HEX Minutes 04/25/2024April 25, 2024
Page 1 of 27
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples, Florida
April 25, 2024
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 9:05 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
Sean Sammon, Planner III
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I
April 25, 2024
Page 2 of 27
P R O C E E D I N G S
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good morning, everybody. It's 9:05. I
apologize for the slight delay getting here.
My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the hearing examiner for Collier County. This is the
hearing examiner meeting scheduled for today.
Let's all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Just by way of some quick
housekeeping items, as I said, my name is Andrew Dickman. I am the hearing examiner. I'm a
Florida Bar attorney in good standing. I have been a Florida Bar attorney for over 20 years
working in the area of local government, land use, zoning, environmental law.
The Board of County Commissioners has contracted with me. I am not a -- I'm not a
County employee. I'm here as an independent, impartial decision-maker. My job is to fulfill the
duties that are outlined in the Code of Ordinances and the other codes that refer to the hearing
examiner's responsibilities.
Just to give you some introductions, we have County planning staff and other staff over
here on the right. We have a court reporter over here who is taking down every single word and
syllable that we say here today.
My job is to essentially conduct the public hearings, the quasi -- they're called quasi-judicial
public hearings for each petition. The way that we do this, that I like to do this so that they're
consistent, is that I usually ask County staff to get up to the podium here in the middle, introduce the
petition, give us a little background or analysis, any recommendations or conditions.
And then at that time, I will ask the applicant or the applicant's representative to come over
to the podium on the other side over here and present their petition. And then I will allow them to
reserve a little time for rebuttal because, after that, we're going to open it up for public comment.
And so if anybody has the desire to be here, a public comment, there are public comment
cards that you need to turn in to this young lady over here. And we also have a unique situation
that the County has set up where it's a hybrid meeting. So you could be here in person. Some
people might choose to attend virtually via Zoom. So we will take public comment both ways.
What I'd like you to know is that this is a friendly space, informal proceedings, although I
do have to follow some steps that are necessary legally. I want you to just relax. Some people
don't like speaking publicly. That's okay. I don't necessarily either, but what's really important for
me is to just hear the factual information about whatever is the topic of the petition.
My job is to take that information that I hear here -- that I get here today and apply it to the
criteria for that petition.
I will not be making any decisions here today. I have -- under the code, I have 30 days to
issue a written decision, which we will do. So there won't be any final decisions here today, but I
do want you to take your time, you know, express to me whatever information you have.
I will be taking notes. So if I look away from you, don't think that I'm not listening. I am
listening. I just want to make sure that I'm checking some notes and things like that. So please
don't take offense to me looking away for that.
If you -- if you want to have a conversation with somebody, please step outside. The
acoustics in this room, at least on this side of it, are very good, so we can actually hear people in the
audience chatting, and it really does become distracting. So I'd like to give everybody as much,
you know, opportunity when they're speaking to not be distracted and also for us to be able to hear
things.
With regard to, as I mentioned, our court reporter, it's very important not to talk over each
other, to try to pronounce everything as clearly as possible. Otherwise, she is going to raise her
hand and say, "Stop, and da, da, da." She's going to -- I want to make sure that the transcript of this
April 25, 2024
Page 3 of 27
hearing is absolutely clear, not only for myself but for the public.
And with that, I think the only thing else we have to do is, if you're going to testify here
today, you have to do so under oath, and so anyone who's going to testify on any of the items that
are listed here on the agenda today, if you would please stand, raise your right hand, and I'm going
to ask the court reporter to administer the oath.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 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: One other quick item as far as, like, disclosures, as
I indicated earlier, I am -- I come here to be an impartial decision-maker. So the way that I do that
is I don't meet with County staff ahead of time to go over the applications, the substance of the
applications. I don't meet with the public ahead of time. I don't meet with the applicant ahead of
time.
I feel like that would give some kind of presumption of prejudice, the information that
wouldn't be heard publicly. So everything that -- I mean, I have read all the materials that have
been supplied and made public on the agendas. I'm very familiar with everything. I have files on
everything. I have read them.
But I want to make sure that you understand that I'm here to conduct this hearing in an
impartial manner so that, when this hearing is over, the record is closed.
So after this hearing, I can't collect any additional information from anyone. I can't take
any more testimony from anyone. So this is really the opportunity for me to get all the information
that's necessary for me to make a decision on each one of these petitions.
I think that's everything that I need to go over. I tend to do that on the fly, but I usually
cover everything most of the time.
So with that, why don't we just jump right into the first item. I think that's Item 3-A. Who
do we have here first? Eric. Good morning, Eric.
MR. ORTMAN: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Eric Ortman, principal
planner in the Zoning Division.
And this is petition VA-PL20230010369, which was continued from the March 28th HEX
hearing at the request of the agent to allow the applicant and staff additional time to meet.
The supplemental staff report acknowledges circumstances that were not known to the
County prior to the -- drafting the March 28 staff report, and which can be summarized as there are
no current code cases for the property.
There is a 1,000-gallon underground propane tank, which is 76 feet from the front of the
garage.
If the garage had been moved forward 38 feet, 38 feet to meet the 70-foot setback, there
would still be 12 feet for a 26-foot truck to maneuver between the garage and the edge of the
propane tank when backing up to the garage doors.
There are 138 feet of mature vegetation between any point of the garage and the nearest,
closest structure. The garage is largely hidden from view of the neighbors with the existing
vegetation.
Mr. Lawrence has submitted a petition of no objection to the garage by 14 individuals in the
general neighborhood. And staff's recommendation continues to be denial based on the lack of a
land-based hardship and the facts in the record, particularly Attachment 1.
Staff provides these above factors for the consideration of the hearing examiner.
And, Mr. Dickman, I can give you as much more depth as you want or I can stop there and
answer any questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the -- so I have -- so we have the March 28th.
Did you render a revised version of this?
MR. ORTMAN: I did, and it was uploaded through Accela.
April 25, 2024
Page 4 of 27
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. Okay. All right. I think I have it.
MR. ORTMAN: If not, I can go and get you a copy.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, that's okay. If it's in there, then that's fine.
MR. ORTMAN: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why don't we stop there, and I'm sure the applicant
is also going to give us some detailed information, so that --
MR. ORTMAN: I'm here for any questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Don't go anywhere, please.
So the applicant. How are you, counselor?
MR. DAVIES: Good morning, Mr. Hearing Examiner. Noel Davies, with the law firm of
Davies Duke, on behalf of the applicants, Jamie and Carol Lawrence.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Always know it's an attorney when you have a
Redweld.
MR. DAVIES: That's right. That's right.
Is there a clicker?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have got one, I think.
MR. DAVIES: I have a bunch of slides here.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, they will click it for you. Just say --
MR. DAVIES: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- "engage" or "next slide" or something like that.
MR. DAVIES: That's fine. And I do have a hard copy of the power point for record
purposes. Do I need to give a copy to the court reporter?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Well, yeah, also if I could have a copy of it.
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that.
MR. DAVIES: So, again, Noel Davies on behalf of Jamie and Carol Lawrence, who are
both here today. We have worked very closely with County staff on this matter. We certainly
appreciate all the efforts and extra efforts, quite frankly, that they have -- that they have put into this
item. And we do recognize the recommendation of denial as you heard with respect to the
supplemental findings.
Staff and the supplement staff report acknowledges and this is something that we have
worked hand in hand, Mr. Hearing Examiner, with staff on, that there are these important mitigating
factors that should be part of your analysis as you go through the variance criteria as you look at
whether or not there's sufficient justification to grant a variance.
We do believe that we meet those criteria and sufficiently justify the grant of a variance,
particularly when you balance in these mitigating factors, including and especially as you heard
from Mr. Ortman, there are letters of no objection in this case from every single abutter, as well as
14 folks that signed a petition of no objection, a number of whom are here today and plan to address
you during public comment.
Given that there is no detriment to the neighbors, as you'll see from the evidence through
the letters of no objection, the petition and testimony from nearby property owners, there is
sufficient justification here to grant the variance request.
Next slide, please. No, this is fine.
So our specific request, Mr. Hearing Examiner, is to allow an already-built garage structure
to remain in spite of its encroachment into the rear setback.
Next slide, please.
The subject property is in Logan Woods, 5261 Sycamore Drive.
Next, please.
And this is what the garage looks like. This is in the rear of the property.
Next, please.
April 25, 2024
Page 5 of 27
And that's the view from the side. You can see some of the dense vegetation behind it.
That's looking north. So when it was constructed, my client thought that it was being built in the
correct location respecting the 75-foot rear setback.
It ended up being sited 38 feet from the rear property line, instead of the 75 feet.
My client did receive a permit for the structure prior to construction. Unfortunately, he
relied upon his private provider throughout the process. The private provider confirmed that the
slab had been poured in the correct location.
Of course, that wasn't the case, and it wasn't until the very final inspection, which the
County participates in, that the Lawrences found out for the first time from the County that they had
encroached into the setback.
Next, please.
So here are the key factors that we would respectfully ask you to consider today,
Mr. Hearing Examiner, as you assess the pertinent variance criteria and what we believe includes
sufficient justification for granting the variance request.
As I mentioned, the applicant did obtain a permit. There was no intent here to not comply
with the code. The applicant relied upon his private provider, as I mentioned, and found out at the
very end that it was not in the right spot.
The applicant did act in good faith throughout the process, but, unfortunately, the structure
does encroach.
Next, please.
Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Counselor, can I ask you a quick question regarding
the process, the permitting process, because I understand how this was discovered after the fact.
And so is there any period of time during -- because it looks like that's one of those
contractors that had come in and they -- you know, they build your shed for you.
MR. DAVIES: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have seen a number of those things. For
example, when the slab is poured, do the County come out or does anybody do a check or anything
like that, or is it all the way to the end when that final happens, and then you -- you find out and
you're like, "Oh, my God"?
MR. DAVIES: Candidly, there's some confusion about that.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: And we have worked closely, talked with County staff about that. There
may be some differences of opinion about it. My client is here today. I know it's part of his
remarks.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: He -- so there is the private provider guy, right? And he's doing the bulk
of the inspections.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha.
MR. DAVIES: My client's memory, and he'll tell you this, that that gentleman came with
someone from the County, and/or a County person came at another point in time.
My understanding from County staff is, no, that's not really how it works. There's like a
County desk person, right, whose file it is, takes a private provider report and inputs it into the
system, but I think Mr. Lawrence recalls, not just a private provider, but a County person being
there.
The upshot of this is that there's -- this is not one of those cases where, you know, you've
got a property owner never gets a permit, gets caught and goes in for an after-the-fact permit and,
you know, says, "Okay, now I'd like my variance, please."
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, yeah, I get that.
MR. DAVIES: You know, we're -- we -- we got the permit. We applied for it. We
April 25, 2024
Page 6 of 27
thought that the thing was 75 feet from the rear, and it just wasn't.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand.
MR. DAVIES: Okay?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We'll learn more about that. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DAVIES: So with respect to hardship, there would be significant hardship here to
move the structure. I believe that's acknowledged in the supplement to the staff report.
And, oh -- I will go through this in more detail in just a bit, but the way that the property is
set up in conjunction with the design of the structure and the circulation on the site, relocation of the
structure is simply not possible. It could also be totally cost prohibitive.
Next, please.
I will walk you through in detail all of the support for this project by the clients' neighbors,
and as I mentioned you will hear from them today. A number of them are here and, importantly,
some of the closest abutters didn't even know the structure was there because of the existing dense
and tall vegetation on both sides, so on my clients' property side and on the neighbors' sides.
The only side where there isn't dense vegetation is immediately adjacent to the east. That's
the view of that photograph that I showed you looking north. That would be the east side there.
There is no significant -- or there's no vegetation there really at all, and that neighbor is in full
support of the variance request.
She actually participated in some of our discussions with County staff. She's here today, so
you'll hear from her. She's appreciative of the Lawrences and of the building and is particularly
pleased at the drainage improvements that were installed incident to the construction of the building
because the water, according to her, in that area drains even better now than it did prior to the
structure.
Everything stays completely on my clients' property. There's no adverse impacts on a
neighbor from a storm water perspective, and there are improved conditions from what was
previously there prior to construction of the structure.
So, again, every single abutter has provided a letter of no objection, and there are 14 others
that are in agreement.
To the extent, Mr. Hearing Examiner, I would like to add additional conditions, something
the applicant is willing to agree to today, which would require even more screening, would be
planting a full row hedge of Clusia and/or bamboo along the entire rear of the perimeter.
There is significant vegetation today, but to the extent that -- that additional just screening
would be something that Mr. Hearing Examiner would like, that's certainly a cost that the
Lawrences are willing to -- willing to do.
Next slide, please.
So that's the condition for the hedge.
Next, please.
And then water, again, is being retained exclusively on site. No adverse impacts on
surrounding neighbors.
Next, please.
So as I mentioned, we have got abutters. So this is Logan Woods, right, these larger lots.
We've got an abutter immediately adjacent to the east, immediately adjacent to the west, north and
then northwest sort of catty corner and northwest catty corner.
Next, please.
Each of -- each of these folks have issued a letter of no objection. So this is our neighbor
to the northwest. Mr. Norton, he issued a letter of no objection.
Next, please.
This is our neighbor to the -- immediately adjacent to the west. Again, dense vegetation
shielding the structure, which you can see. The subject property is marked with a star at the north
end there in the rear of the property. So the neighbor to the west provided a letter of no objection,
April 25, 2024
Page 7 of 27
the Segerdahls.
Next, please.
Ms. Poklemba is the neighbor I mentioned who is here today immediately adjacent to the
east. No significant shielding to the east, but she likes the building and is here today in support of
it.
Next, please.
A letter objection to the north. These are the Eberts, so this is immediately adjacent to the
north. These are the folks that didn't know about the building until the Lawrences came and talked
to them about it. So I think that's reflective of just the significant dense vegetation and screening
that exists today.
And admittedly, some of that's on the property owner to the north, but there is also
significant dense and tall vegetation between the structure and the boundary line.
Next, please.
And then to Number 5, Mr. Hearing Examiner, to the northeast, the Sauers also executed a
letter of no objection.
So, again, all five property owners who would touch the boundary line of my clients have
issued a letter of no objections. There's no opposition there.
Next, please.
So in addition to the five abutters, there are 14 property owners that have executed the
petition of no objection. Some of these folks are also here today.
Next, please.
And that is just a visual for Mr. Hearing Examiner. The subject property is highlighted
there. That's Sycamore Drive. Again, we're on the north side of Sycamore, and you can see the
level of support here or technically the level of no objection, but a written -- a written signature on a
petition for each of these -- each of these property owners.
I do have to say I don't think I have had a client with this much vocal support for -- for
something like this. I mean, typically we're looking at whether or not there's a sizable opposition.
A lot of people like to stay silent, but here -- and I will let the public speak, certainly, but here there
is -- there is a significant amount of vocal support or vocal affirmation of no objection.
And so, respectfully, I would ask that that be taken into consideration and given due weight
as you balance through your variance analysis.
Next, please.
So now we turn to the specific criteria as set forth in Section 9.04.03 of the County's Land
Development Code. Here are the eight criteria. I'm going to walk through each one.
Next, please.
So Number 1, Special Conditions and Circumstances, with respect to this criteria, some
context, and certainly Mr. Lawrence can answer any questions about this, Mr. Lawrence owns Elite
Cabinetry, which is a high-end cabinetmaker.
And one of the main purposes of the garage, in addition to personal use, is to store some of
the cabinets for a project that he may have for a client.
He doesn't do work there on the cabinets but can -- can store them and would have the
capacity to do that. So in front of the -- of the structure there's a large driveway. A truck would
come in and pick up cabinets and then leave to go to a client location.
There's also a large propane tank -- I believe you heard Mr. Ortman mention this -- on the
site. It's nearby, and moving the building and then the corresponding driveway would seriously
conflict and impact the ability to use that.
There's also existing native vegetation between the existing location for the driveway and
with moving everything north to accommodate the 75 feet.
So there are site-related items that would really make it not possible to -- not practical or
possible to relocate the structure.
April 25, 2024
Page 8 of 27
And, of course, the mitigating factors to consider are the letters and petition of no objection.
Next, please.
So Criterion 2, again, there's no denying here that Mr. Lawrence also already built this
structure, but the significant hardship that would result from moving it, coupled with the lack of
harm on the neighboring property owners is important as far as your considerations.
Next, please, Number 3.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: On that criterion, would you characterize -- you can
go back one.
MR. DAVIES: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It says, "Which do not result from the actions of the
applicant." So it seems like it was the contractor that actually located this; is that correct?
MR. DAVIES: That's correct. That's correct. And that was -- or the contractor and then
the reliance upon the private provider.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: Next, please.
So Criterion 3, Literal Interpretation. There certainly is unnecessary and undue hardship,
as well as the practical difficulties if the structure is moved.
Number 4. Next, please.
Variance will not be detrimental to health, safety and welfare. The letters and the petition
evidence that point. This would be the minimum variance to allow the building to stay
where -- where it is today.
Next, 5. The very nature of a variance certainly grants some sort of dimensional relief;
however, under these circumstances, it is appropriate and sufficient to grant the variance. Property
owners facing similar hardships would likewise be entitled to go through this variance process.
Next, Number 6. There is no injury to the neighborhood. This is certainly shown by the
letters and petition of no objection. Granting the variance would be in harmony with the general
intent and purpose of the County's LDC, especially in light of the lack of detriment on the
neighbors.
Number 7, next, please. There is significant dense and tall vegetation, as you heard me
speak about, to ameliorate any potential noise or visual impacts.
As I mentioned, the property owner is agreeable to planting a row hedge of Clusia or
bamboo at the rear to provide additional screening and amelioration.
Number 8, the last prong, granting this variance, I would say, would not be inconsistent
with the Growth Management Plan. It's not violative of any specific Growth Management Plan
policy. And, again, the lack of detriment on the neighbors is an important consideration when
thinking about the comp plan.
Next, please.
In addition to the eight specific criteria, I also want to address Section 9.04.01 of the LDC,
which speaks specifically to the purpose of a variance, and I have highlighted a couple of -- well, a
few different phrases within this that I think are particularly germane to this project.
You have heard and you will hear more today with respect to the neighbor support that this
variance would not be contrary to the public interest, safety or welfare. Granting the variance
wouldn't have a measurable impact on public interest, safety or welfare.
There would be certainly undue hardship and practical difficulty to move it, as I mentioned,
and there's no adverse impact on the community or neighbors as evidenced by the support.
And with that, we do appreciate the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Hearing Examiner.
We believe that granting the variance is justified for the reasons that I outlined, including and
especially when you factor in the lack of harm here that would result from granting this variance.
And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I would like to ask you a couple questions.
April 25, 2024
Page 9 of 27
So do you agree with me, in considering a variance, I have to do so on a case-by-case basis,
that precedence -- and you hear this a lot from -- in public comments about, you know, this is setting
a precedence, the project is setting a precedent.
And my reading of the case law is that every variance is taken on its own merits and doesn't
create precedence. Is that also your understanding?
MR. DAVIES: That's correct, and I actually went through the case law again yesterday.
It's very clear that it's one by one based on the cases and based on the evidence presented to you in
each case.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Correct.
So this building is rather -- rather large. I assume that this is a -- you know, since the
County permitted it, it's a permissible accessory use there, so there's nothing illegal about the use
there?
MR. DAVIES: I would defer to staff for that, but, yes, that's correct, a permit was issued.
It just got built in the wrong place.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sure every question I ask today, if there's
something he says is wrong, I'm sure the County will probably tell me.
MR. DAVIES: Yes. But, yes, it's a permissible use for the structure.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But it seems as though it's not like a simple shed
that you would get from Home Depot that you could, you know, like easily pick up and move to a
different location, that this is a very large constructed shed with a cement slab.
And then, in addition to that, I think what you're saying is that, in order to do that, there's a
propane tank and some other things that would prohibit the relocation of that. Is that a fair
statement?
MR. DAVIES: That's a fair statement.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right.
Okay. The only thing I want to hear and maybe I should hear this from your client is just
to make sure that on the record that, you know, your client had no knowledge that this was being
located in the wrong -- you know, that the whole -- the whole time that they were relying on the
provider and that it wasn't their doing that caused this to be set where it is.
MR. DAVIES: Absolutely.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that possible?
MR. DAVIES: If I may, can I -- Mr. Lawrence?
Just introduce yourself for the record.
MR. LAWRENCE: How you doing? Jamie Lawrence.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning, Mr. Lawrence.
MR. LAWRENCE: The story -- you know, when we did the drawings and we submitted
them and we submitted the setbacks at 35/35, and we had -- I paid for an engineer to stamp the
drawings. I paid for a private provider to look at those drawings, to go through them, we had a
survey done that had -- that was on this first set of drawings. We had taken all the steps to pay
professional people to make sure that where we were putting this size of building that was going to
be acceptable.
All through the process when we went through of building it, filling it in, actually it started
off at the County for a silt fence and then as well as some vegetation that was invasive that needed
to be removed.
Then it went through the form process of the forms for the monolithic slab. That was an
inspection that was done by our private provider and was checked off.
At the day of that pour -- or not the pour, the forming, the survey company had come back
out and they said that they wanted to do a spot survey. And I was like it's totally fine. It's where
we said we were going to put it.
They were there tagging the corners with their GPS system. We all waited until they were
April 25, 2024
Page 10 of 27
done. They gave us a green light and said we're all set.
We poured that day. The following day the inspection was done for the slab.
Each time an inspection was done, it was turned in to the County, and then the County
would come out and they would walk or check out the property. They only walked it when the slab
was done. They stayed in the truck when it was for the forms. They put eyes on it, if you will. I
guess that's their second set of doing things when they do a private provider.
Each one of those times, I was there, and I had talked to the guy and, you know, commented
how beautiful it was and how nice it was and everything was going great.
To the building, the building was staged to be ordered one week after a cure time. Since
the building doesn't have significant weight on it, I actually put it in earlier than I could have. I
could have waited for the concrete longer, but we put it up right away. It took one week to erect.
It is a metal building; however, during that one week, once it was completed, we
spray-foamed the entire inside of it, so it does have a foot of spray foam on the ceiling, a foot on the
sides.
And then the floors are epoxy to cure the concrete so the moisture doesn't keep coming into
the room.
Because the cabinetry that I carry is high end, it needs to conditioned space. So, you know,
there is a temporary window rattler in there right now, that just keeping things cool enough.
That adds -- the reason I state that is it adds to the complexity of moving the building, to try
to get to the bolts or to try to take it down, and it's a thin gauge -- I think it's 20-gauge metal on the
sides. To pick it up, it's just going to twist. It's just going to wonk. It's just going to come apart,
not to mention it won't make it usable.
Getting back to the inspection portion of it, when it came to the final building inspection,
County came out and he looked at the building, and he had said, "Hey, this place is really looking
nice. It looks like you put higher-end windows in there."
And I said, "Yeah, I did. I put impact windows in there. I didn't put the little thin metal
ones that it came with or that screen door it came with."
"Just do me a favor, can you pull a permit for that and get it inspected?" We did. No
problems. We pull the permit before. We get inspected.
My whole point that I'm trying to make here with you is that we always try to go through
every single step to make sure that we were doing it right and talk with each person that was, you
know, in their professional position to do so so we could get to that next step.
After three weeks of the spot survey and the pour being done, they had come back and said,
"Hey, your building is in the wrong spot."
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They being the County?
MR. LAWRENCE: Well, that was the surveyor.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. LAWRENCE: And I said, "Well, it's in the same spot we turned in the drawings on."
So you got a problem. Everything stopped. Here we are trying to solve that problem. So
we didn't continue with anything else in the building. It's at the stage I just mentioned to you at.
It's got some boxes in it.
And the reason -- to answer an earlier question for you, the reason why it's so large, there's a
30 -- 32-foot boat inside of it. There's jet skis inside of it. There's toys inside of it, and it was only
$8,000 to go higher for a second story for a mezzanine just to put more cabinetry up in that space.
That's why the height was there for based on the size of the footprint. It just made sense for that
piece to be there.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So up until the point in which the surveyor told you
about the location issue, you had no idea -- you --
MR. LAWRENCE: I was not --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You were under the impression that it was in the
April 25, 2024
Page 11 of 27
right location?
MR. LAWRENCE: Right. And as I was going -- like I said, I mentioned several people
had looked at that during the whole course of us moving to the next step. So each one of those
milestones, no one brought it up until the building was erected.
I mean, once the slab was approved, we went vertical, and, you know, we built it. And
these guys were from North Carolina. They were doing piecework. They were here to get it down
and get out. They knocked it out in just a week.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand.
Okay. And with regard to the additional screening of vegetation, you have no problem
doing that?
MR. LAWRENCE: Not at all. We have irrigation with water back there. So, I mean, we
wouldn't be just sticking sticks in the ground. We'd fully water it and make sure it can get to go to
a full height growth and maintain it.
I can show you the rest of our property is well maintained. We don't -- we're not looking to
keep it out on the woods.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else?
MR. DAVIES: Nothing further from applicant at this time.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why don't you reserve some time for rebuttal?
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask the County. Anything you all heard
contrary to what you know?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
There are some additional records that were placed into the -- placed into the record related
to the history of permitting that would seem to maybe align a little bit -- a little bit -- a little bit, I
don't want to say, in contrary to the statements that were made, but just seems like there is a little bit
of -- of within the record that staff would encourage the hearing examiner to look at just in terms of
the timing of events, too, that would seem to corroborate with the testimony, but just some of the
alignment of when the documents were received and responses to some things.
We think there are some -- there are some -- I don't want to say incongruities, but just it's a
little -- it's a little cumbersome spotting together with the narrative and the timing of some of the
records that are within the -- within the documentation that was additional, additional information
that was provided to you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand. Thank you.
Why don't we open it up to public comment, and -- do we have any speakers?
MS. PADRON: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. We have a total of three in-person
speakers and one Zoom speaker.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great.
MS. PADRON: Our first speaker is Nancy Maddrill.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ms. Maddrill, if you could use this podium. Yeah.
Thank you.
MS. MADDRILL: All right. My name is Nancy Maddrill. I live at 4920 Sycamore
Drive.
I did not know the Lawrences until we moved in about seven years ago. At that time I was
blessed with the first hurricane, and it also took down about 32 pine trees in my yard, and we were
scrambling to clean up our yard by ourselves, and here comes down our driveway Mr. Lawrence in
his tractor.
He is like, "What's going on? How can I help?" This is how we met him. Ever since
then we have become neighbor friends. He's introduced us to other neighbors in the neighborhood.
April 25, 2024
Page 12 of 27
We all tried to work together. We're there for a purpose. We're there because we are
taxpaying citizens. We own our own businesses, most of us do.
Moving forward, I did bring some pictures, if you'd like to see those. All of our yards are
beautiful. We maintain them.
If you look at Mr. Lawrence's yard when you drive by, you can barely see their house.
You would never even know this building existed. If you have the pleasure of driving down there
and going into the building, you would say, "Oh, my gosh, can I move in?" It's beautiful. It is
absolutely beautiful.
I just really think that there are other people that don't build nice things and don't care for
their property. We need to look at this as he brings value to Sycamore Drive.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you --
MS. MADDRILL: You're welcome.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for being here this morning.
MS. PADRON: Our next speaker is Mark Creel.
MR. CREEL: Thanks for hearing me. Mark Creel, 5175 Sycamore Drive, resident at that
address 44 years, 61-year resident of Collier County.
Little background, during the last hurricane we had, our street was devastated.
Mr. Lawrence was one of the first ones on the street with his tractor clearing the road out, helping
neighbors get out of their driveway, doing everything he could to make us whole again.
I ask you to give him this variance. I have a large building behind my shop, my house. I
know what it's like to have that. It's a place to go and get away and do what you got to do.
I think Mr. Lawrence did it in all fact of thinking he had it right, done properly, and I just
ask you grant his variance.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here.
MR. CREEL: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MS. PADRON: Our next speaker is Maria Poklemba.
MS. POKELMBA: Good morning, gentlemen.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning.
MS. POKLEMBA: My name is Maria Poklemba, and I live immediate east of Jamie and
Carol.
They have been great neighbors, and to be fair with Jamie, he went into great detail to
explain to me what was going to happen there and how he was going to make sure it did not affect
me in any wrongdoing or flooding or anything like that because, if I had seen this monster thing go
up and not know, I would as a neighbor say, "Hey, what's this going to do for me?"
But he went into great detail to let me know that this building was going to be large, but it
was not going offensive or intrusive to me.
And he explained the drainage, which would have been my concern because I have been
there since 1990, and heavy rain would -- I mean, I could wear rubber boots and the water would
still go over my boot, but he explained that to me, and that was a great relief for me because, after
explaining that, he went a step further and helped me with soil and dirt to put along the fence
because I'm a gardener.
The whole back acre I attributed to my husband when he passed away. So I made a garden
for him. His favorite color is yellow. All my bushes are yellow, and they see me because I spend
most of my life back there in that garden.
So I was looking at it as it went up, and I said, "This thing is going to be big." And I kept
looking at it, but they have been so kind and so considerate, and they went detail by detail.
We were those old-fashioned neighbors speaking over the fence because I put in a
chain-link fence long before.
And it's not intrusive, and they even explained to me the landscaping that they would do
April 25, 2024
Page 13 of 27
after the building. Well, they haven't been able to do that because of this.
So in detail, I benefited from him and them, both of them, doing that building because now
I don't have a lot of problems. I have been able through the whole summer been able to maintain
my bushes. They didn't die for bacteria or water or anything.
Not only that, he's the neighbor that we all need, not just because he built that there, but
because the community really have benefitted from them having that business that they're not aware
of.
I am a member of Church United, and we get calls from people that say, "Hey, I'm selling.
I'm moving. I'm going back up north. I have a house full of furniture, and I don't want any of it.
I want it moved out now."
So they call the church. They call me. I am scrambling around trying to get trucks and
families and stuff to place these things.
Jamie is a blessing. I saw this big truck there, and I said, "Jamie," I said, "how much
would you charge me to use your truck?"
He said, "What do you need?"
I said, "I need to move this family out of that house and then distribute it to different
families that I have been calling, "Hey, do you need this table? Do you need this? Do you need
that?"
And he says, "Yes, sure, take care of it."
The driver comes and says, "Well, where will we go?"
He says -- I said, "Well, first I need to know how much you're going to charge me."
He says, "Jamie says he'll take care of it." Is that a blessing or what, because not only
for -- it was the community. A lot of people benefited from it, and I don't know if Carol and Jamie
are aware of it. All the way out to Estero, we would deliver furniture all day long.
And to me it's security. I'm a widow now for six years. I feel safe because I have them
right next to me. And, you know, when we have a neighbor who is harassing the rest of it, it kind
of puts a little tension, you know, in the neighbor, what one person can cause, you know, that kind
of thing.
And it's certainly going to be a great grievance for Carol and Jamie to move that building.
I don't know all the details and legalities, and I'm not going to stand up here and pretend that I do
because you all are taking care of it.
But I'm saying it will be a great grief for them to do that, and it will be a great grief for me
because it's going to cost them a lot of money where they might not be able to help me with
community as well because of that.
So, in essence, I'm just in their behalf asking for this forgiveness. You know, we are
human and we commit errors, and a little forgiveness goes a long, long ways, especially in the
community. That is why I'm speaking in their character.
Yes, Jamie jumps in with his equipment. They're his toys. He loves to be in them as
much as I love to be in the back of my garden, and he can -- he will run over there. He did the
same thing for me. He cleared out the trees, cut them down, and he will do that for anyone in the
neighborhood.
I don't believe there was anything devious about Jamie and Carol regarding that building.
It's just an error, an error, gentlemen, and this is what I'm asking, that you please consider this their
forgiveness. Let them go on with their business, and let me keep going with my community work
because I'm going to take advantage of Jamie now with that truck.
I have two more families I have to move out, but I choose not to bother him because all of
the things he's got going on. So what is happening to him is affecting me and our community.
So, please, in that aspect, I'm asking you just to, you know -- I'm not saying sweep it under
the rug because that's not what I want in my community either. That's not what I want in my
county. I'm just saying forgiveness and what it is you want and file it away and let Jamie go on
April 25, 2024
Page 14 of 27
with his business. Okay? Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here.
MS. PADRON: Our final speaker is on Zoom, Graham Ginsberg.
Mr. Ginsberg, can you hear us?
MR. GINSBERG: Yes, I can. Can you hear me?
MS. PADRON: Yes, we can.
MR. GINSBERG: My name is Graham Ginsberg. I've lived on Sycamore Drive for over
24 years and lived in Collier County for over 30 years.
I'm against this variance because it sets a precedent and a process, and I need to emphasize
that. It sets a process, one that is not consistent with the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan.
Just because 14 people support this does not make it right. Rules are for everyone, not for
everyone else. We are taught very early on that there are rules and processes we should follow to
achieve a favorable outcome.
Applying for a variance before the structure was completed would be generally a good idea.
Also having the County inspect the building as it progressed would be ideal and not using a private
provider.
Our Golden Gate Estates ordinances and building guidelines are now more important than
ever because new Collier County residents appear to be removing most of the natural vegetation on
their lots and replacing it with hard surfaces, buildings and manicured lawns.
Privacy between neighbors may be compromised when buildings are erected too close to
the property lines. Adjacent property values could also be negatively affected because of the visual
impact of large structures.
Decisions made here regarding new buildings and the required setbacks could set an
unfortunate trajectory for our future life style in Golden Gate Estates.
I vote against this variance petition on my street. Just because the neighbor immediately to
the north presently has a large natural buffer doesn't mean that any future owner couldn't do the
same as the petitioner and build very close to the property line.
Thank you for your time.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Ginsberg, could you give me your address
again please real quickly?
MR. GINSBERG: 4950 Sycamore Drive.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here this morning.
MR. GINSBERG: You're welcome.
MR. PADRON: Mr. Dickman, Mr. Lawrence would like to speak again.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The applicant? Sure, of course. So they have
time for rebuttal, so if you want to join your attorney.
So that's all the public speakers?
MS. PADRON: That is correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we're going to close the public speaker part.
We're going to give the applicant and the applicant's attorney time for rebuttal to address anything
that may have come up.
MR. DAVIES: If I may, before you formally close public comment, I believe there are
additional speakers --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, there are?
MR. DAVIES: -- who want to just stand and say "no objection" without additional
comments.
MR. LAWRENCE: They did show up here. I mean, they -- like you said, not everybody
wants to public speak.
So, I mean, these are all my neighbors, starting with George in the back who is at the end of
our street down there. I mean, they signed the petition with us, and he wants to show his face and
April 25, 2024
Page 15 of 27
no objection.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me just do it this way. Could Mr. Lawrence's
neighbors all stand up that are here in favor? So I have got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
eight, nine, ten, looks like 11.
Anybody here that didn't want to speak that's opposed stand up.
Okay. I'm so sad that everybody is just too -- that they don't want to talk to me, okay, but
everybody spoke very -- I understood everything.
Anything else you would like to address, sir?
MR. LAWRENCE: Just from the very beginning, I just want to stress over and over again
that I paid a lot of people a lot of money to make sure this was going in the right direction.
It would be a total waste of my finances to do such and put it in the wrong spot. I relied on
professional people to follow their lead to move forward on it.
I just wanted to let the Court know, yourself know, this was no malicious intent ever from
the beginning and that we always wanted to do the right thing right down to adding additional
windows, right down to adding extra screening, right down to adding whatever you needed.
We're not here to get one by. You know, we're asking for the forgiveness of what's
happened up until this point, and we'll do whatever we can to do what we have to do, but the
building cannot be moved. It would be destroyed.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay.
Anything else, counselor?
MR. DAVIES: Quick final comments just that you -- I think you have the evidence in the
record to support the granting of this variance based on the applicant's testimony, based on the
argument from me and then the public testimony as well. And we respectfully ask today that you
do that. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Very good. Very good.
Does the County have anything else they would like to add or are you resting here?
MR. BOSI: Nothing more from the County. Mike Bosi, Planning & Zoning director.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bosi.
Okay. First of all, everyone who spoke did a great job. In the future, anybody who comes
here, you know, speak a little. We like to hear from you. This is an informal opportunity to hear
from neighbors, so don't be worried.
And I have all the information that I believe I need. It's also -- there's plenty of information
in the record that's on file. I will review everything carefully, very carefully, and I will render a
decision, a written decision, within 30 days.
Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it, appreciate the time that you take to be here.
So have a nice day, everybody.
Okay. As soon as everybody departs, we'll move on to 3-B.
Can you all step outside into the hall if you would.
All right. Are we ready to go to the next item? This will be 3-B.
Good morning.
MR. FINN: Good morning. How are you?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm fine. Thanks. Thanks for being here.
MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, Planner III.
This is for Petition Number VA-PL20230010693. Eric William Schrack requests a
variance from Section 4.02.01, Table 2.1, of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce
the north property line minimum side yard setback from 10 feet 0 feet and a variance from
Section 4.06.02.C, Table 2.4, of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required
Type A landscape buffer on the north property line from 5 feet to 0 feet to allow for construction of
a new structure utilizing a legal nonconforming 0-foot setback on the north property line on a
0.74-acre property at 6245 Lee Ann Lane in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
April 25, 2024
Page 16 of 27
County, Florida.
Let's see. Next, the property is compliant with the GMP and LDC, and, therefore, staff
recommends approval.
Let's see. Lastly, the applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operation staff.
The advertisements and mailers went out on March the 22nd.
When this petition was continued to the April 25th meeting, it did not require
re-advertisement. The hearing advertisement property signage were constructed and put up on the
property on March the 27th.
When this petition was continued to April 25th, staff went back out to the property to revise
the signs to the April 25th day, which is included in Attachment E of the materials.
And that concludes my presentation.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. Thanks, Tim. Appreciate it.
Is the applicant or the applicant's representative here?
Good morning.
MS. KLUTTZ: Hello. Good morning.
Put that a little lower.
For the record, my name is Jessica Kluttz with Davidson Engineering. I'm a member of the
American Institute of Certified Planners, and I'm here representing the property owner, Eric
Schrack, in this variance.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I will recognize you as an expert.
MS. KLUTTZ: Thank you.
Next slide, please.
So our subject location is 6245 Lee Ann Lane. This is approximately .74 acres. It is
northwest of the intersection of Pine Ridge and Airport Roads in the industrial park.
Next slide.
So our variance request is to have a variance from two sections of the code. The first is to
deviate from the 10-foot minimum side yard on the north property line. This would allow a 0-foot
side yard to mirror the existing structure on the site.
And then our second variance request is from the landscape buffering to allow for 0 feet of
landscape buffering along the facade of that building to allow for that 0-foot side yard setback, and
that would be a deviation from the required 5-foot landscape buffer.
Next slide.
So here is our conceptual site plan which shows the two variances with the existing
structure on the right side there and then the mirrored proposed structure.
And you can see that on this site, in order for the driveways to line up and for the building
to be the same size as the existing building, we do require both of these variances, both the 10-foot
setback and the 5-feet landscape buffer variance.
Next slide, please.
I do apologize, so I do apologize, it is a 300-square-foot, not a 600-square-foot variance on
that landscape buffer.
Next slide.
So the existing conditions are that, per a 1979 deed, this property has been 80-feet wide
historically. And this does not conform to the current Land Development Code, which requires a
100-foot lot width in an industrial. So it is a legal nonconforming lot.
And this creates a hardship for the property owner as the code is designed for a conforming
lot, and this is a smaller-than conforming lot.
And this property has been owned and operated by the Schrack family since 1984, and this
was developed, the original structure, when 0-foot side yards were permitted in the industrial district
per the Land Development Code.
Next slide.
April 25, 2024
Page 17 of 27
So, again, the hardship comes from that it was subdivided into a size prior to the current
Land Development Code that would not conform.
Just once again, the structure, it needs to be this size in order to mirror the existing structure
and to allow for the necessary industrial park function for Mr. Schrack's air conditioning business.
He'd like to have two of the same structures on the site. In order to allow for the required parking
and access driveways to line up, the building cannot be shifted.
Next slide, please.
So, again, this parcel is 80 feet wide. So the code required yards of the 10-foot minimum
would take up 25 percent of the lot's width, and per the code, side yards on an industrial site should
only equal 20 percent with that minimum yard width of 10 feet.
So this was designed with that 100-feet yard in mind, and it creates a hardship on an
80-foot-wide lot. So if the full setback is utilized, the building would lose significant size and
functionality because it's going to retain that driveway and those parking spaces.
And we believe that this variance is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, as there's
no language in there that would prohibit such a variance, and it's in the industrial future land use
designation, which doesn't place any kind of special development standards on the site relating to
requiring yards.
Next slide, please.
I just want to point out that, again, the subject site is in an industrial district. It does not
abut any residential uses or any zoning other than industrial.
We believe the 0-foot lot line is compatible with surrounding uses, and we have seven
nearby properties that also utilize the 0-foot lot line, including the lot immediately to the north.
So currently the existing structure and that north structure, there is a fire wall between them,
and per code on the new structure, a fire wall would be constructed as well so it does not create any
kind of life or safety hazard.
Next slide.
And that's all we have. I'm more than happy to field any questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do have a question. In your professional opinion,
are the upgrades to this site -- I guess it's an air conditioning business -- is this an improvement of
the site with regard to traffic circulation, buildings, appearance, et cetera?
MS. KLUTTZ: Absolutely. So on the current site, the place where the building is
proposed is sort of this gravel yard, and there's a lot of different, almost like temporary structures.
So this would create one unified structure, instead of having kind of everything outside.
MR. HEARING OFFICER: Gotcha. Okay.
MS. KLUTTZ: It would benefit the business as well by being able to put their equipment
indoors --
MR. HEARING OFFICER: Indoors.
MS. KLUTTZ: -- rather than storing it outside. So it would create a better environment
for their business.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. KLUTTZ: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I want to reserve a little time in case there is any
public comment.
Anybody here to speak on this item?
MS. PADRON: There are no registered speakers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okey-dokey.
Anything else from the County?
MR. FINN: No.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nothing else? Okay.
Well done. I will look at everything again and carefully and render my decision within
April 25, 2024
Page 18 of 27
30 days.
Thanks for being here.
MS. KLUTTZ: Absolutely. Appreciate your time and consideration.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have a great day.
MS. KLUTTZ: You as well.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Excellent.
Moving on to 3-C. Sean.
Good morning, Sean.
MS. SAMMON: Good morning. Long time, no see.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sorry.
MR. SAMMON: That's okay.
HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: Call me out like that.
Haven't seen you around either.
MR. SAMMON: I know. Too busy with baseball season.
Good morning, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III in the Zoning
Division.
Before you is Agenda Item 3-C. It's for a variance Project Number PL20230018286. This
is a request for a variance from Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, of the Collier County Land
Development Code to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 25 feet to 15 feet on the east
front property line for a proposed single-family residence in the Residential Single-Family-4,
RSF-4, zoning district.
The subject property is in an approximate 0.27-acre parcel at 185 Sixth Street, Naples,
Florida 34113, also known as Trail Acres, Unit 2, Block 2, Lot 22, in Section 32, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC
Section 9.04.03, A through H, and staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in
the LDC, as well as with the GMP.
With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC
Section Title 306-F. The agent letter was distributed by the property owner on Tuesday, March 5,
2024. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by the County
on Friday, March 22nd, 2024. And the public hearing signs were placed by County staff on March
22nd, 2024.
Due to the change of hearing date to today, April 25th, 2024, the public hearing sign was
changed to advertise today's date on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2024.
I have received no calls from the public pertaining to this petition. One property owner on
the street stopped in to speak on an unrelated issue of the private property adjacent to the north
about the turnaround at the terminus of the street; however, they were in support of the variance
petition on the subject property.
Therefore, staff recommends that you approve this petition to reduce the minimum front
yard setback on the east front property line from 25 feet to 15 feet for the single-family residence as
depicted within Attachment B.
That concludes staff summary.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thanks, Sean.
Is the applicant or the applicant's representative here?
MR. BURCKY: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Come on. Come on up. Good morning.
MR. BURCKY: Good morning. Hi. I'm Troy Burcky, and I'm the owner of the property
at 185 6th Street, and as Sean said, I'm here today to request a 10-foot front yard setback variance.
Slide, please.
So a bit about the property, it's located in the neighborhood of Trail Acres just to the south
April 25, 2024
Page 19 of 27
of US 41 to -- it's in that red box there on the image on the left. Naples Manor and Lely are just to
the north.
The zoning for this property is RSF-4, and the setbacks are 25 feet from the front, 7'6" from
the side and 25 feet from the rear.
Next slide, please.
So here's a survey of my property, and as you'll see, there are certain conditions that really
restrict the buildable area of the lot that are just kind of a bit peculiar to this lot, unlike other lots.
In my opinion, basically on the west side, there is a 5-foot utility easement that has -- that
has electrical poles and overhead electrical lines that run along there. That doesn't necessarily
reduce the buildable area; however, I am hoping to be able to move the -- I purchased the property
to build my home here. So that's why I'm coming in for this variance.
So I'm trying to hopefully be able to move my home as far away from those electrical lines
as possible, as least on the west end.
On the north end, there's a 10-foot drainage easement, and there's also a very large drainage
ditch there. It actually encroaches a bit past the drainage easement onto my property and the
buildable area.
So, unfortunately, that kind of already takes up 10 feet on that north side, and given the
elevation of, I guess, virgin grade there is about 2 feet above sea level, the elevation of my home
needs to be at 7 feet above sea level.
So just given that to make sure that the structure is structurally sound, it even needs to be set
back farther away from that drainage ditch just given the difference in elevation and to have the
ability to just kind of get around the home.
So the width of the buildable area gets severely reduced because of that.
And then in the very front of the property, there is a 10-foot recess there, and I will explain
a little bit more about why that's there on the next slide.
But basically what ends up occurring here is that there's this 10-foot recess. That 25-foot
front setback has to be taken from that 10-foot recess, which ultimately kind of creates a scenario
where the front setback for this property is more like 35 feet from the lot line or from the property
line that's close to the street. So it's a good deal larger.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So just to be clear, the 10-foot recess you're
referring to is red on that -- on that diagram; is that correct?
MR. BURCKY: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's your street frontage right there?
MR. BURCKY: Yes, that is the street front. Sorry about that.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem.
MR. BURCKY: The electrical is in yellow, the drainage ditch in orange, and the net recess
I'm talking about is in red.
So given all these factors, that I'm looking for relief with the exact buildable area to build
my home, and that is kind of the area that I'm asking for relief with on there.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it looks like 6th Street. Is that
cul-de-sac, that you're right on the cul-de-sac?
MR. BURCKY: No.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Does that go through or --
MR. BURCKY: So on the next slide, I'll show the --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. BURCKY: -- kind of what's occurring here and why I decided to attempt to ask for
this variance.
So on the left, that is the plat map, and originally when it was -- this area was platted in
1958, my property is at the end of 6th Street and was supposed to be a dead-end street. And this
10-foot recess was for, guessing, a turnaround in that area.
April 25, 2024
Page 20 of 27
However, at some point, the street was extended to the north more to allow access to
multiple properties, including two homes there, which basically given that, I didn't really see a need
for the turnaround to be in front of my property anymore and almost got kind of rendering this
10-foot -- this 10-foot recess not absolutely necessary.
So next -- next slide, please.
So for that reason is why I figured that I would attempt to get some -- some relief for the
development of my home, using for the front yard setback variance, given that that recess doesn't
seem quite necessary anymore because of the street being extended.
On the left, you'll see a diagram of the home that I would like to build with this 10-foot
variance. As you can see, it gives me enough space to be able to put my home within all of the
setbacks. I can -- I'm able to get a good deal away from the rear of the property where all the
electrical lines are.
I can keep it just south of that existing drainage ditch a good amount so that it's structurally
sound, and there's also ability to get around the home.
And then in the front there's -- the part that would be going in that 10-foot variance would
be the front of the garage there. It's about 24-feet wide. So 240 square feet would be what would
be in that variance. And ultimately it would be 15 feet away still from that 10-foot recessed
property line, but it would be 25 feet away from the property line that is closest to the street.
And then, when you look at the context of the neighborhood, like in the image on the right,
I'm not asking to move my home any closer to the street than anyone else has the ability to in the
neighborhood. It would just line up with everybody else.
So that's -- that's my presentation. I thank you very much for hearing it.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, thank you. I recognize the -- you know, I
guess, the plat to the north is the one that sort of created the unique diagram -- the unique
dimensions of your lot, which is Lot 22, and as you said, like I guess at some point that was thought
to be potentially a dead-end, cul-de-sac type stuff.
And then, you know, I think the lot directly behind you also has a unique dimension
because of that, because the way that the north plat is set up. So I recognize that.
Let's see if there are any public speakers for this matter.
MS. PADRON: We have no speakers, Mr. Dickman.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers. Okay.
This seems very pretty straight forward. Is there anything else from the County that you
would like to add?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning & Zoning director.
I don't believe anything else for the County.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm kind of curious about that little cutout. Is
that -- was that set up for the cul-de-sac originally?
MR. BOSI: It may have.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
Yeah, I talked -- I talked to our -- I talked to our plat expert, and those -- that's a common
thing that they did in the plats back in the day.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, and there's no way to vacate that if somebody
asks for it or...
MR. BELLOWS: They don't typically vacate those things, but it -- my understanding is
they don't. They wouldn't support a vacation.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Why give more property when you don't
have to?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Nice -- well done. Nice job.
Who needs a lawyer, right?
April 25, 2024
Page 21 of 27
MR. BURCKY: This costs a pretty penny already, as everyone out here knows.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I hear you. I hear you.
Okay. Thank you. I have enough information. I have -- I will review everything very,
very carefully, and I will make a decision within 30 days for a decision.
Thanks for being here.
MR. BURCKY: Okay. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Moving right along. We're
going to Item 3-D on the agenda. I guess that's John.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. John Kelly, Planner III, for the record.
Because of some issues this morning, I missed being sworn in, as did the property owner.
So if you could have them rise to be sworn, along with me.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. Please stand.
THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right hand back there. Raise your right hand.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Please raise your right hand. There you go.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 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: Thank you very much.
MR. KELLY: Okay. This is going to be Item D. It's Petition VA-PL20230013525. It's
a request to have the hearing examiner consider an after-the-fact variance to reduce the required
structure-to-structure separation required by Land Development Code Section 4.02.03.D, for an
accessory utility building from 10 feet to 3.8 feet.
The subject property comprises 0.19 acres located at 5238 Texas Avenue, also known as
Lot 11, Block 9, Naples Manor Lakes in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
unincorporated Collier County, Florida.
The location is within a residential Single-Family 4, RSF-4, Zoning District.
As for public notice requirements contained in LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2, the required
agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about March 11, 2024, as evidenced by notarized
affidavit.
The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were run by the County on April 5,
2024, and a public hearing sign was posted to the front of the property on April 5, 2024, by myself.
This petition was reviewed by staff based on review criteria contained within LDC Section
9.04.03 and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
Staff notes that this variance is necessary to satisfy permitting requirements for the existing
20-foot-by-20-foot utility building, shed, which is located in the southwest quadrant of the subject
property, which was initially authorized by Building Permit Number PRBD20211050976 for which
a certificate of completion has not yet been issued.
No phone calls or correspondence have been received in response to advertising for this
petition, and staff is inclined to recommend approval of the requested variance as the permit was
issued for an owner/builder project, and English is not the native language of the applicant, and it's
understood by staff that there was a language barrier which ultimately caused the encroachment.
Staff recommends the hearing approver -- the hearing examiner approve this variance
request therefor, thus reducing the required structure-to-structure separation from 10 feet to 3.8 feet,
thereby allowing for the continued existence of the utility building shed as depicted within
Attachment A.
Staff requests that the petitioner be required to obtain a certificate of completion for the
subject structure.
And that completes our presentation, and so I have the property owner, as well as a
translator that was recruited this morning, so she's unfamiliar with the project.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's okay.
April 25, 2024
Page 22 of 27
MR. KELLY: We may have to lead her.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Would the applicant and the applicant's
translator please come up to this podium.
Good morning. Thank you for being here.
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: Good morning. Thank you for having me.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: My name is Malina. I will be translating for Mr. Diplena.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: He wants -- he is requesting a variance to reduce the required
structure-the-structure separation from the 10 feet to 3.8 feet.
He had a building permit for the structure, however, did not fully understand the separation
requirements due to a language barrier. English is not his first language. Okay?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me have you ask him a question or let him
know that -- so he understands that John Kelly is a professional planner with the County
and -- correct?
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: Yes, he does.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And John's recommendation -- the County's
recommendation on behalf of John's evaluation of the situation, is to approve the
applicant -- application.
Does the proper -- does your property owner, does he agree with Mr. Kelly?
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: He agrees.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And he'll adopt everything that was recommended
by Mr. Kelly on behalf of the county?
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: He agrees.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Let's see if there's anyone here from the public to -- on behalf.
MS. PADRON: There are no speakers for this position.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So no public speakers. The item was
advertised. There is posted on the property a sign. So the public had the ability to know that there
was a hearing to be held here today on this, correct, John?
MR. KELLY: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. So no one is here to speak against
this.
I understand exactly what has taken place. I will review all the documentation. The
County, once again, is recommending approval of this, and I understand your client has agreed with
the County's professional planner, John Kelly, and I will take all that into consideration and get a
written decision out as quickly as I can.
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here on short notice. I
appreciate it.
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have a great day.
MS. JEAN-LOUIS: Thank you. Likewise.
MR. KELLY: Thank you, both.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this you, John?
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 3-E.
MR. KELLY: This is going to be Item 3-E. It's a boat dock petition, PL20230013185.
The petitioner requests the hearing examiner approve a 62-foot boat dock extension from the
maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County
April 25, 2024
Page 23 of 27
Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking
facility protruding a total of 82 feet into a waterway that is 1,573, plus or minus, feet wide for the
benefit of the subject property, which is located at 1139 Chokoloskee Drive, northwest of the
intersection of Chokoloskee Drive and Parkway Village, in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range
29 East, unincorporated Collier County, Florida.
This location is within a Village Residential, VR, Zoning District. Staff -- let's see.
The subject property comprises of 0.46 acres upon which a duplex is presently under
construction by authority of Building Permit Number PRFH20230313405 issued on August 28,
2023, in which is presently in the inspect status.
The petitioner desires to remove the remains of a dilapidated dock facility and construct a
similarly situated new dock facility with four slips, two for each dwelling unit. The required
15-foot side/riparian setbacks will be respected on both sides of the new dock facility.
Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner
notification letter and newspaper ad were satisfied by the County on April 5, 2024, and a public
hearing sign was posted at a very visible location by myself on April 5, 2024.
The petition was reviewed by staff based on 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 has been found to be
consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
No public comment has been received in response to advertising for the subject project.
Staff recommends that the hearing examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with
the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment B.
That concludes staff's presentation.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, John. Appreciate it.
MR. KELLY: Nate Pearson.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Pearson, come on up. How are you today?
MR. PEARSON: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. I'm good. For the record, Nick Pearson,
Bayshore Marine Consultant. I do have a presentation I will run through.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right.
MR. PEARSON: So for the most part, my presentation here mirrors the exhibits that you
have on file already. As you can see, the location of the property is on the west side of
Chokoloskee, sort of on the little corner there almost.
If we could go to the next slide.
So this is a recent aerial. The property appraiser actually had the most up-to-date aerial
that I could find. As you can see, there is -- the duplex is being constructed there.
There are -- and I should note, too, also that the zoning for this property is Village
Residential, is a little bit unique for some of the other boat dock extensions that I have handled.
If we could go to the next slide.
So this is the existing condition. You can see the lot dimensions. Most of the shoreline
here consists of seawall. There's a boat ramp on the south portion of the shoreline.
So we're -- and we're dealing with approximately 110 feet of shoreline width as well, and
that includes kind of the boat ramp.
If we could go to the next slide.
This is the proposed design. You'll see in kind of some of the later slides the dock is
similar to the historic structure on site. Really, the historic structure at this point is essentially just
a bunch of piles, but you can still kind of see the general design of what was there before.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nick, I have a question for you. When -- you
know one of the criteria is mathematical related to shoreline. So I'm just curious because obviously
we know the shoreline is perpendicular to the dock.
April 25, 2024
Page 24 of 27
Are you also including the part that goes in for the boat ramp, which would be in alignment
with the proposed dock? Is that part of your calculations?
MR. PEARSON: There was discussion about that during the review process, and initially I
had included it. Direction that I got from staff was just to basically consider only the width, so that
I think -- and correct me if I'm wrong. I think oftentimes the direction is to basically be
conservative about the way that we take some of these measurements.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm only asking because I don't think there
is -- yeah, I -- I was thinking about it on a prior application because some of these -- these are
unique, but, you know, this is a mathematical formula, and I was just curious about that, so -- but I
understand.
So maybe it's best to take the most conservative, and you still meet that? Do you still meet
that, or does that affect you?
MR. PEARSON: I don't think we were -- we would have met that anyway --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: -- I mean, because I think the calculation you're referring to is the 50
percent.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. PEARSON: So we would have to be basically 55 feet of total boat length.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha.
MR. PEARSON: So we don't meet that in this case.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, that's a hard one to meet sometimes.
MR. PEARSON: Yeah. You know, I don't want to make blanket statements on how to
interpret the shoreline length. You know, I think in some instances maybe it would be appropriate
to follow the exact shoreline.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think it's a site-by-site decision because some of
them might not be shaped like that, but I have seen some that are in the end of a canal with a right
angle or something like that, but I was just curious.
I didn't mean to chop up your presentation. I'm sorry about that.
MR. PEARSON: No. I appreciate the dialogue because it was something that was spoken
about.
As you can see, the four boat slips proposed would accommodate 25-foot LOA. The
intention is to have skiffs here, so basically very shallow drafting boats.
We do have four boat lifts that are shown here. My understanding is that those may not be
built, but we would like to have the option to have them built in the future. So they are shown
there, but otherwise --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if you build the boat -- if you build the lifts, are
those little finger piers going to go out further or are they going to stay the same?
MR. PEARSON: The finger piers would be as shown.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: So, again --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those are catwalks, I guess?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
So, again, to bring up the boat ramp, I think that would be kind of used in conjunction with
the wet slips if lifts aren't provided there, but, otherwise, the dimensions shown are pretty straight
forward.
We have a four-foot access running out to the terminal platform of approximately 160
square feet.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: We are meeting both side setbacks on both sides as well.
And if we could go to the next slide.
April 25, 2024
Page 25 of 27
This is just a cross-section. The depths here are shallow. I should point that out. We are
aware that that may be somewhat restrictive at times. Otherwise, this is just a demonstration,
again, of basically the length of the dock and what you could expect to see from the side.
Next slide, please.
So the waterway here is pretty wide, 1,573 feet. And just to give kind of perspective on the
length that we are proposing, it's really not out of the ordinary; and, in fact, it's less protrusion than
some of the docks to the north as you, you know, can see visibly.
Next slide, please.
And, again, this is just a demonstration kind of the protrusions existing in the area.
Comparatively speaking, we're quite a bit less than other docks. I know the whole discussion about
precedent. I don't want to, you know, bring that up again and beat a dead horse, but --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Listen, it's always good for me to see the big
picture. I understand that, so thank you.
MR. PEARSON: And as you can see as well, 110 feet from the nearest dock to the north.
Probably also worth mentioning, the property to the south has some historic dock structures
on it as well. It basically looks like the same sort of existing structures on our property. It's just a
grouping of piles, but it does go out quite a ways from shore. I don't have a measurement on that,
so I apologize for that.
If we could go to the slide.
This is just a visual kind of the site. This was taken probably a month or two ago. So the
house/duplex should be further along by now, I would think.
You can see the condition of the ramp on the top left and then the neighbor to the north on
the right, and you can see kind of what is existing on -- as far as the old dock on the bottom right.
And I suppose you can see the neighboring dock to the south as well in that top left photo.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please.
I don't want to run through all of these, just because some of them are clearly -- clearly met.
As you can see the one criteria in the secondary that you brought up that's not met.
The only other one that I might bring attention to is the first criteria of the primary, which
sort of deals with whether or not the dock and the slip number is appropriate for the zoning for the
general location.
Our -- our opinion here, since duplexes weren't directly addressed in this criteria, was that
we are on Chokoloskee. It's a fishing village. There clearly are other multi-slip docks in the
general area.
Two slips per each unit of the duplex seemed appropriate to us considering the general
nature of the area as well. So our impression was that that one was met.
And the only other one, Manatee Protection Plan. We're less than 10 slips, so this criteria
was not applicable, as you're well aware.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please.
That's just a general overview of what the dock will look like again, and if you have any
questions, I'd be happy to take them now.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. It's pretty straight forward.
Let's see if there's any public speakers here.
MS. PADRON: We have no speakers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, we'll close the -- John,
you want to be a public speaker?
MR. KELLY: Staff concurs with the Primary Criterion Number 1.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You do. Okay.
MR. PEARSON: I do have one other thing to add. The neighbors both gave no objection
April 25, 2024
Page 26 of 27
letters, which I just got them this morning, so if you would like --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, please, submit them here. Does John have a
copy? Okay. Why don't you give it to John, and he can make copies and give it to everybody.
John, are those no-objection letters?
MR. KELLY: Staff is in receipt of no-objection letters from 1125 and 1143 Chokoloskee
Drive. I will add them to the record.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. I would like a copy of that.
Okay. All right. Well, I understand this one. Nice presentation. I appreciate you being
here. I will review everything carefully and get a decision out to you as soon as I can.
MR. PEARSON: Great. Thank you very much.
MR. KELLY: I will make two copies. One for you and one for the court reporter.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John, if that's not too much trouble.
Don't want to wear him out.
Okay. Any other business?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning & Zoning director, done for the County.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, thanks a lot for reorganizing this meeting for
me. I appreciate it. I hope it didn't upset anybody, but it worked out.
MR. BOSI: And just note for the May schedule, both of the second and fourth
Tuesdays -- or the Thursdays that we had scheduled are canceled. We are having one meeting, and
it's going to be May 30th.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: May 30th.
MR. BOSI: And I think we have arranged that through your offices.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Thank you very much for doing all that. I
have got some commitments that I have got to deal with.
MR. BOSI: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it.
So we're adjourned. Thank you very much for everybody's help. Nice meeting you.
********
April 25, 2024
Page 27 of 27
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing
Examiner at 10:46 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 SUSAN
SIMONETTI, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.