pull the mike -- it's not picking Page 11 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting you up. There you go. MR. LEE: I'm vice president of the master association board and speaking here today as one of the representatives from our community. For the record, we want to thank --we want to thank the county staff. This project has been a long time coming. We come here today as a unified community proud of this proposal which we think is a good proposal. We also -- we would be remiss if we did not say that we would not be here today if it weren't for the professionalism and the assistance rendered by the county staff in so many areas. They have worked with us, and we have tried to work with them. The second thing I'd like to say is we want to be good neighbors. When we heard of the concerns of our good neighbors about this project, we immediately went to our engineer, and we have relied heavily upon our engineering firm. They've done, we think, an excellent job. They have tried to meet or exceed the criteria for this permit wherever possible. As soon as we heard about the concern in the corner, we asked Jeff to come out. He met with the property owner. We paid Jeff to do a study and draw an additional exhibit to show. We went down, and I met with our good neighbor. We marked off -- we measured off and marked on the wall in chalk and stood down to make sure. And we intend to do everything that we can do to be good neighbors. I think our neighbors are entitled to -- and we encouraged them. We sent a letter to all of our neighbors and said to them, we recognize that change is different and difficult. We respect your right to disagree with our proposal, and we encouraged them to participate in this process. I also want to say to you and to our neighbors that we will be -- we want to set the standard for doing this in a responsible manner. We will continue to use our engineering firm, and we intend to use them to draw the plans for the docks, to help us in the process of identifying good contractors that are capable of doing the job professionally and appropriately, and we will have them inspect the work so that this commission, the county, and our neighbors can be assured that what we do here will be professional and meet or exceed all the criteria. And, lastly, we simply want to say that when this process goes forward, we will continue to work with our neighbors and communicate with them. We are a subset of a larger community out there, and we feel that this project, in the end, will improve the entire community, and we thank the county for their assistance. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is Leroy Smith. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Mr. Smith, were you sworn in, sir? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I was. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SMITH: My name's Leroy Smith, S -m -i -t -h. I'm a full-time resident of Collier County. I have lived in Port of the Islands for a little over 13 years, and I appreciate all that the county has done to make improvements for our community. And I just want to thank all of you. And I'm sure whether you're for or against this, everybody wants to thank you because you have put in a firehouse for us. You have put in a marina and a ramp for us. We used to have an old ramp. The new one is twice as long, twice as wide, and 10 times safer, so thank you for your help. I am here today to ask you to please approve this. I think this is very reasonable. The people that are asking you for this are people like me. I think I am representative of the people there. We're retired people. I'm 70 years old. And I'd like to tell you that I have a 21 -foot boat. And as was mentioned by Jeff, if you have a 21 -foot boat, you've got a motor on the back, it's going to stick out three feet. You're likely to have a trolling motor or an anchor on the front, and that's going to take another couple feet. Page 12 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting And then, of course, you don't want your boat up against the concrete wall; you need a couple of feet for space. So the 28 feet is what I come to with my boat if it's just sitting and, therefore, I think this extension request is reasonable. We certainly want to be responsible in our growth development just as much as you want us to be responsible. And I would like to also thank the county for being very patient with us. We have gone through a lot of growing pains in the last 10 years. 2007, 2008, Richard Burgeson, our developer, left us, you know, in his bankruptcy, and we had a lot of problems, a lot of problems. And we've tried to do this before, and it's not been easy. But you -all have done a great job working with us, and I thank you for your help. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. And as a note, I heard a couple people comment on how helpful the county staff has been. One of those people is not here today. His name is Scott Stone. MR. LEE: I've heard the name. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: He was the Assistant County Attorney that carried this through until he moved to another location -- MR. LEE: I remember the name. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- about a month ago. So he had spent quite a bit time with various people at your side. MR. LEE: I'm sorry this has been so long and drawn out. We never intended it to be that way, but we had a lot of growing pains, getting roads turned over, dealing with property that was sold at tax sales. It was difficult, but we're together. We're trying to do the right thing. Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. SABO: The next speaker is Dan Truckey. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? MR. TRUCKEY: Yes, I was sworn in. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TRUCKEY: I'm Dan Truckey. Do you need spelling or anything? I'm on the record. THE COURT REPORTER: I have it on the speaker slip. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Just the court reporter needs it. And you're the gentleman that started this a long time ago, aren't you? MR. TRUCKEY: I am. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I remember your name from Scott Stone. MR. TRUCKEY: Yes, I have sat in several meetings with you years ago when we started this. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The mike's not picking you up for some reason. MR. TRUCKEY: I'll get a little closer. Better? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: There you go. Thank you. MR. TRUCKEY: I was master president back when we started this endeavor with the association. I had a chance to work with many of the county board staff, including Scott Stone, who was very helpful. And I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for that. It was a pleasure working with you. When we came into this, we weren't sure where we were at. We had easement and vacation easements and our settlement agreements and things that all had to be gone through before we could even start the project, and it was a great help with the county to work with you. I just wanted to come up and say thank you. Page 13 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. MR. TRUCKEY: That all I have. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, James. MR. SABO: The next speaker is William Skarren. That's the last speaker as well. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SKARREN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning, sir. MR. SKARREN: Good morning. Bill Skarren. I'm the property owner directly adjacent to the proposed dockage right down there in the corner. I've lived there for 18 years. I lived there before the first slab was poured for any of these existing condominiums. And the objection that I have is strictly related to the boat dock extension. A little history before I get into that. At Port of the Islands, most if not all of the seawall residents are restricted to 20 feet from for their dockage. We, of course, got that alleviated in our BDE to allow protrusion up to the 35 foot, but we have boats that are 20, 22 feet. Some of them are docked at angles. Some of them go straight out, but most of them are only approximately 22 feet that extend from our seawall. The only boat that is different than that is on the main channel where a sailboat used to dock, and that boat had a 15 -foot beam and docked parallel to his dock which, of course, was parallel to the seawall. So he used the full extent of the 35 -feet extension that we had. The proposal that was submitted indicated that our docks extended from 35 to 40 feet. That is obviously in error, and I believe that's been annotated and noted in some of the discussion here that none of our boats go out to 40 feet. One goes to 35. Most are within 25 feet. When you look at the entire complex of Port of the Islands, I can't think of any seawall condition where the extension goes out to the 30 foot -- they don't go out that far. Twenty feet was where all of the boats have been because -- for the reason that was in the statute, all of the residents have complied with that, and now 20 years after the first boat dock has been built, were asked to go out an additional 10 feet. Now, I -- one other thing as far as condominiums are concerned is that no condominium that exists in Port of the Islands has a boat dock lift nor does it have an extension outside of the ones that are on the area that does not have the seawall. Where there's riprap, which necessitates the deeper drafts, there's been extensions that have allowed those boats to go out farther. I wanted to make a clarification. Earlier in the comments that Jeff Rogers indicated, he said that the president of Stella Maris Homeowners Association was involved somehow in this project. I believe he meant to say the condominium association. He also indicated that Resort Management was their management company. I believe that's in error, but I could be mistaken. As Mr. Leishear, indicated, our BDE definitely limits our dockage to 20 feet. My major concern from my personal viewpoints is that when I view this proposed area on this east wall, my view of the water is going to be completely obstructed. The 30 -foot extension goes beyond my existing pilings 12 feet. I submitted that earlier in a letter for your review, and I just find that, from a sight perspective, obtrusive. I could live with 20 feet for them. We have 50 boats that live in a 20 -foot area for dockage. We protrude further, and I feel that that would be complementary to the entire area, and I would not object to that. Another item that I'd like to bring to your attention is that this project, to my knowledge, has no completion date. Are we going to be subject to ongoing construction of docks and lifts and the noise and pilings driving into this area for an indefinite period of time? If it is to be approved, I think it most appropriate that some type of termination date on this should be effective, and also I think it needs to be considered, to my knowledge, that these 68 Page 14 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting docks are not completely spoken for outside of being identified by some owners, some of which -- to my understanding, many don't want a dock, but they want to use it as a sales tool to sell their property. I found this a little self-serving to have this situation developed. When I bought out there, I was the last unit built. The builder informed me that there were going to be pilings around the seawall, and that's why I put my boat in the corner the way it is, because if I had put it directly into the corner, I would have conflicted with a piling that went out 20 feet. As I mentioned earlier, I only go out 18 feet because of the protrusion into my neighbor's riparian right, and I limited mine to 18 feet. Now, my neighbor's view is also going to be impacted, not quite to the extent that mine is, but he has some impact, but also when he would back out of his slip, he's got about -- I would say it appears to be about 20 feet before the stern of his boat might be in conflict with the docks or at least the boats that are being proposed out there. That's just my opinion. I haven't looked at that in great detail. I think the engineering that Jeff and his group has always done has been excellent, and I respect their opinion, but I feel that there's a potential conflict in dockage for my neighbor. I agree that I can get in and out of my slip with the available dockage that's been prepared. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Which slip is actually yours? There's a diagonal slip in the very, very corner, and then there's an east/west slip with a lift right adjacent to that. MR. SKARREN: Yeah. I'm in the east/west slip that's on that east wall perpendicular to it, not right down in the corner. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You go front end into your lift, and then you back out? MR. SKARREN: Yes, that's right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: There you go. MR. SKARREN: Yeah. That's the further -north dock. Now, what I'm referring to is that you can see my neighbor's triangular dock, when he comes out, he's got 25 feet maybe till his stern -- the stern with that pictorial on the boat that's being docked, and I'm concerned about that issue. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. SKARREN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Appreciate it. Any more speakers, James? MR. SABO: No. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who are here who would like to speak who have not spoken? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that, Jeff. Oh, I'm sorry. Heidi had something. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can we take a five-minute break so I can explain it to you in case you have any additional questions. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That sounds fine. We'll resume in five minutes; about seven minutes till 10. (A brief recess was had.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd take your seats, we're going to resume the meeting. Jeff, during the break we had a discussion over how to verbalize some of the allocations of the boat slips, and the conclusion was that they believe for the benefits of Tracts M1 and M2 as determined by the master association; that will be added to the stipulations. MR. ROGERS: Correct. Page 15 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Part of it, though, that I read earlier will still be there discussing how they were calculated. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And the only part that will be different is the references to M1 and M2 will be taken out, and they'll be added as another discussion. MR. ROGERS: Correct; yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Hearing the community's -- the speakers' concerns, do you have anything you want to add to the record? MR. ROGERS: Yes, I do, real quickly. Just real quick, go through a couple concerns that I heard. The adjacent Stella Maris, so let's talk about them. Their docks were existing out to 20 feet, which was an HOA or a neighborhood decision to not allow the docks to go out past the 20 feet, but the vessels were allowed to overhang that line out to 35 feet. And, yes, a sailboat was really the driving factor of that additional footage because he was mooring it on the outside of his existing 20 -foot dock. The docks were built out to 20 feet, and the county was issuing building permits without really knowing that the vessels were going to overhang, which would require a BDE, so it was a real mess, Mark, over there, so the docks were limited to 20 feet. Vessels were allowed to go to 35. That was an HOA decision. Could they have done 30 feet? Yes, they could have, but it was an internal decision to leave the docks at 20 feet and drive it for just the vessels to overhang that. That's my recollection of the BDE for that neighborhood. Water -depth criteria: Yes, we do have significant water depths. As you can see here on my cross-section on the bottom, there is -- we are allowed to miss one of the primary criteria of the BDE application, which we do not meet that criteria, because there is significant water depths on site. Finger piers are 30 feet long, but the vessels, maximum vessel length is 28 feet. As you can see here, in no -- most boats, you're loading and unloading the vessel from mid ship to the stern, which is why the finger pier needs to be 30 feet. When we design docks, because you're getting on and off the boat nine times out of 10 in the stern, where the gunnel is the lowest part of the boat, it's the easiest access on and off. So the additional two feet will allow the access on the stern. And, yes, I did misspeak in regards to the management company when we started this. It was Resort Management. Now it is Alliance. They are working with the Alliance Management company. Regarding construction, we're still waiting on state and federal permits. Those permits will authorize us to -- those permits will be good, active for five years with the option to extend to seven. So construction -- regarding that question and concern about construction time frame, it is the intention of the Stella Maris -- Villages of Stella Maris to build these in one time. It's the most economical way to build these docks. When you're mobilizing a barge and crane to your site, you don't want to have to pay for that mobilization more than once. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Address the concern of unlimited construction. Do you have a time frame that you could suggest that would -- that would work for a termination date? MR. ROGERS: Right now, like I stated, we don't have full approval, so there is no timeline to start, but the length of construction that it would take to build these at one time would -- 60 to 90 days. It's a lot of docks. It's a lot of work. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But you're going to move through them continuously? Page 16 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting MR. ROGERS: Continuously. Pile work and pile driving, I would say, would be 30 days or less. But there will be -- and that's with the crane, you know, hammering or jetting down the piles. There are numerous piles. There's six to eight piles on each dock, so there's a significant number of pilings. But the construction, that's just one part of the construction is the pile installation. And once that's done, it's just typical hammer and nail and some saws that you'll hear cutting the wood, carpentry work. So 60 to 90 days is a realistic time frame to start to finish the whole project, which includes electric, fire. You know, there's a lot of --there's a lot that goes into just --it's just not just docks. There's a lot of upland work that will have to happen as well. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Since you did the project to the south, did you do a comparison to the amount of decking between the two projects, the new one that you're proposing here and the one to the south? I don't know if you did it or not. MR. ROGERS: I did not, but I could easily do it. But just based on the looks of it -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I'm not -- it won't matter after today necessarily. MR. ROGERS: Put it this way -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I was just curious. MR. ROGERS: -- Mark, some of those docks that you see, those are individually owned, where the finger piers that we're proposing are going to be shared by two owners. So technically, you know, I only own three feet of that dock, and my neighbor's got the other three feet for access up and down the finger pier. It's a shared finger pier. So we don't have the ability to have the excess decking -- I don't to want say excess decking -- the additional decking which is very attractive to homeowners. If they had that option, by all means. It's more attractive, and you can enjoy the waterway a little bit more. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: These piers are -- instead of the typical four feet, there's six, but they're six because they serve as two boats each; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: That is correct, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that's basically for the safety of the quantity of people that could be on the boats at the same time. MR. ROGERS: Yes, exactly, and/or carrying coolers up and down. The six feet is maximum. That's to the outside of the pilings, if you want to get technical here. So a piling's going to be about 12 -inches, 10- to 12 -inch wide. So there will be -- six foot is to the outside of those piles, so really -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The deck will be inside the piling? MR. ROGERS: Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So you'll be less than six feet. MR. ROGERS: So the clearance of walking is more like five -and -a -half feet wide. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The docks being all at 30 feet, if the Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Marine Patrol or anybody were to be in this area, they could look down that line of docks and know if any boat was in violation of its length? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And so could the county staff. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That's just something I was thinking. I was trying to figure out -- MR. ROGERS: It's not perfect, Mark. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- how this is going to be controlled. That makes control pretty easy. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Again, it's not perfect where the boats will align on the boat lifts. Page 17 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting It all depends on the center of gravity of the vessel and how it overhangs. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But they're not allowed to overhang past 30 feet. MR. ROGERS: In regards to the --correct, 100 percent. How much of the boat will overhang, whether it even gets to the 30 -foot mark, or it's at the 28 mark. So we're not going to exceed -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The point is, you won't be out past 30 feet -- MR. ROGERS: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- with any piece of that boat. MR. ROGERS: Correct. So -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: If anybody stood at one dock and looked down that line of docks, they're not going to see -- if they see any engine, any piece going past that dock lines, they could be in a bad situation at that point. MR. ROGERS: You are correct, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, sorry. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't have any more questions at this point, Jeff, if that's all your questions. MR. ROGERS: That's it. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Staff -- and, Heidi, do you have anything else you want to add? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing on this matter, and a decision will be rendered within 30 days, presumably a lot less. And 1 can't take any more. The hearing's been closed. Thank you all for your attendance, and we'll be done with it. Thank you. MR. SKARREN: Could I just address you one second? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yeah, you'll have to wait till we get the meeting over. I've got two other cases to go into, sir. ***Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move onto the next case up, which is Petition No. BD-PL20180001843. It's the Godfrey and Patricia Turner request for a 57.5 -foot boat dock extension. 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: Disclosures on my part: I have talked to staff a couple of different times on this one, mostly the environmental issues. And with that, we'll move into -- is someone here representing the applicant? Okay. Ma'am? I'm going to -- first of all, I need you to identify yourself for the record. MS. CLARK: Bernice Clark with Imperial Marine Construction. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And were you sworn in? MS. CLARK: Yes, I was. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay, good. This morning or last night I discovered a concern, and I asked the environmental staff who worked on this to come forward to my office and talk to me -- show me what they were looking at, because I couldn't figure out how they came to their conclusions. And what it turns out is they've got a different plan than I've got. And I've got two or three different plans all with different outcomes to a point where, because of the environmental plan, if the plan I had was one they reviewed, they probably would have turned it down. But the plan they have I've not reviewed, and it's probably the most important plan to really look at this Page 18 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting accurately. I don't know how this happened, but it does pose a problem for finishing this today. And I'm willing to walk through the issues we need to talk about today so this can come back to us. We can continue. A continuance just means a couple more weeks before we get to the next meeting. If you can get the proper documents together, and if our staff can make sure other departments have the proper documents, including myself, because the document that I saw from the -- Craig, could you put that on the overhead. MR. BROWN: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't know what document to use at this point. I have a hand -done document, which has got a lot of errors that need to be corrected before it could be used, but then Craig's department, which did the seagrass review, had this document, which is not the document that was in my packet for the seagrass location, which is why last night when I looked at the seagrass rules I couldn't figure out why our department would have approved them, because the one I had in my packet -- and if someone could put this on the overhead -- is this one. And this one shows you, basically, infringing into the seagrasses more with the new design than less or with the design that's there. Nothing else was in the packet reflecting this layout. So according to this, that dock that's shown is into the seagrass bed but, yet, according to the one that Craig and his department reviewed, it's where it's supposed to be. It's acceptable. Now, I don't know which one's real, and I don't -- I have only -- I have not analyzed this one from the perspective that I need to do it at. So this is -- this is nothing we're going to be able to resolve today, but I want to point -- this has all got to be cleaned up to hear this completely. And, sir, you'll have to wait till I finish with this lady. MR. TURNER: I'm trying to help resolve the problem. I know exactly what the issue is. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Ma'am -- MS. CLARK: This was -- I see what the problem is. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. If this gentleman works with you, you two want to come up together. MR. TURNER: I'm the applicant. MS. CLARK: He's the property owner. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you want to come up and work with your -- the two of you work together; that's fine. You'll need to identify yourself for the record, please. MR. TURNER: My name is Godfrey Turner. I'm actually known as my middle name, Malcolm. I was sworn in. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TURNER: And I'm the applicant who lives on the property. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, we do -- these different plans -- and that's --you've just got two different plans. I've got more here. MR. TURNER: The issue you had there was there's a plan which shows where I have the existing dock. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You've got to -- sir, you've got to stay by the mike to talk. MR. TURNER: This is the existing dock. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You'll need to get to the mike, unfortunately, sir. I saw that. That is in the -- right. I understand that. MR. TURNER: Well, in that drawing you have, it still shows the footprint of that existing dock, and it also shows the -- so you can see the difference between where the proposed Page 19 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting dock is being shorter than the previously existing docks. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: What drawing that I have? You said in the drawing I have you -- MR. TURNER: The one that you say you're confused about, which is this one. That one. That drawing there, the furthest most point is where the dock has been. And it doesn't show up very clear on there. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Do you see that line? Do you see this line right here? That's a seagrass bed. You are proposing to shorten this dock by .7 feet, which means -- just wait a minute. From my review, only the documents I had would then still leave this within the seagrass beds. Now, when I read the environmental review, they said you were meeting the conditions of the code, which take you, basically, as far as you can out of the seagrass bed because this line now moved the seagrass beds, apparently. That's the piece I'm trying to correlate. I didn't get this plan. Now, my review was not based on this plan, and I have to have time. I saw it this morning for the first time. So we will be continuing this, but I want to tell you all the problems I have today so you can put the right documents together so that all the departments in this county are seeing the same document. Now, not all that's your fault. That's something, certainly, we should have coordinated better internally, but we don't have all the same documents. And for an environmental to sign off on this, without me raising that question as a result of last night's reading, nobody would have known that they signed off on something totally different than what was in the packet. And I would have attached something that was inconsistent with what they signed off on. That can't happen. So let me move through the rest of this document to tell you some other things that need to be cleaned up, and then maybe we can get the whole thing together that way. I have several other documents that include CGS Surveying. Some of them are dated April of this year showing proposed docks, including a lift on the north side, which I believe is this lift right here. In discussion with staff two days ago, they told me that's a deck. Is it a lift or a deck? MS. CLARK: It's a lift with decking on top. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It's a lift. Well, see -- MS. CLARK: Platform. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- you're restricted to 160 -- not in excess of 160 feet of deck at the terminal platform. Now, you show that on your hand -drawn document, 156 feet, but if the other section -- which I believe is where you're going to put your kayaks, if that's a deck, you may even be in violation of the manatee -- I mean, of our code regarding how close you could be to seagrass beds with a volume of terminal platform. That's the piece that we've got to take a look at, because I don't -- in talking to staff, they -- I don't think they thought that was a lift. James, we talked about that the other day. You want to jump in on this one? MR. SABO: Yes. James Sabo, for the record. After speaking with environmental, the terminal dock is on the left side of the drawing, 156 square feet. The kayak platform is not considered a terminal dock. That's my understanding. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, is it a deck or lift? How did you review it? MS. CLARK: Platform lift; platform lift. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So it's going to be a deck until it's moved down to -- how does that work? MS. CLARK: Well, we were actually discussing it prior to starting, and I do have a question into the DEP to see if it is considered a lift or dock, or if we change it to a flow-through Page 20 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting material, if that will make a difference on the square footage. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That's an important criteria because our code simply -- in one way it wouldn't allow it, and the other way it might be okay. We need to resolve that issue. On your -- I don't know what plan you intend to use as a submittal to be officially reviewed as a document that would support the decision in this case. I've got your handwritten one, I've got the one that Craig showed, I've got the other one that I have, and I have several by CGS. I need someone to submit to the staff exactly what you're intending to do and have that be the document that controls all the reviews. MS. CLARK: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that's -- and it has to have the seagrass located on it. It has to have the dimensions that are being asked for by the applicant, the size of each one of the decks. In fact, the handwritten drawing is out of proportion because you've got a kayak on deck that is substantially in -- not accurate compared to the 6 -foot length for the terminal platform to the left. I don't know if you've seen the -- if you did the hand -drawn one or not, but there's several issues with that. First of all, the setbacks aren't shown on here. The setback distance from the property line is shown, but you need to call out where the 15 -foot setback line is. You've called out a riparian line at seven -and -a -half feet off the property line; that's not a riparian line, so that needs to be off the document. You're not a surveyor. You shouldn't be the one dictating the survey -- riparian lines. So I suggest you remove that -- you don't need to reference it. In this particular case, riparian lines are extensions of the property lines in this location as it has been with the neighbors in that area. So just to simplify your document, I don't -- we don't want to see a riparian line on there because then the neighbor to the south can utilize that riparian line location, which would actually hurt your applicant -- your client, not help. I'd suggest that get changed. But I think you need to take all these documents, provide one clean document encompassing all the issues and have staff review it and then distribute it to the other staff department -- other departments, and we'll get input back, and then I'll be able to review it as a package instead of with everybody seeing different locations. MS. CLARK: Yeah. I've seen your documents. You didn't get the revised documents. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Right. MS. CLARK: So I see what happened. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't know where they are, but I know that somebody got one and I didn't, and I will need separate acknowledgments from our Environmental Department that we've all got the right document now. This can't happen again. MS. CLARK: Right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So what I need to know from you is when would you be able to produce a document that covers all of this in one exhibit? MS. CLARK: Probably, within four weeks max. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Because right now this is -- this is pretty close. I mean, you've got most of it. I don't know who did this. MS. CLARK: That's the actual one that we had Turrell do. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. If that one is the document you want to use for the backup for the decision, I just think we need to make sure that the details here are clarified enough so they can be read, that everybody's on the same page, and if the Environmental Department reviews this, our Planning Department reviews it, we identify that the lift is the lift or a dock or a deck; that's important. The square footage is involved. All that can be done with a Page 21 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting plan like this. This would be the typical way we'd normally do it. But when I had so many plans in your packet contradicting one another, it doesn't make it work any better. I would suggest on this one, if this is the one you intend to use, to add the lot line extensions for the setback measurement and, from that, you put in the setback measurement. It would be -- 15 feet's required, but then put in what you actually have, and that's to your benefit. That helps everybody understand you're doing better than what's required. It's very positive for you. MR. TURNER: Right. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So if you could at least get that together. Staff will know what to watch for this time, and you might have some back and forth with them. But if you need a four-week extension, we can continue for four weeks, and then in the four weeks -- you'll be the first up on that next Hearing Examiner's meeting in four weeks from now. And let me look at that date. I don't know what's the best to look at; there we go. Is that the 23rd? May 23rd, yep. What we'll do is we'll continue this meeting and this item till May 23rd with your -- do you have any problem with that? MS. CLARK: It sounds good -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. MS. CLARK: -- to get that done. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I was hoping you'd say that. So that's all. Is there any other comments you have at this time? MS. CLARK: Not at this time. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there any members of the public here who wish to speak on this item who can't come back on May 23rd to discuss it if they need to? Okay. Hearing none -- sir? MR. TURNER: I'm not going to be herein four weeks. Could I just -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Come up, and you'll have to use the microphone. We can extend this to another date if you need, but if -- before you talk you need to get to the microphone. MR. TURNER: I'd like to put on record -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Sir, you'll need to get to the microphone. There you go. MR. TURNER: I'd just like to put on record that my wife has a disability in both acrophobia and aquaphobia. She has a fear of heights and a fear of water. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And you live on the water. MR. TURNER: Sorry? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You live on the water. MR. TURNER: I know. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Wow. MR. TURNER: Well, looking at it -- she enjoys looking at it. Going on it is a problem. But she, you know, was happy walking out on an 8 -foot dock. She's tried -- we found a 4 -foot dock, and she cannot physically walk out on a 4 -foot dock, and we would respectfully ask if there's any consideration that could be made on her behalf to increase that width in any way to facilitate her ability to use it. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Two questions. Well, one for you; one for staff. First of all, you'd have to come back through the whole process. You may need a variance if there's a conflict with the Land Development Code. Both those things will take you longer than four weeks. If your wife has those problems with the water, why would she want to go out on the dock? MR. TURNER: She still -- I mean, I find it difficult to explain because to me the whole Page 22 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting thing is irrational, but there -- when she's actually on the boat, she's -- you know, we have to have a boat that's -- she couldn't go on a -- sort of a deck boat. She likes to have -- the boat ride is where she feels enclosed and she feels safe. And in that situation, she does like going out on the water providing she feels she's in a safe environment. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well, you could put railing up on your deck. I mean, railing might make her -- then she may not have any -- it might help her fears. Have you ever thought of that -- considered that as an alternative? MR. TURNER: Well, I was going -- when you say railing, what style of railing? Because we've been to the Capri Marina, and there they do have some very solid middle rail and upper rail, solid wood railings, and she was okay -- it was actually more like a five-foot dock, but it was still a narrow dock, and she was okay walking on that section. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: The provision in the section of our code about docks that are close to seagrass beds -- and that provision, I think, is at four feet and limited dock, limited widths of docks and decking only to make sure it's protective of the seagrass. If there's alternatives to that, they might be something to be considered before we try to alter the code in regards to that, or look for a variance. So I would suggest you -- and unless staff can tell me there's some objection to a rail decking going out to this -- I don't know of any myself. Do you know of any, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That was one of our earlier suggestions that they could go to railing if the four foot was a concern. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Honestly, if I was someone who was scared of the water and I had railing, I'd feel more secure than just an extra foot on each side where I could easily still walk off of it and my concerns would be greater. But it's something to consider, sir. And when you resubmit, I'm sure staff will look at this, and if they see the four foot as a limitation, they'll state so in their writeup; we'll just see where it goes. Under that basis, you had said you wouldn't be available on May 23rd. Your -- generally the applicant's representatives can speak for you if you allow them to. If you're satisfied with that, we can keep the May 23rd date. MR. TURNER: I'm anxious to get this processed. You know, we've been without a dock for 18 months already. And the sooner we get this process over, the better it will be. I don't want to do anything to delay it. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I can understand that, sir. Thank you very much. MR. TURNER: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With the, Petition No. BD -20180001843, Godfrey and Patricia Turner, this request will be continued to the May 23rd date, and it will be the first item up on that date. Thank you all for your attendance on this matter today. ***Next item up is Petition No. 3C. It's BDE-PL20170000557, the Audubon Country Club Foundation, Inc., for a dock extension -- actually, an observation deck and boardwalk extending 433.6 feet. 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: Thank you. Disclosures on my part: I did have a phone call from Mark Minor, who represents the applicant, basically finding out if I have any issues for today, and I told him I didn't really have anything offhand other than to clarify the exhibits, but we'll get into that in just a minute. Page 23 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting So with that, Mark, if you're here. You are. Do you want to come up and identify yourself for the record -- MR. MINOR: I do. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- and we'll try to get through it. MR. MINOR: My name is Mark Minor. I'm with Grady Minor Engineering, and I'm representing the Audubon Foundation. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here other than the applicant's team who wish to speak on this item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mark, you're saved. We don't need a presentation today. I have read everything. MR. MINOR: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: It boils down to a few questions that I have. First of all, it's a boardwalk observation deck, and in the findings it said it will not be used for mooring or launching of motorized vessels, so that will need to be a stipulation. Do you have any objection to that? MR. MINOR: We do not. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The plans that were provided -- and I think that's probably the best plan to use -- it will not reproduce or record with clarity to read the writing on that, so I will need a new submittal either expanding or putting bigger typeset in there or making it clear so it can be read. It can't be read now. I can't even read it in my packet, so -- at least a lot of the fine print unless I blow it up, and it gets blurrier as it blows up. Is there some way you can provide a better copy? MR. MINOR: We can, yes. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. That will need to be done before any decision can be issued, so... And other than that -- oh, I did notice -- I read your Planned Unit Development. It is an allowed permit principal use in that area, so you already had a green light as far as the zoning and PUD goes. It was just a matter of the extension request, which I believe staff deemed this to be similar to a dock in that regard, and that's how they reviewed it, and everybody seems to be on the same page with that, so I don't have any objection to that. I don't have anything else. Do you have anything else you want to add to the record, Mark? MR. MINOR: I don't. Just a clarification on the approval from the Hearing Examiner. You would stipulate that once more legible documents are submitted, that -- HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No, I won't write it until I get a document that can be attached that can be recorded at the Clerk's Office. I can't submit something that I don't have. MR. MINOR: Will we be coming back to a hearing? HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No. You just need to submit that through staff, staff will get the legible copy over to me, and we'll attach it to the decision. MR. MINOR: Understood. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything? Staff? Gil? MR. MARTINEZ: Good morning, Mr. Chair. For the record, Gil Martinez. Staff recommends approval contingent on the conditions that have been referenced. It meets the GMP and LDC requirements and, once again, recommend approval. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And as soon as you get a revised page that -- part of which is shown on this page right here, and it is legible, make sure you get it over to myself and Heidi, because Heidi focuses on legibility as well -- MR. MARTINEZ: I know. Page 24 of 25 April 25, 2019 HEX Meeting HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: -- so I want to make sure, and we can read it adequately. MR. MARTINEZ: Will do. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I don't have anything else. Is there any member of the public here that wants to speak on this item? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none, Mark, this hearing is closed and -- MR. MARTINEZ: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. For the record, there is a document that needs to be introduced into the backing, which is the affidavit of posting notice, which was provided to the court reporter earlier today. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for that. And with that, this hearing is closed, and a decision will be rendered within 30 days, assuming I get the backup material I just asked for. MR. MINOR: Thank you, Mr. Strain. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you, Mark. Good to see you again. MR. MINOR: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Any other business? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none. Public comments: Anybody have any comments they want to make? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none, this meeting's adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 10:27 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARJNG EXAMINER [/V//Icw V[ MA STRAIN, HEARING EXAMINER ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 5� 1 — �o , as presentedy or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 25 of 25