Loading...
HEX Minutes 12/23/2021December 23, 2021 Page 1 of 13 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida December 23, 2021 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 ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Collier Community Planning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney John Kelly, Principal Planner December 23, 2021 Page 2 of 13 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, everyone. This is the December 23rd Hearing Examiner Meeting, 2021, the last one of the year. Why don't we start off with the Pledge of Allegiance? (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. I'm glad everyone is here. I certainly wish everyone a happy holiday, safe holiday and New Year's. It looks like we got some fun weather for Christmas. If everyone would, please, silence your phones or whatever you use, so that we're not interrupted. If anyone needs to have a conversation, please, step outside in the hall. The sound in here is actually pretty good, and I can hear a lot, and, just step out. Also, what I want to explain, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a land use attorney for over 20 years. I am a contracted attorney by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. I'm not an employee of the county. I'm hired explicitly to hear Hearing Examiner petitions as outlined in the administrative code. Today is the day I hear from the parties, hear from the public. I have not had any prior discussions, substantive discussions, with county staff, with any of the applicants, with anybody in the public. I come here as a -- as an impartial decision maker. So if you find that I'm asking questions and this is going a little slower than prior hearings, it's because I want to find out everything that I can, because after this hearing, I need to go back and analyze all that information I received against the criteria for approval or evaluation of what you're requesting, and then render a decision within 30 days. So today is the day where the record is built. We have a court reporter joining us. Wave to us, please. There she is. If anyone starts talking too fast or too -- mumbling or gesturing your answers, she's going to immediately stop you, and we're all going to hit our tracks. She has full authority to do that. We need to have the record clear in case somebody needs to look at it, including myself. That being said, anyone that's going to offer testimony to me here today will have to be sworn in, and administer the oath by the court reporter. So why don't we do that right now? So anyone going to be here today that's going to provide information to me, please, be sworn in by the clerk (sic). (All parties were sworn and answered in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. The way we're going to handle this, the county will introduce the petition or application, and then the applicant will use the big brown podium over here. I'll hear from the applicant, then I'll open it up for public comment. We do have a hybrid meeting here, meaning, folks might be logging on through the Zoom link, but the public will be speaking, that are here in person, at the gray podium. Please try to be succinct in your comments, and try to be as directed toward the criteria for the approval. However, you have a certain number of minutes. This is a public meeting. By law you're allowed to be here and speak, but it really helps me a lot to be able to get an understanding why you are a proponent or opponent, or just offering me information; that helps me quite a bit. Have I missed anything? MR. BELLOWS: (Shook head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. So we have three items on the agenda, A, B and C. It looks like A and B are companion items; is that correct? So why don't we, John, looks like you are the lucky winner on all three. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning. MR. KELLY: Before you are two companion items, the first being VA-PL20210002276, a variance and boat dock extension, PL20200002573, the petitioner requests you approve a variance from Section 5.03.06E.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code, to reduce the required side setback for December 23, 2021 Page 3 of 13 dock facilities on lots with water frontage of less than 60 feet, from 7.5 feet to zero for a lot width 50 plus or minus feet of water frontage. With respect to the boat dock extension, the petitioner is requesting approval for a 25-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, for a total protrusion of 45 feet into a waterway that is 100 plus or minus feet wide. The boat dock -- this is a rather unique situation. The boat dock is located at 10090 Gulf Shore Drive, which is further described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Lot C, Re-subdivision of Part of Unit No. 1, Connor's Vanderbilt Estates in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This property is joined by deed to Lot 14, Block A of the same subdivision with an address of 10091 Gulf Shore Drive, which is located directly across the street, and is where the principal structure, a single-family residence, is located. Historically, both locations were viewed as a combined single lot which is dissected by Gulf Shore Drive and is located with -- both are located within a residential single-family three zoning district. With respect to public notice requirements, the agent letter for the variance was sent by the applicant's agent on November 29, 2021, and for the variance and the boat dock extension, the property owner notification letter was sent by the county on December 3, and the newspaper ad was ran by the county on December 3rd as well. A public hearing sign was posted by me on December 7, 2021. The subject petitions were reviewed by staff using the review criteria for variances contained within LDC Section 9.04.03A through H, and for the boat dock extension the criteria contained within Section 5.03.06H, for which staff found the request complies with four of the five primary criteria, and four of the six secondary criteria with the six pertaining to the Manatee Protection Plan, which isn't applicable to this dock facility. Staff notes that there are unique circumstances involved with the subject property, and, therefore, also evaluated prior similar zoning actions that were approved by the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, most specifically Resolutions 2012-265 and 2012-266. Those resolutions allow for an existing dock facility with zero side setback, and a total protrusion of 39 feet. The subject petitions are before you as the applicant is altering the configuration of the existing dock facility and requesting an additional six feet of protrusion. Both petitions are found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. With respect to public comments, only one telephone call was received in response to these petitions and the caller was satisfied to learn that his property was located on a different canal. Our recommendation is to approve both petitions as previously described in accordance with the plans contained within Attachment A of each respective petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, this is a joint presentation; correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So these are companion items, so I'm hearing joint presentation from the county as well as the applicant, but I will be making two different decisions? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I do need to understand the property configuration. I see this has got a pretty extensive history, this property does, and I note that you touched upon that, that there were several, I guess, denials at some point, and then there was a, looks like an administrative -- an appeal. I want to learn a little bit more about this, because you mentioned two different addresses, and are these under one property folio number? MR. KELLY: They are under one deed, one property folio number. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: And they were combined back in the 50's, as I said, by deed. So they are recognized by the county as a legal, nonconforming -- a single, legal, nonconforming lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This would not be considered a boat dock lot? MR. KELLY: It is not. It's not meant to be. It came off of a side corner lot, what was a side December 23, 2021 Page 4 of 13 corner lot in the 50's. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. KELLY: But actually the two lots combined become a single conforming lot bisected by Gulf Shore Drive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But for Gulf Shore Drive, the dock is an accessory to the single-family home that's between the Gulf of Mexico and this canal? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. That's what I thought. And how did this -- so it went through the -- looks like the Planning Commission at some point, and then it ended up being an administrative appeal. How does it -- how does that happen? MR. KELLY: Once again, both of these items when they were previously -- for the existing dock when they were previously here, it predated the Hearing Examiner's Office, so they were heard by the Collier County Planning Commission, which had approval authority for boat dock extensions, and acted as an advisory board for variances. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. KELLY: Ultimately, the Planning Commission had denied both -- well, they denied the boat dock extension, and suggested that the variance not be approved. However, once that was done, the petitioner filed for an administrative appeal, and by appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is the Board of County Commissioners, they approved both items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the administrative appeal was of the Planning Commission's decision? MR. KELLY: The Planning Commission's decision not to approve the boat dock extension. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. It went back to administrative appeal, and all that's in the record? MR. KELLY: Yes, and I provided you testimony of the actual transcript. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Please, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- I think the term is the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, not an administrative appeal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I mean, I'm seeing an administrative appeal. The applicant proceeded to submit a formal request for administrative appeal ADA-PL blah, blah, blah, blah. So was that something where they came back and they asked for an administrative -- or were they appealing the decision to send it to a public hearing? MR. BELLOWS: The appeal process is the applicant has 30 days from the action of the Planning Commission to appeal the decision. They appealed the decision and we prepared an executive summary, brought it to the board, and the board approved it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, let's go ahead and hear from the applicant on these. Thanks, John, I'll get back to you probably, don't go anywhere, or take a coffee break and come back. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi. How are you? MR. PEARSON: Hi. For the record, my name is Nick Pearson. I'm an agent with Turrell Hall & Associates, an environmental and engineering consulting company. If we can go to the next slide. This is just a short list of accolades for myself; basically, just proving myself as an expert, I suppose. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I believe you spoke in here before; right? MR. PEARSON: I have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think I've deemed -- obviously, you've got good credentials and with a good company. I believe your testimony would be expert testimony. MR. PEARSON: Thank you. Next slide. So this is a depiction of basically the existing conditions on the site. It shows the existing dock, both lifts. December 23, 2021 Page 5 of 13 As you can see the dock itself protrudes 31 feet into the waterway, and you can see, although I don't have a measurement, that the boat protrudes slightly past the end of the dock. Next slide. This is what was actually approved in the previous petitions. So as you can see they are right on the corner, and the riparian line coming from the side, basically, cuts the riparian area in half for this lot. So it's very difficult to essentially build anything within the setbacks, and also the normal protrusion limit for this lot, which would be -- since it is 50 feet of water frontage, that would mean the normal setbacks are 7.5 feet, and the protrusion limit would be 20 feet from the mean high waterline, or face of seawall. I don't have a measurement for this as well, but at about 20 feet from the wall here, with the setbacks you only have about, probably, 10 feet of width here, which is -- which isn't sufficient for a boat and the dock, and that's to say nothing of having two boats, which is what's actually allotted in the code for single-family residences. Next slide, please. This is the proposed configuration. As you can see, the boat that is being proposed is slightly larger. The dock itself actually doesn't exceed the protrusion amount that was approved in the last round of petitions; rather, it's just the boat in this case, and because the setback petition was tied to the BDE in the existing structure, we basically just have to redo both. Next slide. This is just a general overview of the actual canal. As you can see, there's several structures here at the end of the waterway. The dock facility immediately to the north is actually pretty much brand new, so I don't expect that one to change pretty much anytime soon. I don't think we're really inhibiting any kind of navigation to the lot either. They have clear increase/egress path to all three slips. The sort of same thing goes for the south neighbor. His typical ingress/egress is generally right between the hole of the end of the applicant's boat and the dock facility on the far right. Next slide, please. So, again, this is just kind of a depiction attempting to show the dimensions of the proposed vessel. So it's a 45-foot hull with three foot for the motors for the back, because it's on an angle, you only have 45 feet protrusion, even though the vessel is slightly longer than that. Next slide. So this is a depiction that I just wanted to show, which basically outlines exactly where the expansion is going to happen. The red area would be basically new area that's covered by either structure or the boat. In this case, I think pretty much all of the expansion is because of the boat itself, not actually the dock. The only exception to that would be a couple of the lift piles. Next slide. Last time I was in here we spoke a little bit about Wiggins Pass. I just kind of wanted to address the depth situation there and some of the other vessels I noted inside of the pass. That boat in the bottom left at 58.7 feet was the largest one I noted. I just sort of wanted to address the precedent that there are larger boats inside -- inside the pass, and that it is a dredged waterway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this boat is where, on the north side of the pass, or on the south side of the pass? MR. PEARSON: Well -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the far right photograph -- MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- is that going over to the Wiggins Pass boat ramp? MR. PEARSON: Yes. You can see the ramp in basically the top right of the bottom right photo. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. PEARSON: The pass would be on the left side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. PEARSON: To get to the applicant's residence, you would take the waterway that continues south off the screen. December 23, 2021 Page 6 of 13 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Yeah. Okay. So the difficult part -- MR. PEARSON: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for anything in whatever the bayou is, is actually getting out from the pass, out into the Gulf, because I know that they dredge in there, but it shoals up -- I mean, I've seen basically the larger boats that are not in the bayou that are actually in your photograph, that are part of the condominiums. Those are docked in there, which have a pretty straight shot right out through the pass, but that was just my only question, is that right when you get at the beach area of Wiggins Pass Park, and I guess that's Barefoot Beach to the north -- MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that's where it gets a little shallow getting out, especially whichever the way the tide is coming in or out, it could get a little rough. I'm curious about that, because I'm starting to notice there are very large vessels being proposed for the bayou, not to mention -- I mean, I kind of feel like that's a different scenario on the photographs that you're showing me? MR. PEARSON: It is. These are condos. I 100 percent acknowledge that. Really the point of the photo is to show there are large vessels inside the pass. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. PEARSON: Obviously, like I said, they are in condos. There was several vessels that I noted that I haven't depicted here, but that are located in the lagoon as well in the 40-feet range. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. I appreciate you showing me this. MR. PEARSON: Absolutely. I noted several sailboats in there, which are probably even deeper drafting than maybe that boat. I'm not sure. If we can go to the next slide. This was a couple of depictions that I provided to some of the neighbors that we had spoken to, kind of in the months prior to this hearing. The south neighbor, I just wanted basically to show his path, the ingress/egress, wasn't going to change. We spoke at length about basically how he gets in and out of here, and this is an elevator lift, meaning, that there are only two piles, one here, one there, and so when the lift is completely down, he actually is able to float the boat over the side of the lift. It's not a four-post, so he doesn't have to come straight, you know, back into this dock. So I believe we're not affecting his ingress/egress at all with this proposal. We are going slightly further out here, but, again, we were approved for a zero foot setback variance previously. So I believe the setback variance shouldn't affect the south neighbor, and, obviously, the north neighbor's ingress/egress is essentially straight in and straight out for all three of these lifts. So I don't think we're affecting the neighbors. We've been in contact with both neighbors, both were receptive. I don't have letters signed, but verbally they didn't have an issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we didn't receive any letters of support or opposition, John? MR. KELLY: John Kelly, for the record. I only received one telephone call. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One telephone call. All right. MR. PEARSON: We did provide exhibits to the neighbor as well. I know that wasn't -- that's not necessarily a part of the advertising requirement, but the applicant is concerned. Obviously, he wants to have good relations with his neighbors. This depiction is basically of the entire canal that the applicant is on. You can see that's his boat right there at the very end. We'd be, you know, going into the waterway at the very end, so I don't think we will be affecting any of the neighbors here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that the vessel -- the same vessel he is going to be using? So in other words, he wants a new dock for the same vessel? MR. PEARSON: No, I believe he is looking for a larger vessel now. So the vessel he wants is slightly larger than what he has, which is, I think, it's about 10 years old now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. December 23, 2021 Page 7 of 13 MR. PEARSON: I think he got that in conjunction with the last petition. So he's looking to upgrade. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Has the applicant acquired the vessel and is storing it anyplace else? MR. PEARSON: At our direction, no. Obviously, this is -- you know, we never know how these are going to pan out. We advised him not to until basically we have gone through the hearing process. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Next, please. So this is just a quick and dirty breakdown of the criteria for the BDE and setback variance. If you want I can go through all of these. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let me just ask a couple things. MR. PEARSON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One, it didn't seem like water depth is an issue? MR. PEARSON: It's not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It didn't seem like that way to me. MR. PEARSON: We acknowledge that one is not satisfied. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We talked about impact on navigation. I see the excessive decking being as -- you've been very conservative about that. Thank you. What about, is this the smallest, the minimal variance that you need in order for a vessel? MR. PEARSON: I would say yes. The way this was addressed before, is that basically the setbacks are, at least to my understanding of reading through the minutes from the last petition hearing and hearing from the commissioners, was that the setbacks required were -- you should be basically -- the variance should be just enough to give you what you need. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So when I look at one of your diagrams and this is page -- or let me see, doesn't have a page number on it, but it's showing me the existing configuration, essentially more or less a pier going straight out, the vessels on the north side, and it looks like another lift on the south side. Why isn't that an appropriate configuration? MR. PEARSON: Well, with the length of the vessel being proposed, it would actually misbalance the lift that they're using, for one. For two, you, technically, wouldn't be in compliance with the current petition if you were to protrude another -- you know, if he went straight in and out, it would probably be more than six feet, which is what we're proposing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. PEARSON: I imagine it would be something like eight or nine feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. But the way that it's configured now, it's still a very large vessel, but if the -- part of the criteria is safety on and off the vessel I have to look at -- MR. PEARSON: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- I'm just wondering whether or not the finger here going out a little further, you know, whether that wouldn't be a safer way to get the vessel in and out of the lift? MR. PEARSON: We explored that option initially. In part, this decision was made because the south neighbor had basically said he preferred the configuration where the back end of the boat was going out into the -- at an angle. That neighbor moved, so he is no longer at that residence. We stayed with that configuration, though, basically, because our thought was that it provided slightly more room for ingress/egress by the south neighbor. I don't know that it really made a huge difference overall, but that was part of the reason. The second reason, obviously, we do have to stay within the riparian lines, and I'd have to review that concept, because it's been probably close to a year now since I've looked at it, but it was very close to the riparian lines. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, obviously, the neighbors to the south, we're not going to hear from, so we don't really know -- I'm not going to question your word, but I also have to December 23, 2021 Page 8 of 13 take it for what it's provided to me. So the vessel is moving on the south side -- MR. PEARSON: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- instead of the north side, and you have two personal watercrafts that are, I guess, on a lift that goes up and down like a platform lift; is that what it is? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Strange, because to me it seems to be a little safer to have it on the north side and back it straight out, and not have so much interference with the south side property owner that also have restrictive riparian area. MR. PEARSON: Uh-huh. I agree. We were basically trying to do what made everybody happy. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. Okay. So this is a representation -- John, this is a representation of your recommendation, or is this their representation? MR. KELLY: It is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Very succinct. Thank you. Anything else? So we're not talking about ingress, not worried about depth. We're really just looking at the configuration of the dock, the vessel, the size of the vessel. I mean, I get it. The pass is just a question I had during a different hearing. Totally appreciate you showing me that. The issue I know of is that -- the name of the bayou is what? MR. PEARSON: Well, Wiggins Pass and then Vanderbilt Lagoon would apply. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Everything south of the bridge where Bluebill -- 111th? MR. PEARSON: I've always referred to that as Vanderbilt Lagoon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's getting more crowded. Whenever Naples One, One Naples, whatever, it's going to become a busy place. MR. PEARSON: Can I address something about that, too? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Sure. MR. PEARSON: I know this is something unrelated. Again, this was from a previous hearing. Somebody mentioned there was 75 slips going in. I just wanted to clarify, there was -- I think the proposed plan is not that many. It's something like 25 or 26. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: At Naples One or One Naples? What is it? MR. BELLOWS: One Naples. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One Naples. Okay. MR. PEARSON: Unrelated. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. No. I get it. This is a -- the Connor's Subdivision on the east, towards the east, they have a lot of new homes going in there with new desires for new and bigger boats, and I can see where -- what kind of vessel -- three, a three, a triple what? I'm going to say triple 200's, triple 300's? MR. PEARSON: It's a Statement boat that he wanted. The brand is Statement. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's making a statement. MR. PEARSON: Yeah, they're basically go-fast boats, you know... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Go-fast boats. Yeah. MR. PEARSON: We can probably go to the next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, let's go to the next slide. MR. PEARSON: This is, again, a comments, questions, concerns slide, and a bigger version of the picture you've already seen. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And, John, can you come up for a second real quickly? I just want to make sure that the notices were -- I mean, I know there is an association in this area, and, obviously, property owners. I want to make absolutely sure, and I would think that some of these folks are seasonal, but, you know, I want to 100 percent beyond -- we did mail-outs, right, within 300 and something feet? MR. KELLY: I need to defer to -- December 23, 2021 Page 9 of 13 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We did do direct mail; right? MR. KELLY: We did. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: I'm -- I don't have the mailing list. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, that's okay, as long as we did a radius list. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We advertised pursuant to the LDC and Administrative Code. This is properly advertised. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Published in the paper. We got a sign out there, right, and then direct mail, so it's open and obvious. Everybody knows about it. This is a unique but not unknown piece of property, so it's pretty clear to everybody. I just want to make sure that nobody is going to come back and say, "I didn't know about it." Okay. For the record, the mail goes to whatever the address is on the tax bill; right? On the property appraiser, the tax bill goes to, not the address that's there, or whatever address they list as their -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, we go to the property appraiser, and that's the property owner, not anybody leasing or renting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I just want to make sure. MR. BELLOWS: I would just like to note our mailing is 500 feet from the property, but the applicant is also required to do what we call an agent letter to property owners within 150 feet, basically, explaining what they're proposing to do with their variance and boat dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Fair enough. MR. PEARSON: There was one phone call so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Was that a nice phone call? MR. PEARSON: No. Proof of advertisement. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Phone call to whom? MR. PEARSON: John. MR. KELLY: I received one. I don't know if you received any in response to the agent letter with your contact information? Mine was in response to the direct mail that the county provides, a notice of hearing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Hey, you know, just do what you gotta do. I mean, you can only do so much; right? You can't go out there and knock on doors; that's your prerogative. MR. PEARSON: Well, and I think the applicant tried to quell any kind of concerns from his neighbors so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: I can only assume he did a good job. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Anybody signed up to speak? Anybody here signed up to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, I do not have any registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Very good. Would you like to rebut anything John said? MR. PEARSON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You did a great job. I see Jeff here. You've got a good guy here for all that information. I do appreciate you responding to the question about Wiggins Pass. I know that in the past that's been a tricky -- a tricky pass. MR. PEARSON: Anything I can do to make things go a little easier. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Let your client know on both of them I will be rendering a decision separately. Just for the record, I do want to study the past history of that, so I understand that a little bit more. Okay? All right. Okay. So we're going to Item 3C. I'm guessing, John, this is yours? MR. KELLY: Yes. Thank you. John Kelly for the record. Before you is boat dock extension December 23, 2021 Page 10 of 13 PL20190000673. I do need to read into the record a correction to the staff report. The staff analysis on Page 5 of 8, this project actually satisfied five of five of the primary criteria and five of six of the second criteria; again, with the Manatee Protection Plan being the sixth and not applicable. With that correction, the petitioner's requesting you approve a 6.8 foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, for a total protrusion of 26.8 feet into a waterway that is 1,890 feet wide, for the benefit of the property located at 164 Tahiti Circle, further described as Lot 150, Isles of Capri No. 2, and Section 22, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. With respect to the public notice requirements, we satisfied Section 10.03.06I, which requires a property owner notification letter be sent, which went out December 3rd. A newspaper ad was run by the county on December 3rd, and a public hearing sign was posted by me on December 7th, 2021. This petition was reviewed by staff, based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06H. Again, it satisfied five of five of the primary criteria and five of six of the secondary criteria, with the sixth being not applicable. It was found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. The public notice resulted in no public contact pertaining to this petition, and our recommendation to you is to approve this petition as previously described, and in accordance with the proposed aerial plan contained within Attachment A. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. MR. KELLY: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Morning. MR. ROGERS: Good morning. Jeff Rogers, for the record, with Turrell Hall & Associates. Just real quickly based on the last petition, I did that with Rocky Schofield years ago. It was a very difficult process to get that approved, but we got there. I'm here this morning, like John went through very thoroughly as always, on 164 Tahiti on Isles of Capri, Southeast Naples down by Marco. The owners are Robert and Amy Moses, and they currently live in this residence full-time. Go to the next slide, please. The existing conditions, this one, as you can tell by the PL number, we started this back in 2018-19. What happened was, give you a brief history, the dock was damaged in Hurricane Irma. The homeowners hired a marine contractor to go in and rebuild it. When they did, the contractor actually built it slightly further out into the waterway. Therefore, they could not get their CO for the dock, and triggered the county to request them to do a boat dock extension. With that, we got into the state issues with the Department of Environmental Protection down in Isles of Capri, and history, a lot of docks down there that were built without their approval, and they don't meet their grandfathered date or their grandfathered criteria, and this was one of those. So it's been a long time coming, but we finally came up with a design that satisfied the DEP aquatic preserve requirements, because this is on Johnson Bay, which is within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. I'd say about two-thirds of Isles of Capri falls within the aquatic preserve, and the rest are manmade waterway, so they do not have to abide by the more restrictive aquatic preserve rules. Go to the next slide. That being said, we have to reduce the dock extremely in regards to over water square footage, which is what the applicant was not happy about; but, however, allowed them to come up with a very unique configuration; that is, you know, very -- not great in regards to access, provided safe access to the vessel, as you can tell. The department will only let you have a dock that is extending out 25 feet into the waterway from the mean high waterline. The county's criteria is the most restrictive point. In this case that would be the property line which is on the landward side of the seawall, which is the additional 1.8 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, so this is what caught my eye. As you know, one December 23, 2021 Page 11 of 13 of the criterias is safe access to the vessel. This seems really tricky to get onto the bow of this boat; right? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, the catwalks are called -- what's called the gray areas on either side of the vessel that run parallel to it and parallel to the seawall. Those are basically the only things that the state will let us do, in order to reduce our overall protrusion out into the waterway, which the vessel cannot extend past 25 feet either with the state criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those will be there; correct? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: They are aluminum color is what they are. You have to go with the aluminum because the decking dock material is what the state restricts you to. If you do a catwalk per their definition, it has to be an aluminum walkway. Again, it's very tricky. We're jumping through a lot of hoops here to get this approved. I totally agree with you. It's not the safest or best design. There is riprap along the shoreline, so doing a marginal dock and trying to lay parallel to that restricts, you know, the vessel and the boat lift to even fit within 20 feet, let alone 25 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. ROGERS: So we went through many different options here, and the county -- we want to be relatively consistent with existing docks along the waterway in regards to overall protrusion as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But the 25-foot limitation is the most -- it was the most difficult to work with. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. They will have two feet on both sides, not ideal. At least it's -- MR. ROGERS: Something. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- some access. MR. ROGERS: Correct. They are not happy, but it is what it is, unfortunately, for the state's approach. For the county in this case, I can see you guys being a little more flexible and actually allowing more decking to provide safer access, however, the state will not allow us to do that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Understood. MR. ROGERS: We had those conversations with the state about it. With the waterway we're well with inside of the 25 percent. It's a relatively wide waterway. So there is no impacts to navigation. There's no issues in regards to percentage of waterway widths here. Views of the waterway or views from the neighbors to the waterway really will change slightly, in regards to the neighbor to the north. The vessel will be, obviously, touching the 15-foot setback. We -- the state does require 25-foot setbacks. So we had to get a waiver from that neighbor to allow us to encroach on that setback with them, which, of course, they did, and we do have a DEP permit for this, for the design frontage. We encroached ten foot into the state's setback requirement, but meet the county's, so we're not doing any concurrent variance request as well. So really it is what it is in this case on this dock design and options. I'm happy to answer any questions, but really it's a 1.8 foot -- excuse me -- 6.8 foot extension request from the overall 20 feet that's allowed, and they would love to keep what they have, but, unfortunately, you know... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Same vessel? It's the same vessel? MR. ROGERS: Actually, no, they have a decked-over boat lift. If you go back one slide, please. So the lift on the blue X is a decked-over boat lift. They have jet skis sitting on that lift. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. ROGERS: They ultimately would like to get a 30-foot vessel. They do not have this vessel as of now. Again, as in the previous one, we recommended getting this approval first before they would even consider getting a vessel. Really the 30-footer is the max that they could get. Personally, in conversations, I don't think they're going to end up with a 30-footer, but we're December 23, 2021 Page 12 of 13 showing the max that they would ever be allowed to store onsite. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I don't know why you guys wouldn't have built it this way in the first place? MR. ROGERS: I wish I was involved. I got called to clean this up so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It was -- really was your company that did it? MR. ROGERS: No. We don't build the docks. We just design and build them. It's Imperial Marine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You don't have to call them out. MR. ROGERS: It's fine. The history is all there. The building permit shows who it was. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. This area got hit really hard during Irma. I think we've seen a couple of these. MR. ROGERS: Yes. It's open waterway, took a beating. The riprap was put in place in front to keep the seawall from failing. It's an option to do that versus replacing that. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do we have any registered speakers for this? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, I do not have any registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Public hearing is closed. Would you like to rebut everything that nobody said? MR. ROGERS: Happy holidays. MR. BOSI: Can we check the record? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. John, any last words? MR. KELLY: Have a great afternoon and a Merry Christmas. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, everybody. There you go. Thanks for the presentation. MR. ROGERS: Of course, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's all the items on the agenda. Do we have any new business? When are we coming back? We're coming back on the -- MR. BOSI: The 13th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the 13th. MR. BOSI: Only one petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One petition so far. Maybe they -- anyway, I saw the agenda. We won't see anybody until next year. All right. How much longer are we going to continue the hybrid? Do we know about that? Are we going to continue doing it that way? MR. BOSI: The Board of County Commissioners has instructed the county staff to continue to maintain the hybrid meeting model. I think they want to give the public other options of participation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That's fine with me, more options the better. MR. BOSI: And less traffic. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Less traffic, less people in your office. Okay. Without any further ado, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. * * * * * * December 23, 2021 Page 13 of 13 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 9:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ____________________________________________ ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ________, as presented ______ or as corrected _________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY JANICE R. MALINE, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 2/2/22 4