Loading...
HEX Minutes 05/12/2022May 12, 2022 Page 1 of 14 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida May 12, 2022 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 DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Senior Planner Andrew Youngblood, Operations Analyst May 12, 2022 Page 2 of 14 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good morning, everybody. It's 9:01, May 12th. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting. Why don't we start with -- just do the Pledge of Allegiance, and then we'll go through some things. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the appointed Hearing Examiner for today's -- to hear today's petitions. I'm an attorney and have been practicing law in good standing with the Florida Bar for over 20 years. I'm very familiar with the Land Development Code as well as the applicable ordinances and administrative codes. I am not an employee of the county but a contract attorney appointed to this position and granted the authority pursuant to Division 3 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances. My role is to fairly and objectively review all the testimony, evidence, and arguments presented today. After today I can't collect any additional information from anyone else. All of the information has to be provided to me today. I always strive to be unbiased and impartial. I don't consult with either the staff or applicants outside of these proceedings. I see everything that has been published in the agenda that the public sees. I am here strictly as an impartial decision maker. Before we begin, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's hearings and proceedings. Today's matters are to be heard in the order that they appear on the agenda, and every effort will be made to hear all persons wishing to offer relevant evidence, testimony, comments concerning the specific petition. The county will present their comments and their recommendations first, then the applicant or the applicant's agent will present their petition. If necessary, they may reserve some time for rebuttal. I will ask them questions during the presentation, then we will open it up for public questions. The formal rules of evidence do not apply, but I will do my utmost to ensure that fundamental rules of fairness are afforded to all parties and participants. After I have heard all evidence and been able to ask all necessary questions, I have up to 30 days to render a decision. A decision will be reduced to writing, and you will be provided a copy by electronic mail. Please make sure that we have the right email addresses. If you wish to speak today, you must be sworn in and speak under oath. In the interest of time, I ask that you keep your comments concise and relevant to the proceedings. Additionally, I ask that anyone who has a cell phone or electronics to silence them at this time. You also need to fill out a speaker card. Andrew in the back has the speaker cards, or they're over there on the table. Also, we do have a court reporter here who is going to be taking down every single word we all say but, unfortunately, she can't write what we gesticulate. So you have to speak. Don't speak over each other. She is going to stop anyone and everyone that she doesn't understand and say, please speak in a way that I can understand you and take down that information. We do have a hybrid meeting. The County Attorney has set up a system where folks who can't be here or don't feel comfortable being here for whatever reason can participate virtually as well as in person, so we will be handling that as well. So with that, anyone who is going to provide testimony to me today, I need them to be sworn in. And, Madam Court Reporter, would you mind swearing in the witnesses. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Thanks. We have two items on the agenda today 3A, and 3B. So let's get started with 3A. Who's handling that? Well, hello. May 12, 2022 Page 3 of 14 MR. KELLY: ***Good morning, Mr. Dickman. John Kelly, senior planner, for the record. Before you is Agenda Item 3A identified as BDE-PL20210000569. This is a request for you to approve a 38.1-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width pursuant to Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the BCC Land Development Code to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 58.1 feet into a walkway that is plus-or-minus 1,000 feet wide for the benefit of the subject property. More specifically, the petitioner desires to replace an existing dock facility that had allowed for a 60-foot protrusion pursuant to CCPC Resolution 94-1 to accommodate two boat lifts, one for a 30-foot vessel and the other for up to two personal watercraft. The property comprises .37 acres located at 2 Dolphin Circle further described as Lot 107, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The residence is located within a single-family Residential 4 zoning district. Public notice requirements were pursuant to LDC Section 10.03.06.H. All three items, the property owner notification letter, the newspaper ad, and the public hearing sign were taken care of on April 22nd, 2022. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained in LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfied five of five, of the secondary criteria, four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan, and it has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. With respect to public comment, I have received a letter of objection from the property owner at 6 Dolphin Circle. That is contained within the attachments. And that is the adjoining property to the north, which is attached as Attachment G. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, if I could, is this the email that is here? MR. KELLY: I distributed this morning a second email from the same person -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: -- that I received at 10:15 p.m. last evening; therefore, it did not make it in the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Does the applicant or the applicant's representative have a copy of this? MR. KELLY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. KELLY: As for a recommendation, staff recommends that you approve this petition as previously described in accordance with the plans provided within Attachment A. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Who's here for the applicant or -- come up on. How are you? MS. SCIOG: I'm good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You get the big brown one. MS. SCIOG: Oh. Nancy Sciog. I work for Collier Seawall and Dock. I've been working for a marine contractor for the last 15 years, and I'm here representing the Purse residents at 2 Dolphin Court. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Sorry. A little technical issue. MS. SCIOG: Yep. So that's me. I'm Nancy Sciog. As I said, I've had my 15 years' experience. I've been a resident of Naples for over 30 years. I have designed and helped build over a thousand docks in Collier County since I've been here. Next slide. This is the existing structure as it's shown today. The Purses bought the residence in 2020. The current protrusion into the waterway is currently at 15 -- or 52-foot, 6 inches from the mean low water line. The current dock structure is 408. It is currently mooring a single vessel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. On here, which is -- where is 6 Dolphin May 12, 2022 Page 4 of 14 Circle? MS. SCIOG: The one to the top with the boathouse. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one right here? MS. SCIOG: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we'll see another picture of that. MS. SCIOG: Next slide. The dock that we're requesting would have a maximum protrusion of 58-foot, 1 inch of mean-low water line. This would allow us to safely moor the vessel due to the low water that's there. We're actually proposing to build a smaller dock than what's currently there. The Purses were very adamant about protecting the environment and just wanted the minimal amount needed to be able to safely moor the vessel, and they were requesting one 12,000-pound lift and a 6,000-pound lift for the two personal watercraft. Next. This is an aerial view of the waterway that's existing now. Next. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you go back to that real quick. Okay. So this is the extent to the dock? MS. SCIOG: No. That was the original design plan that accidently got in there. Our office accidently put the wrong one in. That was what we originally were trying to go for, and then we changed it to a more minimal impact. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And this is the boathouse? MS. SCIOG: The neighboring dock at 6 Dolphin with the letter of objection. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. MS. SCIOG: Next slide. These are the vessel specs. Next slide. The aerial view, you'll note on here that the neighboring docks is an average protrusion of 70 feet. Again, we're only asking for a minimal 58-foot-1, which we determined would be all that was necessary to go out. They had no desire to go out any further than that. Their concern was just to go out just enough just to get the boat in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the boats are just -- well, the primary vessels can just be pulling straight in onto the lift, and the watercraft -- the personal watercraft will be coming around and going up onto the lifts, right? MS. SCIOG: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MS. SCIOG: Next slide. This is showing the existing protrusion. The neighbor to the left has a maximum protrusion of -- I have it written down on here -- 67 feet. The neighbor to the east is -- maximum protrusion they are out is 76 feet. Again, we're only asking for 58 feet. We're not asking to go anything beyond that, so we don't feel that the dock that we're proposing would impede anybody's view of the waterway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. SCIOG: Next slide. This is the dock side view of the existing structure that's currently there. Next slide. Another view of the dock, and the view of the dock on the west side. Next. As you can see here -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sorry. Can you back up one, Andrew. MS. SCIOG: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this particular dock, is there going to be any May 12, 2022 Page 5 of 14 navigability issues pulling in the new vessel into the new slip between this dock and this dock? MS. SCIOG: No. The way we have it designed, it should an easy fit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And the same thing on this side for the personal watercraft, they're going to come in and do a loop and come in? MS. SCIOG: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think I saw 40 feet is the distance. MS. SCIOG: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. SCIOG: Next slide. As you can see here, we've met all of the criteria for the BDE, both primary and secondary criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So going out from the riprap, what's the water depth there? Did -- I mean, it looks like you've got about 10 or 15 feet of riprap from the property line and going out. Is the water depth shallow there or -- MS. SCIOG: It's very shallow there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. SCIOG: The original boat dock extension that they were issued in 1991 was allowing them to go out 60 feet into the waterway. That was just so they could safely moor their vessel. They -- the depth starts anywhere from very shallow to two feet, and then it goes out about another 20 feet where it's only minimal three feet, and it's right up until we get to the mark where, at the 58 feet, it's safely enough for the motors to get low enough into the water. Probably not as much in low tide, but in standard tides it shouldn't be an issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So when you drop the lift down below the water level, obviously, in order to get the boat on, you have to have it, you know, deep enough in order to get the lift on, right? MS. SCIOG: That's right, but it's a small vessel that we're putting on there, so we don't need as much water depth. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what is it, a 20 -- MS. SCIOG: It's a 30-foot vessel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thirty-foot vessel, okay. Yeah, okay. MS. SCIOG: Next slide. This is the letter of objection for 6 Dolphin. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do you have anything to say about this? Any rebuttal or -- they may call in. I don't know. MS. SCIOG: Yeah, I do, a little bit. The dock that we're proposing, you know, we're asking for, the overall square footage is 358 square feet. The neighboring dock, as currently standing, is 1,167 square feet. Once the -- if the dock is approved and built, we're requesting just to go beyond -- go out five more additional feet. That will still allow the neighboring dock to extend beyond what we're asking an additional 18 feet protrusion into the waterway, meaning their dock will be 18 feet longer into the waterway than what we're requesting. Again, we're just asking for a minimal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. So what we'll do is, if -- I'm not sure if they're going to call in or if they're here today, but I'll give you time for rebuttal on that. MS. SCIOG: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay? MS. SCIOG: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, did you have something you wanted to say? MR. KELLY: If they are on Zoom, the owner of 6 Dolphin. I also did have something to add about the dock to the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You go ahead and do that. May 12, 2022 Page 6 of 14 MR. KELLY: Okay. The photos are a little bit not representative of the state that things are in today. That house has been razed. At the present time that property is owned by the improved property further west. I don't believe they have been combined for tax purposes, but it does appear that it has been more or less -- that it will be part of the lot further to the west, which makes that dock -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Which dock? Which one? MR. KELLY: The dock to the west, the long finger pier dock. MR. BELLOWS: If we go to the aerial, maybe that will be easier to see. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're talking about this one? MR. KELLY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I'm looking at Page 3 of 8 of the staff report. It appears as though that's a very irregular shaped lot that maybe has, like -- I don't know, like 20 feet of shoreline. MR. KELLY: Right. Just without a building permit for an improved -- for a principal structure we don't generate code cases or anything, but that dock would not be appropriate at this time without a principal structure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct. So the dock exists, but there's -- the total -- the property's totally vacant, right? MR. KELLY: It's been razed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's been -- the proper term is "razed," okay. Demolished. Anyway, in other words, it has to be an accessory structure to the principal structure. There is no principal structure. So however you guys want to deal with that dock, that's -- you know, but you get the point, right? MS. SCIOG: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that information. Where are we? Public comment, Andrew? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Is the -- sorry. Has the applicant concluded her presentation? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not sure. MS. SCIOG: I think it's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take your time. Whatever you want to say. MS. SCIOG: Yeah. No, I think I've made all my points. I think I'm good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So she'll save some time to respond. MS. SCIOG: Please. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I have one registered public speaker. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Joan Sterrenburg. Joan, you're being prompted to unmute your microphone. Are you with us, ma'am? MS. STERRENBURG: Yes. MR. WEISKOPF: Yes, can you hear us? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, loud and clear. You have five minutes. MS. STERRENBURG: All right. I want to begin by thanking John Kelly, the senior planner, for his incredible patience in making sure that I was -- we were able to understand all the plans and specifications. He answered email promptly and gave clear explanations to all my questions. So, Mr. Kelly, thank you very much. And now I'm going to let my husband read our concerns over this petition. MR. WEISKOPF: Thanks for listening to our concerns about this petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WEISKOPF: Our biggest issue with the Purse dock petition is with the plans for up to two personal watercraft and the lift to hold them. May 12, 2022 Page 7 of 14 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir? MR. WEISKOPF: We cite two main reasons for -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir, can you give me your name, please? Your wife's name is Joan. MR. WEISKOPF: Yeah. My name is Michael Weiskopf. I'm husband of Joan Sterrenburg. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEISKOPF: Should I start again? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure, go ahead. MR. WEISKOPF: Okay. Our biggest issue with the Purse dock petition is with the plans for up to two personal watercraft and the lift to hold them. We cite two main reasons for our complaint. Number 1, we need to preserve a conservancy and its natural habitat from excess development. Number 2, looking at the Secondary Criterion Item No. 3, the failure to abide by the lineal vessel requirement by allowing up to two personal watercraft. We're privileged to be in a conservancy, and we need to be good stewards of it. We're fortunate to live on Dolphin Circle where dolphins actually swim by every day. The ingress and egress of vessels from the proposed dock at No. 2 Dolphin Circle cuts through a long, established dolphin path. They swim in to fish in the area between the dock at No. 2 Dolphin Circle and the dock at No. 6 Dolphin Circle. The request is 4-foot extension of the Purse dock petition for the lift of two personal watercrafts cuts into this feeding area. We would like to keep unnecessary development from encroaching on the dolphins' established habitat. Regarding the Secondary Criteria No. 3, the allowable vessel footage for the 74.99 feet of waterfront at the Purse property is not to exceed 50 percent of the waterfront footage. Even one personal watercraft exceeds this limit by 2.5 feet, and the proposed two watercraft exceed what is allowable by 12.5 feet, which is a 33 percent overage. We strongly feel that this is inappropriate within a conservancy which exists to preserve and protect nature and the environment from excess growth and development. Hearing examiners and planners also share this responsibility. Regulations exist for a reason, and environments and ecosystems are destroyed one exception at a time. The staff report states that in order for a petition to be accepted, only four of the secondary criteria need to be met. This seems like a very minimal standard, especially within a conservancy. Consider the impact of allowing every petition such a variance. This is how growth and development overwhelm the environment. When a hurricane and old age destroyed our dock at No. 6 Dolphin Circle, we were grandfathered in to rebuild on the old footprint. We purposely did not install a lift and do not keep a boat or personal watercraft. We keep the dock free of furniture and clutter all in keeping with our commitment to the ecology and values of the Conservancy. We believe in keeping a minimal human footprint to support and encourage the natural environment and its creatures. We hope this commitment is shared by all property owners who are fortunate enough to have waterfront property bordering a conservancy. MS. STERRENBURG: Again, thank you for listening to our concerns, and I would like to note a procedural comment. We did not receive the staff report until after the due date for submitting written material, and that staff report was critical for us to really sink our teeth into the situation. So maybe in the future the staff report could be available sooner or there could be a longer period of time to enter written material. And I am extremely grateful to Mr. Kelly for making this email that I have sent to him last night available. So thank you all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. I do have your email, and thank you for your comments for that, and thank you for complimenting county staff. I know they May 12, 2022 Page 8 of 14 work very hard. So, John, I have a question for you. They're referring to a conservancy. Are they referring to the ST Overlay, or do we need to get someone from -- MR. KELLY: If I can get someone from -- Jaime Cook. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is Jaime here? MS. COOK: I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hey, Jaime. Can you help me out with that? MS. COOK: Which project are we on? MR. KELLY: Isles of Capri. MS. COOK: For the record, Jaime Cook, the director of Development Review. The water itself surrounding Isles of Capri is an ST Overlay, the Special Treatment Overlay. It is an aquatic preserve, so they will have to go through that permitting process as well when the building permit is applied for. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So nothing -- I know I have -- we've heard a lot of BDEs and other type of dock petitions in the STE that involve the ST Overlay. So there's nothing in the ST Overlay that would indicate that these types of petitions can't be heard but they have to abide by other regulations. I know that the speakers were very concerned about the conservancy, and I believe that that's probably what they were referring to is the ST Overlay, because they were referring to the dolphins and the ecosystem and things like that. MS. COOK: So -- yes. So as part of their application for this boat dock extension, they have to submit a submerged resources survey. They have to look at native vegetation, whether it's shoreline or aquatic marine vegetation. They also have to look at the symmetry data and manatee use. And the survey that they provided did not indicate that there were any resources that may potentially be harmed as a result of the construction of this boat dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for clarifying that. Thanks, Jaime. MS. COOK: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anything else? You want to respond to any of that? MS. SCIOG: Yes, just two items. First off, the 6 Dolphin Circle residence is not a homestead for them. It's a secondary. They live on the other coast. Secondly -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not sure that's really relevant. I appreciate it. MS. SCIOG: Secondly -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We all have two or three homes; you know that. MS. SCIOG: I have four. I wish. Secondly, as their concern over the environmental issue of redoing the dock, it should just be noted that, you know, we are actually making the dock a lot smaller in square foot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. SCIOG: And they had the opportunity, when they did lose their dock during Irma, to also downsize their dock from 1,100 square feet to a smaller dock. And when they did go to build their dock, they did so without a permit. They ended up getting one afterwards, after they got a code violation, but the dock was built without a permit originally. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So thank you. MS. SCIOG: You're welcome. Did you have any more questions for me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I don't. Thank you. MS. SCIOG: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So, you know, the -- so I'm taking the subjective comments that were given to us by the neighbor related to the criteria. I appreciate them looking at the criteria, you know, and I respect anybody's right to rebut anything, but, you know, comments about whether it's homestead or not homestead or whether they built with or without a permit I don't think is germane here. We're not trying to, you know, impugn anyone's character here. That's not the point. May 12, 2022 Page 9 of 14 So I think the -- the information that I have with regard to their comments, all the information that the applicant's representative provided to me is very clear. I don't have -- unless there's anything else that the county wants to provide to me -- Ms. Cook or Dr. Cook or Professor Cook provided us with lots of information that I needed with regard to the conservancy issue. And John's standing up again. He's going to tell me something else. MR. KELLY: Just that they do have to comply with state requirements, being within that area as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there are a lot of other requirements. And, for the record, I believe the county did follow all of the procedural requirements with regard to publishing their staff reports and everything else, and testimony to that is that John has been available for communication with the public, anybody else at all times, so I appreciate that, John. So I have nothing else. I have all the information I need. I appreciate the input from the neighbors. The applicant's representative did a wonderful job. Nice to meet you. I haven't seen you here before, so thank you. I appreciate -- the graphics and everything are very helpful. I will get a decision out as quickly as I can. I have up to 30 days, but I'll do it as quickly as possible. MS. SCIOG: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So thanks for being here. MS. SCIOG: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You guys ready to move to 3B? Moving on. ***Okay. This is Item 3B. John, take it away. MR. KELLY: Moving on. Agenda Item 3B. This is BDE-PL20210001817. There is a correction that I noticed to the staff report on Page 1, the purpose and description of project. The last sentence should state that the dock facility will protrude 59 feet from the mean high-water line. Their requested action is correct, as was advertising for the project, which the requested action is that you approve a 39-foot boat dock extension. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Slow down. On Page 1 -- MR. KELLY: Page 1. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Page 1, the purpose, the proposed dock facility will proceed 59.1 feet. What did you say? MR. KELLY: Incorrect; 59 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just a flat 59 feet instead of 51.1? MR. KELLY: 59.0. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Heather told me about that. She was wondering about that number. MR. KELLY: Okay. So to continue, this is a request for you to approve a 39-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width pursuant to Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 59 feet into a waterway that is 527 plus-or-minus feet wide for the benefit of the subject property. More specifically, the petitioner desires to replace an existing dock facility that had allowed for a 41-foot protrusion pursuant to CCPC Resolution 99-23 to accommodate two boat lifts, one for a 36-foot vessel and the other for kayaks and a 12-foot personal watercraft. The subject property comprises two plus-or-minus acres, located at 199 San Mateo Drive, further described as Lot 33, South Port on the Bay, Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The property is located within Tract H, a residential component of the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development as established by Ordinance 77-48 as amended. Public notice requirements were pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.06.H. All three items, the property owner negotiation letter, newspaper ad, and public hearing signs were taken care of on May 12, 2022 Page 10 of 14 April 22nd, 2022. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfied five of five, of the secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan, and has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. With respect to public comment, I have received none, no phone calls, no emails. It is staff's recommendation that you approve this petition as previously described in accordance with the proposed dock plan contained within Attachment A with the following condition: One, the restoration plantings described within the vegetation restoration plan dated January 2022, as provided within Attachment F, must be installed and inspected by Collier County staff prior to issuance of a certificate of completion for the subject dock facility. Within Attachment F -- that restoration plan appears on Page 69 of Attachment F. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks. John, confirm something for me. You know, with regard to that scrivener's error, the notice did properly say 59 feet, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Because everything else I see in the material says 59 feet extension, so that was -- MR. KELLY: Correct. As I noted, the advertising and all else is 59 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Perfect. Great. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Come on up to the brown podium. How are you today, sir? MR. PEARSON: Hello. For the record, Nick Pearson with Turrell, Hall & Associates. We're a marine engineering and environmental consulting company. As always, there's my picture and resumé. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You look like an expert. MR. PEARSON: Okay. So this is the existing dock on site. As you can see, the rear property line corresponds with the mean high-water line. There's an existing 4-foot-wide access traversing the mangrove shoreline. There's no hardened shoreline here at all. Well, it's -- I guess I shouldn't say that. It's mangroves growing within a riprap shoreline. So it's -- it would be considered a mangrove shoreline. There's one boatlift here and one floating easy dock with two jet skis moored on it, and that's about it. Next slide, please. So this is the proposed dock. As you see, we're essentially rebuilding the access walkway. Once beyond the mangroves, the rest of the docking facility will be reconfigured. This is primarily a function of a larger vessel, small water depths close to shore, and there's also a conservation easement that extends 20 feet landward of the mean high-water line. So it is difficult to maintain the mangroves here for that reason, so -- and almost every dock in here has a BDE as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have a question for you on this slide. MR. PEARSON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So one of the things that I -- two things that I have to review is, one, is there overdecking and also is there -- is it designed in such a way that the owners can safely access the vessels? And so my question is: Is four feet on both sides of the vessel and also on this side of the personal watercraft, is that -- is that the smallest you can do? Is that the standard for being able to access the vessels? MR. PEARSON: I would say yes. Four feet wide for an access walkway is typical. You're not allowed to go any larger than that on the access through the mangroves. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: It's also -- you know, ADA requirement is five feet. So I would say May 12, 2022 Page 11 of 14 yes, that is -- that is the smallest we like to go. It is possible to go three feet, but it gets very narrow. It's somewhat hazardous when you go more narrow than that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And this -- this area is just really going to be more of a utility area so you have some boxes that are designed here? MR. PEARSON: Dock boxes, fish cleaning station. Yeah, basically an area where marine-related items can be stored. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'll give that some thought. Thank you. MR. PEARSON: Oh, and as you can see, 59 feet from the mean high-water line/property line and 868 total square feet. So that would include all of the structure waterward of the mean high-water line. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. Thank you. MR. PEARSON: And vessel -- the amount of vessels isn't changing either, so... Next slide, please. This is just a cross-section basically showing the vessel specs: 36 feet total length for the main vessel, and then 12 feet each for the personal watercraft. Next slide, please. So bottom left you can see that conservation easement 20 feet landward of the mean high-water line. As you can see, it's prominently mangroves in that easement, and they do extend essentially to where the -- I guess the platform would be on that top right image. So it's quite -- they're quite a bit larger than just in the easement. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. PEARSON: That bottom right picture is an overlay. It's of the -- it's a state designation of Outstanding Florida Waters, and what that means is that this area is basically difficult to dredge. It's very hard. So, typically, we would avoid proposing anything like that in this area just because it is considered somewhat a fragile ecosystem. Sort of similar to the aquatic preserve, just a different designation type. And in that top left you can see the waterways about a little over 500 feet wide. So we really shouldn't be obstructing any kind of navigation whatsoever. And then also in that top right you can see the water depths under two feet, basically, until you get about 20 feet from shore, which really is not ample for most boats. Next slide, please. This is a zoning page. Just wanted to kind of show that pretty much every dock in here has a boat dock extension. There's others that are extending 50 feet from shore. I know it's not shown here, but there was just, honestly, too many for me to measure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You mean like this, this (indicating)? MR. PEARSON: That's all in the same subdivision. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: BD versus BDE? MR. PEARSON: It's the same thing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they're all BDEs? MR. PEARSON: Yes, I believe that's correct. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That was an earlier nomenclature. They're all BDEs. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. PEARSON: Next slide. I just wanted to include a few photos. This is the existing dock. As you can see, that's what a 4-foot-wide walkway looks like. The mangroves extend right up to the platform, and you can also kind of see the waterway back there. It's pretty -- it's pretty wide. Next, please. So that's the existing mooring space for the current dock. You can see the neighbor in the background on both images, actually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is this the same vessel that they're going May 12, 2022 Page 12 of 14 to -- are they buying a new vessel, or is this the same vessel that they're going to use and just -- MR. PEARSON: I believe it is the same -- MS. NATALE: It is the same. MR. PEARSON: It is the same. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So instead of mooring at -- I see. Okay. So this will actually be more -- probably from an ingress/egress process, be a lot easier just to pull in and pull it out? MR. PEARSON: A lot easier. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: You know, just logically, you know, avoiding the neighbors and then also for the water depth. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. MR. PEARSON: So I just wanted to provide this to kind of show the relationship between the neighbors' docks and this one. The neighbor to the left or the west, rather, he pulls in straight in and out just like we're proposing. The neighbor on the right, he's able to basically pull in and out from either direction, so I don't think we'll be obstructing him either. Next slide, please. And then I just wanted to run through these criteria real quickly. As you can see, I believe we satisfied five of the primary and then four, potentially five of the secondary as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Sorry. Actually, it looks like we actually got five, not four. It's an error on my part. Next slide, please. And that's all I've got. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So quick question on this one. I mean, this is within the Lely Barefoot Beach master area, right? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Does that -- does the property owner -- are they required to get authorization from any associations to do this or not? MR. PEARSON: I believe so. I believe so. Since it is a gated community, I believe that would be required, although that wasn't really within my scope. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I understand that. Is the -- is this your client? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you mind coming on up? MS. NATALE: Yes. MR. PEARSON: I should also note they had to get no objection letters from both neighbors. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the other question I was going to ask. MS. NATALE: Good morning. How are you guys doing? My name's Irma Natale. I'm the owner of 191 San Mateo. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi, Irma. MS. NATALE: Good morning. So we do have to get permission from the association, which I already spoke with -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. NATALE: -- one of the members. The only thing I have to submit is our plans for the dock, but there are certain things that I need, but there's no problem because they always issue permission for the docks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And then the neighbors, you -- MS. NATALE: The neighbors are fine. We spoke with them when we signed the letters, May 12, 2022 Page 13 of 14 and they have no objections to it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, John, did they provide no objection letters or -- MR. KELLY: Those letters were required by the state. They are contained within the applicant's backup package, which is part of your attachments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. That's what I want to know. Thank you. Thanks for being here. MS. NATALE: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that it? MR. PEARSON: I believe so. The only thing I would add, too, there was also a no objection letter from the Conservancy who -- I'm not exactly sure on the relationship, but they have an interest in the conservation easement. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know about that, yeah. Thank you. MR. KELLY: That's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's in the backup. MR. KELLY: That's what I'm back up to state. There were two things. First, with respect to the secondary criteria, staff found that they satisfied four of the five remaining, the sixth being not applicable. We found that they were not compliant with No. 3, which is the total length of vessels as opposed to the shoreline. It exceeded 50 percent, so I don't know if the applicant agrees. MR. PEARSON: Yeah, I apologize. That was an error on the slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you do concur with staff that -- MR. PEARSON: It would be four. It looks like -- oh, sorry -- no, I just read it incorrectly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. This is the 50 percent criteria on the secondary criteria, right? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So staff's saying the subject property has 81 feet of water frontage. Vessels to be docked at this facility include a 36-foot vessel and up to 12-foot personal watercraft, which will exceed the 50 percent threshold. MR. PEARSON: That's correct. And it says it correctly there. I just -- I read it incorrectly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: The second item I wanted to address is the conservation easement, I believe, resulted from part of a settlement agreement. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida being the interested party, they have provided a letter of no objection, which is contained within the backup. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. It looks like everyone did their due diligence. Do you want to stick around to see if there's any public comment? Andrew? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any public speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. MR. PEARSON: Shucks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you want to rebut that, what he just said? MR. PEARSON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. Good. Good point. All right. Anything else? Anybody have any last words? County? Applicant? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nothing? Okay, great. I have all the information I need. As you know, I have 30 days to get a decision out. I'll do my best to get it out as quickly as possible. Thanks for being here. Good job. May 12, 2022 Page 14 of 14 MR. PEARSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here. MS. NATALE: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, nice work. MR. KELLY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MR. BOSI: No, nothing else from staff. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Nothing else, then we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much for being here, everyone. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 9:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER _______________________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ________, as presented ________ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 6/7/22 4