Loading...
HEX Minutes 09/22/2022September 22, 2022 Page 1 of 38 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida September 22, 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 Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Eric Ortman, Principal Planner John Kelly, Senior Planner Andrew Youngblood, Operations Analyst Suzanne Perdichizzi, Operations Analyst September 22, 2022 Page 2 of 38 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. It's 9:00. This is the September 22nd, 2022, Hearing Examiner meeting. We are going to start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, so please stand. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I want to welcome everybody here today. Thank you for being here. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney in good standing. I am a contracted attorney by the Board of County Commissioners to be the County's Hearing Examiner under the code and ordinances to hear petitions under those codes and ordinances. My job is to hold these quasi-judicial hearings and to take in whatever evidence and testimony there is from the parties, which are the applicant, the County, and also the public, and render -- apply that information to the criteria as it pertains to whatever type of petition it is, and then render a decision within 30 days. I do not render decisions here today. I take all of the information that has been provided at this public hearing, and I evaluate it, and I put together a written opinion, a written decision, and that will be filed with the County. A couple of things, I see we have a number of people here today. If you want to have conversations with yourselves, please step outside into the hallway, if you would. I can hear -- the acoustics in here are pretty good, so we can hear just about everything that's going on, and I want to respect the parties and the applicants and whoever is trying to speak. Also, if you have a phone, please put it on vibrate or silent, so that we don't have to hear that. And if you are going to speak here today, fill out a speaker's card, and you can hand it in to Andrew over there. Raise your hand, Andrew. There he is. This is an in-person, and it's a hybrid meeting. The County has made accommodations for individuals who can't be here in person and want to attend virtually. So when -- when the public -- the public testimony part of the hearing starts, we'll hear from the public that's here, and then we'll go to anyone that has registered online. The process that we follow here is that when we get started, I ask the County to come up here to the middle podium, the smaller brown one in the middle, and briefly give me an overview of the petition that's being heard, their evaluation, recommendations, any conditions, go over any of the notice procedures. And then we'll go to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative. We'll use the larger podium over here. And then once the petitioner is finished, I'll open it up for public comment, and then I'll allow for -- after that's finished, I'll allow for the petitioner to have some time for rebuttal of anything. We have -- obviously, you can see we have a court reporter here, and so it's very important that whoever comes up to speak, state your name clearly and speak clearly, so that that can be captured verbatim. If, for any reason, our court reporter can't understand what anyone is saying, and myself included, she will tell me to stop, and, you know, we'll have to make sure that that's captured correctly. So if we talk over each other or head nod or make, you know -- you know, try to do gestures, that can't be captured. So we'll make sure -- I'll try to do my best to make sure everything is captured verbatim. I believe that's it. We have two items on the agenda today. And I think before we get started -- is there anything else I need to cover here? I think we're good, right? All right. Very good. So why don't we get started with Petition -- with No. 3A. This is Mill Run Circle. And one second, before we get started, let's swear in -- let's do any -- we're going to take September 22, 2022 Page 3 of 38 all of the testimony -- anybody who is going to give testimony under oath, please stand and raise your right hand. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you very much. MR. ORTMAN: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Eric Ortman -- excuse me -- principal planner in the Zoning Division. The Petitioner and homeowner, Ms. Sandra Smith, for this petition, is representing herself, and staff has helped guide her through the process. This is Petition 20220004370, a request for a variance from Section 4.5.h of Ordinance 88-25, the Sleepy Hollow Planned Unit Development, to reduce the west side yard setback from 10 feet to 6.89 feet; to reduce the east side yard setback from 10 feet to 7.72 feet; and to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 8.13 feet for a screened pool enclosure. The subject property is at 7138 Mill Run Circle in Sleepy Hollow PUD with the legal description of the Crossings Mill Run, Lot 103, in Section 2 Township, 49 South Range 25 East. The property is in unincorporated Collier County, and consists of approximately one-quarter of an acre. Construction of the home was completed in 1990. The building permit, 89-4885, contained no reference to a pool or a pool enclosure. A separate file, 89-48852 for a proposed home, contains multiple mentions of a pool. The site plan in this file shows a pool. However, there is no measurement at all on the plan for the east side yard setback, and there are three handwritten figures for the west side yard setback, two of them, 9.0 and 7.0 feet, were crossed out, and the third figure was penciled in at 10.0 feet. Mrs. Smith purchased the home in 2018 with the lanai cage being in a state of disrepair, and in attempting to replace the lanai cage in a like-for-like manner, Mrs. Smith was denied a building permit as the enclosure encroached into the setbacks at three different points. Mrs. Smith is, therefore, seeking a variance from the aforementioned setbacks to allow for replacement of the lanai cage in a like-for-like manner. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by operations staff. The agent letter was sent out August 5, 2022. Advertising and mailers were sent out September 2, 2022. And a public notice sign was posted on the subject property September 7, 2022. The growth management plan focuses on actual land uses and does not address individual variance requests related to land uses. Therefore, staff concludes that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use element. Staff recommends approval of this variance with no conditions of approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. So we're talking about site -- 7.72 feet, where 10 feet is required, and then 8.13 feet, where 10 feet is required in the rear. And I see that the lot itself is not a uniform lot. It's smaller in the back than it is in the front. MR. ORTMAN: Yes. Yes, it is. And it appears that the lanai structure was built after the permit or built without a permit, and it runs from one side of the house to the other encompassing the whole backside. So to shorten it up, to meet setback would require a lot of extra work. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. Understood. Okay. And Ms. Smith, she has done this on her own, so congratulations. MS. SMITH: Well, I haven't done it on my own. If it hadn't been for Eric and Jessica, I would not have been able to do this. In fact, I gave it to a lawyer, but he couldn't do it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. MS. SMITH: But Eric has helped me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those pesky lawyers. MS. SMITH: Well, no, but Eric and Jessica have been angels. They have just been so wonderful. It's been kind of fun. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, I like that. I like to see September 22, 2022 Page 4 of 38 people be able to navigate the County system on their own. So good for you. MS. SMITH: Well, I worked for the City of Alexandria as a clinical social worker for 15 years, so I'm familiar with that kind of thing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those skills came in handy with the County. THE WITNESS: You bet. Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Let's get started. Go ahead. MS. SMITH: Well, I moved into the house in 2018. I noticed that the lanai cage wasn't in great shape, but I didn't really think twice about it. And I did notice the encroachments, but at that point in time, every house I looked at seemed to have encroachments, and I didn't make much of it. So in 2020, we tried to get a -- you know, we wanted to get a permit for the lanai screen cage replacement, and then it all started that we couldn't do that, and that's what started the process. But I believe it's the original screen cage, and it looks pretty bad. So that's where I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So that's where you are, and I see that you have -- let's see -- no objection letter here from the utilities. I see your construction plans -- are you in a homeowners -- in an association? MS. SMITH: Yes. Yes, they've all been involved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They've been involved, and they're fine with this as well? MS. SMITH: Right. And both of my neighbors have come over and said, Hey, we can't wait until you get a new lanai screen, because the one we have now was painted a weird color, and then it started to shed -- oh, it's in bad shape. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. A little bit more than a no objection. It's actually, please get it done quickly. MS. SMITH: Yeah, that's what it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Okay. This happens from time to time. We see this, you know, things come up after years, and things are realized, and I'm glad you're doing this the right way, coming through and getting permits and having to go through this process, unfortunately, because of the dimensions of your lot, but I see you have a very irregular-shaped lot, a pie-shaped lot, which is unique in the sense that if it was a -- it seems to me that if it was a uniform lot, you probably wouldn't even have to be here. It would probably meet all of the setbacks. But because the rear yard is much smaller than your front yard, your measurements are different, so I can see how that has affected you. So do you have anything else you want to say? I'm going to open it up to the public and let -- all of these people are here to speak on your behalf. MS. SMITH: I don't think they're here for me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So just buckle up and get ready. MS. SMITH: Oh, okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we're going to open it up to the public. Who do we have here? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. Okay. Well, you did a very nice job. MS. SMITH: Well, Eric, he helped. He did it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, there you go, Eric. MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I will -- I have all of the information. I'll render a decision as quickly as I can and get it out to you. Okay? MS. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you for being here, and September 22, 2022 Page 5 of 38 thank you for doing this on your own. MS. SMITH: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Even though I'm a lawyer, and I do like to support my profession, I do think that some of these things don't require lawyers. MS. SMITH: No. I do. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Excellent. Okay. Let's go on to the next one. This is Item 3B. And before we get started, I want to -- on both items, I have no disclosures, no ex parte communication. I haven't spoken to staff or met with anybody, any communications prior to this hearing on either item, so that's my disclosure. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning. MR. KELLY: Before you is Agenda Item 3B. It's Boat Dock Extension PL20220001299. It's a request that the Hearing Examiner approve a 25-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into a waterway that is 268 plus or minus feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1. Staff notes that a prior petition was heard by you for this location on November 12, 2021. In an effort to overcome noted issues, the applicant has changed from a shore parallel design to a shore perpendicular design. And the vessel size has been reduced from 45 to 40 feet. The subject property is located at 260 Conners Avenue, also known as Lot 14, Block R, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's located within a residential single-family 3 zoning district. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06H. The property owner notification letter was sent by the County -- by the County's agents on September 2nd, 2022. The newspaper ad ran on the same date, and the public hearing sign was posted by me on September 6, 2022. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfied four of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies five of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan in the Land Development Code. With respect to public comment, prior to publication of the meeting materials, 14 letters of objection had been received and were compiled into Attachment F. Since then, an additional seven letters of objection were received and are compiled into Attachment F1, which I distributed this morning. There should be a copy at your desk, and I emailed a copy. The court reporter, also, has a copy. It's staff's recommendation that you approve this petition, as described, in accordance with the proposed plan provided within Attachment A. And with that, I brought my fan club with me, and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I see that. MR. KELLY: -- so that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, sir. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Could I request a brief recess? I'm having some technology issues here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we're going to take a five-minute recess to resolve some IT issues. Thank you. (Recess taken from 9:19 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. We are going to September 22, 2022 Page 6 of 38 reconvene the meeting, if we're ready. Everybody ready? All right. So we have the applicant here, or the applicant's representative. How are you today, sir? MR. ROGERS: Good. Thanks. Mr. Dickman, how are you? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Doing well. Thanks. MR. ROGERS: All right. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates, here today representing Doug and Christine McKibben, who reside at 260 Conners Avenue up in the Vanderbilt Lagoon Area, North Naples. I want to start off by basically presenting what we're requesting here today. The applicant is proposing to request a 25-foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet, so for an overall 45-foot protrusion into the subject waterway behind his house that is approximately 268-feet wide. This is on more of the south middle end of Vanderbilt Lagoon. I do have a PowerPoint presentation that we can run through real quick, but I'd like to go through all of the criteria with you, and get all of that on the record as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I suggest you do that. MR. ROGERS: So on the screen is the subject waterway. The 260 -- where 260 Conners Avenue is labeled, that is the street. We are on the south side. I've got my handy-dandy laser. And we are, approximately, right in this vicinity. So as you can see, we're on the wider portion of the waterway. We're not on the canal part. So that is one of the reasons we are actually allowed to propose what we are proposing today. And as everyone knows, this is the second round here on this one. So we were previously denied on the original dock design. I'll go through the primary and secondary criteria. First off, primary, as John stated, we meet four of the five on this one. So first off, the Criteria No. 1 is whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property. This is a single-family dock, a single-family residential lot, that is, like I said, up in Vanderbilt, and is allowed, per the Manatee Protection Plan and the Land Development Code, two slips for, you know, each single-family home. So as proposed currently, if we could go back on a slide on the actual proposed design, we are only proposing one slip on this current dock. So there it is. And as stated, we are going approximately 45 feet out into the waterway. I do want to mention while I have this slide up, that the most restricted point in this case is the property line as well, which is on the landward side of the seawall. So technically, protrusion out into the actual waterway from the mean high waterline is 44 feet, approximately. So there is about a 1-foot wide seawall cap on the subject property. Number two on the criteria, is whether or not the proposed water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner application is able to launch or moor at mean low tide? I do have water depth shown here on the screen as well. Those are the negative numbers in black that you see, which are part of the survey that we get up front before we even develop a dock design, and those depths that you see on the screen are referenced to mean low water. So on an average low tide, those are your depths on-site. So, obviously, high tide, I'd say you're at least a foot, if not a foot and a half higher, than what you're currently seeing. But part of the state and federal permitting criteria is to reference them to mean low water. So we get our surveys in reference to that as the -- just to show you basically what an average low tide is. So, you know, based on this, the water depths along the, you know, a foot -- you know, 5 feet off the seawall, you got about two -- let's just call it a 2-foot average, and then extends out. So the depths are relatively sufficient for a vessel of this size, especially if you did a marginal September 22, 2022 Page 7 of 38 dock and brought the, you know, boat in, if you could bring the boat in, more parallel to the shoreline and/or strictly parallel to the shoreline, the boat could be more there. So this criteria is not met. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What kind of vessel does your client own, or what is the vessel? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So it is a Grady-White. That's the make. Originally, he had a 45-foot vessel ordered when we did this originally, I think, a year ago at this point. But since the decision came out, that was not in our favor, he has in direction from input from the public as well as, you know, the HEX decision, he changed his order to a 40-foot vessel and went from a 45 to a 40. And he has reduced the overall size of the vessel by 5 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the Grady-White is -- has inboards or outboards? MR. ROGERS: No. Outboards. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Outboards. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, which are -- you know, I won't get into this, but, you know, which are good for navigation within shallow waters. It allows you to raise and lower the motors. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's why I was asking. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Because there are -- you know, Water Turkey Bay is a very restrictive water body just north of us, where -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is Wiggins Pass. MR. ROGERS: That's an evolving door daily. It just depends on the way the wind is blowing there. So that's a common issue that everybody living in Vanderbilt has to deal with and north, you know, up to Bonita Beach Road. Everyone ingresses, egresses Wiggins Pass. So Water Turkey Bay, though, while we're on that subject, was just recently dredged to its original depth, which is to maintain that channel. There is a threat of navigation in Water Turkey Bay that you have to ingress, egress through, and that was done partially, you know, I think, through an MSTU or whatever, and everybody paid for that. But it was just recently dredged within the last year. So it's -- and I believe the dredged depth for that was at least a negative 4 foot controlled depth. The proposed vessel, also, just so you know, does draft let's just -- 30 inches is a typical draft for this vessel. Then you turn the motors up, and you can get it in shallower water. So moving onto Criteria No. 3, whether or not the proposed dock facility has -- have an inverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. As I showed on the -- on a couple of slides -- Andrew, if you want to slide forward a couple. There you go. This is more of a zoomed-in view of the subject waterway. We -- there is no marked channel in Vanderbilt Lagoon. The only place that there is a marked channel is north of the Bluebill Bridge, again, up by Water Turkey Bay leading out through Wiggins Pass. So in this case, it's a local knowledge channel, but everywhere is navigable by vessels of this size and greater within Vanderbilt Lagoon. So that criteria is, you know, met, because we are within the 25 percent width of the waterway as well. So we're not impacting any potential navigational issues. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So when I look at both of these criterias, the primary criteria with 3 and 4, yeah, I think it's important to understand that, you know, these are the two, to me, that address impacts on navigability. So the 3 has to do with any official marked channels, which, as you said, in many places don't have marked channels, but then you get to 4, which is more of a mathematical relationship, and so that's -- you started off with that, that the location of this is what's giving you -- MR. ROGERS: The ability, yes, sir. And in the applicant's defense and our defense, I mean, this, currently proposed in front September 22, 2022 Page 8 of 38 of you today, was not our ideal proposal. We would have proposed this design originally due -- when Turrell is hired, we look at all options and try to reduce our overall protrusion into the waterway, you know, just so our request is not, you know, excessive. And I know it's been brought up that this is greater than any dock on this subject waterway, which, on the screen, it obviously is. However, you know, we were -- due to the input from the last petition, we've tried to design a dock that is isolated and solely affects this property and is within our riparian rights, and there's no ingressing or egressing across anybody's shared riparian lines. So it basically keeps this dock subject to the property and will not interfere with anybody else adjacent to us, other than it sticks out further into a waterway. But we are allowed 25 percent of the waterway. We don't want to go that route, because, technically, we're, you know, at 17 percent as proposed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let's be clear here, though. You're not allowed that. I mean, the reason you're here is because you're asking for a variance. MR. ROGERS: Understood. Yes, sir. Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And what you're allowed -- what everybody is allowed is 20 feet out. MR. ROGERS: Correct. Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, this is just one part of -- THE WITNESS: Of the criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the criteria. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that criteria was designed in conjunction with the prior criteria, which was to ensure that navigability and safety is preserved. So I just want you to be careful about how are you presenting this. You're not allowed -- this is not an as-of-right situation, and as we talked at our last time you were here, you did a very nice job of educating me why people are buying bigger and bigger boats, so... MR. ROGERS: I stand corrected. You are right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay. MR. ROGERS: The state and federal, though, does also apply to 25 percent width of the waterway, as you know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. MR. ROGERS: That is one of their key criteria. So I stand corrected. You are right. 20 feet is what the County allows. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So we're just talking about docks. We're not talking about what you have to do with other agencies. MR. ROGERS: Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think it's important to understand that there's primary, secondary criteria. When you put all of the primary and secondary criteria together, none of them are weighted any differently than the other ones by code, but those two, to me, are the ones that are set for -- to ensure public safety on the water, need to make sure that there's not interference with that. That's how I see that. MR. ROGERS: And, you know, again, like you said, this is only one of the five criteria in this section, and, you know, based on the wording of this, we do meet that criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a mathematical calculation. That's all it is. MR. ROGERS: Right. So moving onto No. 5, whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Tell me about that. MR. ROGERS: This one, you know, is, like I said before, the proposal is to go perpendicular to the shoreline, and ingress, egress the proposed slip, basically, north and south, you know, the bow is to the seawall, which is due north, and the stern is to the south in the deeper September 22, 2022 Page 9 of 38 part of the water. The dock -- or the vessel will not have to ingress, egress over the required setback line, nor the shared property line. The existing dock facility does -- I do have pictures of it, you know, back on the second slide, Andrew, if you want to zip back to that. But it does, currently, you know, basically in the top-right picture over here, that's his existing vessel; that's his existing dock. So he does -- and you can see the adjacent dock right here, also shown on the survey. And, basically, he will have to back out and cross over that shared riparian line going into the adjacent property immediately to the east. Technically, his view area, his -- not his property, but within his riparian rights. And based on the original proposal, we kind of were consistent with that, but due to some outcry, we, again, flipped it to be more perpendicular, so that we were not crossing over anyone's riparian rights, nor potentially affecting their view at any time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's stick to -- I mean, the view is a different one. I mean, that's a different criteria. So right now on No. 5 on the primary criteria, whether the proposed location and design of the dock, your client's dock, are such that the facility, the dock facility would not interfere with the use of the neighboring dock. So let's talk about the dock to the east. Let's do one at a time. MR. ROGERS: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Tell me about the dock to the east. MR. ROGERS: So the dock to the east meets the 15-foot setback. It's within compliance of the County Code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: As far as like use, ingress, egress, tell me, is anybody going to be in danger? Is there going to be -- MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- interference? MR. ROGERS: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Or you going to have bumping boats, or is this going to be -- MR. ROGERS: Being, you know, straight into the seawall, we are going to back out and go into the widest part of the waterway, correct? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is the one that I'm -- let's talk about this for a second. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they actually pull in this way, right here, like this, right? MR. ROGERS: Which is consistent with what our applicant does currently, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And so they are going to be looping in here. The way you've designed it, it's just coming in, probably backing out, and going that way? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let's talk about this. Where's the boat here on this one? MR. ROGERS: That's a boathouse that you see on the far right side, which is basically on the property line. There is a pontoon boat. AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's their house. MR. ROGERS: Like they just said, it is the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. Let's not yell out. I'm somewhat familiar with this property. MR. ROGERS: So like they've pointed out, that is the applicant's house. He owns that as well. The dock facility is a grandfathered structure. It does not meet the required setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is there a lift there? Is there a boat there? September 22, 2022 Page 10 of 38 MR. ROGERS: There is. Andrew, go back to the second slide, if you would, please. I'll show you. There's not a great picture of it, Mr. Dickman. It's down here. You can see the boathouse. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. They pull straight in then? MR. ROGERS: They pull straight in, too. So there is no interference of that either. So that criteria is met based on both of those adjacent dock designs. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Assuming everybody knows how to navigate a boat. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Captain a boat. MR. ROGERS: That's a different story. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Okay. So based on that, that's the primary criteria, we do not meet No. 2, and the rest, we do meet, so we meet four of the five on the primary, in our opinion. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In your opinion, right. MR. ROGERS: And in staff's opinion. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just want you to -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I said that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You and staff are -- just understand, I'm here as an independent, neutral, unbiased decision-maker. I am going to look at the law and the facts and apply them as I see fit. And this is not based on any other -- anything else. I take every one, one at a time. There's no prior precedent. There's no future precedent. There's nothing. This is just me looking at one at a time. That's how the law works. So when Mr. Turrell (sic) says, We've met, he's not talking for me for sure. He knows that. MR. ROGERS: And you're making me better at my job. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm helping you along. MR. ROGERS: I appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. You do a great job. MR. ROGERS: Okay. Moving on to secondary criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. ROGERS: Number 1 on this is whether or not there are any special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property or waterway which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's so special about this property? MR. ROGERS: You know, honestly, we feel that, A, one of them -- and we presented this the last time -- was one of them is the vessel, but that didn't apply because it's not to the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: Like I mentioned before, this property is located on a wider part of the subject waterway. Therefore, it does allow us to request an extension from the 20 feet, based on the criteria in place, in regards to meeting the 25 percent width of the waterway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property or waterway, so you're focusing on the waterway. You're saying because we have a larger waterway, which we talked about prior, you know, the mathematical calculation, it justifies the proposed dimensions and locations of the proposed dock? So -- MR. ROGERS: That's one of them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. One of them. Waterway was one. MR. ROGERS: Waterway is one of them. The other one that we've previously September 22, 2022 Page 11 of 38 discussed is also the adjacent docks, one being on the property -- really close to the property line on our west side, and one being within the 15 -- you know, meets the criteria on the east side. Doing a more shore perpendicular -- parallel, excuse me, design, there's navigational issues, access issues, that this avoids -- this current design in front of you avoids any potential conflicts of -- like you said before, no one is perfect at captaining a boat, but, you know, again, in our defense, we didn't really want to go perpendicular. But here we are today, based on the denial, so, you know, it's -- it's one or the other. And, you know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So let me just summarize. So in order to optimize safety -- MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you've designed it this way because of the two adjacent docks and the way that they -- the one on the west pulls directly into the boathouse, and then the other one has to curve around on that way. So, in your opinion, this is the safest way, based on the way that the adjacent docks are. Okay. MR. ROGERS: The waterway and adjacent docks played into this dock design. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The best way to avoid -- MR. ROGERS: Yep, any conflict. Number two of the secondary criteria is whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading, unloading, and routine maintenance without the use of excessive decking. Andrew, could you go back a couple of slides on this one to the proposed dock for me? So we designed this dock in front of you today to be consistent with others previously approved on this waterway, approved by the County variance process that we're going through today, and as you've stated before, we are allowed to have a dock out 20 feet. And -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What is this area right here? MR. ROGERS: That's a buffer that we put into the bow of the boat to prevent any potential impacts with the seawall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there's not going to be any decking. The seawall is here. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's not going to be any decking? MR. ROGERS: No. If we were going to propose decking to connect it to, which could be consistent with the one that I've gotten approved at 300 Oak Avenue, there was a walkway there; we'd have to show that. Otherwise, we would never get a building permit because it wasn't consistent with your approval or any approval from the County, if we get it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So what we've done is minimize the decking, the dock area from the 20-foot -- actually, less than that. It's approximately 18 feet, and you can see on the far west side, yes, sir, right there. So we have the decking -- the larger decking area landward of the -- within the allowable area. And then everything extending out past that has been minimized for routine maintenance access only and cleaning, basically, for the vessel. So this one, we went even less. We did a 4-foot true measurement. I've talked to you about this before. It's actually 4 feet overall, so there's going to be pilings. So the walkway is going to be technically a little bit skinnier than that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you required to have railings on both sides to avoid mooring on both sides? MR. ROGERS: In some case, yes. In this case, no. The County does allow a vessel to tie up in the setback on a temporary basis. They don't see it as a fixed structure, so you can -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How about right here? MR. ROGERS: No. No, we were not required. Because, again, we are allowed two vessels. But if the guy -- or excuse me -- if the applicant would purchase another vessel and September 22, 2022 Page 12 of 38 want to put a boatlift in or something, we would be back here at square one starting over again, because it's a new structure. But any, like, adjacent neighbor could bring their dock -- boat over and tie up to this dock on a temporary basis. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So, you know, sometimes the State will require a handrailing for state lands issues, but in this case, no, sir. So the dock has been minimized in that regard. The excessive decking, if there is any, is landward of the 20-foot area, but that's for recreational use, storage, typical dock. He has grandchildren and family that come and fish during the season, so that's why we proposed a little bit larger deck area on there. And, again, I do want to stress this design is consistent with two others that have been approved on the same water body to our south. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Jeff, I've already told you that I'm not paying attention to what -- everything else. I can't. It's not the way that the law is. I have to look at this case by case. I'm not looking at precedent or anything like that. I'm just evaluating this one and the other one, but nice try. MR. ROGERS: I understand. Understood. Yes, sir. Okay. Number 3 of the secondary, single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the adjacent properties' linear waterfront footage. In this case, the vessel -- proposed vessel is 40 feet. The length of shoreline is 80 feet. So we are right at it, and that's one of the changes that we made on this petition or request. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is, again, I'm sure a purely mathematical calculation? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is one of those easy ones because math is math, right? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yep. Number 4, moving on, whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. This one is very confrontational. I've read all of the objection letters and have done this for many years, and it's a matter of what your view is, what you're used to, and all of that. It's -- I don't want to, you know, go down this road again with you, but, you know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let me ask you -- let me help you with this. So in the past, you have made the argument that you're only entitled to the view straight out. That's what your opinion is, based on some legal research that you've presented in the past. I don't know if you're going to do it again. MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But, in your opinion, you're only allowed to look straight out, that's your only -- that's your only thing. So, to me, I just want to ask you about that because I've been thinking a lot about that. Like, why would there be -- if -- why would there be any need for this criteria, if that's all you're allowed to have? Because then, of course, you're not going to block that view, because you already have riparian rights, as you so eloquently say all the time. You have your riparian rights going straight out; that's your view. But why would this criteria be in here if you didn't have some kind of -- or if the County legislation, when they adopt this, they wanted to take into consideration more than just straight out that way. MR. ROGERS: True. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So explain that one to me. MR. ROGERS: I understand. I can't speak to why this was put in or understood in September 22, 2022 Page 13 of 38 regards to that. No -- our opinion, and let me clarify it, is no view is guaranteed over anybody's riparian rights or property line. A vacant lot, you know, across the waterway or across the street, and you have a view of the waterway, someone could build a home on that one day and take your view away, kind of the same thing, or change your view. In this case, would this dock change the neighboring properties' view of, you know, broader than their riparian rights? Yes, sir, it would. I can't argue that. What could we do about that? We could reduce the overall protrusion, and we're open to, you know, discussion about that. Like I said, I don't want to protrude out as far as we do, but it does isolate this dock to the subject property. Does it affect somebody's view adjacent? Yes, it does. But no view across anyone's right -- riparian rights or dock are guaranteed to maintain or be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, okay. So I understand what you're saying. However, when you look at the code, the code allows for 20 feet. And when you have 20 feet with that kind of lot, you're more or less not going to be -- if it's done uniformly, you're not going to impose on anyone's peripheral views. And, you know, like, everything is different, and people have, you know, taller houses on either side or lower houses. I don't know what the view is from that. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I think that, you know, that by coming here and asking for a variance that takes you beyond that 20 feet, I think that's the reason why this criteria is in here. And I think that's why that the County Commission at that time, like when they adopted this code, they set up this primary/secondary criteria so that they're look -- so that it's specifically looking at different aspects of the request. Because you are going beyond what everybody else is entitled to, as of right. So the idea is, like, okay -- well, we've already looked at is there going to be any conflicts ingress, egress on the docks on either side and this dock; is there any navigability issues; is there any water depth issues? Now, we're talking about if I'm -- if I'm the house on the east side or on the west side and I'm there, and is this greatly going to affect, you know, my views this way? And, you know, you keep using the word you're not guaranteed. Well, the other side of it is you're not guaranteed -- your client is not guaranteed the ability to go beyond 20 feet. So -- and I do understand, like, if I don't live on the water, but I have a vacant lot across the street, and I get to see the water, you know, I'm not guaranteed that. Somebody might buy that property and build a house on it. There's different laws -- I mean, there are some things when the code does -- when local government adopts codes that addresses view -- corridors and views. There is law that says, then you are -- you know, there is some protection of those views, so -- MR. ROGERS: I agree. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: These are good dialogues, because, you know, as we go along, and you keep bringing bigger and bigger boats to me -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- larger and larger boats, we're unpacking each one of these criteria, and, hopefully, the County staff here is listening as we do that, because, you know, if boats are going to get bigger and bigger in single-family districts, at some point, you know -- you know, something is going to have to be done. MR. ROGERS: Understood. And I appreciate the dialogue back and forth, I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is not being hostile with you. MR. ROGERS: No, I know it's not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I hope you understand that. MR. ROGERS: I totally do. I a hundred percent do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think you come here with very good diagrams, very good data, very good information. You take this seriously. You make presentations. I appreciate that. That's very important, because that's what this public hearing September 22, 2022 Page 14 of 38 process is all about. And so I wanted -- I just wanted, because we've had this discussion about views in the past, and I just don't think that -- I think that the peripheral views going out, not just straight out on the riparian area, I think the peripheral views matter; that's why this criteria is here, notwithstanding the cases that you have cited in the past. MR. ROGERS: I appreciate your direction and feedback on the -- you're looking at it as you're allowed this, but we're requesting further, so there does change the view, which is part of the request. And I agree with you. That is why it's in here, you know, and I would be happy to say, you know, at this point, we might not be meet this criteria because it does have an effect on the neighboring properties in that regard past 20 feet. However, I'm -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Understand it says, Major impact. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It doesn't say, Impact. It says, Major impact. MR. ROGERS: Major impact. So -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there's like a level -- that's why it's important in these types of applications for you to explain to me, okay, this Grady-White is going to be up on a lift, and it's going to be this much out of the air -- up in the air, and if I'm -- you know, I think that kind of evaluation is important for you to put on the record. MR. ROGERS: Okay. Good. I will do that in the future. But, yes, when you do put a boat on a lift, you know, most center console-style boats, which this is more like a bow rider boat, which is like a center console, you know, typically they're 10-foot tall to 12-foot tall with radar on top or electronics on top of the hard top; T-top, it's called. So they have Bluebill Bridge, which is a significantly high bridge compared to some in Naples Bay or others that you have to go under. So when you put the vessel on the lift and raise it up, yeah, you're -- you know, your 10 to 12 feet above the dock itself with the top of it. So there is a view impact, especially from pool level, let's say, or ground level. Most of these homes are two story, not all of them, I don't know whether they are left or right of us. I'm not speaking to that matter. But maybe from the second floor, you have a view over the vessel at that point. So I will, in the future, work to show some -- maybe some visual diagrams to help you understand the view from the properties. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Yeah. I just -- because, you know, you're having to put competent substantial evidence on the record for each one of these criterias. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're a recognized professional in this area. I recognize you as an expert. So what you're telling me is expertise, but I think, as we go along, and these boats get bigger and bigger, I'm trying to suggest to you how I'm looking at these criteria as a lawyer, who has to take in information, and I'm thinking, okay, if I'm -- I have to look at what is a major impact first, and then, you know, this is all on a case-by-case basis based on that particular property and then also the adjacent property. So let's say, for example, I'm -- I'm on my seawall -- I'm the house to the east, and I'm on the seawall, and, you know, the -- your client's boat is up in the air, a Grady-White; it's out that far, you know, what am I going to be looking at that I wouldn't look at if the variance wasn't granted? MR. ROGERS: Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's the kind of process I'm trying to help you understand -- MR. ROGERS: Okay. Gotcha. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- as an attorney, as a hearing examiner, from a legal point of view, you know, how I have to view, you know, what is a major impact. You September 22, 2022 Page 15 of 38 know, that is a little bit subjective, you know, the word major, but it's different than minor. So I know how to do statutory construction and all of that stuff, so I know how to work through it. But I'm trying to help you to not just zip through these things, because you're bringing bigger and bigger boats, and I think you're going to have to, like, dive deep, and you've definitely got opposition here, and so you need to get -- you need to put that in the record. MR. ROGERS: And in this case, the adjacent property owners are directly affected with their view. One, the applicant owns to the west, so the affected party outside of the applicant is immediately to our east. And his view is, you know, like you said, going to be affected in that regard. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it a major or -- is it a major impact? MR. ROGERS: In my opinion, no, it's not, because the bay is wide. And, I mean -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- from the stern of the boat -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- southward to southeastward -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- the rest of the waterway is open. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So I stick to our response in regards to criteria being met. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. That's all I'm asking. Is it a major impact? That's what we're narrowing in on. Okay. MR. ROGERS: I need to learn to understand the language and the detail of the words within the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Yes. Words matter. MR. ROGERS: So I appreciate the education on this, I really do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ROGERS: So 5 and 6, I'm just going to kind of loop them into one quick response. Yeah, No. 5 is more of an environmental question in regards to seagrass beds within 200 feet of the proposed facility. There are seagrasses within the Vanderbilt Lagoon area. I've dove the site myself three times now. There aren't any on-site. There aren't any within 200 feet of the subject dock. But there are plenty of seagrasses within the Vanderbilt area but not in this general radius of 200 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Number 6 is the Manatee Protection Plan, and as John touched on, that's not applicable to single-family docks. So that one is -- does not apply to this. So that is the criteria. I want to stress and appreciate everyone's, you know, letters, and I read through them and understand the impacts of all of this, whether it's, you know, from property values to views to navigational issues. I do want to stress that this dock will have the typical lighting at night that is allowed per code to illuminate the dock and show it at night, because I did read somewhere in one of the letters that nighttime navigation was a concern. So it will be -- it's not going to be lit up like a streetlight, by any means. They require down lighting, so it's basically deck lights. It illuminates the walkways and potentially a Snook light or something. And, also, vessel size was brought up in some of the letters as well as in the previous petition. I do want to stress, we took that strongly in our consideration. The applicant, who is here today as well, did -- has the vessel now. It is a 40-footer, has it in hand. It's not stored at the house, obviously. He's paying for storage elsewhere. But he did reduce the overall size down to a 40-footer to be more consistent with the -- you know, to -- actually to meet the code of the 50 percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the Grady-White, are you measuring from all the way to -- September 22, 2022 Page 16 of 38 MR. ROGERS: All the way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- from the very bow to the end of where the engines are? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Andrew, would you go back to the proposed -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's not just the hull itself? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Yeah. So the LOA, as you can see, the 40-foot dimension on the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really, even though, like, the boat really technically stops here; this is like a little -- what do you call it? MR. ROGERS: It's an anchor pulpit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anchor pulpit. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's probably a good foot and a half? MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then you measure -- the engines are out here. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this a dual engine, or what are we talking about? MR. ROGERS: Yes. Yes, it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But the bow -- the stern, right? MR. ROGERS: The stern. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The stern is here, but then you have the engines here. So the actual boat hull itself is more like this. MR. ROGERS: I'd say it's 38 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 38 feet. MR. ROGERS: The vessel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The vessel. MR. ROGERS: And the LOA, length overall, of the vessel is 40 feet. So the length overall of the previous request was 45. So it was more like a 43-foot vessel, in general, 42, something like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it possible to move it forward a little bit? I mean, how much space is there? MR. ROGERS: It is. I mean, based on the water depths, you know, we didn't want to dredge here. It's another cost for the applicant to do, but it is something that we would be happy to consider. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What is the measurement, roughly? MR. ROGERS: I'd say it's about 3 foot. Those pilings proposed are -- those are two mooring piles just to protect the boat from hitting the concrete just if something were to happen. We always put those in. Those are a foot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So how much further up could you reduce this variance request? MR. ROGERS: I would say at least a foot, if not a foot and a half at the most, to still provide a safety buffer on ingress, you know, especially ingressing the slip. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So pulling more -- MR. ROGERS: Pulling in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Pulling further in, you could take off another foot and a half from the various request -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. September 22, 2022 Page 17 of 38 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the extension, the protrusion? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So it would be dumbed down to, I'd say, like 43.5, you know, something like that, we could do -- we could handle that and still provide a buffer. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Because if you -- I mean, this could accommodate a much larger vessel the way it is built right now, right? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. I mean, technically, yes, it could. Yeah, not much larger, but I would say, you know, maybe a 41, maybe a 42 LOA boat. But if he were to do that, technically, he would have to come back through this whole process, especially if someone -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You mean if he went out and bought a different boat, he'd have to come back here? MR. ROGERS: If it stuck out more, or if it wasn't consistent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because you've got a buffer area in here, like, a boat could technically be pulled further in and be a larger boat? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I want to avoid that. MR. ROGERS: Okay. So that is something we're definitely open to consider for sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is all driven by the boat. MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is one of these weird type of variances where it's driven by need or want, actually, the want to have a big boat. And that's why I specifically asked what boat it is. It's not just -- some people aren't just building spec dock and saying we've got an extra large dock? MR. ROGERS: No, that's not the case here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we want to design this for the Grady-White? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And the applicant can tell you the exact make and model. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I can give you the model type, too, so you can look at it. Because Grady makes numerous different models of boats. But, also, just to get on the record, you know, the previous request was for an 11-foot extension. We are considerably more than what we were previously proposing. The design, again, was not Turrell's first pick, obviously, due to protrusion. But, also, we are consistent with vessels that have been approved and are on Vanderbilt Lagoon area, because this was part of the letters and input, feedback from the neighborhood on, you know, the vessel is excessive, and, you know, we've done -- Turrell, Hall & Associates has been in business for 30 years. We've done a lot of docks in the Vanderbilt area and a lot of the condos and commercial properties down the way. You know, we are working on Naples One, which is a confrontational issue dock, but we are designing that for 45-foot vessels. I believe it's been approved. Pelican Isle is a condo down there as well. They currently have 45-foot vessels at their facility, which are south of us, which have to pass this to get out. And then Regatta Landing, which is also down on the south end, we designed, engineered, did all of that as well, and they have 40-foot vessels. So I just want to get that on the record. What he is proposing today is consistent with vessel sizes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. ROGERS: So with all of that being said, I will take a seat, and if you have any questions -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. I appreciate it, and thank you for that presentation. September 22, 2022 Page 18 of 38 We're going to open it up for public comment and go through that. So who do we have first? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, we have 10 speakers with us today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: The first one is going to be Robert Kisch, followed by Evelyn Kisch. MR. KISCH: Good morning. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Robert, one second. Sir, do you mind if I recess for about 5 or 10 minutes, just so we have some comfort break? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Oh, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We've got folks in here that may want to take a little, quick break. So we're going to take a 10-minute recess. (Recess taken from 10:05 a.m. to 10:13 a.m.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Okay. So we're back on the record. Let's get started with public comment. Who was the -- how are you, sir? Come on up. MR. KISCH: Thank you. I'm Bob Kisch. I live at 274 Conners Avenue just to the east of 260 Conners Avenue. And I have a question for this gentleman here. How high is that boat sitting out on the water? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So the way that -- what we're going to do is, if you have -- I want to go through -- methodically go through all of the public comment. MR. KISCH: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm going to have Mr. Turrell write down all of these questions, and then when we're through with the public comment, I'm going to have him come back up and address all of these questions, so that we're not doing a back-and-forth situation. Okay. So go ahead. MR. KISCH: Okay. It would probably be about 50 feet, approximately, and it's a 45-foot boat. I brought a laser with me. Just to give you an indication, this room from here to there is 48 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: That dock is going to be just 3 foot shorter than this room. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: And this ceiling is 11-foot high. Another 4 feet, it was 15. What do I have in front of me? A wall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: Okay. There's 35 more docks on Conners with possible dock extensions. There's 989 residents that live between Conners and Naples One, the new development that's taking place with access to water, so just to give you an idea of the number of boats. Most residents have gone up north, and never had a chance to read this 45-foot dock extension. There would be a lot more people here, if this was -- this meeting would have been taking place a couple of months later. Doug, and I see my neighbor here, does not want to ruin his view, only mine. Do you think if he lived where I live, he would accept this? I don't think so. His boat definitely belongs in a marina. I think just from what we've seen up there with that, it not only affects my view right next to it, but everyone down the line. If this proposal is granted, it will change the Vanderbilt Bay and our whitewater views on Seabee and Conners forever. We do not want this to look like a marina. These waterways were designed in the '50s to be parallel to the seawall, so everyone had views and safe boating. I would hate to see what this bay and waterways would look like in the next 10 to 20 years if this September 22, 2022 Page 19 of 38 was granted. And I would not want to be responsible for that decision. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, thank you for that. That's a lot of pressure. MR. KISCH: Doug owns the lot next to him, as we all know by now, and he needs to come up with a plan so he doesn't have that dock and boat in my face. With two lots, he's never tried that. He doesn't want to ruin his view. Evidently, he does not want to lose his view. So the bottom line is, I completely reject this petition, and I think if we can all visualize what I'm talking about, I don't think any of us in this room, if they were me, would want to look at that damn boat and dock sticking out there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And, sir, give me your address again. MR. KISCH: 274 Conners Avenue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. MR. KISCH: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Evelyn Kisch, followed by David Klancke? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, Ms. Kisch. MRS. KISCH: Hi. How are you? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fine. Thank you. MRS. KISCH: I'm Evelyn Kisch, and I live at 274 Conners, unfortunately, right next door to 260 right now. And after being denied a 34-foot dock a few months ago, now Doug is requiring -- requesting a 45 -- thank you -- with a 42-foot boat. That makes no sense to us. We bought the home for our family and friends to enjoy views of the sunsets and the bay. If this petition is granted, there will be no more sunsets on our bay view. It will be -- we will be looking into a 45-foot wall with a 42-foot boat standing 12 to 15 feet in the air, the Grady-White. It's what we will see every night, not only affecting us, but all of our neighbors east right on down the line. Our grandson, who loves watching our sunsets, said it best, With Mr. McKibben owning two homes right next to you, should come up with a plan not to destroy other neighbors' happiness and ruin Vanderbilt Beach waterways. We see the dolphin. We see many boats coming in and out. We can't even imagine, with a boat dock sticking out 45 feet, people coming in from the sunsets late at night having a terrible safety issue, along with the dolphin and the manatee. If someone else built a larger dock, they were on a wider waterway. And, also, Port Royal has accommodations for a large yacht. As a Realtor, ruining our waterways with hodgepodge docks and obscure views can only ruin our value. Rules were meant to be made. Our boaters' sea life is, for sure, at safety. We don't want Vanderbilt waterways to look like a marina. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have a question for you. Yeah. Let's not -- no clapping, please. So if you're -- I'm looking at -- I have pictures of your -- the aerial photographs, so I know where you live. If you're standing on your seawall and you look directly, I guess it would be, southwest, and this dock were in place, do you believe that that would be a major impact on your view? MRS. KISCH: Major. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A major impact. MRS. KISCH: Yes. And with the boat sticking way up on top of it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hum. Okay. That's what I wanted to get at. Thank you. September 22, 2022 Page 20 of 38 MRS. KISCH: Yep. Yep. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be David Klancke, followed by Steve Hoberg. MR. KLANCKE: My name is Dave Klancke. I've known Mr. Kisch for 66 years, and we both came to Florida 26 years ago. I have enjoyed sitting in his backyard watching the sun set. I've always envied the house that he has. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's your address? I'm sorry. What was your address? MR. KLANCKE: I'm sorry? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Your address. MR. KLANCKE: 5457 Freeport in Island Walk. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, I see. Okay. MR. KLANCKE: The only thing I have to say is this visual encroachment, basically, and it just hurts everything as far as what we stand for. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're in Island Walk, but you say you visit whom frequently? Kisch. Okay. So 274. MR. KLANCKE: I've been in his backyard for the last 20 years and enjoyed it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. Thank you. Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Steve Hoberg, followed by Sue Myhelic. MS. MYHELIC: Myhelic. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Myhelic. MR. HOBERG: My name is Steve Hoberg. I live at 281 Conners, which is directly across from Bob Kisch's house. I visit there often. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're on the north side of Conners? MR. HOBERG: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. MR. HOBERG: I'm against this proposed variance. Here are my six reasons why, and they're my observations. The design is more intrusive than the last design, which was rejected. It also, number two, blocks views. Number three, it extends further out into the canal. Four, it sets a precedent, which I guess it doesn't matter anymore, setting precedents. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let me explain that, because, you know, precedent -- I know people want to believe that things are setting precedents, but for me, I'm an attorney, and I look at each one individually and apply the primary and secondary criteria. I don't try to look at, like, Oh, what did I decide before, you know, I want to be consistent. I want to do this; I want to do that. Because, hopefully, if I'm doing my job right, I'm applying the criteria consistently every time to each application. So, you know, I have to -- I look at everything case by case. MR. HOBERG: Okay. And then accommodating a large boat, I think, would bring about accessibility problems, you know, getting stuck in shallow waters and wanting to dredge, et cetera. Also, building a large dock like this increases the surface area, which brings a lot of debris down in the surface area, which is blown into the canal. Our canals are dirty already and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: When you say surface area, you're talking about? Like the -- MR. HOBERG: The flat surface of the dock area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The decking area? MR. HOBERG: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. So things that -- debris that September 22, 2022 Page 21 of 38 might fall off the dock, right? Okay. Gotcha. MR. HOBERG: And that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: The next speaker is going to be Sue Myhelic, followed by Ken Frey. MS. MYHELIC: Hi. I'm Sue Myhelic. I live at 151 Conners Avenue. Evy has been a friend of mine for many, many years. I've been living there since 2001. I've had two separate homes on Conners Avenue, and we all love it. I think the major thing, and I've already written a letter; it's attached to your situation, but I think the major thing that bothers me the most is when we were talking about how it's going to look as far as the size and the width and the height, what this does, it gives you the mindful impression that you're a condo. You're not a home anymore. You're looking like you do look at Pelican Isle, and like One Naples will look. So houses shouldn't look that way. They just shouldn't. They've never been designed to, so let's not do it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hum. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Ken Frey, followed by Nancy Frey. MR. FREY: I won't bore you with repeating much of what's been said already, but one thing that confuses me is, we were given -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Your address is? MR. FREY: 404 Conners. We were given a code of being 20-foot out by 15-foot setbacks on each side, which makes the docks on an 80-foot lot be 20x50. And it confuses me why we keep readdressing these over and over with larger docks and different proposals. If that's the code, we should stick to them. Now, you had pointed out that one of the things that's really important is whether it's a major or minor view obstruction, and this is clearly a major view obstruction, not only for the people on one house, either side, but for at least two or three houses down. If we could go to the shot, also, of the dock with the boat in it sticking out. Right there. If you stand on Bob and Evy's dock or seawall, anywhere on their property, you're not going to be able to see past the southern end of that dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Andrew, do you have one that's a little wider view with more properties? I think there was a slide -- MR. FREY: It's pretty hard to see at that size. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I just want to point something out. Go on to the next one, this one. So to your point -- so what I was getting at is the views -- so if this is this way, you know, views this way -- MR. FREY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you know, because -- MR. FREY: Or from the other side, you're going to also have obstructions. Each house that you go down, it gets a little less. But for at least three houses, it obstructs the view of each one of those properties in a major way. People pay a $500,000 premium to be on that canal and have the views that we have. And by doing this, it really obstructs that whole potential. Furthermore, from inside the house, they're going to lose all views of anything except a straightforward view. And I used to live in a house at 380, a couple of doors down, which was a single-level house, and it really affects single-level houses even more so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a quick question. This is something that needs to be -- so that particular criteria, here's the exact language, whether the proposed facility, which is the dock, will have a major impact on the waterfront view of September 22, 2022 Page 22 of 38 neighboring property owners. So are you saying that neighboring property owners are not just the abutting property owners? That neighboring could -- MR. FREY: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- be in the neighborhood? MR. FREY: Absolutely. A lot is 80-foot wide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. FREY: If you go out three lots, that would be 240 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let's say, down here. MR. FREY: You're going to see the corner of that boat sticking out, and you're going to lose some of your down-the-canal view and the ability to watch the sun set as the sun goes further to the right throughout the year. Where I live right now at 404, it really doesn't affect me. But if this is allowed and it's allowed further and further down the canal, we're going to have the same issue come up over and over again. The one thing that hasn't been discussed is that by having that dock stick out 40 feet, if Bob and Evy's house next door had their dock enter from the west instead of the east, which should be their prerogative if they decide to switch their dock, they should be able to say, I want to come in from the west, not the east; you can't do it. You cannot do it because the angle of the dock sticking out doesn't allow you to punch your bow into your well and still make the turn. Now, where I live at 404, I have a 20-foot dock, and my neighbor has a 20-foot dock. When he puts his World Cat 32 on the outside of his dock, if he brings it up to the west end and ties it, that 10 feet or 12 feet that it sticks out prevents my wife and I from bringing our boat in, because we can't punch the bow of the boat in. It's physically impossible. Fortunately, we get along with him, and he just leaves it 10 feet back. It's no issue. But once that dock is permanent, it's done. So if the Dillons, which live on the other side of Bob and Evy, and still have wide water, decide, I want a 40-foot dock, they can block Bob and Evy in so they can't even have a boat at their property. Even with the dock as it's proposed, it would be difficult for Bob and Evy to bring their boat in from the west and tie up to the outside of their dock on their property. So it is just absolutely wrong to allow this on those two issues alone, much less having a boat wall that would stick from that corner, midway in this room, 12 feet up blocking the view. It's just not the way the neighborhood should be. It's the only dock that would be that way out of 35 homes on Conners Avenue. And we've got boats that are 33 and 35 foot. Now, I'm not saying the people at 260 shouldn't have a 45-foot boat. They can have one. All they have to do is rip out their dock, put a dock against the seawall that's 3 foot at one end, 5 foot at the other, and come in sideways and tie up to it. But that's not good enough, because they want to be able to get around their boat to service it. Well, there's boats all over Naples that you can't service from both sides. So, in my opinion, it's a selfish move by a neighbor who wants something his way and has absolutely no consideration for anybody else in the neighborhood, or the way that neighborhood has been since it was built. And I think if it's approved, it will just be an atrocity to the neighborhood and to the property values. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I want to read to you another criteria. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility are such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks, and that, to me, indicates the existing docks. So it's -- I believe it -- I don't know that I can -- and I'm saying I don't know because I'm starting to unpack all of these things, because I'm being forced to with larger boats. But I don't know that I can start anticipating other docks in the future, like on neighboring docks, like what would they want to build in the future. So, currently, the way that they -- the neighboring docks are, it seems as though there may not be conflict with -- you know, for that particular criteria, and each -- I have to look at each September 22, 2022 Page 23 of 38 criteria as they are. MR. FREY: Well, this would affect, actually, the criteria. If Bob and Evy want to pull in from the west, if you go back to the shot of the large docks -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go back to that. I can see this. If they want to pull in from the west, their dock is actually designed -- MR. FREY: It's tucked way back -- I know, but what if they want to tie up from the outside? If they want to tie up from the outside of their dock, coming in from the west, you'd have to come in at such an angle because the dock -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're still going to have to loop around. I see what you're saying. MR. FREY: Well, they don't have to. They shouldn't have to. It should be their choice to dock whichever way they want, but because a dock -- which isn't even a dock, it's a pier that's sticking out 40 feet, is going to prevent them from doing that. It's going to prevent them -- if they decide to change the entrance of their dock down the road, which shouldn't be. One neighbor should not control what you do to your property and prevent you from doing something that's legal within that 20 -- 20-foot by 50-foot footprint of a dock that's available right now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So as you heard earlier, you're allowed to have two boats at a single-family home site so, theoretically, if they wanted to moor a second boat on the outside of their dock, that would also -- you're saying that I should take that into consideration as well? MR. FREY: Well, it would make the dock stick out even further. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I gotcha. MR. FREY: And you could -- they said that you can temporarily store it on the inside in that 15-foot setback, but technically, you can't. Because if you temporarily store it, you can't get into a dock. Okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. You know, it's very interesting, as we talk about this, and I have to look at the criteria, the law, and apply the law, and some of the comments that are being made. You know, back when these dredge and fill lots were put together, they were much smaller houses, too. MR. FREY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Much, much smaller houses, and then as people started tearing those down and building bigger and bigger houses, it was almost like the same arguments were being made, too, like, Hey, this -- the intent wasn't for these giant, giant houses either. So now we're starting to talk about what was the intent for these giant boats. MR. FREY: He can still have the boat. He should just put it against his seawall like everybody else. There's no reason why that wouldn't work. I just don't understand the -- the thinking of why I have to have my boat sticking out 40 feet, instead of just pulling it against the wall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay. I think, in part, they're reacting to a denial. I denied them because I didn't -- they didn't meet the criteria on their last design, so they've tried to redesign it to maybe meet the -- you know, try to get the appropriate number that they need on the primary and secondary. MR. FREY: Children react all the time to things they can't have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's that? MR. FREY: Children react all the time to things they can't have, but at some point, you have to say enough is enough. Quit wasting the County's time. Quit wasting everybody's in this audience time, coming time and time again to go over the same stuff. It's something that shouldn't be allowed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. FREY: We should be held to that 20-by-50-foot range through the neighborhood September 22, 2022 Page 24 of 38 and be done with this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand exactly what you're saying. Understand, as a hearing examiner, I don't set policy. That's not my job. I don't set policy. The policy is in the code, and my job is to take the primary and secondary criteria and the -- the code, the way it's written, not one or none of the criteria is weighted more than the other. It's just sort of like, you add it up. You know, if at some point the County Commission decides, you know, we need to change the policy because of the fact of now people are manufacturing boats that are bigger and, you know, more people are buying them, and they're wanting them at their house rather than elsewhere, you know, that's a County Commission decision to change that code. So I don't have -- MR. FREY: Don't we have a code, though? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can't sit here; I'm not an elected official. You didn't elect me. I can't decide, just generally, like, I hate big boats, and I'm not going to approve any of them. I have to look at each one. MR. FREY: Isn't our code for that 20-to-50-foot footprint, and why do we keep readdressing these variances that keep being requested? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So unlike other types of variances where -- you know, where you would look at -- like there's some unique nature to it, like a setback variance for something you're building, like the prior petition that was here before us was on a pie-shaped lot, and they had a difficult-shaped lot, and that was your typical type of variance. But the way the County Code is written for boat variances, it's actually driven by the fact that somebody has a boat, and it's driven by want. I want this. You know, I get it. You know, like, you're allowed, as a right, that 20 feet. So it's an unusual situation, because, you know, it's really driven by, Hey, I want a bigger boat, so if I meet this criteria, you know, I might get the variance. So I'm just trying to explain to you how this is unusual in that situation. MR. FREY: It's just a shame, because there's how many people that don't want it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. I get it. I understand. I mean, there have been large boats like this presented to me in other areas where nobody cared, you know, nobody objected because of the situation of where it was. So that's why I say I take every one as -- I take each case on a case-by-case basis. MR. FREY: I'm not promoting don't have the boat. I'm just saying don't stick it out 40 feet into the canal. Put yourself out a little bit, put it against the seawall like everybody else. There's no reason it won't fit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I totally understand what you're saying. MR. FREY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Nancy Frey, followed by Jennifer Landis. MS. FREY: Well, first, good morning, Mr. Dickman. Thank you for being here, for your time, for your time and energy to listening to all of us. I know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm here for you. I'm here for everybody. MS. FREY: Thank you, everyone, for being here today that's serving, and thank you -- many thanks to our community that's rallied together against this issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Your address, please. MS. FREY: 404 Conners Avenue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. MS. FREY: Um-hum. It seems we find ourselves in the same place as we did about a year ago. A year ago, many, many of our neighbors and friends were here. Additionally, the technology was not working that day for many waiting to speak, but justice and fairness prevailed against the owners of 260 Conners, who wanted a huge variance. September 22, 2022 Page 25 of 38 Now, we are back to address an issue that was denied again. Why, I ask? I wrote this down. I wrote this down. Okay. Only this time, the owner returned with a bigger stick to beat up the community for his desires. This proposed variance is more absurd, obtrusive than the former. He has already had a strong message from this office set of denial and from our community and neighbors of denial. Yet, he doesn't stop there. He drags us back into this situation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to direct your -- MS. FREY: Oh, okay. Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- comments to me and not to everybody. MS. FREY: Okay. Sorry. I just feel rude like I'm -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. No. I know. You're not being rude. You’re talking to me, not to them. MS. FREY: All right. Sorry, everyone. He drags us back, upsets everyone, has a more disturbing dock plan. I ask the question, seeing the owner has two homes with a seawall of 160 feet length, why not fall in line with all of the neighborhood with a parallel-to-shore boat well? This is reasonable. And then he can have his large boat. This is the simplest solution to all. Yet, the homeowner refuses to do the reasonable. Care that the community he will be living in is very upset, and, again, is trying to push his will on all of us, when there is a simpler solution. I've lived on Conners Avenue for over 20 years, and I've been blessed with wonderful neighbors and community. I understand there is some variances, but none to this degree. This is a major impact on the peripheral view of many people, not just one house. I know some neighbors have written letters and are still traveling. I ask that you read those letters, Mr. Dickman. The majority have lived here for a long time, as I said. We love our canal, the wide, unobstructed view, and we live together in harmony considering the needs of others. We even cut back our hedges, so everybody has a view of the water. And I invite you to come to our house, come to Jennifer Landis and her husband, the houses, and walk down the property lines, see how the view would change. Anytime, you are welcome. The majority of us who have lived here many years, we love our canal. Considering the needs of others to enjoy the beauty of our canal and the safety it provides. One person has caused tremendous upset because they don't care about the remainder of the community and how we've lived in harmony. One person against all wants his way regardless of the fallout. This is incomprehensible to me. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule, to treat others with respect, kindness, courtesy, and love? That's how you make this world a better place. And we care for each other in our community. I say shame on him for this bullying with a bigger stick after last year. So thank you for your time, Mr. Dickman, and everybody else here. I appreciate your efforts. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MS. FREY: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Jennifer Landis, followed by Van Alongi. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: At 316 Conners? MS. LANDIS: I am. I am two houses to the east of the proposed variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. LANDIS: And I did write a letter, yes. And I also sent pictures in of my view, and how they would be blocked or changed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you think it's a major impact? MS. LANDIS: I do. I have three levels to my home, and I don't use the third very much. The second floor is the main floor. I'm in a stilted home. And the main -- it's kind of in September 22, 2022 Page 26 of 38 my language down here somewhere that I've been writing. The main way that most of us on Conners view the sunset is we look to the southwest, because that is where the widest opening or the longest opening is, and you can actually see a tiny bit of the water on a clear day, of the ocean. So that is our direction of all of our view when the sun is setting, which, of course, is we have an amazing view, and we're very fortunate to have that. And the way this dock would be proposed to come out past Bob's dock, which is directly to my east, so it's to east, it would be right almost in the middle of -- it doesn't seem that way, but it would be right in the middle of my view of the waterway. And then with the dock -- the lift being so high in the air, you would basically be seeing the side of his boat as you're looking down. But I'm going to read what I wrote because otherwise, I'll forget everything. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Go ahead and take your time. MS. LANDIS: Okay. The previous speakers have mentioned some very important points about the direction of Bob being able to bring his boat in if he did decide to change the angle of where his boat comes in. He now has to come down around and tuck his boat in next to our house, and it is difficult. And we have not changed the angle of our dock and the way our lift was when we purchased the home because of the way each of our neighbors have their docks set up. So we have a 32-foot boat now, currently -- we had a 33 prior -- that is at the end of our 20-foot boat -- or dock, and we park perpendicular to our dock. One thing I question is having a little bit larger boat. They're saying a 38-foot boat. Currently, we cannot lower our boat off the lift in low tide or put it on in mid-to-low tide. We've even had it blown out. It got us about a foot deeper, but we still cannot do that. And we're 20 feet off the seawall. I'm curious -- and this is a question I have for, I believe it was Jeff, how they propose to get that 38-foot boat off if they are perpendicular? The front of the boat is going to be -- the lift will be above the bottom -- it's going to be out of the water. Because, in our shallow tide, you can see the bottom at the end of your -- at the beginning of your seawall, if that makes sense. So I actually don't even know how they would get it in and off of their lift. So then my question would be, where would the boat be moored when they cannot put it on and off the lift? We have to dock our boat before our lift, which actually obstructs Bob being able to get his boat in and out during those times. So say we were going to go fishing early in the morning, and we have to take our boat down and put it past our lift, if this makes sense, so towards the end of our dock -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MS. LANDIS: -- he will not be able to take his boat in and out during that time. Again, we're, you know, pretty friendly that we can say, Hey, sorry. We're going to be out of here, and, you know, we'll get it back on the lift as soon as possible. So my question is, where they would be mooring that boat in that time? Because they couldn't do it to the side, because there's not enough space. Their other proposed platform is only 20 feet out, so if he did no longer own the house next to him at some point, that would infringe on that property line. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I think on that point, Jeff will probably address it. I mean, he did have a diagram showing the low, low tide, the mean low tides and how that would work. But your point is taken. MS. LANDIS: King tides. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, king tides are high, high tides, super high tides. MS. LANDIS: And we have super low tides. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So your point is taken is that there is no alternative, like, temporary staging place for the boat, if, in fact, that's an issue. Right. I gotcha. September 22, 2022 Page 27 of 38 MS. LANDIS: Okay. Let me just see if there is anything else I have. I guess my last point is that my family has lived here in Naples since 1977. We've lived in many homes in the Naples waterway, and we have all adhered to the limits that were in place. We've had boats from 15 feet to 63 feet. When we purchased the home, we've used the dock the way it's best set up according to our neighbors, and I would hope that this would be in consideration with you determining your decision. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I have a question for you. MS. LANDIS: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You already told me what your opinion was about whether this was a major impact on view. In at least two of the criteria, it refers to neighboring -- neighboring dock or neighboring property, and I'm going to have County give me their opinion as well as ask Jeff, later on, to give me their opinion. But do you perceive that to mean only the adjacent properties or the abutting properties or other properties in the area? MS. LANDIS: Oh, absolutely. I think it goes to wherever your view can see. Just like Nancy pointed out, we all trim our hedges, so our neighbors are not obstructed from their water views. I mean, that's something on both sides. I mean, Bob would be reminding me all the time, Jennifer, you know, you've got to get that hedge trimmed down, you know, and then my neighbor, who's actually at a wedding, the Weekleys, just to the east of me, wrote a letter. When I purchased the home, there was a hedge that went all the way out to the water and blocked their entire view. And I thought this is absolutely crazy; plus, it blocked my view of the water to the east of me, which wasn't -- you know, it was just canal. But I took down a good 20 feet of that hedge, which was about 50 feet up. And their view like -- they're like, Oh, my gosh, we had no idea. And now I'm like, I'm so sorry that, you know, my dad was the previous owner, didn't know how much it blocked their view. So I think as just a considerate, you know, neighbor you should take in everybody's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you think that term is intended to mean a wider scope than just the abutting properties? MS. LANDIS: Absolutely. Your view is not -- is not -- we have peripheral views. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I gotcha. MS. LANDIS: I think that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. MS. LANDIS: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Van Alongi, followed by Adalio Sanchez. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, ma'am. MS. ALONGI: Good morning. How are you today? My name is Van Alongi. We live at 490 Conners, right on the corner. And we have been coming to Naples as snowbirds since 1978. And we bought the house in 1996 for one purpose, that beautiful canal that I can see in the morning when I walk out in my backyard. I can see all of the way down to the end. And there's no more beautiful view to see in the morning as that canal. And it's the only reason really that we bought that house. My husband was elderly, and we've been coming down as snowbirds all the time, and I told him, I says, You know, it's about time that we sit down and relax and get a house here. And we did. We bought the house on the corner, put a lot of work in it. But when you get down and you go out in the backyard and you see that beautiful view, it's worth it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're on the end? MS. ALONGI: I'm on the very, very corner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And does your property actually wrap around? MS. ALONGI: My property is -- the view that I have on the corner is all the way down the canal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So you're on Conners, but does your -- is your property one of the properties that actually meets at the end of the canal, like you September 22, 2022 Page 28 of 38 have some -- MS. ALONGI: It's at the end of the canal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- of that property at the very end of the canal? MS. ALONGI: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you can literally go to Vanderbilt Drive area and look directly down the canal from your own private property? MS. ALONGI: I can see it all, and it's beautiful. And really, you don't pay for the house; you don't pay for the lot. You pay for that view. And if you hide that view with large boats going out into that, it's going to ruin all of our beautiful site. It's like putting a rosebush in a garden of flowers. It's not supposed to be there. And really, really, really, I think, and everybody that's behind me, that view that we have, the sun that comes out every day, is what we pay for and what we love. And you disturb that, and it hurts company -- it hurts our properties. So I think whatever they want to decide, I think, is wrong. I think they just leave everything the way it is. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our final speaker is going to be Adalio Sanchez. MR. SANCHEZ: Good morning. My name is Adalio Sanchez, and I live at 178 Conners Avenue, five houses to the west of the subject property. We are strongly -- my wife and I are strongly opposed to the variance at 260 Conners. We have a 28-foot boat that we built on the property when we built it four years ago, and we're about to buy a bigger boat in the 30s. So we have a vested interest in this variance, because we, too, would love a bigger dock. However, it's not appropriate for this particular area. It is not appropriate, because it will impact the views of our neighbors. It will view -- it will destroy the consistency of the neighborhood. And in reality, Vanderbilt Beach Estates is not Port Royal, it is not Royal Harbor, with the wide lots and deep water. In fact, in my 28-foot boat, back to the point that was made earlier by Jeff, at low tide, not a super low tide, I can no longer bring my boat in as we used to. And by the way, it was dredged recently. So this notion that you can bring a boat of this size in and out with regard to tides is not really correct from a user today of a 28-foot boat. Furthermore, approval of this, while precedent doesn't matter, approval of such a request will create a new barrage of one-off deviations in an area that, quite frankly, as has been mentioned before, does not sustain docks of the size that are being proposed. Lastly, I would like to request the County to please but in place rigorous set of standards and codes, so that this set of one-off requests that are coming constantly do not upset the intent of this neighborhood. Furthermore, as more requests are made, we would like to see the whole neighborhood notified of these variance requests. This does not just affect the street, like what was done in Oak, it affects the entire neighborhood. And so I would respectfully request that as future variances come, the entire neighborhood be informed of these issues. Thank you so much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here. Anybody else? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: That concludes our public speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nobody online? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. So the public hearing part of that is concluded. I am going to ask Jeff, come on up. First of all, let me ask Ray; I'm going to put you on the hot spot here. And just so everyone understands, some of these questions may seem rhetorical, but it's important -- this is a quasi-judicial hearing. We have county planners here, who are experts. We have the applicants have got an expert here that can provide competent substantial evidence. There's some wording in the criteria that refers to neighboring -- neighboring properties September 22, 2022 Page 29 of 38 or neighboring docks. What is your, Ray Bellows here, how do you interpret that? How do you perceive that? I mean, ultimately, I have to interpret it, but I'd like your professional -- I mean, do you have any opinion on that? Does that mean the -- just the abutting properties, or when it says neighboring, does that mean other properties? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the zoning manager for the planning and zoning section. The historic application of that language is that -- and it has several forms, but if you're talking about view shed or corridor, typically, that had been applied to be within the riparian lines for each lot. But the impacts can be -- neighboring does mean other than just the adjoining. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. There were a number of issues that the good folks in the neighborhood brought up. Jeff -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- if you could please go through and address those. I mean, I'd just ask that if you want to give me your opinion about that neighboring docks and neighboring properties, if you want to give me your professional opinion about how you see that, and then, also, address the other issues about depth and everything -- and, you know, views, and I think you should rebut some of that stuff. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. I made a list, so, hopefully, I've got them all. But first off, just, you know, I'm the bad guy here, you know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, you're not. MR. ROGERS: -- I don't mean to be. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hold on. Hold on. I just want -- MR. ROGERS: There is a process to go through, outlined by the LDC for these requests. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: So that's what we're doing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me just stop you right there, because there aren't any -- I don't see bad -- there were some borderline, I think, like attacks on the person -- the applicant. If it got any further than that, I would have stopped it. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. It's fairly informal. I try to keep these informal, but it's also a public process, and I want to make sure that everybody has their opportunities, the parties, the public. And it's very important to me that everyone maintain professional standards. And so I don't view -- you've been before me plenty of times. The County, obviously, is here all the time. I think the public has really conducted themselves nicely. I really pride myself on making sure that this -- nobody is a bad person here. This is the process. This is the process that we follow, and, you know, so there are no bad -- I don't see any bad people here. I'm not judging character here. MR. ROGERS: I understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You know, and you, frankly, have been very upfront with me about everything that you present in all of the cases, so I don't -- and that's no indication of how I'm ultimately going to rule, but I just don't want you to be feeling defensive up there. I just want you to answer the questions, as a professional, and give me the information. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. I take it, you know, personal. You know, I want to design a dock that not just our client, as a firm, Turrell Hall have been doing this for 30 years, and who knows, we might have designed somebody's dock that's sitting in this room. That's what we do. So we apply the code to it, and if, you know, we can't come up with a design that does fit in the box that everyone is allowed, then we -- there is a process outlined by the Land Development Code that you can go through. There is no guarantee that you're going to get any approval for that. September 22, 2022 Page 30 of 38 So here we are going through that, and I just want to stress that the LDC outlines the criteria and the process, and there are fees associated with that. So it's a process, and we're going through it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's nothing personal, and I'm sure that you've told clients no before, and I'm sure you've told clients, No, you're not going to get that. You need to redesign it. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sure you've told your clients that before. MR. ROGERS: Correct. Okay. So let's go through some of this. Basically, you know, the biggest thing that I'm hearing is view, obviously. And I totally understand that, and, yes, any new structure on the waterway changes somebody's view or affects the view overall of that subject waterway. In regards to, you know, height and all of that, let me touch on that, and the view of the adjacent property owners. When Turrell -- when we design these docks, and, you know, Tim Hall is here. I've been doing this for 17 years. He's been doing it for 25, 30 years for the firm. He and I are both partners in the firm, just so you guys know, and we look at it mostly to the adjacent properties, we do. And how are they going to be affected by the proposed dock? We -- personally, I have not taken it really much further than that on the waterway, I just haven't, because, Are they affected? Yes. I'm not going to say they're not, because, obviously, they are. So but from my perspective, I've looked at it more from the adjacent properties, but maybe I need to look wider than that, in regards to these dock designs. And I think the County -- you know, Ray kind of said that, you know, it's more of the neighboring per that language, and I -- maybe I've never applied that as broadly as I should in regards to designs. But in our defense, you know, the original design was for an 11-foot extension request, and here we are asking for 9 more feet, you know, from that, based on the denial. And does it protrude further? Yeah, it does. So why did we go that route? Well, ingress and egress, we talked about that, neighboring properties. Water depths was brought up, which is a huge, you know, factor, and I'm -- just to give you some personal insight, I grew up in Royal Harbor on the water, born and raised here in Naples. I have a captain's license, so I understand navigation. I understand water depths. I understand issues with low tides, getting boats on and off the lift. I've been doing it since I could walk. So there is a concern with vessels at low tides throughout Vanderbilt, throughout Naples Bay. It is a problem getting them on and off boatlifts. This design currently in front of you puts the deepest part of the vessel in the deepest portion of the bay. The bow of the boat, you know, let's just approximate, it's going to draft probably a foot to a foot and a half at the most. The stern of the vessel, which is where the draft of a vessel is advertised what they draw, in this case, let's just say it's 3 feet. Typically, 30 inches to 3 feet is average -- is in the deepest part of the bay. So the boat lift is placed not right up against the seawall, it's out in the deeper depths. So back to the point of water depths, I'm confident -- we would propose dredging if we thought it wasn't functional at a low tide. That's why we get surveys to show mean low tide. Yes, there's king tides. Yes, in January, February, March, the tides are a foot lower on average just from the north wind. It empties these bays out. It does. So are there times that this applicant might not be able to get the boat on and off the lift? Potentially, yes, even with this current design. But a more perpendicular design -- or parallel design, excuse me, would restrict that even more. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what will they do with this design if they come in and it's a king tide, and they can't get it on the lift, like there's not enough -- like the lift hits the bottom, and there's still not enough room to drive the boat up onto the lift? What will they do with this design? MR. ROGERS: It might be good to get our design up, the proposed design, just to September 22, 2022 Page 31 of 38 walk you through it. But on the east side, there is that long finger pier, and it is in a setback. Technically, a vessel can moor there. That's not going to make people happy on a temporary basis. However, on this dock, there's also a section -- that's the thumb drive stuff. That's okay. The actual proposed dock, if you would. That slide I'll go back to and show you -- you know, talk about all sorts of things. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's wait for our image. MR. ROGERS: So, yeah, that's perfect. So, ideally, you know, lay along there. However, he does have this to tie off to. Would he protrude past what he's approved for a temporary basis? Yeah. He's got -- my point being is he has some options here. So, ideally, I don't think this area would make anyone happy, especially this subject property owner. But he does potentially have this to hang out on a temporary basis to, you know, tie up the boat and wait for the tide to come up, and it's common practice in Naples, this area, everywhere, low tide -- boatlifts take about 18 inches, right, the actual aluminum frame, the bunks, and then you have the draft of the boat added to that. So right there, 3 feet, you're already at 4 and a half feet of water that you need to float this vessel. So it's a huge problem that we have. So right here is the 4-foot contour line, basically, mean low tide. So going out further in the waterway, I think Vanderbilt, these canals, I'm not saying I know for sure, but they're around probably 5 to 6 foot controlled depth elevation. At a low tide, you have probably anywhere about 5 to 6 feet in this subject canal. I'm not saying that's a hundred percent, factually. I'm just approximating. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you bring up the other image showing the other docks, please? Right there. So do you have one that's closer in? I think there is one. Show me the slides. MR. ROGERS: I don't think there is, to be honest with you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So let's look at this one. MR. ROGERS: Zoom in. There you go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the other issue that came up was, they, also, you know, let's call this one at king tide, a very, very low -- they can't bring their boats in, so they're going to have to, like, temporarily moor their boat here, or if they wanted to have another boat and have it moored here, whatever, that means what? As far as like, if this is here, is there -- are we talking about conflict, or if -- let's say it's low -- let's call it a low king tide and you're saying, well, your client is going to temporarily park here or moor here, and then they have to moor here, do you see any conflict in this area? MR. ROGERS: I personally do not. Being a very experienced boater and a licensed captain, I mean, we could tuck our boat in on the east side and pull it in the full length just as it's sitting on the boatlift and not protrude any greater as a temporary option. But we're stressing a thing that happens -- you know, king tides are maybe twice a year that we're talking about here. So on an average low tide, which is what we have to base our designs on, it's not going to -- this is not -- my point being, this problem is very limited to certain times. And every boater along here within this area, including myself, you know, in Royal Harbor, you have to plan around the tides, you do, and that's common practice for anywhere. No matter where you are, there's tides that play into this. So, you know, it's -- I don't believe there's going to be a navigational issue. He can go easily around and swing bow to the west, as he does on the boatlift and tie up coming from the, you know -- he can go like this and swing right in. He could easily, in my opinion, come in here and also swing it in and tie -- lay it along there. He can even come in on an angle and tie up right here as we could, you know, on this side. Again, those are just temporary tie-ups. If he were to tie a boat up out here over a long period of time, he potentially would be a code issue in regards to protrusion, because then it becomes more of a fixed structure, and the County, you know, looks at that differently versus a temporary tie-up. So, you know, I'm just throwing that out there. September 22, 2022 Page 32 of 38 But, you know, so that's one issue in regards to tie-ups. Everyone has got to do it. Could we dredge and do things closer to the shore? Yes, sir, we could. We can't dig a hole, you know, the agencies -- the County doesn't have any criteria for dredging, none. So we then have to work with State and Feds, I know you don't want to get into that, but there is a process to do maintenance dredging activities. This is a man-made canal. You can dredge it to negative five, meaning low water, and then, you know, maintain that, because it is a constant battle. You're basically digging a hole, and it's going to fill in over time. So it's something -- it's common practice to do maintenance dredging. Okay. So, basically, the next thing also part view -- let's talk about view, which is the number one issue that I'm hearing everyone say. You know, I get it, I do. I'm open to any consideration here. My client is here, and he would like to speak in his defense as well, but, you know, we're open to any suggestions. What's in front of you today is greater than what we originally proposed. Could we mirror this proposed dock and put the dock -- or the vessel on the west side closer to the property that he owns and have the dock -- the square section of the dock on the, you know, east side, just basically mirror it? Yeah, that's an option. We're open to that. No problem. What would that do? That would push this dock further west and potentially open up the view a little more for the adjacent property, who is, in my opinion, the directly affected one who is, I looked at, as mostly being affected and not more of the neighborhood. So that's on me. So maybe I should have made that suggestion from the get-go, but this is what I did. So open to that. I just want to get that on the record for you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a question, Ray. Ray, we're talking about, potentially, the suggestion of flipping that. I mean, what's in front of me and what has been advertised is what it is. I guess if that -- hypothetically, if that were to happen, I guess I would have to put that in a decision, and would you -- would they have to resupply plans, or procedurally, how would you want that done? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, you could request the petitioner to provide revised plans prior to your issuance of the decision, or you could stipulate in your decision that as long as they don't go -- protrude any further into the waterway, they can flip the design. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. ROGERS: We're open to that as well, as I do have some other images that Andrew has that we also considered that I'd like to put up and discuss with you. Ultimately, what we have in front of you today is based on precedent that I've done before. I know you're not applying that, but I did in this design, just to be clear and up front with you. You know, there are alternative designs that we considered, and this is -- this one on the screen today is more like what we proposed originally. However, I've reduced it based on conversations I've had here in this process with you and staff of how can we minimize decking, waterward of the allowed amount of 20 feet that everyone is allowed. So you -- people have applied that the extension request, the criteria reads, maintenance, routine access, things like that. So, you know, originally, we had a full-on triangle in this area, which was decking. You know, so I could easily knock that down to 4 feet. I did not feel that this was still the best option due to this decking, due to water depths, due to ingress, especially honestly -- to be honest with you, ingress and egressing over the property line, which is why I went perpendicular to the shoreline, to fully avoid any potential navigational issues or anything like that based on feedback and direction from the previous HEX decision. So this is something that, you know, meets the 15-foot setbacks. Could we mirror this? We looked at that as well. Andrew, just go through to the next one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that protrusion is 31 feet? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. So that matches what we previously requested of the 11-foot September 22, 2022 Page 33 of 38 extension, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And have these been supplied as part of your application? MR. ROGERS: No. I was -- in conversations with John over the course of the process of the application review, he and I thought it might be good to have these on a thumb drive to show you and everybody of the options that we've considered as well. But a negative on this one is the backing, ingressing, and egressing over the property line. Does this reduce our overall protrusion? Well, yeah, considerably, 9 feet. You know, we're back to where we were originally of 11 feet, but it does technically cause a potential navigational issue crossing over a property line/riparian line, so I felt the perpendicular -- as a firm, we felt that that perpendicular isolated it to this property. Does it increase the view and issues more? Obviously, yes. So we're not saying it doesn't. But we're open to something like this as well. Ultimately, we need -- we would love to get approval on something, you know, for the applicant and keep everyone relatively happy and not be intrusive -- be less intrusive on everybody on this. And, in my opinion, this is better. I was surprised we got denied on the 11-foot, just to be honest with you. I understand why. I read through it, get it. No problem. But here we are. So go to Option 2, Andrew. Don't do the ingress, egress one. Yeah, do that one, please. Here's it mirrored, another option. And, yes, somebody did bring up the fact of the U-shaped dock and having the walkway on the outside. That is a common dock design in Vanderbilt Lagoon, it is, if you look at some of the other aerials, you know, a lot of people have -- we call it U-shaped dock. Obviously, a Y here. So, you know, this is a common -- the existing dock, you can with see it underneath the aerial, it's a U-shaped dock. He's got a small catwalk on the outside for maintenance. And being a boat owner and, you know, I take care of multiple boats, having access to both sides for cleaning and all of this is priceless. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So just to be clear, then, on the prior design that was submitted that the decision was a denial -- MR. ROGERS: Yep. Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you actually had all of this decked -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- like that? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Yes, sir. Yeah. So these -- you know, again, we're open to this consideration. Does it -- this one, in my opinion, I do like more than the previous one, where we're ingressing and egressing from the east. This one comes from the west, which, obviously, is the property he owns, so we would be crossing over a shared property line. However -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But this is the same boat, right? MR. ROGERS: Roughly. That's 42 LOA, so that was -- that's -- we're 40 LOA. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So you follow me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this the Grady-White? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's the Grady-White design. It's just the 40 -- it's the 41, 42 LOA. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there's really no need to come all the way over here? MR. ROGERS: No. Correct. Yeah, there's area to trim, yes, sir, a hundred percent. There is, and I'm open to all of that. You know, I'm having an open conversation with you about design, and I'd love input and try to make everybody, you know, happy on this, because it is -- it affects everybody more than just our client. So Option 4, let's look at that one real quick, Andrew. It's the next PDF over. Yes, sir. So here's one with more, obviously, shored parallel mooring. I did an ingress, egress of September 22, 2022 Page 34 of 38 this, which I've done -- presented that to you before as well. Why do I have it coming in from the, you know, bow to the east and, you know, stern to the west? Again, I didn't want to cross over the eastern property line and riparian line because of, you know, objections to that on the original design. So, ultimately, if we did this, I'd like to be coming in from the west bow to the east. The negative thing on this design and a strong position of the applicant was, you know, grandchildren and access to the waterway without the boat there and recreational activities that docks -- you know, docks are -- are more than just somewhere you moor a boat up to. They provide you access to the water for enjoyment, view, obviously, access for fishing, you know, things like that, kayaking. So this design limited that ability because the vessel takes up, basically, the whole dock. Now, that's on the applicant, right? So I understand that's his choice to buy that vessel. So, you know, on this, what could we do at a low tide, you know, pulling it off? It brings the boat in closer to the shoreline, would require, potentially, some maintenance dredging as well. Where would we tie the boat up at a low tide? You know, back to that original question. This one, few -- slim pickings in that regard. Really, there's nowhere safely without being in a setback. I mean, could I trim this dock back some? Yeah, but, ultimately, the vessel still would be in the setback, you know, I could trim this back a foot or two as well. And, you know, just so you know, most people get on and off vessels at the stern. That goes back to the water depths. That's a point I wanted to make, too. That reminded me. This is the deepest part of the boat, drafting boat, and it's also the lowest part of the boat. Typically, the bow is more flare, has more to absorb the seas that you're going through. So boats are designed to have more bow. And then the center console aspect of it is here, which is where a typical roof/T-top is located. So the lowest part of the boat's gunnel -- the gunnels are lower here. The gunnels are the sides of the boat, basically running this way, and then this is the stern. So this is where, usually, all of the activities happen, other than sitting, from my experience. I'm not speaking for everybody. I'm a fisherman. This is where you fish. It's the lowest part of the gunnel. This is where you get on and off the boat, typically, when it's at a dock, because it is the lowest. Otherwise, you are climbing over the bow, which is not a pretty picture. It's very difficult. So I, also, want to talk about our current design. I'm kind of jumping all over the place on you, but when it's perpendicular here, the bow of the boat, and, like I said, in the highest part of the vessel is the T-top/roof, that's mostly from midship/two-thirds of the vessel forward, right? That's going to be closest to the shoreline in regards -- going back to view being affected, I'm not saying it's not going to be affected, but the lowest part of the boat is going to be in this potential view corridor. You know, yes, they can look here, yes, I get all of that. But I just want to make that point that the lowest part of this boat with the perpendicular design will be the furthest out into the waterway, which is the less intrusive on your view. You know, if we were going stern to, in regards to the seawall, the stern towards -- the highest part of the boat would be out furthest, definitely blocking more of your view in regards to overall height. I wanted to mention that, too. I don't mean to jump around on you on that, but that was something I did have written down. So go to the ingress, egress one now, Andrew, please, the second PDF there. So this shows you the potential approach for this vessel into that slip. Does he own -- this is another reason I ultimately don't like this design. This is actually further out into the waterway. It's 32 feet then the angled 45-degree angle. So it does show you -- what I'm trying to get across here is the things we all considered coming up to the design today as well as the previous denial. So these are all exercises we do as a firm to try to come up with the best design -- we're not going to make everybody happy -- but try to do our best in that regard. Could he remove that dock and do that on the property to his west and do something different there? Yes, he could, and I've had that conversation. But he'd ultimately like to keep that property the way it is for -- you know, it's a grandfathered structure. It doesn't meet code. September 22, 2022 Page 35 of 38 He can rebuild and replace in the current footprint. As soon as he changes it, boom, he's got to come into the code, right? So -- without going through a variance process. And he could. He could do a side yard setback variance to rebuild that, and he could sign off on it for himself because he's the only directly affected person in that petition. So, you know, people could voice their opinion and go through a public hearing on that, but he's the one directly affected, which, typically -- I don't want to speak for the County. The way the County kind of views the variances for side yard setback, who's the one directly affected with that petition? In this case, he would be. So, ultimately, my point being is he could encroach on that and go through the variance process to rebuild differently but in the 15-foot setback. But, ultimately, he doesn't have any -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me just see here. So on -- so if you take a line from where the neighbor's dock is and draw it right through here, I mean, it's getting pretty close, consistent with the two docks, right? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. And I just do want to point out that this 32 overall, it looks like it's from the seawall in this case, would be another foot or probably, realistically, so let's say 33 to go to the most restricted point per the code, that's 2 foot past what our original request was for. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. ROGERS: So, you know, I'm happy to mirror it, happy to go back to original design and flip it to the west, you know, mirror that original denial, to ingress, egress over our shared property line with ourselves, so to speak, versus from the east. That does give us the ability -- if we go back to one up here, Andrew, Concept 1. I think -- well, I think that's from the east still. All right. Go to 4, maybe. I'm sorry. I don't know. Maybe 2. I'm sorry. The last one. Okay. So this one. We're happy to go back to this one, but, you know, again, our protrusion is this, we've got some potential excessive decking here. It does have the U shape, you know, but, ultimately, we -- I decided to go -- I personally -- Doug can attest to this, the applicant, Doug McKibben can attest that I pushed the perpendicular design on him, based on isolating it to the subject property and not considering the view as major impact as I should have potentially. Other than that, if I didn't address anything else, I think I got it all here, I believe. If you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Does your client want to speak? MR. ROGERS: Yes, he would. Yes, he would, ultimately. Doug. MR. MCKIBBEN: Well, this is not an optimal situation. I only know Bob -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: State your name, for the record. MR. MCKIBBEN: Doug McKibben, 260 Conners Avenue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning. MR. MCKIBBEN: Like I say, I only know Bob and Evy, I don't know the rest of them, so this is not an optimal way to say hello. But anyway, I actually agree with a lot of things that were said here with a possible exception of being childish, but I know my wife would agree with him, so, you know, we're there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I've been called worse, sir. MR. MCKIBBEN: If -- I just want to cover a couple of things. Can you go back to that very first one? It shows my boat next to Bob's dock. The very first one. MR. ROGERS: Go back to the PowerPoint, Andrew. MR. MCKIBBEN: Yeah. Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Please. Second slide. Third slide. I apologize. September 22, 2022 Page 36 of 38 MR. MCKIBBEN: There you go. If you take the upper right-hand corner there, that boat is actually 4 feet shorter than the one we're talking about. That's a -- that's a Freedom 335, and we're talking about a Freedom 375. So it's 4 feet shorter. And when I back out -- and I've been there 18 years backing in and out with that, and I have to go within inches of Bob's dock, and then take the stern straight out to get out of there. And like, you know, a couple of years ago, I said, Hey, Bob, I want to get a bigger boat, but, obviously, I've got to get a variance. I've got to come in from an angle. And is that going to be a problem? And, of course, he said no. So I ordered a boat, and now here we are. But I understand that -- that straight out is -- you know, it protrudes. And I agree. I think the original, where we come in from an angle, and now that we're 40-foot, instead of 45, I think we were at 23 feet on Bob's side; we'd be down to 20 or 21 on Bob's side. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. MR. MCKIBBEN: Yeah. And I said to Bob one time -- and Bob does spend a lot of time out on his dock. He's got a table out there, and he looks west for the sunset and what have you. But -- and I drew it out and went over, but, of course, if you're looking straight down through there, even when my boat is not there, the fixed structure on the next house, next door, which we own, is there with a roof on it. But if you take the original one and then you back it down to the 40-foot, this -- the new boat is only 9 inches higher. Okay. As far as getting in and out, I've been getting in and out for 18 years with this thing. A couple of times when I wanted to go fishing early and leave early and I knew it was going to be low tide, I would pull it out and tie it off. But I haven't had a real problem with it. The other one, the new one, angled, is 4 inches more draft than this boat. The new one at that angle, not straight out, but at the angle, I feel like, I'm not as experienced as Jeff is, but I feel like for 18 years of getting in and out, I can get in and out fine with it, I think. But -- and to another point that was made, if Bob wanted to come in from this side, you know, there's a 33 and a half, a Freedom 335, I've been doing it for 18 years. And he can certainly do the same thing I'm doing from the other side, because I've been doing it, you know. But it's a pain because you've got to back up and you got to take that thing straight out to get out of there. So anyway, I agree with the -- the straight in and out, I think, protrudes further than it should, and I think that, as I went over to Bob one time, if you -- sitting on his chair with the other -- it's 9 inches higher, yeah, but if you look across those -- where the engines will be, you're talking about 6 or 7 degrees from where you're sitting. Today, you're looking at the back of this boat, right? So the other one is going to come out this way, right? And it's like 6, 7, 8 degrees difference on the angle with the side -- side load, not the front and backload, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I mean, I'm hearing a lot of sympathy on your part in terms of, like, the view issue. MR. MCKIBBEN: I totally agree. I totally agree. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I hear that, and I appreciate that. I'm sure your neighbors, hopefully, appreciate that as well. And, Jeff, thank you for showing some of the other concepts, because I think it shows your thought process, and I understand your thought process and why you're showing a perpendicular; that's part of your application. So what I want to do here -- are you finished, by the way? MR. MCKIBBEN: I just wanted to address, you know, getting in and out, because I have been doing it for a long time. But I do feel like I can get in and out of there, and it won't be a problem, and we've been doing it for a while, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. MCKIBBEN: And I appreciate the view situation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. Yeah, it's important. September 22, 2022 Page 37 of 38 MR. ROGERS: Can I make one comment? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. Of course, yeah. MR. ROGERS: So the boathouse rules for the County are 15 feet from the deck surface. It was brought up; I didn't address it in regards to the height. I do agree that 15 foot is probably realistic for this vessel when it's in the up position on the boatlift. So I just want to get that on the record. But that's consistent with what is allowed per code for these boathouses. So if we build a boathouse, we're allowed 15 foot. You know what I mean? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But you're not building a boathouse. MR. ROGERS: No. I'm just saying -- I'm just trying to give you a comparison on height and the view. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just giving been an elevation, common elevation that's allowed. I'm done. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So what I'd like to do is I want to have you -- well, they're public records now, since you've shown them. They are public records. I want those to be formally submitted to staff, and I'd like staff to let my office know whether that, in any way, changes any of their opinions -- any of those concepts changes their opinions in their staff report, because I don't want to force them to make any opinions on the fly right here today. I'd like for them to be able to evaluate those concepts that you've offered alternatives, let's say, and allow them the opportunity to see if that changes anything for them, and then have those provided to my office. And then I'll take all of that, all of the great testimony that the neighbors have given to me, your client, in his testimony and everything, and go from there. Ray, is that a procedure that you can accommodate? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows, I do believe a continuance should be done to the next meeting. That way, if we're to evaluate those other options, we just want to make sure we're doing it properly -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: -- and a continuance would be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm okay with that, too. So what we'll do is we'll have this continued to a date certain, which wouldn't require it to be re-noticed. It would just be put on the next agenda, and that -- for the specific purpose of staff being able to give me the opportunity to -- giving me their feedback on those other concepts, and specifically looking at views and decking and, you know, the criteria, and, of course, you know, the public would be able to come and speak on it as well. So I think that's the prudent way to go, then. Does that sound -- what is date of that? MR. BELLOWS: The next meeting would be October 13th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: October 13th. So, Jeff, we're going to continue -- what that means is that the meeting is going to stay open, because we're going to look at the concepts that are less -- they haven't been formally submitted, so I want them formally submitted. I want staff to review them. I want to be able to look at them myself. And then I want the public to be able to comment on those formally at that hearing, and then we'll go from there. Is that -- MR. ROGERS: I just checked my calendar, and I'm going to be here anyways for another one, so I'll be here on the 13th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'll be here, too. All right. All right. So that's what we're going to do, so we're going to end this part of it. We'll continue it to October 13th and go from there. So thank you for that presentation and bringing in the alternative concepts, and we'll go from there. MR. ROGERS: Appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. September 22, 2022 Page 38 of 38 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 11:34 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 ANGELA L. KLEIN, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 11/15/22 4