Loading...
HEX Minutes 10/24/2024October 24, 2024 Page 1 of 20 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida October 24, 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 1:02 p.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 Tim Finn, Principal Planner John Kelly, Senior Planner Maria Estrada, Planner II Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I October 24, 2024 Page 2 of 20 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting of October 24, 2024. Let's all rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you, everybody. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the appointed hearing examiner for Collier County for this area of applications that fall under the code that are my jurisdiction. I am not a County employee. I'm an -- I'm an attorney, Florida Bar attorney, for over 20 years. I have been appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to act in this capacity, to be an impartial decision-maker on all of these applications. Obviously, County staff is here to my right. We have our court reporter here. I have not had any meetings with the County or anybody to that effect on any substantive issue on any matter here. When we say quasi-judicial hearing, I'm here in the capacity of a quasi-judge. So just like you would not go talk to the judge personally by yourself, you know, I have maintained that same kind of impartiality. What -- the documents I have reviewed is everything that's in the record that's been provided. It's available to the public. I've read everything. I have looked at it. I am very familiar with everything. I just want everyone to know that I don't have private meetings with anybody outside of this arena about any topics, so no one is prejudiced in that manner. So my job is to basically hear each petition on its own merits. Each petition, whatever it may be, has its own criteria that's in the code that has to be -- that it has to be analyzed and reviewed by. And so my job will be to listen to the evidence and testimony that's brought here today, look at what's in the record that's made available, and then within 30 days render a written decision. I will not be making decisions here today. I take everything back and I put it together in a formal decision, and my office will be issuing that. The process that I like to follow here is, again, it's -- it's informal, but it's formal. So I don't want you to be nervous, if you're worried about speaking publicly, but at the same time I like to keep a process set up so that there is a record. You know, we do have a court reporter, as I mentioned, who keeps a verbatim record -- verbatim transcripts of everything that's going on, in the event that somebody needs to look back, you know, in time and look and find out what happened. We follow the same procedure. So I typically like to have the County introduce the agenda item, the petition, using this podium in the middle. And then after that -- we'll just go over some basic things, the petition itself, any -- any specific items that they want to point out. They'll talk about the -- what kind of notices were put out, any recommendations or conditions that they're recommending. Then we will ask the applicant or the applicant's representative to use this other podium next to the court reporter. And come up and be sure to, you know, state your name and address and things like that, and then go through the application, which would be your -- the case in chief. And then we will allow for public comments. And at that time, public comment could be someone that's here personally, live. And if you're here to speak as a member of the public, there are speaker cards over here on the table. If you could fill one of them out and give them to the young lady over here. This is also a hybrid meeting. So the County has done the public the very favor of allowing folks that can't get here - it's a very large county - so they can attend via Zoom. And usually that works out pretty well. Sometimes there's some -- some IT issues on one end or the other. But, either way, the County has offered that up, so we may get some public testimony via Zoom. Once I close the public hearing portion, then it's closed. I will allow the applicant or the applicant's representative some time for rebuttal, if necessary, after that. October 24, 2024 Page 3 of 20 I may ask some questions. If I -- if I'm not -- if I'm not looking at you while you're speaking, please don't take offense of it, because I have the reports in front of me and I'll want to glance down at them. I'm listening to everything. That's the most important thing here, is that -- you can say whatever you want to say at the podium, this is your time, but I would ask that you try to focus your attention on the criteria and the facts related to the particular case. That's going to be most helpful for me, because once this hearing is over with, then you cannot reach out to me and contact me and say, "Oh, by the way, I have this other piece of information I want to give you." I will not do that. The hearing will be over. We're set. We're done. So we try to get everything -- we take our time and try to get everything done here today. Please silence any phones. If you're going to have any conversations with anybody, please step out in the hallway. We do have a rather large agenda. I'm personally not going to apologize for that, because I didn't create the hurricanes. But, at the same time, it is -- you know, I do ask for everyone's patience as we go through these things. I do appreciate everyone being here. And I certainly do hope that everyone got through the storms safe and sound, with as little damage as possible. I do some work up in the Tampa Bay area, and those cities up there are not doing very well. And I remember that very fondly during -- not so fondly, actually -- during Ian, and Irma before that, and so we all know how they're -- how they're feeling. So I hope everyone here, you know, fared well through the storm. I know that's just part of life in Florida. Unfortunately, we quickly forget about it after the hurricane season is over with, but it does come around, and sometimes it comes around with a -- with a ferocious roar. So a lot of these things on the agenda today had to be rolled over onto this agenda. So I apologize if anybody had to wait a long time to get here, because I know you're waiting to get your decision one way or the other. So I appreciate your patience on that. With that, anyone who is going to speak here today to -- you know, on the record, you have to do so under oath. And with that, I will ask everyone who is going to speak here today to stand, raise your right hand, and our court reporter will administer the oath. (Oath administered.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great, everybody. And, yes, I echo that. I usually say that. The court reporter has full authority to stop everything if somebody is talking loudly or too -- too -- you can't understand them, or they're using hand gestures, or things like that, that can't be recorded. It's very important to have the record. I look at the transcripts sometimes when I need to go back and look and see what happened. So it's really, really -- probably the most important thing here is to make sure that we have a clean, verbatim record of the proceedings. So with that, unless anybody has anything else, why don't we get started. MR. BELLOWS: Under your Item Number 2, review of agenda, I do have a continuance on Item 3-E. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: It's going to the November 14th -- the applicant is here to explain why there's a need -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Why don't we handle the continuance request first? Is the applicant here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. Hi. Come on up. MS. TAYLOR: Hi. How are you? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fine, thanks. MS. TAYLOR: This one? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, ma'am. This one is fine. MS. TAYLOR: This one, okay. October 24, 2024 Page 4 of 20 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi. MS. TAYLOR: Hi. Penny Taylor, P-E-N-N-Y, T-A-Y-L-O-R. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good to see you, Ms. Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: Nice to see you-all. I am the state program coordinator for the grants for -- for Community Foundation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: And I'm here on their behalf. We are planning to replace a manufactured home on a -- on a piece of land in Golden Gate that already has a destroyed manufactured home on it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MS. TAYLOR: It appears - and I won't get into too much - it's been grandfathered in. And so we were going merrily along until we had two hurricanes in October, and we did not give proper advertising. And so we are, you know, respectfully asking that this be continued to November the 14th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have no problem with that. I'm very big in favor of making sure we dot our i's and cross our t's, and notice to the public is a big part of that, as you well know. So, yes, I have no objection to that whatsoever. So we'll go to the next meeting? Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- where we're going to put it? MR. BELLOWS: November 14th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: November 14th. Date certain; right? MR. BELLOWS: Date certain. MS. TAYLOR: Date certain. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's good to see you. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sorry for the hurricane damage that you had. MS. TAYLOR: Well, it's not -- I didn't have hurricane damage, but, you know, up the road it's -- it just gets increasingly worse -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, it's -- MS. TAYLOR: -- and things slow down. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, and it creates a big logjam of time. Everybody's doing other -- MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- things, and that becomes a priority. I understand very much, so -- MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's great to see you. All right. So 3-E is off the agenda. Do we have any other things that we have to deal with, business? MR. BELLOWS: No other changes to the agenda. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Then we'll go right to 3-A. MS. ESTRADA: Hello? Okay. I wasn't sure it was on or not. Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II in the zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3-A. This is a request for an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 19-34, as amended, the Vanderbilt Commons Planned Unit Development, PUD, by amending Section 5.17.C so that that section no longer applies for lots 5 and 6. The subject approximately 2.7-acre parcel is part of the 15-acre PUD, which is in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Way and Buckstone Drive, approximately 1,200 October 24, 2024 Page 5 of 20 feet west of Collier Boulevard. The property is in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in unincorporated Collier County. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon reviewed criteria contained within LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1, A through K, and 10.02.13.E.2.A. And staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with the GMP. The applicant conducted one neighborhood information meeting held on Tuesday, August 27th, 2004 {sic}. No members of the public attended in person or by Zoom. 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 were -- ad were taken care of by the County on Friday, September 6th, 2024. And the public hearing signs were placed by the applicant on Wednesday, September 11th, 2024. But due to the hurricane, the applicant edited the sign on October 16, 2024, to comply. So there has no -- there has been no public opposition pertaining to this petition. Therefore, staff recommends that you approve this petition for an insubstantial change to the Vanderbilt Commons PUD. And this concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that. Hi. MS. HANSEN: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Rachel Hansen, certified planner with The Neighborhood Company. We do have a short presentation if you would like us to go through it. But, otherwise, I think Maria did a very thorough job of describing the request for the insubstantial change. So if you have any questions -- otherwise, I would be happy to go through -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you wouldn't mind, just give me a little bit of your background, just so I can -- MS. HANSEN: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- establish you as a -- as an expert. MS. HANSEN: Absolutely. I actually worked as a planner in comprehensive planning for Collier County from 2021 until March of this year. I was AICP certified in November of this year -- or last year, rather. Excuse me. And I have -- prior to working for Collier County, I worked for a regional planning commission in Rock Island, Illinois. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you. MS. HANSEN: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll see you as an expert, then. MS. HANSEN: Great. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Why don't you go ahead and take a few minutes just to get on the record some information -- MS. HANSEN: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- yourself. MS. HANSEN: Absolutely. Do I have a -- MR. BOSI: Just say, "Next slide." MS. HANSEN: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. HANSEN: Great. MS. PADRON: Just give me a signal. MS. HANSEN: Okay. Sure. Sounds good. Thanks, Ailyn. So just a brief overview of the subject property. Maria already went through most of this. October 24, 2024 Page 6 of 20 But it's 2.5 acres. It's about a quarter mile west of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The zoning is Vanderbilt Commons mixed use PUD. And the future land use designation is the urban mixed use district and the Vanderbilt Beach, Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict. Next slide, please. This is just an overview map. So the subject property is lots 5 and 6, which you see outlined in black. The entire PUD is outlined in red. Next slide. So here's just some context. This PUD was originally approved under Ordinance 2005-19. It permitted a maximum of 53 residential units and 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. There was an amendment that was adopted in 2019. And during the process of that amendment, a condition was placed, which is that Section 5.17.C that required garages for the first floor units of any residential development. A site development plan for multifamily was approved in 2020, and it did not include garages in that, as part of that plan. The Bellavista at Vanderbilt Way Apartments were built without those garages. They were, obviously, properly permitted by the County. They were built in -- they were built pursuant to that SDP that was approved in 2020. Next slide. So, again, our request is to change the PUD, specifically Section 5.17.C, to exclude lots 5 and 6 from the condition which requires garages. And I just want to note that this request has no impact on any approved uses or on the approved residential density. And actually, the number of units that were built was 48, so slightly less than the 53 that were approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So my understanding, then, is that this -- this is already built. It happened. Nobody really, you know -- I guess the -- the restriction here or the condition wasn't caught or followed, and so we're doing some cleanup here. MS. HANSEN: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that a good, fair, and accurate description? MS. HANSEN: Yeah. And, in fact, the -- the -- our client, the builder, purchased the property after that SDP without the garages was approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, okay. And, then, so the parking is where for the -- for those residences? MS. HANSEN: Actually, if you want to go to the -- I think the next slide has some aerial photos. So that is -- you can see the -- the parking is primarily in front of the building. I think the next one might show it a little closer. Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So that's the residence? MS. HANSEN: Yes, that's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they're residential apartments? They're not condominiums? MS. HANSEN: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So the parking is all ground-level surface parking? MS. HANSEN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Okay. So we're just making a minor change to legalize that and -- MS. HANSEN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- make it consistent with the approved ordinance. Okay. Great. I understand what's going on. October 24, 2024 Page 7 of 20 Let's go to public comment. Are you done? MS. HANSEN: I'm done. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great job. MS. HANSEN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And congratulations on your AICP and for your years with Collier County. MS. HANSEN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't how you did it, but, you know, it must have been torture. Let's go to the public. MS. PADRON: Good afternoon. We have no speakers for this petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers for this petition. Okay. Anybody have any last words that they want to say? Anything? Okay. This is pretty straightforward. I get what happened. I get what's going on. I will get a decision out as quickly as possible. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. Good job. All right. Okay. We're going to 3-B; right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Am I talking too fast? MS. PADRON: Hi, Tim. Let us know when you're ready. MR. FINN: Yeah, I'm -- I'm ready, Ailyn. MS. PADRON: Thank you. MR. FINN: For the record, I am Tim Finn, Planner III. This is for Petition Number PDI-PL20240004116, Naples Preserve Villas, LLC, requesting an insubstantial change to the Onyx RPUD, Ordinance 16-24, for, Number 1, the modification of Exhibit B, Table 1, residential development standards to add internal development standards for a platted townhouse development; and, Number 2, a deviation from the LDC 4.07.02.G.1, open space requirements, which requires residential PUD districts to provide a minimum 60 percent usable open space to allow 40 percent usable open space. The subject 8.72-acre parcel is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately one half mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out on September the 6th. The hearing advertisement and property signage were constructed at the property by the applicant per the affidavit of posting notice included in Attachment L of the backup materials. And this concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Tim, can you hear me? This is Andrew Dickman. MR. FINN: Yes, I can hear you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right, great. Thanks for being available. So we're talking about two different -- two -- two requests. One's an insubstantial change, and then also a deviation. Is that correct? MR. FINN: Yeah, right. This all goes under the PDI. So it's one deviation and some minor adjustments to the internal development standards. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Got it. Thank you. All right, great. Hi. MS. EMBLIDGE: Good afternoon. I'm Margaret -- oh, sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, that's a little -- October 24, 2024 Page 8 of 20 MS. EMBLIDGE: I'm a little loud, aren't I? I'm Margaret Emblidge. I am the planning director for LJA Engineering. I do have my AICP, but I've had it for a very long time, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So have I. MS. EMBLIDGE: And I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: My number's probably lower than yours. MS. EMBLIDGE: Well, we might talk about that later, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: Anyway, I don't know if you need any other credentials for me to go through. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, that's fine. I recognize you. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What was your -- okay. So what was your -- you're with the engineering -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, yes. We were formerly Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- we were merged with LJA in March of this year. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah, I think that's fine. Thank you. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nice job. MS. EMBLIDGE: So, well, first off, I want to clarify that the acreage for the property is actually 7.79 and not 8.72. I know that there were some revisions at one point with a survey and such, and I -- Tim, I apologize for not catching this previously, but you'll see on the survey that's in the backup documents that it's 7.79. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yes, we'll just get back to that. Maybe Tim or somebody could be verifying that while you're moving forward. MS. EMBLIDGE: Sure. I -- you know, Tim if you want to look at the survey while we're proceeding, that would help. Anyway, I -- I'm happy to go through a presentation -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just real quickly on the -- okay. Just thinking about the acreage. Part of this is the percentage of unusable open space. Change the acreage, does that change the calculations and anything -- MS. EMBLIDGE: It doesn't change what we presented, what we have in our application. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: So this -- this -- we could still proceed with what we have been relying on for -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- the required usable open space. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay, great. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. EMBLIDGE: So the request, as, you know, Tim highlighted, is to amend the Ordinance 16-24. You can go forward. And one more. Another. Thank you. So I think it's important for us to discuss the request, because it was mentioned. This is -- there's two -- it's twofold. One is to revise the development regulations table to accommodate a platted townhouse subdivision. Previously there was an approval, a site development plan approval, for this property that was specific to a condominium-style development, which does October 24, 2024 Page 9 of 20 not have internal lot lines, does not have platted rights-of-way and so on. And I don't have any -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: So I can still go on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just back up. MS. EMBLIDGE: And so the -- so, again, the -- the amendments to that table, the development regulations table, reflects the proposed townhouse, platted townhouse development. And with that, staff had recommended that we eliminate the column that refers to multifamily, which is the unplatted-type development, and so we have done that. We also added some additional footnotes, which I'll get into later. The second request, being the open space deviation, this is a little -- I'll use a technical term. This is a little wonky. If we could go to -- let's see -- I'll jump ahead. If we can go to -- I think it's Slide 7. Is it 7? Okay. This is what I'm looking for. I hope this is 7. So this shows a comparison of the site development plan that was previously approved by the County and the proposed plat plan, which is actually already going through the County review at this point. And if -- looking at it, you can see that there really isn't any difference between them. There are no changes to the required buffers. We have a recorded conservation easement on the preserve area that's on -- it would be on your right-hand side of this plan, which is the south side of the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: South is on the right? MS. EMBLIDGE: It's on the right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is north up? MS. EMBLIDGE: Not -- no. North is on the left side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, gotcha. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. Sorry about that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. And so the biggest change here is, again, we are creating lot lines for the townhomes. We're creating a specific area for the amenity center. And, again, the -- all the buffers, every -- anything related to potential external impact, there's no change in those. Everything that is being changed is internal to the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have a weird pointer here, but I'm trying to figure out how to use it, but never mind. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So describe for me where the -- are all of these townhouses now? MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The whole thing? MS. EMBLIDGE: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Got it. Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: That's the -- the number of units that was approved, and we're not changing -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- is 48 units, and we'll continue to have that, but only in -- they will be fee simple ownership versus condominium. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the common area, the activity center, or whatever you called it -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- where is that in -- MS. EMBLIDGE: The clubhouse is your upper left-hand corner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, okay. Okay. October 24, 2024 Page 10 of 20 MS. EMBLIDGE: Nothing else on this? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, nothing else. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MS. EMBLIDGE: All right. And -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not that wonky. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. It's a new technical term. So we'll go to the next slide, please. So this slide shows a -- depicts all the changes that we're proposing in the development regulations table. And as I previously mentioned, we created a new column for the platted townhouse development and eliminated the first column, which is related to the multifamily condominium-style development. Go to the next. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So these are going to be fee simple ownership on each lot -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- with their own property ID number that the property appraisal will -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: And so this next slide is actually the continuation of the development regulation and including the footnote. And because of the platting, there are some specific setbacks that we had to clarify in these notes that are -- that reflect where we have certain zero-foot setbacks to the lot line in some cases, but they are not zero foot to the right-of-way. And also we have the scenarios again that do not apply to the perimeter. So these are just simply footnotes that clarify some of the setbacks that go with that -- that platted plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So these townhouses, essentially they're going to have front yards and rear yards, but no side yards; correct? MS. EMBLIDGE: Well, they'll have -- they will -- some have shared side yards, but they're connected. And then there are some, not all of them, that will have a zero or -- I'm sorry -- a 6-foot side setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Depending where they are, if -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- they're on the corner or something like that? MS. EMBLIDGE: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. All right. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I'm with you. MS. EMBLIDGE: And so we can go to the next slide. So, again, getting back to the deviation for the open space. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MS. EMBLIDGE: We asked for this deviation simply because the definition of usable open space eliminates -- or does not allow us to include street right-of-ways. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MS. EMBLIDGE: And the various other elements that are highlighted in bold at the bottom of the screen, those areas can be part of usable open space in certain situations. And it was -- they were part of the site development plan, open space, which all told, they -- the open space per the site development plan was 4 acres -- 4.67 acres. Because we can include those areas, we needed to ask for a deviation. However, we are still committing to providing 4.67 acres of open space even though it's not -- it doesn't meet the definition. October 24, 2024 Page 11 of 20 I know that that's another wonky -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's okay. I'm with you. So explain to me how you think -- so you -- so there's no argument that streets, right-of-ways, are really not open space; right? Like, how would you think that that can be open space? MS. EMBLIDGE: I'm not saying that the right-of-ways are. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. EMBLIDGE: I'm saying that the elements within the right-of-ways, they include sidewalks and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Swales, sidewalks -- MS. EMBLIDGE: -- some landscape areas. Those are the two elements that we're wanting to be -- well, is why we had to have the deviation, because they're technically within the platted right-of-way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I see what you're saying. I guess it could go to impervious surface ratios and stuff like that, you know, because not the whole thing's -- not the whole right-of-way is paved. MS. EMBLIDGE: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. EMBLIDGE: And also, sidewalks are considered usable open space. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Walking is important. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: So we'll go to -- actually, I think that I have gone through those requests at this point, so we'll go to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- let's see. Go three slides up. It's one more. So, in conclusion, it's our -- the applicant's position, and staff is supporting this, is that this request does comply with the Land Development Code regarding insubstantial changes. As stated, we're not increasing units. There's no additional impact. All the changes are internal to the development. And the deviation is just addressing a conflict between certain regulations within the Land Development Code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand. So changing from 60 to 40, but the actual overall acreage is not changing. MS. EMBLIDGE: That's correct, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I guess I want to hear back -- are you finished -- MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for now? Okay. You don't have to "sir" me. MS. EMBLIDGE: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Tim, are you there? Can you hear me? Did you have a chance to look at the survey? I mean, does that change anything for you, the 7.79 acres? MR. FINN: Yeah. Andrew, can you hear me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can, yes. MR. FINN: Yes, yes, yes. I did verify their latest survey. It's 7.79 acres. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. And it doesn't affect anything that -- as far as the analysis, your conclusions, or anything like that? October 24, 2024 Page 12 of 20 MR. FINN: This will not, no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MR. FINN: It's the same. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. For the record, that's Tim Finn, county planner extraordinaire, coming in remote. Something else? MS. EMBLIDGE: No. Just another clarification on the -- why the 8.72 was originally part of the -- when the project was first approved, because it included some right of -- parts of right-of-way of the Santa Barbara that was actually, I guess, contribute -- donated to the County. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's one way to put it. MS. EMBLIDGE: Anyway, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- that's where the difference is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you lost some Santa Barbara right-of-way, I gotcha. MS. EMBLIDGE: And it's fine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Either through domain or through whatever. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yeah, it was worked out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got to have that. Got to have it. All right. Let's go to the public; right? See what we have. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers here. Do you want to rebut that? That's a trick question. MS. EMBLIDGE: I'm happy to close out and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. EMBLIDGE: Unless you have any more questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think I understand everything, but go ahead and do your closing. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. Well, my closing is is that we would respectfully request that our amendment be -- amendments be approved. And we look forward to your decision -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MS. EMBLIDGE: -- in a timely manner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Timely. They're always timely, I guarantee that. Sometimes they're -- they're never late. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sometimes they're timelier than others. We'll see. MS. EMBLIDGE: Yes, yes. And I always refer to folks as "sir" and "ma'am." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MS. EMBLIDGE: That's just the way -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's okay. I appreciate that. MS. EMBLIDGE: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just -- I'm approaching my 60th birthday and it's starting to hit me hard, so -- MS. EMBLIDGE: I'm sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- anything that refers to that makes me feel bad. MS. EMBLIDGE: How about "young man"? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Thank you. Very nice presentation. MS. EMBLIDGE: Thank you. October 24, 2024 Page 13 of 20 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And, you know, good job. Anything else from anybody before we go on? I think I have everything I need for that application. That was pretty straightforward. Thanks. Thank you, Tim, for being here virtually. He's long gone now. You guys want to move on to C? Maria again. I knew she was here for a reason. MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II in the zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3-C. It's for a sign variance project, Number PL20240005230. This is a request for you to approve a sign variance from the Land Development Code, Section 5.06.04.F.4.a, which requires on-premises wall signs to have a maximum allowable display area for wall signs that shall not be more than 20 percent of the total square footage of the visual facade, including windows of the building or unit to which the sign will be attached, and shall not in any case exceed 150 square feet for the subject unit, up to 24,999 square feet in area, to instead allow one sign that will be a total of 238.7 square feet for the 21,009 square feet subject commercial unit at 3725 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112, located approximately 700 feet southeast of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Palm Drive in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. The petition was reviewed by staff. Based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.06.085.1, A through F, staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with GMP. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per the Section LDC 10.03.06.F. This property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by the County on September 20th, 2024. And the public hearing signs were placed by the applicant. And due to the hurricanes, it was edited and placed on October 16th, 2024, to comply. We have received no public comments pertaining to this petition, and staff recommends that you approve this petition as described in accordance with the attachment to the staff report. There is one condition in association with the recommendation to approve. This approval would be strictly to the fitness -- Planet Fitness sign, and any new change of business will -- would have to comply with another sign variance itself. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESTRADA: And that concludes the staff presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Just wanted to see the language on that. Thank you very much. MS. ESTRADA: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the applicant here? Come on up, sir. Good afternoon. You can use this one over here, yeah. MR. GREAVES: Good afternoon. How are you guys this afternoon? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well. MR. GREAVES: Well. This sign that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Name and -- MR. GREAVES: Excuse me. I'm sorry. My name is Keishaun Greaves. I'm a native of Tampa, Florida, so I was directly affected by the hurricane, so I was very grateful that you guys gave us the two weeks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GREAVES: And I work at Southeastern Lighting Solutions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Any presentation you want to make, or -- MR. GREAVES: No. She -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GREAVES: -- pretty much said everything I was going to say. October 24, 2024 Page 14 of 20 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Then my recommendation is to say you would like to adopt the staff recommendation -- MR. GREAVES: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and the staff report. MR. GREAVES: (Nodding head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. There you go. MR. GREAVES: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's go to public comment. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers again. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. All right. No speakers again. The applicant is here. He has listened to the County staff's professional staff report presentation, which is in the record. He's adopting it, along with the condition that they -- that they have put in there, that this is only applicable to the Planet Fitness sign. So any change in business or need that requires a change in the sign would have to come back -- or come into compliance in the LDC or come back for an amendment or something like that. Correct? So that's all been adopted. Anything else from the County that we need clarification on? MR. BOSI: Nothing further from the County. Mike Bosi. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. These are going very smoothly. I understand this one. I will get an order out as expeditiously as possible. Thank you for being here, sir. MR. GREAVES: Thank you. (Comment by reporter.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. If you could give her your name and the spelling so we can get it in the record. MR. GREAVES: My name is spelled K-E-I-S-H-A-U-N. Last name Greaves, G-R-E-A-V-E-S. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you are with Southeastern Lighting Solutions; right? MR. GREAVES: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you're from Tampa? MR. GREAVES: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What high school did you go to? MR. GREAVES: Lennard High School out there in Ruskin. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh. I'm East Bay High School. MR. GREAVES: Oh, right off of Big Bend Road. Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I grew up 11 miles south of Ruskin, out in the woods. MR. GREAVES: Out there in the woods, going towards Parrish. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, sir. MR. GREAVES: Yes, sir. It's a pleasure to meet you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ruskin is a different place now. MR. GREAVES: It's not the same, yeah, not the same. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's good to see you. MR. GREAVES: Likewise. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Last, but not least, 3-D. Leave the lawyers for last, as usual. Hey, John. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III. And I was born in St. Pete. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So a different high school? MR. KELLY: Sorry. That was in Virginia, so. October 24, 2024 Page 15 of 20 Before you is Agenda Item 3-D, as in David. This is VA-PL20240006022. It's a request to have you consider a variance from Collier County Land Development Code Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to allow a reduction in the front yard setback from 20 feet to 22.8 feet -- I'm sorry, that was from 30 feet to 22.8 feet, for the proposed construction of a new residential structure to replace the existing residential structure located on a 0.3-acre property at 230 Seabreeze Avenue in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The location is within a residential single-family 3 zoning district. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about September 27, 2024, as per a notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were satisfied by the County on October 4, 2024. And posting of the public hearing sign was by myself; however, it was slightly delayed due to it being a snipe sign and Hurricane Milton. So the sign was placed on October 11, 2024. This petition was reviewed by staff based on the 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 the subject lot is of a triangular shape and that the subject variance is being pursued to address the reduced building envelope. As per public comment, no telephone calls have been received in response to advertising for the subject property; however, five letters of support were received and are contained within Attachment D of the staff report. It's staff's recommendation that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve petition PL2024000 -- sorry -- 20240006022, as previously described, to allow for the construction or redevelopment of the single-family dwelling unit and accessory structures as depicted within Attachment A of the staff report. That concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. Appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Brooker, how are you today? MR. BROOKER: Doing well. You? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry to keep you. I don't know why they do that. They always make the lawyers go last. Billable time, I guess. MR. BROOKER: It's the staff. Hard on us lawyers. For the record, Clay Brooker, C-L-A-Y, B-R-O-O-K-E-R. Before I launch into this item, an informational item you may be interested in, Mr. Dickman. I'll test your memory. Two years ago, roughly, you granted an insubstantial change to the Mediterra PUD for an access point -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I remember that. MR. BROOKER: -- on Veterans Memorial Boulevard. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. BROOKER: That was appealed via petition for writ. And Judge Foster just recently, within about a month or two, upheld your decision. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The wheels of justice move swiftly. I do remember that one. That was contested. It was an interesting case. MR. BROOKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The judges, they -- MR. BROOKER: Very impressive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- do what they do. Hopefully, my record was clean. MR. BROOKER: It was very clean and very helpful. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Before you get started, I have a question for you about this. This is the oddest looking -- I mean, it's not the oddest piece of property I have ever seen, October 24, 2024 Page 16 of 20 but, you know, there are some -- I'm kind of curious about that little embayment at the end of the -- the right-of-way. Like, how do you determine ownership of that, and whose is that? Don't know? MR. BROOKER: I don't know. And -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And is that -- MR. BROOKER: -- I notice it has a little flag or some little piece there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. BROOKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Somebody built it, obviously, back in the day. And it looks like it's split between your property and another property. So it's -- it's a little bit of a -- another little oddity. But it has no bearing on this application today, but I'm always fascinated with these interesting-looking lots. MR. BROOKER: And there is some history to this one, as I'll get -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's go. MR. BROOKER: -- into in a minute. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go. MR. BROOKER: As I mentioned, my name is Clay Brooker with the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo, 821 Fifth Avenue South in Downtown Naples. We represent the owner of the property located at 230 Seabreeze Avenue for this front yard setback variance request. Shown here is an aerial of the subject property in its current condition at the dead-end of Seabreeze Avenue. The applicant desires to demolish this existing home and build a new home on the property. The home shown here was originally built in 1958, before the current 30-foot front yard setback existed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait one second. Hang on. I messed that up. Here, you got to take this away from me. Sorry. They gave me a very complicated pointer. MR. BOSI: It didn't work. Yeah, it doesn't work. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry. My bad. MR. BROOKER: No worries. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They shouldn't give me technology like that. MR. BROOKER: It's like the fight over the remote control in your home. MS. PADRON: There you go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I didn't know that's -- MS. PADRON: That may not -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just taking a little break. MR. BROOKER: I don't care if it's on; there's no one in the audience. MR. BOSI: Okay. MR. BROOKER: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, there you go. We can see it up there. For the record, the hearing examiner did this. I take full responsibility for it. There we go. Almost. All right. MR. BROOKER: Okay. Are we back up? MS. PADRON: Yes. MR. BROOKER: All right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good. Here we go. MR. BROOKER: All right. The home shown here was originally built in 1958, before the current 30-foot front yard setback existed. Ultimately the County adopted the 30-foot front yard setback, rendering portions of the existing house legally nonconforming, because they encroached into the newly imposed front yard setback. October 24, 2024 Page 17 of 20 Next slide, please. Shown here is an illustration of the new home, which diagrams in blue the proposed encroachments into the front yard setback area. This is Exhibit A to the "nature of petition" element of the application. At the north is the largest proposed encroachment, 7 feet 2.5 inches. Then as you move south, the encroachment reduces to 6 feet 8 and a half inches, then to 4 feet 9 and a half inches, and 3 feet 6 inches. Finally at the southeastern corner of the new home, the encroachment is back to 6 feet 5 and a half inches. So, again, the largest encroachment is at the north corner, of 7 feet 2 and a half inches. Next slide, please. Interestingly, back in 1986, the County granted a front yard setback variance to the predecessor owner of this property. That owner sought approval of three additions to the home, but the additions expanded or increased the amount of legally nonconforming encroachments that already existed, so the County required the predecessor owner to seek a variance, which the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved. Shown here is a comparison of the existing variance approved in 1986 on the left and the proposed variance requested today on the right. You will note that the variance requested today reduces the amount of the encroachments into the front yard setback, both in terms of the extent of the linear encroachment into the setback area, which, as existing, encroaches 12 feet, and the overall area of encroachment. The table in the upper right-hand corner explains that the variance requested today reduces the overall area of encroachment by 68 square feet. Next slide, please. Shown here is a snip from the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting which approved the existing variance back in 1986. You'll note that the approval was unanimous, demonstrating that each of the commissioners concluded back then that the criteria for granting the variance were met. Again, the request before you today reduces the amount of encroachment approved back in 1986. Each of the criteria for the variance request is addressed in our application. I'll refrain going through each of them one by one. But the overarching special or unique circumstances that, in my opinion, justifies this variance is not one that was created by the applicant. Rather, it arose from the old 1952 Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates plat. That plat created the odd triangular shape of this lot, with an unusually long, curved front yard along Seabreeze Avenue. Then later, the County adopted a 30-foot front yard setback for the RSF-3 zoning district, which is this property's zoning district. So a 30-foot swath of land along the long front yard of this odd-shaped lot became unbuildable. As a result, the buildable area of this lot is disproportionally burdened as compared to other lots up and down Seabreeze Avenue. Notably, the County staff, planning staff, agrees. In the staff report, staff opines that the variance criteria are met and staff supports the application. Next slide, please. Finally, the application package contains several letters of support from neighbors. I am not aware of any neighbor objecting to this application. I should also note that the neighbor immediately next door to the west, at 196 Seabreeze Avenue, called me on October 7th to inform me that he had no objection. I don't think he wrote a letter of support, but for the record I wanted to note his verbal support here. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your attention. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That was -- that was one question I had, was going to have, is it seems like when that house, the 196 address -- you answered that. Because everything else around it has submitted a letter of support or nonobjection. I'm not sure what they're called. October 24, 2024 Page 18 of 20 But, either way, that's always important to have. Question regarding the prior variances that were granted: In your opinion, what will be the -- if I were to approve this, what would be the -- would those be no more -- they'd be void -- voided by this? MR. BROOKER: That's a good question. I would think that any variance granted today would supersede, override, and essentially void out the 1986 variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Typically they all run within the land, but -- MR. BROOKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- they were predicated on the structure that was being presented at that time, but now you're presenting a different structure; correct? MR. BROOKER: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you wouldn't have a problem with me establishing that as a -- a finding of fact or a conclusion of law or something to -- MR. BROOKER: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that effect? You're -- MR. BROOKER: Not at all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- just interested in the variances that you're asking for. MR. BROOKER: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. BROOKER: And I would -- I would expect, frankly, that if -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. BROOKER: -- if there is an approval, that that diagram, that initial diagram I showed you, would be an exhibit to the approval, so it approves just that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. BROOKER: -- dimensional encroachment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, right, right. Okay. Yeah, I just don't want any confusion down the road where someone sees these in the record, land records or something, and say we've got all these variances that have been approved, and blah, blah, blah, whatever. But very straightforward. These are -- this is sort of your, you know, kind of typical reason why you would want variances, because you have an odd-shaped lot. And this happens from time to time. So I understand everything that's going on. Why don't we see if there are any public speakers for this item. Open to public comment. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. I don't guess you want to -- MR. BROOKER: I can rebut that? Yeah, I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, right. Doing really well. Okay. So anything else from the County? Anything left? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right, John. Nice job. Nice job, sir. Sorry to keep you waiting. It's -- MR. BROOKER: No worries. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hopefully it wasn't too torturous. MR. BROOKER: Not at all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I'll get that order out as expeditiously as possible. MR. BROOKER: Thank you, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have a great day. Congratulations on your win up in court. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. October 24, 2024 Page 19 of 20 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. BROOKER: It's a long-winded -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a long process. I get it. MR. BROOKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have been there. I understand. What else do we got? Anything else? All done? MR. BOSI: Nothing else from the County, other than you have a busy agenda on the 14th of -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How many items do we have then? MR. BOSI: I believe there's eight, but there are two companion -- there's -- there's four that will be together. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Four. MR. BOSI: Well, there's two and two, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- there's two companions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We can do that. MR. BOSI: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And maybe I will have a less complicated pointer by then? MS. PADRON: Yes. MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I might have to buy my own and -- MR. BOSI: No, no, no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- charge it to the County? MR. BOSI: Staff will reach out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Don't give me buttons. MS. PADRON: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. You all have been great. Thank you, everyone at the County, for setting all this up. This is always a lot of work for this, but I'm sure the public appreciates the ability to have a hearing examiner -- not to have to go to some of the other venues. Anyway, have a great day. We're adjourned. ******* October 24, 2024 Page 20 of 20 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:12 p.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 MARIANNE E. SAYERS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.