Loading...
HEX Minutes 10/13/2022October 13, 2022 Page 1 of 43 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida October 13, 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 John Kelly, Senior Planner Sean Sammon, Principal Planner Andrew Youngblood, Operations Analyst Suzanne Perdichizzi, Operations Analyst October 13, 2022 Page 2 of 43 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, everyone. Today is October 13th, 2022. This is a Hearing Examiner meeting. We are going to start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. A couple of quick preliminary items, and then we'll get right into the main part of the agenda. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney in good standing. I've been practicing for over 22 years in the area of local government, land use, and zoning. I am not a county employee. I have been contracted by the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill the duties of the Hearing Examiner as outlined in the Code of Ordinances. And my job is to conduct these quasi-judicial hearings on the various types of petitions that are being brought before me through staff and conduct these hearings and then render a written decision within 30 days. I do not render decisions here today. The point of these hearings is for me to have the opportunity for the -- to listen to the applicant or the applicant's representatives, also listen to the county and their recommendation on the petition, and then also hear from the public. What I'm going to be listening for is evidence, competent substantial evidence usually from experts, but I can also get it from the public, laypersons who have fact testimony, and mostly applicable to the criteria for each particular item. So this is an informal proceeding. This is not -- I want to hear from everybody. I want to make sure everyone's relaxed when they come up. No need to be nervous here. We're all friends. We're going to try to get through this as expeditiously as possible. I may ask some questions, and sometimes they may sound like -- redundant, but the point of it is that I need to get it on the record, I need to get things on the record, because after this hearing there won't be any additional information. This is where I get all of my information. I have not had prior conversations with any of the applicants or staff. I haven't had any private meetings or done any private research on my own. If I had, I would have to disclose those here today so that you would know about them. I'm here to mostly be an impartial decision maker, again, taking the criteria and taking the evidence that I'm provided with today in the form of testimony and evidence and provide a written testimony [sic] within 30 days. The entire -- all the proceedings are going to be transcribed verbatim by our court reporter here. So, everyone, please try to speak clearly, announce your name and your address when you come up. Let's not talk over each other or else it's going to be very difficult to capture everything. Anyone who is going to speak here today has to be sworn in, and we'll do that in a minute. The way that we are going to conduct these hearings is the county is going to start it off with this podium in the middle and give me an overview of how -- what the -- what the petition is, how it was advertised, any of the notices and, more importantly, what their recommendation and any conditions that they are presenting. Then we'll go to the applicant or the applicant's representative over here in the larger podium. They'll do their case in chief and reserve a little time for rebuttal, and then October 13, 2022 Page 3 of 43 I'll open it up for public comment. The public will speak here in the podium here. We also have a hybrid meeting which means that this is live in person, but there's also some people that may want to log in remotely. And we'll go -- we'll go through that as well. So why don't we go ahead and swear everybody in. Anyone who's going to testify here today on any of the items, please stand and raise your right hand. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you for that. And then one final thing -- or two final things. One, if you have to have a conversation with somebody sitting next to you or whatnot, please step out in the hallway. It's a little hard to hear. Also, silent your cell phones so that we're not interrupted. I want to be able to hear and be respectful to anybody that's speaking. And then, finally, I want to -- hopefully everyone that is here -- I know this is difficult times. There are some items on here that are relating to boat docks, and, of course, that means that I suspect that many people were affected by the storm surge. I live in this county as well, and I know what it's like. And, of course, my -- you know, my heart and prayers are with you, and hopefully it's just property damage and not personal or health damage. So understand that I know what you-all are going through. I know it's difficult out there. There's a lot of debris, a lot of things happening, a lot of difficult times ahead. I personally have gone through a couple hurricanes here in Collier County and one in Dade County, and they're not fun but, believe it or not, people get through them, and we move on. So let's get started with the first item. ***This is 3A. Who's going to do this one? MR. BOSI: Sean. MR. SAMMON: Can you hear me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, sir. How are you? MR. SAMMON: Good. How are you? Good morning, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, principal planner in the Zoning Division. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. It's a boat dock extension, Project No. PL20220002460. This is a request for you to approve a new 648-square-foot boathouse, 18 feet by 36 feet, pursuant to Section 5.03.06.F of the Collier County Land Development Code to accommodate an existing approved boat dock permit with a total protrusion of 20 feet consisting of two boat slips pursuant to Section 5.05.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for the benefit of the subject property at 493 Willet Avenue, also described as Lot 19, Conner's Vanderbilt Estates, Unit 2, Block N, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, which happens to be located within a Residential Single-Family 3 zoning district. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within the LDC Section 5.05.06.E as a courtesy for an extensive review, of which five of the 11 criteria were met while the remaining six were not applicable for this project, since the boat dock does not extend past 20 feet, and then the primary criteria, 5.05.06.F, where all seven criteria were met and found to be consistent with the Land Development Code. October 13, 2022 Page 4 of 43 The principal structure is a one-story single-family residence. This boathouse is permitted as an accessory use and is to be constructed on and to accommodate an approved permitted Boat Dock Permit PRBD20220102956. During the time of review, the permit status was open, but it has since expired on October 1st, 2022. Communicating with the applicant, the applicant will file and apply for an extension to the boat dock permit. The boat dock has a total protrusion of 20 feet into a waterway 100 feet wide and consisting of two boat slips with two boat lifts that meet riparian setbacks. This dock was also reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for regulatory and federal review for a general permit referenced as File No. 0357825-003EG, Collier County. In the review criteria, Page 8 of the staff report, LDC Section 5.03.06.F.2, the proposed boathouse will have a roof overhang over the maximum protrusion by an estimate of 1 foot 3 inches, which is less than the maximum overhang of 3 feet beyond the maximum protrusion. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by the county on September 23rd, 2022, and the public hearing signs were placed by me on October 3rd, 2022, due to impacts of the recent hurricane. I received no public comments pertaining to this petition, and staff recommends that you approve this petition as described in accordance with the boathouse plans provided in Attachment A. Regarding the attachments, Attachment A represents the boathouse plans, Attachment B represents the Collier County dock permit, Attachment C represents the Florida DEP permit, Attachment D is the backup packet, and Attachment E is the legal ad and HEX sign posting. There are two conditions in association with the recommendation to approve. One, the corresponding permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit and, two, reflectors and house numbers of no less than four inches in height shall be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion. That concludes staff presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you very much. Nice job. The applicant or the applicant's representative here. Good morning, sir. MR. NELSON: Good morning. For the record, Ben Nelson with Nelson Marine Construction representing the applicant. Your staff has been incredibly thorough through this process all the way through the beginning to the end, and I can't say anything more about this than he just did. But if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: First of all, thank you, but they're not my staff. They work for this gentleman here. MR. NELSON: Well, you should hire them, then. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not allowed to poach county employees, unfortunately, but thank you anyway, yes. October 13, 2022 Page 5 of 43 Okay. So this looks like a pretty -- I'm looking at the site plan here. This is at the very terminus of the canal, correct? MR. NELSON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so it looks like they've got two sites, one for a boat and one for personal watercraft, or how are they -- MR. NELSON: Yeah. I think that that's fair enough. One is -- like, a lot of people in Florida, they have one for a large boat and one for a smaller boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. NELSON: And it is at the terminus or dead-end, sorry, of the canal there, that -- there's a road right-of-way right along there, or there's a main road there on that side of it right there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Vanderbilt Drive. MR. NELSON: Just in my opinion -- I've been in business 1980 -- wow -- since 1980 in this community and, boy, if you're going to put a boathouse someplace, this is a pretty good place to put one so far as visually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. It's pretty straightforward. I've read the staff report. I have all the materials here. If you don't have anything else you want to say, I'm going to go ahead and open it up for the public and see if anybody's here to speak. Do we have anyone here registered for this item? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have public comments for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No public comments for this item, okay. All right. MR. NELSON: I thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you for being here, and good luck out there, and I'll get a decision out as quick as I can. MR. NELSON: Thank you. And everybody stay safe out there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Please, yes. MR. NELSON: Don't touch electrical on the water, okay? Don't do it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Especially in the water. ***So we're going to go to 3B. This is Item 3B. Good morning. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. John Kelly, senior planner, for the record. This is going to be Item 3B. It's a continuance of the subject project initially heard on September 22nd, 2022, to review alternative designs that were discussed briefly at that meeting. The previously advertised request is before you to 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 feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1. The applicant's agent has made it known to me that in response to public comments, they now desire to proceed with Alternative Design Option 1 or 2, whichever is found to be most preferable. The location of this property is 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, Collier County, Florida. It's located within an RSF-3 zoning district. October 13, 2022 Page 6 of 43 With respect to public notice requirements, they were per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The original property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by the county on September 2, 2022. The first sign for the public hearing went up by me on September 6th, and I placed a new sign on October 3rd, 2022, the first date that we were open after the hurricane. This petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The only real difference between the originally submitted plan and the alternative plans is the protrusion between 32 and 45 feet from the property line. All other review criteria, essentially, remained the same. Therefore, the petition satisfies four of five of the primary criteria, five of six of the secondary, with the sixth being not applicable, and the project has been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. The total of 21 letters of objection had been received and comprise Attachments F and F1. There is a correction to the supplemental staff report that I submitted. Staff recommended a protrusion not to exceed 40 feet. Based upon the original plan, this value should be 45 feet. Staff inadvertently used the vessel size by mistake. Again, the maximum protrusion would be 45 feet. Staff recommends you approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plan provided within Attachment A or the most preferable alternative dock plan, Options 1 through 5, contained within Attachment H with a protrusion not to exceed 45 feet. That concludes my supplemental report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me just try to just recap a little bit on that. Thank you, John, very much. At the last hearing we had a proposal for a dock that had a boat that would be coming in perpendicular, basically, ingressing/egressing, or docking perpendicularly with the seawall, and there was quite a bit of public opposition. And, in large part, I would say, interference with view corridors and views. And then at the end of the hearing, the applicant's representative showed some illustrations of other alternatives for building the dock that would reduce the protrusion into the waterway, therefore reducing the view obstruction from folks that are in the -- on that canal, primarily the ones that are on the canal that would go out to their property and look down west and want to see the sunset. Because this particular waterway is very wide, it does meet -- just mathematically, it does meet a lot of the criteria, but there is criteria that has to do with how it impacts adjacent property owners. And I think if I -- I believe I'm summarizing that issue is coming down to how it impacts the neighboring properties primarily. And I think the applicant originally designed the dock for the easiest way to get in and out of the dock as far as navigating the vessel, but that caused the dock to be the most protrusion into the waterway. So now I guess we're going to look at some alternative plans. We decided to continue it because in the interest of fairness, I wanted staff to be able to review those alternative plans and also have the public an opportunity to speak today and see those plans, and I'd like to hear their viewpoint on it as well. So with that, I hope that was a pretty good -- pretty fair summary or memory from October 13, 2022 Page 7 of 43 last meeting. Jeff, do you want to go through what you've got? MR. ROGERS: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates here today representing the applicant, Doug McKibben, who lives at 260 Conners -- Conners Avenue, excuse me; got too many in my head. I do have a quick little PowerPoint that I threw together with all the options just so we could go through them. And as John went through, we do have five in total, different options. One being reflective of what we originally were proposing, just the mirrored image of that with the slip being now on the western property setback line, or close to it, with the protrusion being the same thing, which is 45 feet from the most restrictive point. So a boat dock extension request for 25 feet. Let's just skip forward, Andrew, a couple. Go to the fourth slide, if you would. That's the subject property. So that is what we originally proposed to you, just so everyone can see it. And remember what we were here discussing a week ago, or two weeks ago at this point. Basically, 45 feet from the property line. Again, the property line is a little bit landward of the seawall. The vessel is 40 feet LOA, length overall, into a waterway that -- go to the next slide, Andrew, please -- waterway approximately is you know, 268 feet, as you can see here. And as you stated, it is a wide waterway with views for everybody. And it was brought up that this dock would have a major impact to the adjacent properties to our east. So during my presentation and comments, we -- I wanted to show you alternatives that we were presenting. And the next slide would reflect what -- Option No. 1 being is just a flipped mirror image of it, basically putting the vessel on the western side, which is also closest to the property that the applicant does own as well. Moving it away from, you know, the property with the view closest to us on the east. The next slide I did just as a visual reference for you to kind of show the, you know, view of -- from where that table and seating area that was brought up on his dock that they like to go out and see the sunset at. So the boat does extend out furthest. We, you know, don't need to go through all this, but this is what would be and how it would impact them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And also here. MR. ROGERS: And also there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if you're looking west and you want to see the sunset and look out, you know, that's -- those are some of the comments. It wasn't just the -- you know, obviously, the adjacent -- I was -- have you had any conversations with the adjacent property owner since the last meeting? MR. ROGERS: I personally have not. The applicant has. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MR. ROGERS: And they -- you know, we're -- from my understanding, the applicant is on the Zoom today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So he is here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: His house -- both houses were flooded out, so they're not October 13, 2022 Page 8 of 43 habitable right now, so he's not in residence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sure the whole area is a mess right now. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, everybody. Not just him. Myself included in that. So, yes, we tried to reduce the major impact of view for everybody on this. This is Option No. 1. This -- why is this Option No. 1? Well, because it allows the vessel to ingress/egress the slip without crossing over shared riparian lines and keeping it subject right behind the property. So that was why this design was presented as Option No. 1 originally to you. It does protrude the furthest out into the waterway, but it does isolate it to the subject property. But major impact to view is a strong consideration, and we're open to that discussion today is why we also have other options on the table to see if we can all work together to come up with a design that makes everybody happy. So, again, this is Option No. 1. Option No. 2 is on the next slide, which I'd like to go through, which brings us back to a design that is consistent with what was originally proposed in the first boat dock extension request, which we did get a denial from. Some changes to this are we've minimized some of the decking on the landward side based on the denial criteria that was given to us. Just on the inside part, we've gotten rid of the triangle deck area to reduce that down to 10 feet. The overall protrusion is consistent with the original request of 31 feet, so a boat dock extension of 11 feet is what we would be requesting with this design. The reason this wasn't re-presented to you was because of the fact of the crossing over the riparian lines and ingress/egressing. It's consistent with the other neighbors in regards to the direction of their ingress/egress to their slips, especially the ones down the canal as you work your way east. If you go to the next slide, I've got a little bit zoomed out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Before you do that -- well, you can stay here on this one. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what happens down here? MR. ROGERS: That -- we like to have that there because of -- as it was brought up in the last hearing, there's low tide. There's tide restrictions, right. So that flat deck area/dock area most waterward allows us to tie up to the vessel -- or excuse me, the vessel to the dock in that area on a temporary basis. It was discussed on the last one that, you know, the previous -- the Option No. 1 design we could tie up temporarily in the setbacks and wait for the tide to come in and come out. This design eliminates that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it wouldn't be a permanent mooring out of there? MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not a permanent mooring out here -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for a secondary boat? MR. ROGERS: And it gets it out of the setback requirement. So there is an area that they could tie the boat up there, unload, you know, the vessel, and also provide recreational activities such as fishing for his grandkids, which was part of the conversation. Docks are for vessels, but they do provide other recreational activities for the waterfront October 13, 2022 Page 9 of 43 homeowners, being fishing, kayaking, things like that. So it provides access to do things like that at the most waterward distance out, slash, deepest area as well. So that is a multipurpose area of the structure. It is the furthest part out, and it isn't minimized in regards to the criteria, in regards to excessive decking. So we did reduce some of the decking area on the landward side, but that's withinside the 20-feet area. So, you know, it's -- I'm open to discussion, and another option on this is different. It's consistent with this, but it's -- maybe it's Option 3. I think if you go to Option 3 it will show you. So this is basically the same thing. We just minimized the deck area waterward of the 20-foot protrusion mark to not be excessive. This is not -- 1 and 2 are ideal choices. This would work. It would be a little bit harder for the applicant to tie his boat up on a temporary basis during a lower tide, but it is possible. It is doable. It does provide recreational activity access. It just minimizes the decking, but we've increased the decking area on the landward side of the 20-foot area, which is what we're -- the area we're allowed to build a dock in, so to speak, without the BDE request. This access, ingress/egress is consistent with Option 2 crossing over riparian lines, but it is consistent with -- if you go back a slide, please, again. It is consistent with what the neighbor directly to our east does in regards, so it wouldn't be interfering at all with their ingress/egress as well. So, basically, 1, 2, and 3 are our main options; 4 and 5 I have here because I did present them originally and want to have them as part of the record, which they are. We can look at those but, ultimately, you know, we want to come from the east like this, ingress/egress from the east and/or perpendicular to isolate impacts to, you know, the nonconforming dock immediately to our west. It does provide an ingress/egress navigational access limitation because it is right on the property line. He could rebuild that dock currently. He could demo that dock and then, you know, come into today's code, or he could sell the property one day, and that person could do either/or as well. So to avoid that, we feel coming from the east is best for many reasons, as well as coming, you know, directly perpendicular to the shoreline; it isolates it to the subject property. So if you want to look at Options 4 and 5, we can. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why don't you go ahead and do that? MR. ROGERS: There you go. So there's -- you know, Option 3 we discussed. Option 4, as you can see the -- right on the -- right on the corner -- I didn't bring my pointer with me today, but you can see the existing dock there, the boathouse, roof, the white structure right there on the property line. Is it possible? Yeah, it's possible to navigate in and out, but it does bring it a lot closer and potential navigational issues. So this is basically consistent with Option 3. It's just mirrored, so to speak. We do have a little bit more decking out there on the outer finger. We do have a 6-foot dock, but the overall protrusion is consistent with the 11-foot boat dock extension request, you know. So that is an option. Ideally 1, 2, and 3 are it, but this is on the record, and we'd be -- we're just open for approval on any of these at this point. October 13, 2022 Page 10 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Was there another? MR. ROGERS: Option 5, yes, is next, is not ideal, but I just wanted to show you we considered this, because it was brought up by the objection letters. Is it possible? Yes. It doesn't provide -- it doesn't provide area to do temporary tie-ups at low tides. You know, it's not ideal in regards to the overall dock design, and the protrusion, actually, is a little bit further out. It's 32 feet, so it would be a 12-foot boat dock extension. And the reason we do that is to try to get it -- the marginal dock pushed out as far to the limit to reduce impacts to navigation as much as possible. But in our opinion as a firm and my opinion as doing these as well as a licensed captain, coming in on an angle, slash, a perpendicular design is the safest bet to consider for navigational purposes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it fair to say that the larger the vessel, the more challenging the dock -- the dock design on a lot this size? MR. ROGERS: Oh, yeah. Yes, sir. 100 percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And also the navigating into and from the lift. MR. ROGERS: In regards to the setback requirements; however, the larger the vessels you get, the easier they are to maneuver, to be quite honest with you. It's the smaller vessels with the single engines, they're a lot harder to drive. They just are, because you don't have as many props in the water to turn, because two engines, you can do one in reverse and one forward, and you can spin a boat on a dime, realistically, because they're fighting each other. So navigational-wise, larger vessels tend to have bow thrusters which help you move the bow, and they also have the joy stick control now which is new technology for outboard motors which really lets you kind of move the boat parallel in and out. The joy stick, you know, control with this Option 5, unfortunately, there's piles on the outer parts of those lifts, so you can't -- you can't -- the only way to go around those piles is to come in either east or west on this, and it makes it more challenging in this case than Options 1, 2, 3, basically. So I'm here to answer questions. I'm here to, you know, go through this with all of us but, ultimately, these are all five options that are on the table that we've considered, and 1, 2, 3 being the strongestly supported by the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Did your client want to speak, or does he want to wait and -- MR. ROGERS: No. He's here if questions come up but, you know, he's not -- he's worked with his neighbor, direct neighbor to our east, and has talked with them, I believe, numerous times since the last hearing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Don't know what was resolved of that. I don't think anything, to be quite honest with you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- but he's here to answer any questions that might come up. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So at this point why don't we go ahead and open it up for public comment. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, I have six registered speakers with us in the room, and I have one online. October 13, 2022 Page 11 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Perfect. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Let's start with Robert Kisch, followed by Evelyn Kisch. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, thank you. How are you, Mr. Kisch? MR. KISCH: Good morning. Robert Kisch. I live at 274 Conners, just to the east of Doug at 260. Just a few days after the hurricane, Doug had called me. He said, Bob, I want to talk to you. He says -- he says, do you want 1 or do you want 2 plan? I says neither. I says, Doug what about Plan 4? He says, Bob, I've told you once, I've told you twice, it's Plan 1 or 2, he says, and if you don't take it, I can take 1. I says, who -- He says, I've been given, pretty much told, I have what I want. Basically that's what he told me. How -- why are we even having this meeting if he knows for sure he's going to get what he wants? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me stop you right there. I've never spoken to that gentleman. MR. KISCH: I didn't say you did. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand that. And staff doesn't write the final decision. They write the staff reports, and I've not spoken to the applicant -- I have not spoken to anyone here. So that's not true. That's the whole point of these public hearings is for me to understand and why we're doing this. So trust me when I tell you, nobody has anything in their pocket right now. MR. KISCH: Evidently somebody told him that, else he made that up. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He made it up. MR. KISCH: Like, he's threatened me. It's like he's threatened me. If you don't take this, I'll take this. That doesn't go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It doesn't go, and that's the whole point of these hearings. I'm here as a neutral person. I've not had any conversations with anyone outside of this forum. And that's the -- that's -- I'm telling you that as a licensed attorney, I wouldn't violate my oath on that. So go ahead, and that's -- ignore that. Tell me what you think about any of these. MR. KISCH: Okay. Can we pull up Page 203 again. MS. KISCH: 4, it's Option 4. MR. KISCH: Option 2. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Andrew, do you know what that option is? MR. KISCH: Page 203, Option 2. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: Okay. What I want to ask Jeff on this particular -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I don't -- what I'd like you to do is just, like, ask the questions, and he's going to write down all -- like, go through your presentation, let's just, like, raise all the issues and -- MR. KISCH: What I want to know on that, when we got the aerial of all these docks sticking out, it showed mine was out 24 feet. My dock is only out 20 feet from the October 13, 2022 Page 12 of 43 seawall, not 24. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: So my question is, where it shows seven feet, me looking into that boat, is it seven feet based on 24 feet or 20 feet from my dock? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We'll get to that. MR. KISCH: Because if it's 20 feet, that seven would be 11. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: So I don't know what that was based on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We'll get to the bottom of that. MS. KISCH: Maybe Jeff knows. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're saying -- basically you're saying your dock stops at 20 feet? Yours -- MR. KISCH: My dock is actually 20 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you never received a boat dock extension, so you've gone to the extent of what you're allowed as of right, which is 20 feet, and -- MR. KISCH: I measured my dock. It's 20. The aerial showed 24. So my question is, is that based on 24 feet with the seven foot, or is that seven foot should be 11 feet, four feet more? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We'll get to -- when public has spoken, I'll have Jeff come back up and answer all the questions. MR. KISCH: Okay. Let's go back to -- let's look at Option 4. Option 4, on Page 205, coming in from the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. KISCH: Now, when he says -- when Doug says, I don't want 4, what's the main reason he doesn't want 4? Let's think about it. He doesn't want 4 because it's going to inconvenience him, okay. It's going to inconvenience him. He owns the lot to the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm aware of that. MR. KISCH: And he kind of poopoo'ed that right away. You know what he told me? He said, I don't want 4 because it's going to inconvenience me. And he says, it's harder to get in -- now, this guy is a good captain. I've seen him coming in from the east many, many times, okay. And I says, why don't you want 4? He says, well, number one, he says, if I come in from the west, it's a little bit harder to get in. Number two, I don't want the dust and the dirt blowing up the back of my boat. That's pretty sad. That is a pretty sad statement from a neighbor worrying about a little dust blowing up the back of his boat. That's actual. If I had a recording of that, I'd bring it in here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, he's on the line. Maybe he'll speak when we're all done. MR. KISCH: If I look at that drawing, that -- that definitely could be changed even so it wouldn't be that far out. He's got -- he's got a 6-foot dock on this side. He's got four feet to the right where his boat could be tucked up further. The back end could be shifted closer to the dock. So this is what -- the man's looking for every convenience for himself and doesn't care about myself or the rest of the neighbors. October 13, 2022 Page 13 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for your time. Who do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker's going to be Evelyn Kisch, followed by A. Steven -- you want to help me out with that? MR. BUONOPANE: Buonopane. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Buonopane, thank you. Mrs. Kisch, you have five minutes. MS. KISCH: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi, Ms. Kisch. MS. KISCH: Well, I mainly -- Evelyn Kisch, 274 Conners. And I think Robert said it all. I know that we think of our neighbors to the east. They couldn't be here today because of all the stress that's going on, but when we got a call from Doug that Bob had to make up his mind two days after a hurricane -- we've lost our house, our two cars, a boat, our furniture, all our personal belongings. We have a lot left. We can take our little picnic table and sit on our dock. We have nothing else. At least we could see the sunset, but he's -- he doesn't care about a neighbor. And we're just asking for everybody to consider what's going on in the waterways. We've got tour excursion boats that go up and down and all this traffic, and with different docks sitting out at different -- it's a very big safety issue. That -- and when he's worried about the dust on his boat, it's kind of sad to us. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MS. KISCH: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. And I'm sorry. I know the conditions on these canal streets right now, and I know everyone's going through a hard time right now, so... MS. KISCH: And our dock, right now we have a dock, but we have another person's dock on our dock that we don't know whose it is. It's our obligation to pay for it, get rid of it. It's bigger than our dock. It's a crazy thing. But the hurricane has definitely taken a toll on -- we have no air conditioning or anything. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You haven't gotten your power back or anything like that? Nothing? MS. KISCH: No. We were to get it today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. KISCH: But this was more important to us than getting it on. But we're getting mold. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I respect that. MS. KISCH: But thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be A. Steven Buonopane, followed by Pat Rosmonowski. MR. BUONOPANE: Good morning. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, sir. MR. BUONOPANE: I'm Steve Buonopane. I live at 338 Emerald Bay Circle. It's off Vanderbilt Drive. The Kisches have been friends of mine for 30 years. I'm a full-time resident. October 13, 2022 Page 14 of 43 My expertise is I'm a former -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sorry. Where is Emerald Bay Circle at? MR. BUONOPANE: It's about a mile north of Conners. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BUONOPANE: Just north of Wiggins Pass. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. I know where it is, then, yep. MR. BUONOPANE: Okay. My expertise is I'm a former contractor and licensed superintendent for 25 years, and my expertise would be on sightlines. The Kisches, being great friends of ours, and us here full time -- most of our friends leave in May, and we're here all summer alone -- we sit on their dock, and we watch the sunsets. That will be gone to us. There will be no sunsets. We'll be looking right at a boat on a lift that's -- that's really going to be ugly. My other reasoning is I'm an avid fisherman, and I love to fish on their dock, and both my daughter and my granddaughter have caught their first fish on that dock. With the way the water is coming down the canals under the Bluebill bridge and turning into the big bay, that -- that extended dock is going to flow that water away from all the other properties down, and the fish are going to follow that water. They're not going to come by. You're not going to be able to fish there. So I mean, they're going to take a lot of enjoyment away from us. That's why I'm opposed to these two options. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Pat Rosmonowski, followed by Bill Gonnering. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: Hi. Good morning. Pat Rosmonowski, 324 Seabee Avenue. So I'm pretty much directly across from where the proposed dock is going in. One, I have -- I still have navigational issues being a full time -- or a resident here, full-time resident, of all of the boats that travel our community. Seventy percent of them are tour boats coming from Bay Water Rental. We are now adding Naples One. I think it was earlier said that there were 72 slips going in in addition there now. I think I called, and I think it might have been changed to some number, but I don't have that for a firm fact. So my concern is that these people travel up and down our neighborhoods, and they travel within 10 feet of your dock. My dock protrudes 20 feet out per the code today. They travel 10 feet off our docks. And as the (unintelligible) goes, another boat protruding, accidents can happen. So that's my point in one of the -- in the further extension of having it out 45 feet. That's one of my big concerns there, plus the obvious concern of the Kisches with the sightline. The fourth revision, for whatever reason I didn't saw -- hadn't seen this in the proposal, but I don't know why that wouldn't be a key opportunity for everyone to satisfy their needs. He'd have his boat protruding out whatever that was on the angle coming in from the east to make it satisfactory to everybody. One, if I -- Kevin? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you could direct your comments to me. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. October 13, 2022 Page 15 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's all right. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: The comment that was made regarding navigational purposes, the boat going in there is a 40-some-foot boat. It's going to have three engines on it minimum. As was mentioned, they all have joysticks today. Navigation out of the east coming in with the current or going away from the current for a captain of that kind of boat has to be able to handle it without any issues whatsoever. The boat that he's proposing he had told me will more than likely have the pulsion things on the side. There's another word for it that I -- it slipped my mind -- MR. KISCH: Ball thrusters. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: Ball thrusters. Navigating into that area. I have a pontoon with the same thing that's parallel to my dock, and single engine as you brought up. It's a bear to bring in in the wind. But with a boat that size, I've seen those boats back between two pylons with six inches on each side. So if there's an opportunity to resolve this issue, I would say that the gentleman trying to build, Doug, should consider coming in from the east, allowing my neighbor -- or our neighbors here to have a better opportunity with a site plan for all involved. I think that would be -- if there's a resolution to this without it going -- getting uglier and going further, maybe that's a possibility where this particular thing could go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: And I know why he's doing it, because that side of the wall has very -- has very poor depth to it. My side, we've got depth. If he wants to buy a new lot, the one right next to me is for sale, and I'll buy it first and sell it to him for an upcharge so -- that's just me. So all right. Thank you much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Bill Gonnering, followed by Michael Kravitz. Mr. Gonnering, you'll have five minutes, sir. MR. GONNERING: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, sir. MR. GONNERING: Hi. My name's Bill Gonnering. And I live at 375 Seabee Avenue, kind of across the street from 260 Conners, a little bit down the road a little bit. I know that everybody here's been through this so many times, it seems, in the last -- this is our third meeting. But my biggest concern is view of the sunsets, because if 260 Conners gets -- passes their application, then everybody else has an opportunity to pass an application, which means that the guy next to me will also put in a 45-foot dock, which also means I will lose the view of the sunset. And I -- not only lose the view -- you know, I'll lose the view of the sunset. Also, I thought as I listened to this thing today, it was kind of like, well, it would be hard for 260 Connors Avenue to park his boat there. Well, how about the other 55 people on the canal? I mean, if the guy next to me -- if he put a 45-foot dock on his, I'd have to put a 45-foot dock because I could not get my boat in. My neighbor has a 20-foot dock, you know, and I can just barely squeeze in for the 20-foot dock. So it's very important that the domino effect, be able to park your boat. And I don't know why 260 Conners can't park their boat perpendicular like October 13, 2022 Page 16 of 43 everybody else, you know, on the dock, or very similar to that. And so -- and I don't know why -- you know, why he has to have an extended dock. I think one of the options was -- I think it was Option 4 where the dock was out and the boat was put out farther. Make the dock smaller, put his boat closer to the seawall. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our last in-person speaker is going to be Michael Kravitz, and then we will go to online speaker, Mr. Doug McKibben. MR. KRAVITZ: My name is Michael Kravitz. I live at 395 Seabee Avenue. I had a 43 Oyster LD, and I chose not to apply for a permit out of respect to my neighbors on either side of me. Ultimately, we had to sell the boat because it would not properly fit in the lift, and we bought a three four five which complies straight up. We have a 20-foot dock. I would like to refer now to Option 3 and then Option 4 and then Option 5. I own a marina. My big boat's downtown at Naples Boat Club. There's no way I could get it in. She's 30 ton, and I've been offshore since I'm 19. I'm 66. When you look at this plan, a typical vessel of that type is broken down into two-thirds, one-third. Two-thirds of the weight is from the midship back because of the engines and the fuel. If you look at this plan as written, I don't believe the boat could be on the lift because the piling position would not support the weight adequately, but I'll let a professional speak to that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're referring to this part going back? MR. KRAVITZ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Basically it's thirds. MR. KRAVITZ: If you go from the midship back, you have two-thirds of the weight. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Two-thirds, right. So the bow is the lightest area? MR. KRAVITZ: That boat will fall off that lift, in my opinion. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KRAVITZ: Option 4, please. Same thing here. If you look at the proposed small piece sitting out, all the way out, you look at the last piling that he's driven, it would have to be all the way on that point. If you put it there, you could then properly support the vessel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right here. MR. KRAVITZ: Option 5, please. Okay. That, in my opinion, complies. He's in the water. His dock complies in size, length, and width. He'll have to put bottom paint on it and clean it. I have a diver every three weeks. It can be done, and I think that complies. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's the name of your marina? MR. KRAVITZ: I own -- it's in Venice. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, in Venice. MR. KRAVITZ: Yeah. If you know where the Crow's Nest is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. KRAVITZ: -- and you go down the road on the left, there's a real estate October 13, 2022 Page 17 of 43 office, and there's one nice-looking marina with all concrete docks. That's us. And I'm at the Naples Boat Club as well and also a member of Pelican Isle Yacht. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for being here. Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. We have one more speaker online, Doug McKibben. Give me just a second here. Mr. McKibben, you are being prompted to unmute your microphone. Are you with us, sir? MR. McKIBBEN: I am. Can you hear me? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir, loud and clear. You have five minutes. MR. McKIBBEN: Thank you. Okay. Well, as soon as I got the drawings, the Option 1 and 2 drawings from Jeff, I think the -- it was a day after the storm. I emailed them to Bob and said, please call me at your convenience, and let's discuss it. And it was just, I think, two days ago when he did call me. And I didn't tell him that it was approved. I told him that I never was wanting the direct vertical load, that it was presented to me by Jeff because Jeff said it didn't interfere with the property lines, and so it was more compliant to come in that way. And so that's why it was presented. I told Bob that what I wanted was the Option 2, which comes in from the east because it does not block his view. I tried to figure it -- I figured it was additional to blocking his view, like, I don't know, eight or nine degrees more. But I wanted that to come in from the east because the prevailing wind comes from the west -- the west/northwest, and the rain and the debris blows in. Of course, his has a cockpit on it, the same as the boat I've had there for 18 years has a cockpit in it, and it does not blow into the boat as it would if was coming from the west. So that's why I definitely wanted to come in from the east. And so I really -- I don't want vertical, and I don't want the one sticking out 45 feet, but that was presented by Jeff because he felt it complied more than this. So what I really would like is the Option 2, which has much less interference in Bob's view. Navigation-wise, I see no problem getting it in and out. And, basically, that's -- if there's any other questions, I'd be glad to respond to them, but that's, you know, my opinion and what I wanted in the beginning so it would be less obtrusive for Bob and/or anyone else's view. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: That concludes our speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Thank you. Jeff, there was a -- the neighbor -- Mr. Kisch had a question about the measurement. Could you answer that, please. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. As we always do when we -- as required per the criteria for BDE, we get surveys done, existing conditions, and part of those surveys is we have a surveyor locate the existing docks on a survey. So the 24-foot measurement that was brought up is on an exhibit of ours to show other docks on the same waterways approximate dimensions. And we have a note on that exhibit saying these are approximate taken from an aerial. They're not exact. So I did explain that to them. I did not correct that exhibit because it's not being discussed today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. October 13, 2022 Page 18 of 43 MR. ROGERS: So I'm not saying their dock's not 20 feet. I'm not saying it's 24 feet. It's an approximate measurement taken off an aerial. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: So that addresses that. I believe it's 20 feet. So with that being said, the 7-foot exhibit showing that -- and maybe, Andrew, if you could bring that up. I think it was Option 2, Sheet B, so to speak. Alls we do in CAD is take the straight line across and have the existing dock. You know, you can see the blue lines of the outline of the docks. That's the survey line work. So what we do is we get the surveyor's CAD file and we work off of that and so that we are working with apples to apples and not taking it off of an aerial, because an aerial view is -- there's a lot of factors that play into it; the angle of the picture, yada, yada, yada, things like that. There's nothing exact with an aerial. So that's why it's important to get the surveys done, which is why the county requires that. So the blue lines that you see outlining both adjacent docks are from survey line work, 100 percent. So alls we did in CAD was just draw it due west, and you can see that that measurement, yes, it's still approximate. I can't say it's exactly seven feet, but it's darn close to what the overall impact to the view would be beyond their furthest point -- waterward point of their existing dock out. So going through all this -- all this -- you know, all the feedback that we've just received, that addresses those. I, too, like this approach, personally. I did push the applicant to go with what was in front of you today with Option 1 and the previous one because of other docks that we've gotten approved in this area, but I know you don't provide a precedence in regards to that, and that was my mistake. But also based on the objection that we received of not crossing over riparian lines, that Option No. 1 isolates us to be within our allowable areas, meets the setbacks, doesn't cross over. So, yes, as a firm, I presented that to the applicant, pushed the applicant to that, but it did push the protrusion out even further. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: But that's -- the protrusion is one of the criteria, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The unique thing about the boat dock extension criteria, the primary and secondary criteria, some of it is strictly mathematical. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's focused more on safety and navigability and the size of the waterway. Some of it is based on safety for the actual applicant to be able to get on and off the vessel, and then some of it is based on the impact on the area. And so what happens is, you know, that you or others have come before me with large vessels like this, and it just so happens in that particular area a particular design wouldn't offend anybody. And so the different -- the different criteria may be highlighted for different reasons. You know, there have been some areas, I know, where there have been coves, and you actually have come in with no objection letters on both sides. And, you know, that's why these things are not precedent setting, because there are -- there is that primary and secondary criteria, and they all have to -- they all address different things. In this particular case where this particular house is and the lot is, the idea of view October 13, 2022 Page 19 of 43 corridor and access and everything is a highlighted criteria, in my opinion; whereas, you put this in a different place, and it may not offend anybody. So that's -- I think that's -- in one way, the benefit of having a criteria like this, because sometimes it works fine and sometimes it doesn't. And in this case I think -- I mean, I don't think I've had one where I've had so many neighbors be dissatisfied with that. And I'm not blaming you or criticizing you for bringing in that design of a perpendicular -- you know, because I understand your rationale for it. I think maybe you just perhaps misjudged the impact it might have on the folks that are in the neighborhood in this particular -- because like I said, in a different place, Isles of Capri, someplace else, I don't know, I don't know, I mean, it might be perfect. I don't know, but -- MR. ROGERS: And I agree with you on that, and that's why I wanted to get all these other options -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: -- on the table and on the record with you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. At some point he wants a bigger boat, and he wants to get a dock, and somewhere, somehow, it's -- you know, so, yes, you're providing me with other options. That's what we're looking at. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I wanted to ask you about two things. One, it was the lifts. Are you confident -- MR. ROGERS: It's pretty standard for us as an engineering firm when we design these -- and this is no different than any others. I totally agree with the gentleman that spoke about the weight distribution on these boats. Our typical design is to allow 6-foot overhang from the furthest boatlift piles back because of the weight that's there. So the bunks and the actual lifts, you know, distribute the weight, and I totally agree that 90 percent of the -- not 90 -- but 75 percent of the weight's in the midship back. And our standard for all docks that we design and engineer and stamp, sign, and seal, we have a 6-foot overhang from the furthest piling back to the stern of the vessel, and this is no different on this drawing. These aren't construction drawings -- engineer construction drawings that we've signed and sealed for a contractor to get a local building permit for, but they will be, and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: Potentially will be based on whatever dock design, if we are granted an approval on, will reflect exactly what's here. And that's what's required. So in regards to that, it is -- it's just a visualization right now. There's no dimensions showing that this -- but your -- the county's approval for any protrusion for this application or others, we have to match that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: And the vessel has to be within that allowed protrusion -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: -- mark as well. So we have to lay it out with that -- with that engineered thought into it. So what you see in front of you is basically what it's going to be. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So in other words, I mean, what I'm doing here today is I'm not looking at where the pilings -- October 13, 2022 Page 20 of 43 MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- are going to be placed, but when you come in, you cannot be further than what you're approved for. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's -- that's the bottom line. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so they have to make whatever adjustments they can. They can't protrude further than what an approval might be for. MR. ROGERS: Right. And a couple things that I want to touch on maybe -- navigation was brought up. This waterway is open for navigation. There is no true marked channel so, technically, there are higher and lower spots, of course; that's on any subject waterway. You know, whether this side's shallower than -- I can't speak to that. I got depths for this particular property, so -- and there is no marked channel in this part of Vanderbilt Lagoon until you get up to Water Turkey Bay. So with that being said, the whole canals from docks to seawalls is open for navigation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you want to speak at all to the -- your client mentioned prevailing winds and debris and things like that? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, I -- it looked like -- MR. ROGERS: That was definitely -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Year-round there's not always -- the wind doesn't always -- I mean, I know that for a fact, it doesn't always come out of the northwest. MR. ROGERS: Right. So that was always a point for Doug to me, always was, from the get-go. He -- and I said, Doug, that's fine. You're -- what you have currently is consistent with coming in from the east, you know. It doesn't change anything other than your overall protrusion's a little bit further out now, by 11 feet. So, you know, I've had a conversation with him. You know, I totally agree that time of year that he is here we do get more of a northwest wind -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's correct. MR. ROGERS: -- occasionally that is 20 knots or more when a cold front blows through. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's seasonal. When he's here during season -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- I get it, because I know this -- I know this area. I know the winds and the -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you know, what's happening in the summer is different than what's happening in the fall. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you've got to be from Florida to understand the very subtle changes that happen. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not like all of a sudden the leaves October 13, 2022 Page 21 of 43 change and drop, and you know it's fall. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Other things -- you know, I do want to stress, you know, I push an Option 2 if we're not looking at Option 1, the mirrored option, because it does reduce the protrusion. I think Option 2, in my opinion, would be the strongest case. It's consistent with what's there today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: It does reduce the protrusion by one foot less than coming in from the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: The view impact coming in, you're looking over the stern of the boat, which is technically the lower portion of the gunnels. I've discussed this in the last hearing -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: -- where the bow would be closer to 270 Conners. So -- and the dock being over there, yes, that's his own created problem for owning those properties, but he could sell that and, you know -- so it's consistent with what's there. You know, it's -- I don't think any design's going to make everybody happy, but we're here and open to any of these five. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So -- and we do know that these vessels now are easier to navigate, so thank you for putting that on the record that, you know, it's -- MR. ROGERS: Number 5, it does have a boatlift included on it. That -- I do -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Okay. It's not an in-water slip. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I understand. MR. ROGERS: So No. 5 does have a lift on it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The one that's parallel with the -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, right. MR. ROGERS: The blue lines on the exhibit show the outline of the boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand that. MR. ROGERS: That's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So in a unique situation, I have a couple options to look at. I appreciate everyone's patience. I do appreciate the neighbors for coming out, especially under the circumstances, and I will take everything into consideration. There's a lot of information to go through and to evaluate, and I do think everyone did a -- MR. KISCH: I have a question for Jeff. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We've closed the -- all right. I'm going to do this one time, because this is something I want to hear. I want to hear from Mr. -- the neighbor, Mr. Kisch? Kersch? MR. KISCH: Bob Kisch. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Come up on, Mr. Kisch. You wanted to say one last thing. I'm going to just have you do that. To me. To me. October 13, 2022 Page 22 of 43 MR. KISCH: Jeff, what I want to know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, you have to address it to me, please. MR. KISCH: I want to know what I asked to start with. On Option 2 where it shows seven feet, is that seven feet, or is that actually 11 feet I'm looking into. Was that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KISCH: Was that measurement based on 20 feet, like it actually is, or was it based on the aerial, which was 24 feet where you come up with the seven feet here. Should that be seven feet or 11 feet? That's the question. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you would have a seat. He'll answer the question again, but I think he answered the question before that he's operating under the assumption that your dock goes out 20 feet. Right? MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And, again, what I said before, it's based off the survey. We just drag the line over. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: In CAD it's seven feet, you know, but it is an aerial and a line work. It could very well be 11. So I don't want it to be -- you know, it's -- we have the note on there that these dimensions are approximate in nature. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it could be 11. It could be seven. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I mean, it's 11 -- worst-case scenario, we have an extra foot and a half of protrusion request because of where the location of the property line is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, I understand. MR. ROGERS: So that 11 is not a true 11 -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The location of your property line is on the -- in the landward side of the cap. MR. ROGERS: Landward side of the seawall cap, which is the most restrictive point, which -- it's not 11 feet from the face of the seawall out. Just so Bob understands, you know, there is an approximate 18 inches that is landward with this overall protrusion request. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I understand your point, and I understand -- MR. KISCH: Four feet more to make 11 feet; that's four more feet I'm looking into the damn boat. So you should know that, what you based it on, because I told Doug to have you base that on 20 feet, not that aerial with 24 feet. That's a big, big amount of footage. MR. ROGERS: I would like to say that it is based off a certified survey. The line work was just extended. So that seven foot is -- I would stand that that seven foot is accurate. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Sir, trust me, I understand your point, and I understand what it goes to. I get that. I understand that. MR. KISCH: That's a big point. He's got to come up with that. I want to know if that's seven or 11. MR. ROGERS: I stand behind the seven feet. October 13, 2022 Page 23 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand your point. All right. So we've heard from the public. Thank you all. We're not going to take any more testimony. I've heard from everyone. I've heard everything that I need to hear. I've heard -- was there anybody else signed up to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No more registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anything else from the county that you'd like to say? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I have a lot of information here. I completely understand the points of view that I've received from the neighbors, from the property owner, from the expert from the Turrell Roberts [sic] & Associates and others, the county. I have all the information. I'll render a decision within 30 days. So thank you all for being here. Best of luck to you all with your recovery efforts. I know it's exhausting. Hang in there. MS. KISCH: Ours is a major issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I've been down those streets. I've seen them. I know what they look like. MS. KISCH: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's give it a little time. Let's everybody -- okay. ***Ready to go on to 3C? MR. KELLY: Okay, again, good morning. John Kelly, senior planner, for the record. This is Agenda Item 3C, Petition PL20220001686. It's a request for the Hearing Examiner to approve a 3.2-foot variance from the 10-foot accessory structure rear yard setback required by Section 4.02.03.D of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow an attached swimming pool screen enclosure to be constructed 6.8 feet from the northern property line of an existing single-family residence for the benefit of the subject property. The new pool enclosure replaces and is to be in the same footprint as one destroyed by Hurricane Irma that was constructed in accord with Building Permit No. 910004415, for which plans had shown a 15-foot rear yard setback. Neither staff nor the current property owner can explain the discrepancy. The subject property comprises a 0.28-acre lot located at 1411 North Alhambra Circle also described as a portion of Lot 9, Block 6, first addition to Naples Twin Lakes, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. It's located within a Residential Multifamily 6, RMF-6, zoning district. Public notice requirements were per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The agent letter was sent by the applicant on August 30th, 2022. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad for this meeting were taken care of by the county on September 23rd, 2022, and a public hearing sign was placed by me on October 3rd, again, the first date open post Hurricane Ian. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03 A through H and was found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Code and the Land Development Code. October 13, 2022 Page 24 of 43 No public correspondence or telephone calls have been received in response to this petition. It's staff's recommendation that you approve this petition to, as previously described, reduce the required rear yard setback for an accessory one-family screen pool enclosure from 10 feet to 6.8 feet to allow for the like replacement of that destroyed by Hurricane Irma with the condition that the petitioner must satisfy permitting requirements for the issuance of Building Permit Application No. PRBD2017114685, and obtain a certificate of completion once the enclosure is built. That concludes staff's presentation. And the property owner is the applicant. He's here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, John. Can the applicant/property owner come on up. You get the big one. MR. KENNETH KELLY: Okay, cool. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Pool enclosure. MR. KENNETH KELLY: For the record, my name is Kenneth G. Kelly, Jr., property owner at 1411 North Alhambra Circle. For the record, I'm glad I do not own a boat or a boat slip. We're good there. I've been looking for a 3.2 variance on the back corner of my property, the north property. I purchased this home May 2012. When Irma took it down, I just called somebody to get the pool [sic] put back up and come -- I don't know that it was known to be then that I'm encroaching on the property line, which was done by an attorney at the closing. He missed it, the whole big story going down. So at the time I didn't have the money to do it, to be quite frank with you, so I had to postpone everything. And then after everything's said and done with medical issues beyond belief, I finally come to a point where I need the screen enclosure just because of the fact of the outside infection, the mice, the snakes, the rodents, the pool itself getting the debris. I'm a transplant guy. I'm on a liver transplant list here, so I've got some major immune issues. And that screen enclosure open with the dust from Goodlette coming in just beating me up, the debris getting in, from a health standpoint with a hernia the size of a basketball right here, to be able to get that in and out and clean it every day, is aggravating. I've done everything that you guys asked me to do. You mailed my letters out. I've talked to -- a couple of neighbors called I didn't know I had. Nice neighbors. It was kind of cool to meet them. I got one letter returned that was no longer there. I really don't know what else to say. I just need 3.2 feet to put the screen enclosure back where it sat for 23 years before it was blown down. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand -- I see your lot is at the corner, which makes your front yard very narrow and your backyard very long, you have a very unique lot which, obviously, if you had a standard lot, you probably wouldn't have had the same issues that you had. MR. KENNETH KELLY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this has happened before. It will continue to happen from time to time. So this is a pretty straightforward application. I understand everything that's being requested, and I will take it all under advisement. Do we have anybody at all to speak here other than -- I don't think anybody else -- October 13, 2022 Page 25 of 43 MS. PERDICHIZZI: No, we do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I didn't think so. MR. KENNETH KELLY: Wow, I was worried there for a minute. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Whatever you do, don't buy waterfront property. MR. KENNETH KELLY: Yeah, no doubt. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I have enough information. I'll make a decision within 30 days. Thank you. MR. KENNETH KELLY: All right. Thank you very much. I'd like to put a shout-out to Mr. Kelly here. He helped me drastically. All the guidance of staff, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: These are his bosses, so -- MR. KENNETH KELLY: I do appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. ***Okay. We're moving into the next item. This is Item 3D. MR. KELLY: All right. Again, John Kelly, senior planner, for the record. This is Boat Dock Extension PL20220001686. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 2-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow for the widening of the internal portion of an existing U-shaped boat docking facility and to add a 5-foot-by-12-foot floating dock, both of which protrude a total of 22 feet into a waterway that is 122-plus-or-minus feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1. The applicant only learned of the excess protrusion upon applying for a building permit which was No. PRBD20210626117, which was summarily rejected because of said excess protrusion. The existing dock was constructed in accord with a building -- with two building permits, actually. It's unification of each. Those being 2001080650 and PRBD20130100857. The staff is unable to fully explain the protrusion discrepancy. Sometimes it's how the -- how the protrusion was measured. It's changed over time. Approval of this petition will remedy the existing protrusion issue. The subject property is located at 415 Seabee Avenue, also known as Lot 19, Block Q, Conner's Vanderbilt Estates. I'm sorry. This is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We're talking about D. MR. KELLY: Yep, sorry. The subject property is located -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gordon River Lane. MR. KELLY: -- at 1521 Gordon River Lane. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. KELLY: And further described as Lot 19, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter was sent by the county as well as the newspaper ad run by the county on September 23rd, 2022, and a public hearing sign was planted by me on the property on October 3rd, 2022, the first available date post Hurricane Ian. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five, of the secondary criteria it satisfies four of six with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan, and it has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and October 13, 2022 Page 26 of 43 the Land Development Code. No public comment has been received in response to this petition. It's staff's recommendation that you approve this petition as described in accordance with the plans provided within Attachments A and B with the condition that the petitioner must reactivate Permit No. PRBD20210626117 and obtaining certificate of completion, the structure having been built. That concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, so this is an after-the-fact request or not? MR. KELLY: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. MR. KELLY: I guess it can sort of be both. They're making an improvement. The setback issue was discovered at the time of permitting for that; however, the permit was rejected. They are adding a floating dock, so that would be new. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. MR. KELLY: It's both. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And is this directly across -- is this across from the Greenway; is that where this is located? MR. KELLY: Yes, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Hi, Jeff. Thank you, John. MR. ROGERS: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates. I just want to get it on record every time. I do have a quick little PowerPoint. The subject property, as John described, is at 1521 Gordon River Lane, which moving forward the aerial's not accurate there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait, wait. MR. ROGERS: This is -- this is working your way up the Gordon River towards Golden Gate Parkway, basically, up towards the Bear's Paw and River Reach area, right -- just right north of us, currently. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What community is this in? This is not Bear's Paw? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. No, it's not Bear's Paw. I believe it's called, like -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do they have the same riprap issue? MR. ROGERS: They do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Like, the easement issue? MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir. They have a natural shoreline, riprap shoreline. And across from them is the Greenway/Conservancy land which is undeveloped and will remain undeveloped as it currently sits. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And across from that is the Conservancy. MR. ROGERS: Part the Conservancy land. Mostly Greenway is directly across from this subject property, but the whole shoreline of this development goes along both the Greenway and the Conservancy lands. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, gotcha. MR. ROGERS: So this is, technically, the headwaters of the Gordon River and just north of River Reach boat ramp and everything, and the community just to our south. So just to give you a little history here, on the screen is the existing dock, and it was there, and it was within 20 feet as built per the original survey. There was a survey October 13, 2022 Page 27 of 43 discrepancy. I was brought into this by the contractor. When they went to get their CO for the modifications that John described basically making that subject slip a little bit wider for the applicant's new boat -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: -- and adding the floating dock in the picture to your right, the survey reflected 22 feet and not 20 feet, but they didn't move the dock ever. So there was a discrepancy on the surveyor's side, which we've tried to figure out with the surveyor. There's no real explanation to it. So, basically, we could not -- the contractor could not get their CO due to the two-foot protrusion from the allowed 20 feet. So we're here today, basically, asking for a 2-foot extension from the allowed 20 feet for an overall 22-foot into the subject waterway that is greater than 100 feet wide. Moving forward, I'll just give you some quick -- they have riprap as you can see here in the picture. So the dock is mostly -- the landward side of the dock is built mostly over the riprap, so the intrusion has been reduced to the fullest extent possible and be within water depths that are, you know, sufficient for the lift to work. Moving forward, if you would, there's a survey that we got. Everything's within compliance of the setback requirements, and Court Gregory was the surveyor of record from the original dock. He's the surveyor, licensed surveyor that did it. And it's a 2-foot discrepancy that came up. This point is -- the property line is the most restrictive point for the protrusion, so that's where we're taking it from. I mean, if it was a mean high-water line thing, I mean, mean high-water lines change. So I can't tell you what happened, historically, here, but we're here today to clean it up. And we did everything by the books. So moving forward to the next slide, that's the existing dock. That's the protrusion of 22 feet. You can see it on the top part, the north part of the dock, 22 feet from the property line. The mean high-water line is the blue dashed line. So, technically, we are only 18 feet out from the mean high-water line. The riprap is also shown as that blue rock-like hatch. And as you can see, the boatlift is right at the toe of that riprap. So our protrusion has been reduced. The dock's there currently, and we're just cleaning it up. 15 feet setback on the north from the riparian line and 21 to the south side as well. Moving forward, if you would, there's a cross-section view. Let's keep going forward. I want to show you the -- so here's a whole shoreline. Here's the bird's eye view of the whole area and the development as well as the land across from us and all the other existing docks along this property line. I do want to point out in the bottom right-hand corner of this exhibit there is a note. The dimensions shown are approximate and are taken from an aerial image. So that just shows you that these are not 100 percent accurate, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Jeff, you tell me that every time. I realize it. And I think you need -- MR. ROGERS: I wanted to make it clear. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I want you to put it on the record because it's understood that when you're showing this, this is an illustrative -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- to give them a sense of the context of the area. MR. ROGERS: Correct. October 13, 2022 Page 28 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep, I got it. MR. ROGERS: And this is not a marked channel. So I don't want to go through all the criteria, because we now meet it, but, you know, excessive decking has been minimized. Impacts to navigation. We're consistent with everybody else on subject waterway, which this kind of shows. We are actually less than a few others. There are water-depth issues with the riprap, but the dock has been brought in landward as much as possible and still be functional to provide safe ingress/egressing. The impacts to view in this case, I don't believe John has received any letters of objection because the dock is consistent and he is -- this community's very neighborly. The docks are technically on top of each other a little bit. So it's consistent, and it's a known -- docks are part of this community, so it's a known thing here. So no view impacts or major impacts. We're in 25 percent width of the waterway. Water depths, I touched on. Safe access to the vessel, yes. That's a U-shaped dock, so he's got safe access as well, and there is no seagrasses. Manatee Protection Plan is not subject to this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Anybody signed up to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. John, do you have anything else? MR. KELLY: No, sir, thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Nothing else? Thank you. I have enough information to decide on this one. Thank you for being here. And we'll move on to the next item. And look who it is. MR. KELLY: It seems like Groundhog Day. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one is. MR. KELLY: Okay. This is Agenda Item 3D, Boat Dock Extension PL20220001686. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner -- ah, Geez. Hang on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's Thursday and it's October. MR. KELLY: I grabbed the wrong one. I have too many going. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take your time. MR. KELLY: ***Okay. Sorry. This is Agenda Item 3E, Boat Dock Extension PL20210002320. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 12-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow an L-shaped boat docking facility protruding a total of 32 feet into a waterway that is 213-plus-or-minus feet wide pursuant to LDC 5.03.06.E.1. The subject property is located at 415 Seabee Avenue, also known as Lot 19, Block Q, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit No. 32, in Section 29 Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This is within a Residential Single-Family 3, RMF-3, zoning district. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. Both the property owner notification letter and the newspaper ad were taken care of by the county on September 23rd, 2022, and a public hearing sign was placed by me on the property on October 13, 2022 Page 29 of 43 October 3rd, 2022, the first date available after Hurricane Ian. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies four of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan, and it has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. A total of three letters of objection have been received; one from the adjoining property to the west and two from the adjoining property to the east. All three letters were received after the meeting's materials had been published and, therefore, staff is entering Attachment D, public correspondence, into the record at this time. You should have a copy in front of you. A copy's been provided to the court reporter. Okay. And with that, it's staff's recommendation that you approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plan provided within Attachment A, and that concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, John. Appreciate it. Okay. Hi. MR. PEARSON: For the record, my name's Nick Pearson. I am a project manager with Turrell, Hall & Associates. For the record, here's my experience. I've been with Turrell for almost six years now, so I've worked on hundreds on projects, and there's a snippet of my resumé as well in case you're wondering about my experience. Next slide, please. This is the project location. So you can see it's on the north side of Seabee Avenue in one of those larger canals, near by one of the other petitions we spoke about earlier. So same sort of waterway, actually. Next slide, please. I just wanted to go over this real quickly. So on the left is actually an aerial from the 1940s. It kind of shows that this is a manmade waterway that we're working within. So dredged entirely from uplands. Next slide, please. And here's a survey of the property. It's an 80-by-120-foot rectangular sized lot. The house and the dock in this survey have since been demoed, and a new house is currently under construction at the moment. It's pretty much just a concrete, you know, shell. Next slide, please. So on the -- that left aerial, that's from the county Property Appraiser. That's a 2022 aerial. You can see kind of the startings of the house. It's gotten a lot of -- you know, it's gone along a little further than that now, but you can get an idea of basically where the house sits on the lot. It really adheres to the same setbacks as both houses on the left and right. The aerial on the right is from our petition. The survey we used was a little older, so the newer images hadn't been made available to us yet. Next slide, please. So I just wanted to provide some site photos as well. I know these are usually encouraged. So the top photo is the one basically looking straight across the canal. On the left would be the west neighbor. On the right would be -- would be the east neighbor. October 13, 2022 Page 30 of 43 So you can kind of get an idea of what the docks are like on either side. To the right there's a dock with basically a jet ski lift facing -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is facing east? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this is facing west, right? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Facing north. MR. PEARSON: Yes -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. PEARSON: -- that's correct. So you can see basically a jet ski lift on the right photo. And then to the left there's sort of like an L-shaped dock with -- there's no lift currently present in that main slip. Next slide, please. So these are the houses on either side as well. Obviously, views have been a big point of contention in this area. So I think it's important to evaluate, you know, the houses on either side. Again, the picture on the right is facing to the east. The picture on the left facing to the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. So this was the proposed dock under our plan. As you can see, it's a floating dock. The bulk of -- well, I should say the entire dock protrudes to approximately 20 feet, and that's what that dashed pinkish/purple line is is that's the 20-foot contour, which would be the standard protrusion limit that the county's code allows. So, really, the only thing that would be extending beyond that here is the actual lift for that 36-foot vessel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Tell me the vessels. What brand and size are they? MR. PEARSON: I don't know the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Model. MR. PEARSON: -- actual make. I'm working through the builder on this project, so I don't have an exact line of communication with the owner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. These docks are all driven -- these requests are driven because somebody has a vessel -- MR. PEARSON: They do own them. I can confirm that those are the correct dimensions. I just don't know the exact make and model. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The reason is we're not here to grant variances just to enhance property. We're here because -- MR. PEARSON: I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- somebody has a vessel, and they need to -- they are asking for an accommodation. MR. PEARSON: Both of these vessels are owned. I can confirm that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: And I can -- as I said, I can confirm the lengths here are correct, as are the beam widths. So the other thing I wanted to touch on, square footage. The square footage proposed here is pretty much in line with every other dock in this area of our county, 505 October 13, 2022 Page 31 of 43 square feet. It really follows the typical design of the area as well. Many of the docks in Vanderbilt Lagoon are built with sort of a U shape where docks are -- the boats are meant to moor in a shore-parallel configuration. So while we have -- we have tried to adhere to that in this configuration, I'm going to take a page out of Jeff's book. And we are open to critiques to this design. We want to, you know, work with you guys on what's going to work the best. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I understand that -- okay. So single-family homes are allowed two vessels, right? Two slips, basically. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one -- I mean, I think this is one of the first times I've seen someone where they're coming forward with a 36-foot vessel and a 31-foot vessel. Usually there's a combination of we've got a large vessel and then a smaller vessel. And these are, like, two large vessels that are -- that's why I'm asking the questions because, I mean, these are accommodations. These are not -- these are not as of right, you know, where you get these types of docks. You're allowed 20 feet, two vessels for a reason, because, you know, the codes are adopted taking into consideration how it would impact the entire district in the area, but that's why I was asking about those docks -- those boats. MR. PEARSON: If I could address that. The owners here own multiple vessels. I think they have -- I believe they have at least three. There was an earlier drawing where they wanted to put a larger vessel out here, and we basically couldn't come up with a solution where we could fit the largest vessel. So my understanding is that they're mooring it at a yacht club downtown. So in lieu of that larger vessel, they want to store another of their vessels here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. Again, just a cross-section of the vessels proposed. The drafts, the beam widths. So we have 36 total for the larger and 31 foot total on the smaller. So draft for that, 24 and 30 inches respectively, and then 9-foot and 11-foot beam widths. Next slide, please. Again, just want to show the waterway width here. We've got 213 feet on the smaller end of things that would leave approximately 163 feet between the boats on our side and the opposite end of the canal, which -- you know, this is one of the larger canals in the county. Even -- even -- you know, if compared to some of the canals north and south of here, even if you were to take some of the docks away from those other canals, you'd still have less room than the width between this dock and the opposite waterway shoreline. Next slide, please. So, obviously, ingress/egress is going to be an important factor to consider here. So I just wanted to provide these exhibits to kind of showcase how ingress and egress might work from the neighbors' perspectives. The top picture, you know, there's just a couple of jet skis on our side of the neighboring dock, so I don't really believe we'd be blocking them at all. And then on the lower exhibit, I think it's really important that we pay attention to the fact that the dock itself is entirely within its protrusion limit. If we took that lift away on the north side of it, you don't really change the angle of ingress/egress. And this is typical of every dock -- almost every dock in Vanderbilt Lagoon. So to me this doesn't really deviate October 13, 2022 Page 32 of 43 much from the normal angle of ingress that you could expect at other docks in this area. Next slide, please. Obviously, I don't want to harp on precedence, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that there have been multiple other BDEs, variances, essentially deviations from the code in this area. Each one of those little, you know, red letterings indicates one of the deviations. So there have been other sorts of variances applied for in the past and granted. Next slide. Again, I'm not going to harp on all the criteria, but in red are the ones that were not satisfied. So you can see in the primary we only missed one, and the secondary there was one that was not met, and then there was one that's not applicable, that being the length of vessel for shoreline and then the Manatee Protection Plan. Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Before you go forward, this kind of highlights my point right here. MR. PEARSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is basically you take the vessels and you put them together and you calculate them. And it tells us you -- it gives you a mathematical ratio of what the size of the lot waterfront is versus the intensity -- I'm going to call it intensity of boat or vessels that will be behind there. So this is a nice snapshot of, like, how the different criteria work. So, for example, you know, water depths, really, I think, have to do with, you know, is there a hardship to the property, you know, because of water depth. The slips, yes, this is, like, sort of a check the box; you're not allowed more than two. This one, navigation, this is a -- this one is, to me, a little bit of an oddity because, you know, a marked channel or navigation, there's a lot of places that are not marked and so forth. But this one is a mathematical formula. It's strictly mathematical. So by virtue of the fact that -- I mean, if this were one of the other canals, completely different story, right? MR. PEARSON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this one has to do with, you know, respecting the neighbors, and this one has to do, again, with, like -- more of, like, your typical variance question is, is there something unique to the property that's causing this. Excessive decking. I think the excessive decking has to do with, you know, are you overbuilding, again, an intensification behind the intensification. This has to do with respecting the area. This is an environmental issue. This is an environmental issue. So as you can see, the way that the code has been set up, it's to look at -- look at the docks -- these types of dock variances from different perspectives. But I did want to highlight this one. This one -- this one only because, again, you know, it sticks out quite a bit because of the size of these two vessels. MR. PEARSON: Yeah, I understand. And, again, 80 feet of shoreline at this property. So as soon as you hit 41 feet, you miss that criteria, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I understand, which is why that map of all the boat dock extensions are -- you know, maybe next year it will be a totally -- I don't know. I mean, it's -- I don't know what's driving this. I don't know if it's just there's a lack of marina space or if there's a lack of dry storage. MR. PEARSON: If I could speculate. I think this area, particularly, is tough October 13, 2022 Page 33 of 43 because -- and this sort of relates to the first secondary criteria up there is that you have a very linear area of canals and streets and houses, and the vast majority of the docks are built in this U-shaped pattern where mooring is in a shore-parallel configuration where you have to back up into your neighbor's property to, you know, essentially get out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARSON: And if you want a longer boat than the side setbacks, it becomes difficult. So from a functional standpoint, you know, an angled slip is definitely better. The problem you run into is just that the county code just didn't allow it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. Have you been down there since the hurricane? MR. PEARSON: Yes, I was there just a couple days ago to take photos. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, right. So all these people are looking for their boats? MR. PEARSON: Some of them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You realize that. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: I have a jet ski under my dock. MR. PEARSON: I've seen it. I know what it looks like. And, actually, the photos I took were up there of the site were only from a few days ago. So, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. What else you got? That's it. MR. PEARSON: Next slide. I think that might have been -- okay. So, yeah, that was it for my presentation. I did have some materials with alternative designs. I'm not going to show it unless you want me to, though. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not really. MR. PEARSON: I understand. Again, though, I just want everyone to be as happy as possible. I understand maybe not everyone's going to be, but, you know, that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So let's hear from the public and -- how many people do we have signed up? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, we have five with us here in the room, and then we have one online. Our first speaker is going to be Patrick White, followed by Greg Dunn. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How are you? MR. WHITE: A pleasure to meet you and to appear here in this room. My name's Patrick White. I'm an attorney at law. My history with the county is probably one that many folks in this room would cringe at having to hear again, but since it's our first opportunity to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can't wait to hear it. MR. WHITE: -- have a conversation, let me start by telling you that prior to being retired, which I'm doing my best to do, I was board certified city/county/local government law. I was the first attorney hired by Collier County and operated out of this building as their land-use lawyer. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. October 13, 2022 Page 34 of 43 MR. WHITE: I was also an assistant county attorney in land use in Lee for many years prior to that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: At the present, I'm the attorney for both Naples and the county for Code Enforcement Board. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And I have served many years as a consumer rep for the City of Naples on the Contractor Licensing Board. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And I only offer those points simply so that you can understand the scope of my prior experience in bringing forward what I consider to be the bases upon which we believe that the applicant does not meet the primary and secondary criteria, as I will further state. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And who do you represent? MR. WHITE: I'm here today -- this is the second point. Well, first let me assure you that although I may not appear on your list as a registered lobbyist, I did yesterday. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I trust you. If you're an attorney, you're obligated to tell the truth. MR. WHITE: Absolutely, sir. I'm here today representing the property owners to both the east and to the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. WHITE: And my intention here today is to do that in kind of a hybrid way. The property owner to the west is Linda DeSoto. I was retained by her last Wednesday. And I also represent the Dunns, the property owners to the east, adjacent property owners on both sides. I was retained by them last Thursday. And I think those are salient points for why it is that I'm going to ask first for a continuance based on what I believe are procedural due process grounds primarily because not only was I only retained a week ago, but I was literally in the midst of bringing my family back south from the summer Thursday and Wednesday and spent Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday and most of Tuesday with a prior family commitment. So my opportunity to be fully prepared and present on behalf of my clients today has been severely limited -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- and I believe that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me -- MR. WHITE: -- their opportunity to be heard is consistent with what you've heard from other neighbors, you've seen on the street. And there are folks who, although they may be here present or on Zoom, there are plenty of others who no longer occupy their residences there and do not have either Internet or other opportunities to participate today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: So I'm -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask this: Have you had a chance to speak with the applicant or the applicant's representatives about the continuance request? MR. WHITE: I have not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So this is what I'm going to do. October 13, 2022 Page 35 of 43 It's now almost 11:00, and I think some of us, including myself, could take a comfort break. And maybe you could take a few minutes and speak with the applicant's representative about their position about a continuance, and then we'll reconvene, and we'll give the court reporter a break as well. And so we'll reconvene in -- let's say 10 after 11:00. And then maybe speak with them. Maybe they could reach out to their clients. If they're agreeable to a continuance, then, you know, I'd like to know that, okay? MR. WHITE: I appreciate the opportunity to do so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: We'll get back to you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. We'll take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had from 11:01 a.m. to 11:12 a.m.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Everybody it's 10 after. We're going to reconvene the Hearing Examiner meeting. Madam Court Reporter, are you ready to go? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we recessed briefly because there was a request by Attorney White. Do I have your last name correct, White? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Attorney White has requested a continuance because of some -- because he was recently retained by the adjoining property owners -- both property owners adjoining the applicant, and I asked him to take some time and, you know, meet privately with the applicant's representative to see if they would be willing to continue the item. So what was the result of that conversation? MR. WHITE: I'll allow Mr. Pearson to confirm, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- I've been advised that the property owner, Phyllis -- I'm going to say this hopefully correctly -- Maffei, has agreed to a continuance request. With that said, I believe it may be appropriate to allow some testimony -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. WHITE: -- to proceed today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Before we get to that, I want to -- is that -- MR. PEARSON: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You spoke to your client, and he represents both neighbors, the most affected neighbors, so it's good to have those conversations. And the -- since there are people here for -- they have come here to put their testimony on the record, I'm going to go ahead and allow for public to make comments and then, obviously, you'll be able to, at the next hearing when we come back, to be able -- there won't be any legal arguments from Mr. White. He's going to step away. MR. WHITE: No. I actually do believe, Mr. Hearing Examiner, I have the right to cross-examine the witness. I don't want to get legalistic and technical here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait, wait, wait. MR. WHITE: But strictly limited to his proffer of alternatives, and I believe that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You said that you needed time to prepare because you were -- October 13, 2022 Page 36 of 43 MR. WHITE: And if they're going to present alternatives, I believe it would be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're not presenting alternatives. They're not presenting any alternatives. MR. WHITE: He proffered to put them on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, he didn't. MR. WHITE: Yeah, I believe he did. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I said -- he asked -- MR. WHITE: You said you didn't want to. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I said I don't need them. I said not necessarily, because then all of -- those aren't the ones that have been reviewed by staff. So you can't have it both ways, Mr. White. You can't say -- MR. WHITE: I'm not trying to. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can't say that you were unprepared and then want to make legal arguments. That's why I gave you the courtesy to -- do you want a continuance or not? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir, but I believe that in the best interest of everyone understanding what it is that the applicant may desire and that may be acceptable to my clients and others in the neighborhood, that if they're aware of what the alternatives might be, we wouldn't have to cycle through a second continuance similar to the first item today at 260 Conner. That's all my point is, sir. And I'm happy to step away. Thank you. MR. PEARSON: Jeff suggested that perhaps we could meet privately to discuss alternatives. I don't know if that's a better alternative in your eyes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, so here's the -- here's the problem with these alternatives, you guys, I mean, because you're not giving them to staff, and that means that when these are noticed, the public doesn't get a chance to go and look at the file and say, oh, well, these are Option A, B and C. You know, I understand the reason why you're doing that. You know, like, we could do this, we could do that. But I would prefer that you guys pick a -- pick an option, bring it here. You know, I get it. I mean, I personally can say in my order how I want the dock to be redesigned and have it done that way, too. But I don't want these hearings to get so messy that we're looking at three options, four options, five options. That's why I told you -- I mean, you came in with an option, a plan that you gave to staff. Staff reviewed it. The public had an opportunity; they were noticed of it. The public had an opportunity to review what was going to be presented here today. That's why I said I don't really want to see any more options. MR. PEARSON: Okay, I understand. Yeah, it was just an effort to, you know, hopefully avoid dragging out, you know, individual petitions, but I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Jeff, did you want to say something? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, if I could just get on record. What I would like to see, potentially on this, if everyone's open is we continue this. We hear the objectors today. We get that on record. We won't rebut. We just like to get it on the record because our applicant will retain counsel as well, and then what we would like to do is potentially sit down with them knowing what their objections are and see if we can come up with something that meets the criteria and work with staff before we come forward again to you with an alternative -- potential alternative. If we can't come to a conclusion, then we'll October 13, 2022 Page 37 of 43 stick to what is presented today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: That's kind of my thought process on this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yes, because I -- above and beyond -- my hope is always with these situations, like a lot of other types of petitions, is that the neighbors get together and they talk and they try to resolve issues before they come here. I mean, I get it; it can't always happen that way. But if there's ever an opportunity for neighbors to -- whether it's through legal counsel or otherwise, you know, if neighbors can try to come to some kind of consensus or at least, you know, even narrow the issues, I'm happy with that. I'm very happy about that, because it makes the -- it makes the job a lot easier. So what I'd prefer, Mr. White, that if -- I would like to -- I'm going to take testimony from the people that have signed up to speak today so that they can -- you know, their time here wasn't lost, and they can put it on the record, it will be part of the record, and we'll continue this matter. We'll pick a date, a date certain, and go from there. And then I think you guys can -- you can, with your clients, speak with the applicant and come up with some -- if you have any other options, then present them with staff -- present that to staff and go from there. And we'll just see how it goes. I'm okay if we have to continue it again. I want to get it right. I don't want to rush things through. I'm okay with that, I mean, because when -- you know, these are very sensitive issues, so. MR. WHITE: I absolutely agree, Mr. Hearing Examiner. I appreciate the understanding and the recognition on the part of the applicant. I'm familiar with who their counsel is. We've had prior positive working relationships. And all I would say today relative to the opportunity for the public to have input is that they have the opportunity either to present today or waive and choose to present subsequent. And I would just ask those here and on Zoom to put that on the record for themselves. I haven't had a chance to talk to my clients about what may be tactically or strategically or even practically available as far as time in the future. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand, I understand, and I don't want to prejudice your clients or you because of the obvious, you know, late -- you know, people find attorneys, you know, right before hearings. It happens. I get it. And that's -- as a professional courtesy, I want to give that to you, especially to the adjacent neighbors, and it sounds like the applicant's willing to do that as well, which is a smart move. But I want to hear from who's -- I want to hear from the public. And I'm not going to prevent anybody from speaking again at the next hearing. MR. WHITE: I appreciate that, and I'll leave it to my clients' discretion, if I could just have a moment to confer with those present. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those present? MR. WHITE: The Dunns. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You want to speak with your clients? MR. WHITE: Just one minute. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. One minute. How are you, sir? MR. DUNN: Good. I'm Greg Dunn. I'm a neighbor to the -- which -- I guess I October 13, 2022 Page 38 of 43 would be to the east. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's your address? MR. DUNN: I'm at 427 Seabee Avenue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. DUNN: Okay. And I will be available for the next hearing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DUNN: But I'd like to hold my testimony. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You want to reserve your comments? MR. DUNN: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That makes sense, okay. MR. DUNN: All right. Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're welcome. Anybody else? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. Michael Kravitz, followed by Pat Rosmonowski. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good to see you again, Mr. Kravitz. MR. KRAVITZ: I'm at 395 Seabee Avenue, and I am the next house after Linda DeSoto to the west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I see your address on the map. MR. KRAVITZ: So the first comment I'll make -- and I'm pretty sure that the slide I'm talking about is either the site plan or the proposed conditions. And in that slide, you can see the four pilings that are attached to the dock for the lift. You'll note that there's no drawing of the pilings out in the waterway. This gave me the illusion that they were putting in one of those lifts that was one-sided and comes up like this (indicating). So I really feel that this drawing was done to make it look like it was a standard situation with a standard dock, and the boat was just tied up outside. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand what you're saying. MR. KRAVITZ: Next comment: If Linda was to build this dock next to me, meaning if this becomes something that is done next to me, it would affect me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You mean Ms. DeSoto, Linda DeSoto? MR. KRAVITZ: If Linda DeSoto built this dock next to me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. KRAVITZ: I could not get my boat out of the lift. It would render my dock useless. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KRAVITZ: And I only have one more comment. For the Dunns, if I was them, I would be going crazy. You're ruining my view, and you're rendering my dock useless in one direction and reducing the value of my property. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Who else do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Next we have Pat Rosmonowski followed by Bill Gonnering, and then we will go online. MR. ROSMONOWSKI: Pat Rosmonowski, 324 Seabee. I'm at the end of the cul-de-sac on the furthest west point of it. And, again, my comments are similar to what they were with -- regarding to the other one that I am concerned with the safety value of boaters going up and down the water, kayakers, et cetera, fishermen, local fishermen. October 13, 2022 Page 39 of 43 Obviously, to me, this is a snowballing effect because on our street right now, due to the devastation from the hurricane, on the north side of the street, the Dunns' home is completely destroyed, which they're going to rebuild. The two homes next to me were completely destroyed, which are going to be torn down and sold. Those are going to be very large homes that are put on those lots, again, with people with a similar thought process. They see one boat, a 31-foot boat, now a 38-foot boat sticking out 32 feet from -- from the seawall. Why can't I do it? My dock was severely damaged in the storm also. My boat was crushed. I will ultimately have to replace my seawall in the next year, which requires me to put in a new dock. Why don't I put my grandfathered 20-foot thing in there and add another dock outside for my 38-foot boat? So it's a snowball effect. And if we allow this to happen, it's just going to continue to continue. And some of these folks have put in new seawalls at $150,000, followed the same guidelines of the 20-foot extension that are going to continue to get pinched and will not be able to get their boats in and out. So I understand what they're attempting to do. I respect that. But with respect to everybody involved, we've all been living by the same criteria for years. I've been living by it for 15 years that I've been a homeowner here, and I just believe that we're all in this thing together. And one exception, whether you -- and I know we said this in the previous one, you take every request on its own -- on its own nature and what it is, but it's a snowball effect. Once people see it done, why won't I want to do it and why won't I continue to do it, and it would just make common sense. So I'm going to leave it at that. I don't live next to them. It doesn't obstruct my view. It doesn't obstruct anything of me. I find it just is a simple thing for the community involved. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good luck with your recovery. Who else? MR. ROSMONOWSKI: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Bill Gonnering is our final in-person speaker, and then we will go online to Linda DeSoto. MR. GONNERING: Bill Gonnering. I live at 375 Seabee. I'm about four doors west of the subject dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GONNERING: I have to say, Mr. Dickman, I do have two boats, and I've made them all fit into a dock, and my -- because I had to put in a new seawall, my dock is actually 18 feet deep, and I have two boats in that 18 foot -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What size boats do you have? MR. GONNERING: I have a 16-footer and a 23-footer. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GONNERING: And they fit into the -- it's actually 18 by whatever the depth is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GONNERING: So, yes, it works. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GONNERING: The other thing is on the last -- the September hearing, October 13, 2022 Page 40 of 43 unfortunately, we had medical problems. I could not be here. But I think you only received two objections from people. But I want to say I got my letter on September 13th, and I think the hearing was the 20th. Yeah. So however long -- whenever you mailed the letter, if it was September 2nd, it took 11 days to get to me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is your mailing address the address? MR. GONNERING: 375 Seabee. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GONNERING: Every other contact we had was fine except for this one. Another -- the problem I have -- the other problem I have -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can email in your comments, by the way. MR. GONNERING: Yeah, I understand. I mean, we're out of our house. I don't even have an email now, okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GONNERING: I've had very bad phone reception, no email, and running around like a crazy person. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. I 100 percent understand. MR. GONNERING: The other thing is mooring my boat -- with a 20-foot dock I can just get my boat into my dock. If it's out another 20 feet or 10 feet, I'm not going to be able to do it. And so that's kind of -- so now I just spent, you know, 50 grand -- well, I spent 100 grand for a seawall and a new dock, and if I have to put in a new dock, you know, that's another $35,000. You know, it's a domino effect again. And then I'm back to the thing, it's the impact of the area. You know, everybody's view is going to be changed. That's all I want to say. I think this is the third time I've done this. You know, it's getting to be a little annoying, I guess. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GONNERING: But thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. And we're going online now? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: We are going online now to Linda DeSoto. Ms. DeSoto, you're being prompted to unmute your microphone. Can you hear us? MS. DeSOTO: I hear you. Do you hear me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ms. DeSoto, this is Andrew Dickman, the Hearing Examiner. Are you represented by Mr. White? MS. DeSOTO: Yes, I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do you -- do you want her to speak or -- because the other clients decided to withhold testimony, so I want to know. MR. WHITE: I had attempted to text just now with Ms. DeSoto. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you want to advise her now on anything? MR. WHITE: I suggest that she waive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Ms. DeSoto, your attorney is suggesting that -- because we are going to continue this item to another meeting, and your attorney's recommending that you speak at that time rather than now. MS. DeSOTO: Mr. Dickman, thank you for giving me that option and, thank you, October 13, 2022 Page 41 of 43 Mr. White. I will follow Mr. White's instruction. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. DeSOTO: Yes, I will waive -- you know, I'll -- I will not speak right now. I will hold my comments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for your time. Anybody else? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: That's all we have for this item. I do have one registered speaker for Item No. 5, public comments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, okay. One second. So we're going to -- what we're going to do is we're going to continue -- you're talking about a different item, though, right? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. Item No. 5 on the agenda. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. A different -- something different. So what we're going to do is we're going to continue to a date certain. What's the next date that we want to shoot for, Ray, or somebody? What do you want to do? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning Director. I would -- actually, I don't -- I would say that the next hearing would probably be too soon. I think that they have to go meet with the neighbors. They're going to have discussion. Would the applicant be -- two meetings from now -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- which would get us to November 10th? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the meeting of November 10th? MR. ROGERS: That works. MR. PEARSON: That works. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. White, did you get that? That should give you plenty of time to prepare. MR. WHITE: Unfortunately, my calendar, which my wife is judicial in maintaining, has she and I in New Jersey for a wedding for family on that date, and I apologize. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So what about -- MR. WHITE: I would not be able to attend -- MR. BOSI: Unfortunately, there is a gap because the 24th of November is the next HEX meeting, and that is Thanksgiving, and then our Hearing Examiner -- MR. WHITE: You mean staff isn't available? MR. BOSI: And then the December 8th HEX meeting is going to be canceled because Mr. Dickman, I believe, has previous plans that he will not be in town. So that puts us to December 22nd. MR. WHITE: And that date I will be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So why don't -- MR. WHITE: -- at scout camp. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What is the problem with the -- we don't think that we can be ready for the next meeting? MR. BOSI: Staff has a week prior to the -- prior to the meeting to get all -- any material that's going to be provided for, and if the dynamics of the negotiation between the two parties can't be done within a matter of days and then material presented to us, we will have nothing to post, and it will be almost discovery at the meeting. October 13, 2022 Page 42 of 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. We're not going the 27th. The 10th Mr. White is unavailable. So what date are we looking at? We're going to have to readvertise this. If it goes out that far, then we're going to have to readvertise it. MR. PEARSON: I should probably note my clients are okay with that, I think. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Obviously, their house is under construction, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, there's a lot of stuff that is going on right now that I'm sure is taking a precedence with people. MR. BOSI: January 12th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So January 12th, 2023. MR. BELLOWS: And we will readvertise. MR. BOSI: It will be readvertised. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And we'll readvertise. And if you guys could get me -- when you come back, I want information about the boats. I just need to have that. I'm not questioning you -- MR. ROGERS: Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- but I think on the record, I think because these are boat-driven things and you need to show -- MR. PEARSON: I'll track it down. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Your client needs to show that these are actual boats that I've bought or about to buy, and I need this dock because of these boats. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Folks, we're still recording, please. Take it outside. MR. PEARSON: I will get that information. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. WHITE: And for the record, January 12th appears to be appropriate, 2023. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. See you next year. Thank you, everybody. Good job. MR. PEARSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then we have one other -- MR. BOSI: Public comment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. So we're going to the agenda. Let me get organized here. MR. BOSI: Other business is 4, and 5 is public comment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Is there -- Item No. 4, is there any other business? MR. BOSI: None from the county's standpoint. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. And then we're going to go to public comments in general. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I have one public speaker, Joel Rebholz. Joel, you're being prompted to unmute your microphone. Can you hear us? Mr. Rebholz, are you there, sir? MR. REBHOLZ: Yes, I am. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. You have five minutes. MR. REBHOLZ: Yes, I'm here. I didn't have any comments today. I was listening to see if another petition that was previously scheduled for this date was, indeed, October 13, 2022 Page 43 of 43 on the calendar. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, you can always coordinate with staff, and they will let you know when it's coming -- when it's going to be on the agenda so you don't have to -- I mean, obviously, these are very entertaining meetings so you can watch and participate. But if you want to know when that particular item is going to be heard, you can contact county staff. But thanks for -- thanks for tuning in. MR. REBHOLZ: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. You can contact me, and I'll verify the hearing date when it's scheduled. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Anything else before I adjourn? Anything? Nothing? Nothing? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good luck, everyone. I know it's rough out there recovering. Some of us are better off than others, but everybody will get through it. We are adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 11:36 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER _______________________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ______, as presented ______ or as corrected _____. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 411/15/22