Loading...
HEX Minutes 10/14/2024 Draft Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida, November 14, 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 1:00 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 John Kelly, Planner III Sean Sammon, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I Oscar Alonso, Special III Page 2 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. November 14th, 2024. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting. Let's all rise. Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. It's good to see everybody today. My name is Andrew Dickman. I am a Florida Bar attorney. I've been practicing over 20 years in land use and zoning. I am not a county employee. I was contracted by the Board of Commissioners to fulfill the duties of the Hearing Examiner that are prescribed in the code. My job is, essentially, to run this quasi-judicial hearing, hear the various petitions that are on the agenda, and render a written decision within 30 days. I will not make a decision here today. My job, as I said, is to get all of the information from the county staff, from the applicant, from the public, and hear all that, and then after that, the record ends, and I will evaluate everything and make a written decision. Yes, this is a quasi-judicial hearing, but it's actually pretty informal. I want everyone to relax. If you're nervous about speaking publicly, don't worry about it. This is a -- this is a friendly space. The most important thing for me is to make sure that I get all of the information that's necessary. You could say whatever you want to, but I would prefer that you direct your comments to the criteria that has to be reviewed in approving the various petitions. In a minute, I'm going to ask anyone who is going to speak to stand and be sworn in. Everybody testifying here before me has to be -- has to do so under oath. If you have any phones on or beepers or things like that, please, I'd appreciate if you turn them off. If you want to have a Page 3 conversation with someone, just step outside in the hallway. This is a hybrid meeting, which means that we have folks that are here in person. If you want to you sign up to speak, you could do so and give the form over here, but we also have a Zoom link for anyone who wants to participate via virtually. That's a courtesy that the county has offered, and it's worked out pretty as well so far. In terms of just the information, the way that we're going to proceed here is that I'll ask the county to introduce the item here using the podium in the middle. The applicant or the applicant's representative will use the podium over here under the clock, and then we'll open it up for public comment, and then I'll close the public comment, and I'll allow the applicant time to do any rebuttal, if necessary. As you can see, we have a court reporter here. The county takes verbatim -- verbatim transcripts of everything that's said here. So I try to speak as slowly and clearly as possible. I would ask everyone else to do the same or else she has full authority to stop everything and say, "I didn't understand what you said. Say it more slowly." It's very, very important to have these transcripts. Frequently I will reflect back on these transcripts when I want to evaluate things, but also, more importantly, 20 years from now when somebody's wanting to research something -- and I have done this -- they will want to see these transcripts. So it's very important for the record to make sure that she can take down everything as possible. So I think I've said everything I need to say. So anyone who's going to testify here today, please stand, raise your right hand, and I will ask Madam Court Reporter to swear you in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Page 4 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. I'm going to make one slight change to the agenda. I want to take on Item 3B first and make that the first item, and then we'll go in order after that. So is Sean -- Sean, are you 3B? MR. SAMMON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. Go with that one. Got that? MR. SAMMON: You betcha. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III, in the Zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3B. It's for a Petition No. PL20240009263, which is a request for a nonconforming use alteration pursuant to LDC Section 9.03.03.B to allow the replacement of a nonconforming manufactured home which was damaged beyond repair in the 2023 31st Street fire. The subject property is approximately five acres and located at 2650 Lamb Lane approximately 350 feet north of the intersection of Benton Road and Lamb Lane in Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within the LDC Section 9.03.03.B.5, a through f, 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 10.03.06.V. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by the county on October 24th, 2024, and the public hearing signs were placed by the applicant on October 31st, 2024. I've received no public comments pertaining to this petition other than a call for information; therefore, in accordance with the Page 5 attachments to the staff report, staff recommends you to approve a nonconforming-use alteration pursuant to allow the replacement of a nonconforming manufactured home which was damaged beyond repair in the 2023 31st Street fire for the subject property located at 2650 Lamb Lane. That concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Sean. MR. SAMMON: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate it. Is the applicant here? Come on up. It's good to see you, Commissioner. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Before you get started, I've neglected to say something. As far as disclosures, I want everyone to know that I have had no outside communications with any of the applicants, anybody on the staff. I've read all the materials in the backup documents that the public have, so there's been no ex parte communication outside of this hearing. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I don't need to disclose, I don't think, but I haven't talked to you either, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I wanted to thank staff for their support. This is a new role that I undertook working for the Community Foundation. You've been very supportive, very critical, very strict, and that's what I needed. So I have a short presentation just to give you an overview of this project. I am very pleased to present 2650 Lamb Lane. I work for the Collier Community Foundation, and they have given a grant to build this home on this property. Who is the Collier County Foundation? Well, Collier Community Foundation has been Page 6 at the forefront of arthroscopic giving for almost 40 years. In 2017, after the Pulse shooting in Orlando, Collier Community Foundation created a fund to respond to disasters, and that fund is called Collier Comes Together. Next slide, please. And so then only a few days later the fund was activated when Hurricane Irma made landfall in Everglades City in 2017. And in 2022, after Hurricane Ian brought flooding not seen in 60 years to Collier County, Collier Community Foundation took a bold step not only to assist in the repair of homes, but to replace damaged manufactured homes and elevate existing homes. We want to build resilience into our community. Next slide, please. Two programs were created to replace the manufactured homes of Collier County residents who were homesteaded and are income-qualified and to elevate the homes of Collier County residents who are homesteaded and are income-qualified. Next slide, please. This is today, 2650 Lamb Lane. This is debris from the home that was destroyed in the 31st Street fires. Next slide, please. This is an aerial of the property. You can see a little bit of the structures. You can see most of it is cleared around where the home was, but the rest is kind of beautiful pines. Next slide, please. The overriding question was, could the damaged manufactured home be replaced by a new manufactured home? And Collier County's Growth Management Department researched this question and determined that the manufactured home could be replaced by another manufactured home but that we would need to go before the Hearing Examiner and abide by his ruling on this issue. Page 7 Next slide, please. So the evaluation criteria. The replacement of the damaged manufactured home on the lot with a new manufactured home meeting Collier County code requirements will not increase the density on the lot. We're attesting to this; that the replacement of the damaged manufactured home with a new manufactured home will not exceed the building height requirements of the district; that the replacement of the damaged manufactured home with a new manufactured home meeting all Collier County code requirements will not encroach upon any nonconforming setback and that the parking area for the new manufactured home will not decrease or be further decreased by the replacement structure; and that the replacement of the damaged manufactured home with a new manufactured home will not damage the character or quality of the neighborhood that it will be located in; and, finally, that the replacement of the damaged manufactured home with a new manufactured home will present -- will not present a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community or its residents. Next slide, please. This is the floor plan. It's a two-bedroom manufactured home. Open -- open design. Next slide, please. The new home is a doublewide home transported to the site where it will be installed on a foundation. The home is built according to federal manufactured home and safety standards, which is also known as HUD standards, and HUD construction does not require a poured foundation. And the home is not -- in most instances, depending on the elevation, will not require a poured foundation. It can be a dry stack foundation. Next slide, please. This is really an eye chart, but this is kind of a site plan, and I Page 8 think our Hearing Examiner will be able to examine it a little bit more closely. You can see the placement of the home. You can see the lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Here? MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, that's where it is. Next slide, please. The elevation of the new home is four feet above grade. The septic system will be replaced and up to code. The well will be made functional again, and the exotics will be removed. Next slide, please. So this is one of my favorites. We managed to get the sign up, and then I get the call from Josh at Lee Corp saying, Oh, my gosh, I didn't put the -- I didn't put the how to collect -- you know, how to contact the planner on the design. So this was done about 9:30 at night when he put the name of -- Sean's name up there. The next day Sean gets a call, the next day. So people were watching it. It worked. So we felt relieved on that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MS. TAYLOR: Next slide, please. And this is my most favorite. And I have to do this. So it appears on my research on the property that Charles LeBuff, who is probably the Charles LeBuff that is one of the most famous orchid growers in Collier County, who was here umpty-ump-ump years ago, used to go to the Everglades and collect them and propagate them, gave this land to his grandchildren. And this was handwritten in the records. And he says, "With great affection, I give my grandson, Robert L. Kirkland, and his wife, Lorene C. Kirkland, the piece of property known as this." And then at the end he says, "With love and affection." And interestingly enough, this property is owned by a mother and two daughters. So I present this to you and thank you, and I'm here for any Page 9 questions if you have any. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great, great. I don't have any questions, but I will have to tell you that this is a topic that I know very well. In graduate school, I did my thesis on manufactured homes because of the -- it was actually -- my thesis was that Comprehensive Plans were discriminatory towards what they call mobile homes, and if you've ever looked into it -- and you mentioned the HUD standards. The HUD -- they changed the standards to meet HUD standards, to be the same as what they call stick-built housing. But it is -- you know, there is a prejudice to this type of housing, but it is absolutely one of the most affordable homes. And there are some counties in North Florida that their housing stock is mostly manufactured housing because it's the most affordable. But it's -- it brings back memories, because when I was in graduate school I did this, and I toured the plants in Ocala where they build them. They gave me a grant to write my thesis, and it got published. So, great. I know all about it. MS. TAYLOR: I think we have Lee Corp, Joshua Hentges, who I'm working with, if you'd like to speak with him. He's the builder. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. MS. TAYLOR: Josh, are you there? I don't know. I don't know how he does -- maybe not. He would be -- he would be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Virtual. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, he would be virtual. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. HENTGES: Hi. Sorry. Can you hear me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Go ahead. MR. HENTGES: This is Josh (inaudible) Corp. Can you hear me? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Josh, we can hear you. Page 10 MR. HENTGES: Oh, okay, great. Yeah, so if you guys have any questions, you can certainly let me know. We're really looking forward to doing this project. And I've had the privilege to meet with Nannette, and I think it's incredible what Collier Foundation is willing to do for her individually as well as other folks that I don't think Penny has talked about because we're focused on this job specifically. But, yeah, we're happy -- hopefully we can make this work and everything gets approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you for your time. Why don't we go to public comment if you're finished and see if anybody's here to speak. MS. PADRON: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. We actually have no speakers for this petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Sean, I don't think they even needed to put your name on there because everybody knows. MR. SAMMON: That's true. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And they have your phone number. This is a pretty straightforward application. I'm familiar with it. I've read that, and your presentation was awesome. Thank you very much. I'll get a -- does the county have anything else or anybody? No? MR. BOSI: Nothing further from the county. Mike Bosi. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'll get a decision out as quickly as I can. Thanks for being here. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And I would like to say it was the county that made me get organized, so I really appreciate that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They do the same for Page 11 me, too. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right, great. Now we're going to go to 3A. Mr. Mulhere, sir. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. Nice to see you again. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great to see you. MR. MULHERE: Whenever you get a chance, you can bring up that PowerPoint, and I'll -- this will be, I think, very brief. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I did bring a backup with me just in case. There we go. So -- you can go to the second slide if you would. Once you get it -- once you get it up. Fantastic. So my name is Bob Mulhere. I'm senior vice president with Bowman, formerly Hole Montes. The applicant is Vanderbilt Holdings, LLC, which is an owned subsidiary of Stock. Keith Gelder's the president of Stock Luxury Living, and Keith hired me to process this variance petition. Next slide, please. So One Naples MPUD now is known as the Residences at the Ritz-Carlton, but back when we did this application, I don't know, three, four years ago now, I guess -- you can see the outline of the property in yellow there. It's located very close to the Gulf of Mexico at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore and has parcels that are located on both sides of South Bay Drive and also it's bisected to some degree by Center Street. Next parcel -- or next slide, please. So this is a request to allow for two on-premise directional signs without relief from the 10-foot setback from the property line. And the request is to allow those directional signs for commercial uses. Page 12 There are two commercial uses anticipated. One is a real estate agency. The other would be a retail/restaurant, kind of a cafe. And so it's to allow those to be located along South Bay Drive only five feet from the property line; however, they will still be located a significant distance from the edge of the travel lane and from -- and from the -- from the back of curb. So I had prepared some exhibits. If you'd go to the next slide, please. This is the location of those signs, which is right at the corner of Gulf Shore and South Bay. Next slide, please. That's the PUD master plan there. This is a little closer description. It might be a little bit hard to see. On the bottom right is the location for the two commercial uses. Those will be facing Gulf Shore. If you look on the portion of this slide that's on the left side, the gray area where the blue arrow is pointing, that's the location of the commercial uses. They're going to be elevated quite a bit because of the FEMA requirements. I think they're up around probably -- Mike, do you remember? -- 19 or 20 feet. They're up pretty high. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are these monument signs or pole signs? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, they're monument. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Monument signs. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And are they lit? MR. MULHERE: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah. I don't know. They could be. They're directional signs, so they could be, particularly at night. It might be otherwise hard to locate. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Page 13 MR. MULHERE: So if you look at the exhibit in the middle there, it shows you South Bay Drive, and there is a dimension on the right side sort of in the -- just in the middle there that says 19.25, back of curb, and on the left side, 19 -- I can't really read that -- 19 point -- MR. SAMMON: Three three. MR. MULHERE: -- 33 of the curb. So that dimension ameliorates or minimizes the request to be only five foot from the property line. Further, they're both going to be a minimum of 25 feet from the travel lane. Next slide, please. So these are the signs. As I said, one is a realty company, William Raveis, and the other one is for the cafe. I don't know what the name of that will be right now. If you could just go to the previous slide for a minute. I wanted to point out that the parking for these uses is located along South Bay, whereas the uses actually face Gulf Shore. That's really the critical reason for having these two directional signs. Because while people who are familiar with the area may know that they need to go around the corner on South Bay to park for these commercial uses, anybody who might be a tourist or new in the area is not necessarily going to know that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The parking is on-street parking or -- MR. MULHERE: No. It's off-street, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's in the parking pedestal for the building? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. MULHERE: And so it's really important to have those directional signs, I think, for motorists that may not be familiar with Page 14 the area. Next slide, and then the next slide. One more. So this is the section of the code that we're asking for relief from. You'll note on the bottom that it says each sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface, or back of -- or actually, this is a different section of the code. The code kind of varies depending on whether it's nonresidential signs or residential signs. Next slide, please. This is a little closer perspective of what I previously showed you, just to indicate that we can meet the two conditions that the staff has. One is that we be a minimum of 19 feet from back of curb, and the second is a minimum of 25 feet from the travel lane. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So real quickly, this area -- or these are sidewalks, right? Like -- MR. MULHERE: There's a -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are they enlarged sidewalks, like eight foot? I believe that -- if I thought -- MR. MULHERE: Six, I think. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: But -- so Stock rebuilt South Bay. It's done, I believe. It looked pretty much done when I was there the last time. And what they've done is put sidewalks and bike lanes and widened the travel lanes. So, yes, there are sidewalks there. These signs will be set back from that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And was there any consideration to, like, one sign with two messages on it, or -- MR. MULHERE: I think the parking -- the entrances to the parking areas are actually separated. You can see that little cutout there, so that's why we wanted both signs. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand. Page 15 MR. MULHERE: Next slide. So I think this is in summary. I don't know if there's another slide. I can't remember. It was so long ago that I prepared this PowerPoint. Yeah. You can just go back up to -- yeah. So it doesn't increase -- this is some of the supporting justification. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: It doesn't increase the number of signs. It's consistent with the purpose of the sign code. It provides minimum control necessary to promote public health, safety, and welfare, and that would be directional signs. There's no hazard to pedestrians or vehicular traffic. In fact, it actually enhances it because people will know where they're going instead of driving around looking for the parking area. They won't be unsightly or detrimental. They won't detract from the aesthetic appeal of the project. There's no excessive size to these. They meet the code. They would meet what otherwise would be permitted by the code. They'll be attractive. And I'm not sure if they preserve the right of free speech and expression of display, but we'll go with it. That concludes my presentation, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Obviously, you're before me. This is a very large project that did not come before me, so I imagine that there are other signs -- MR. MULHERE: There are. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that are associated with this. MR. MULHERE: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is a big project. MR. MULHERE: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so I just want to -- I don't know if this is directed at you or at the county, but, you know, Page 16 the county's recommending approval on this, correct, Sean? MR. SAMMON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So did you take into consideration the other -- I mean, have they gotten to that point yet where they're showing the signage for the rest of, like, the residences or anything like that? MR. MULHERE: I don't think they've submitted the application, but I did look at it with Stock Development. We wanted to make sure if we were going through this variance process that we didn't feel like we needed any other variances. We communicated and met with Mike on a couple -- I did anyway -- on a couple of occasions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: As far as I know and as far as Stock knows, after looking at it, these are the only two that we felt were necessary enough to go through this process. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. And I know the area -- the area's very -- I mean, there are -- the people that live there are very protective of the area, so we want to make sure that these signs coordinate with the other signs. MR. MULHERE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In style and -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you know, so it's not just sign pollution with a lot of different materials and everybody throwing signs up, so -- MR. MULHERE: There actually is a detailed sign plan that shows all of the signs, and they are coordinating in architectural design. So, yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So this is going to fit in with that theme, so it's going to be the same. Page 17 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's go to public comment. Anybody? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. There you go. Sean, do you have anything? MR. SAMMON: For the record, Sean Sammon. Staff wanted to remind you that in September, the report was locked, and the county attorneys reviewed and recommended enumerating the commitments of the developer as an additional condition. So those two conditions on that handout that I provided is the updated conditions for approval for the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'm going to read these into the record. MR. SAMMON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The applicant is responsible for maintaining and replacing everything in the county's right-of-way. MR. MULHERE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You agree to that? MR. MULHERE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Or your client agrees to it. The proposed directional signs shall be set back at least 19 feet from the back of the edge of the curb as well as 25 feet from the travel lane. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes, we agree. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're aware of these, I assume? MR. MULHERE: We're designing to meet both of those, yes. Page 18 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that correct? MR. SAMMON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we'll make sure these are incorporated. Why don't we -- we already said no public comment, okay. Anything else you want to add to that? MR. SAMMON: Well, I'll just add that I had suggested that the two conditions related to dimensional standards, that is the 19 feet and 25 feet, could be included in the variance requests, but I think the County Attorney's Office just wanted to place them in as conditions. We're fine with that. That's fine with us. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And we respect the County Attorney. MR. MULHERE: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Absolutely. Okay. With that, we'll move -- we're done with that -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and I'll get a decision out as quickly as possible. MR. MULHERE: Appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We're going to 3C now. Is Sean handling everything today? MR. BOSI: Not everything. MR. SAMMON: Only half of it. John's the legend, so he has the bulk. Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III, in the Zoning Division. Before you is Agenda Item 3C. It's for a variance, Project No. PL20230014809. This is a request from the Land Development Code Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required RSF-4 Page 19 zoning district front yard setback from 25 feet to 15.9 feet on the east property line and the side-yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north property line for the proposed accessory attached porch, to reduce side-yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north property line, and the front yard setback from 25 feet to 24.7 feet on the east property line for the existing residential structure and to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 to feet 7.3 feet on the north property line for the existing accessory covered lanai located at 3512 Okeechobee Street, Naples, Florida, 34112, also described as Lot 17, Block E, South Tamiami Heights Subdivision, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within the 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 public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F. The agent letter was distributed by the applicant on Wednesday April 23rd, 2024. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by county staff on Friday, October 25th, 2024, and then the public hearing signs were placed by county staff on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024. I've received no calls or any other communication from the public regarding this petition request, and there has been no public opposition pertaining to this petition. Therefore, staff recommends that you approve this variance petition to reduce the required RSF-4 zoning district setbacks for the existing residential structure, the existing accessory covered lanai, and the proposed accessory attached porch as depicted in Attachment B to the staff report. That concludes staff's summary. Page 20 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Sean. MR. SAMMON: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? MS. PALMISANO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Come on up. Come on up. Good afternoon. MS. PALMISANO: Good afternoon. That was so exciting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take your time. MS. PALMISANO: That's okay. My name is Carmen Palmisano. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: And everything is set. I just wanted to include this. I'm going to finish it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you're the property owner? MS. PALMISANO: I am the property owner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: So what I did is we built this porch due to my granddaughter who is severely handicapped, and she has isolated lissencephaly, and basically, she is 20 years old, doesn't speak, doesn't walk, doesn't talk, doesn't -- I mean, you have to feed her and everything. But because of this -- the house is so small inside, I needed hoists to lift her up. She is on diapers. And basically, to exercise her and get her in the house in the wheelchair, so we needed a bigger area to work with her, and this is what we did. So I really want this approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, staff is -- county staff is recommending approval of it, so I assume you're in agreement with that. MS. PALMISANO: Yes. Page 21 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you don't have anything else to say, then I'm going to ask for the -- if there's any public speakers. Do you have anything else? MS. PALMISANO: No. I just want to thank you, Sean, for all the help he's given me, because I -- you know, when you get old, you don't know what you're supposed to do, and so I was not aware of everything that was required. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MS. PALMISANO: But I have taken every step to correct every item, and yes -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: -- you may ask whoever. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I'm always happy to see it when, you know, homeowners feel free to do their own applications and come here. Sometimes, you know, obviously hiring experts and lawyers can get expensive, so you know, I'm glad the county's making it accessible to the average homeowner. Thank you for that. Are there any public speakers? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: I have a neighbor that came. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A neighbor. Would you like to speak? MS. JONES: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Come on up -- why don't you take this microphone. MS. JONES: I'm here. I might as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Might as well. You can use this one right here, ma'am. MS. JONES: This one? Page 22 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Just put your name and -- if you could give us your name and address. MS. JONES: My name is Ginger Jones, and I live in the house next door to Carmen at 3508 Okeechobee. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 3508 Okeechobee. And what -- MS. JONES: Well, I can't really talk about variances or setbacks, but I just wanted to say that myself and most of our neighbors feel that she has done a wonderful job on this porch. It's very aesthetically pleasing, and it improves the whole street. It really does. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. JONES: And we just hope that you okay it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. Any other speakers? MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do you have anything else you would like to say? MS. PALMISANO: I would like to say -- oh, there's my front porch. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, you have a presentation, okay. Do you want to go through it? MS. PALMISANO: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: That's my front porch, and so as you can see, the peak is high, so it will withstand the hoists, because they're really tall. Next slide. That's a view from the front and the easy access in the center to the house -- to the door, which is right behind that. I think it's really Page 23 pretty. Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Could I ask you, what year is this home? MS. PALMISANO: It's a 1966. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I recognize that type of roof can- -- that type of roof. That's a beautiful roof. MS. PALMISANO: Thank you. Inside we did the wood. It's really pretty. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: But yes, it was a lot of work, and I was -- when it was done, I didn't realize. I came from Arizona, and when my husband passed, I sold my house, came over here. Because my granddaughter lives in Canada, it's an easy commute, and this is what I came up with. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Any other slides? MS. PALMISANO: Yes, please. Next. So that's the other side. I did plant a bunch of clusias for privacy, especially in the front because that way -- you know, people walk by, and they want to look. And, you know, it's for privacy. So the clusias are beautiful. I am trimming them, and they -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: And just -- next slide. I don't know what else to say on this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, you're doing fine. You're doing fine. MS. PALMISANO: So that is the driveway to get her in there. Behind the car on the right is an entrance to the front porch, and there's also the center. Some the wheelchair can go either way. And I wanted to put some, you know, little stone steps in the Page 24 front there, but I haven't done that yet. It costs money. Next slide. This -- that porch, I think, beautifies the property. And a lot of people in my neighborhood have actually painted and fixed their property, which I was like, yes. And it does increase the property value. It provides support -- the benefits of the variance provide support and assistance to my granddaughter with, as I mentioned before, the preexisting condition and for any other person with a disability, especially me who now I have bone on bone on my knee, so I'm having a hard time. But I want to correct and bring everything up to code, all the minor encroachments and everything. Next slide. Thank you. Any questions? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Now the world has your phone number and your e-mail. MS. PALMISANO: Uh-oh. Yep. You can call. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Great presentation. MS. PALMISANO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We've already -- there's no public comment. Anything else from the county? MR. SAMMON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. MR. SAMMON: I just want to credit Carmen for taking care of all the requirements necessary to get to this point, and staff's in agreeance that it beautifies the property and makes it accessible for anyone who needs to use it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thanks for being here. I will look at everything and get a decision out as quickly as I can. MS. PALMISANO: I have one more thing. Page 25 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PALMISANO: Really tiny. I have planted these beautiful milkweeds, so we have a bunch of butterflies, like -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Butterfly garden. MS. PALMISANO: So the front porch is just -- with the butterflies for my granddaughter to see. It's just really beautiful. Yeah, that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sure she loves it. MS. PALMISANO: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Have a great day. Thanks for being here. MS. PALMISANO: Thank you. Thank you, all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***All right. We're going to 3D. Are we okay over there? Need a break? Going too fast? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. John, here he is. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Playing cleanup, huh? MR. KELLY: For the record, John Kelly, Planner III, with the county. This is Agenda Item 3D. It's a Boat Dock PL20240006029. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 14-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow the construction of a boat dock facility protruding a total of 34 feet into a waterway that is 16 feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1 for the benefit of the subject property located at 687 Palm Avenue, also known as Lot 11, Block F, Goodland Isles 2d Addition, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's located within a residential single-family, RSF-4, Page 26 zoning district, in the Zoning Overlay. The subject property comprises 0.18 acres and supports a single-family dwelling adjacent to a manmade canal that connects to Gullivan Bay. The petitioner desires to remove the existing dock facility to construct a new one with two slips, each with a boatlift, to accommodate a 32-foot and a 24-foot vessel. The shoreline of the subject property measures 91.7 feet and consists of riprap with heavily -- with heavy mangrove growth. The waterway width varies due to the contour of the shoreline. The west side is approximately 135.2 feet wide, and the east is 116 feet wide. Public notice requirements have been satisfied per LDC Section 10.03.06.H, with the property owner notification letter and the Clerk's posting taking place on October 25, 2024, and the public hearing sign was posted by county staff on October 30, 2024. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies four of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. To date, I've received no public comment pertaining to this project. And it's staff's recommendation that the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans contained within Attachment A. This concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Is the applicant here? The representative of the applicant is here. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Good afternoon. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall Page 27 & Associates. As John did, and always does for me, give you a brief overview, and I'm here today representing the applicant, Michael Scheik is his name, who resides here on Goodland, 687 Palm Avenue. As John stated, you know -- move forward on the slides -- there is an existing single-family residence as well as an existing single-family dock on site. And the applicant recently purchased this, I think, in the past two years, and hired us to look at the option of maximizing the docking facility and making it accommodate his existing boats. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The current dock is the floating -- MR. ROGERS: There's a -- the upper right side -- let's see if this handy-dandy pointer works. The upper right side shows the existing marginal dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Oh, I thought that was -- MR. ROGERS: See, there's a poly float. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the cap of a seawall. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. See, there's a poly float that sticks off of it that he uses, I believe, for, like, kayak launching and such. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: We talked about those on other projects. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: Moving forward. Here's some other views from the waterway. I didn't get the selfie of me in the water, but I promise you I was in the water in these photos. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't believe you anymore. MR. ROGERS: I've now started taking pictures of myself, and you will be getting those in the near future. Page 28 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Big thing here on these slides is -- one of the conditions on this in the request that we're here in front of you asking today is for the additional 14 feet for an overall 34 feet out into the waterways due to the shoreline. As existing, as you can see here, there's an allowed 4-foot-wide walkway out to a marginal dock that turns parallel to the shoreline. We want to maintain this. We're not proposing any additional impacts to the existing mangrove shoreline that ultimately pushes this dock out further because of the natural shoreline, let's call it. It does have riprap, but it is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's also mangrove? MR. ROGERS: It's all covered in mangrove, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: From basically property line to property line. So we -- with this design, you'll see moving forward, if you would with the slides, existing conditions. It's not the best outline, but this is the existing dock walkway out, and then Ls parallel to the shoreline with the poly float that you were looking at right there tied up to it. So we -- moving forward as proposed, we wanted to utilize -- the aerial throws this off a little bit, but we're 100 percent reutilizing the existing walkway point, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A part of it is just the existing. It's not -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. We're going to rebuild it. We're going to redo it, but we're maintaining that footprint. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's basically -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So there's no new additional mangrove Page 29 impacts, which is a big thing with, obviously, the county as well as the state and federal permitting process. So as proposed here, you can see a lot of dimensions shown, but over here, we're -- the waterway varies as you can tell, but that's the side that we're the least protruding out, and that's 28.8 feet. And then down here we're at 34. You can see the shoreline shape kind of brings the mean high water line more landward here. And in this case, the mean high water line is the most restrictive point. So the protrusion out is 34 feet from there on this side. So that this is -- typically when we do a dock design, we like to get an outer walkway for our ease of access and maintenance out here, but we were up against that 25 percent width of the waterway, which we always try to maintain being inside of that. So nothing else is proposed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Before you go, like, this -- okay. So this is the riparian side yard, but it's not the -- this is the setback. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The same thing here, right there? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the setback, but the riparian -- the property line, basically, jutting out that way. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. You're zoomed in. If you move forward on the next slide, if you would, I think I've got -- there you go. You can still see the same lines that you were pointing at. There's the setback of 15 feet, and here on this side, we're kissing the setback on this side. But I believe that setback's 16, so we are, you know, still a little bit inside of the required setback of 15 feet. Page 30 All in all, we're -- as you can see here, really, we're maintaining 98 percent of the existing protrusion out into the waterway. It's really from this point over to the edge of the boat and that outer boatlift pile that we are going out slightly further than what is there today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there are lifts here. They're going to have lifts here? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you've got a pile? MR. ROGERS: Yes, right there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's going to be the outside pile. Okay. These are the four. That's the boatlift right there. Okay. I wanted to -- that's what I wanted to see. MR. ROGERS: Yep. So, really, the bigger boat is the one that's extending out slightly further. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And let me go through the criteria real quick. There is a couple things I wanted to talk about on one of the criteria, but I'll get there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're going to fail on the mathematical ones, some of them. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, but there's some things that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Let me get. Primary criteria, basically, No. 1 -- yeah. Here's a good view you can see that are docks. Primary Criteria No. 1, whether the number of dock -- you know, boat slips is appropriate for the zoning, basically, in a nutshell is what it says. And in this case, single-families are allowed two boat slips, and that is what we are proposing today. So yes, that one is met. Number 2, whether the water depth at the proposed site is so Page 31 shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft, as described in the application, is unable to launch or moor at low tides. And I do have exhibits showing the water depths further back that are in your packet, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I saw them. MR. ROGERS: The shoreline is -- really what's happening here is, like I said, the mangroves are what's really pushing us out here. So moving forward, No. 3, whether the proposed dock facility may have adverse impact on navigation. This is -- this waterway is a manmade canal. It's open for navigation throughout the whole width of it other than in between existing docking facilities on the waterway. There are no new impacts on this. So -- it's a boating community. There is a dock that sticks out. Are we going a little bit further out than what's there today? Yes, but it's minimal, in our opinion. So there should not be any additional new impacts proposed. Moving forward to No. 4, this is the one I wanted to talk to you guys about, as well as John. Refresh my memory. I guess I just do too many of these or too many on my plate right now because looking at the math -- if you could go back -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you go back to the -- MR. ROGERS: This one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Where are you measuring from? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So I'm -- maybe John can remind me. I know I talked to him about this, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's supposed to be the property line, right? MR. ROGERS: Well, no. No. The width of waterway is Page 32 technically mean high to mean high. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: It is. By definition, it is. Does that get skewed a little bit in this case in regards to a mangrove shoreline? You get the width of waterway, but then you get the navigable width of a waterway, right, which in that case is really the 60-foot dimension right there. That's the navigable width, meaning that's what's left open for navigation for two vessels to pass each other going either direction, and that's 60 feet. So in our opinion, that is plenty of room for typical navigational of the vessels in these waterways as well as allow a vessel to turn around, you know, and not interfere or potentially impact anybody's docking facility. The other point I wanted to talk about on this one is -- John brought it up -- is the shape of the shoreline, right? We're 116 here and approximately -- we've got two measurements here. So if you -- we don't meet the 25 percent, technically, per the criteria because we are using this dimension here, which is 135.32 feet. We're getting down to decimals here. But if you look directly across, this is 136.6. And 34 feet out -- technically, the 34 is under the allowed 25 percent if we were to use the 136. I can't remember if John and I just went with the more restrictive one and said we didn't meet that criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think the issue is going to be -- I mean, we've had this discussion once before. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But again, you've got two issues here. You've got your client's shoreline, and you have the opposite shoreline, which is not even either. So you're going to have all these different measurements. And I think -- generally, I think you do need to go with the most restrictive one because that's just -- I Page 33 think that's just the general rule of law. When you have conflicting codes and things like that, you go with the most restrictive. But either way -- maybe this is just for educational discussion parts, because you still have -- you meet the criteria of -- overall, right? The aspects of it. But this is going to be difficult. And you had a couple of other ones, too, that -- where one shoreline and the other shoreline are not even, so it's not -- it's not easy to do the math -- or the math is going to be different depending on where you're taking the measurement from. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I think -- in my opinion, I do think that the county's doing the right thing by taking -- John, did you take the most restrictive measurement? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I thought. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, and that makes sense. I just -- when I was looking at it, sitting out here, I was like, how did we get here? And I -- that's what I figured. Talking with Katelyn about it, we were trying to remember -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I wouldn't take offense to it at all. MR. ROGERS: Yeah -- no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's just math -- it's mathematical, but they have to pick one, and I think from a planning regulatory point of view, you -- MR. ROGERS: Go with more restrictive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: As a general rule, you want to go with the most restrictive. MR. ROGERS: I agree. And I'm not saying we meet this criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, no. Page 34 MR. ROGERS: We obviously don't. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I love having these conversations with you. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, because it is a unique shaped shoreline for them as well as us, right? I mean, that hard 90 in their seawall, I don't know why it's like that, but it is what it is. Plus it's Goodland, so who knows when that was done back in the day. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're just not going to knock all of them out of the park. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry. MR. ROGERS: I try. I try. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know you do. MR. ROGERS: Okay. So that's No. 4. So technically we don't meet that one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can we go to the next slide, to your criteria? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There we go. MR. ROGERS: There you go. So No. 5 of the last one of the primary is whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. And if you go back one slide, I'll give you a visual. You know, the angle of these lifts and the existing lift over here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You mean here, right? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. He's parallel, but he's more perpendicular bow in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He comes out, and then out that way. MR. ROGERS: Correct. Page 35 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And this would be more of a back it out. You'd have to get your -- bow? MR. ROGERS: Bow, yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- past this pylon and then come this way? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then coming in, you'd have to sort of do that. MR. ROGERS: Turn, right. And without the outer -- oh, is my battery dying? No. Without this portion of the dock, you can always kind of turn a little bit quicker once you're past that piling. So having -- not having the outside dock does help actually get in -- ingress/egress to the boatlifts a little bit easier as well. So in our opinion we're not going to interfere with the other existing docking on either side of us. So that's primary. Let's move to secondary criteria. Number 1, whether there are special conditions not involving water depths related to the subject property or waterway that justify the proposed dimension and location. Basically, it's -- in this one it's -- really, it's the mangroves on this one, you know. Going through a mangrove removal process with the state and whatnot is very difficult. It's feasible, especially on a manmade canal, but it's a costly process for the applicant to take on. So it was our recommendation to go through the BDE and maintain that versus cutting down the mangroves -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: -- for many reasons. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ecologically it's better, so... Page 36 MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Water quality, you know, natural absorbent of storm surges that we've been having here more frequently, and it also holds your shoreline in place with the roots. So it's a win-win in that regard. So No. 2 of the secondary, whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading and unloading in routine maintenance. If you go back one, please. Again, I touched on it before. I would love to have outer portions out here for routine maintenance access, et cetera, but we don't. But we feel confident that, as proposed, it does provide all those criteria to the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I appreciate you being judicial in that regard and not trying to wrap it all the way around the boat. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. It's -- you know, it's not necessary. It's a nice-to-have, in my opinion, as a boater and a guy that puts boats on and off lifts all the time and cleans them. It's very nice to have that, but it's -- you don't have to have it for safe access or routine maintenance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. ROGERS: So you've got to sacrifice something sometimes. Number 3 of secondary, for single-family docks, whether the length of the vessel or vessels in combination described by the petitioner exceeds the 50 percent. In this case we do. This is one of the criteria we do not meet. The overall length of the two vessels are greater than the 50 percent of the shoreline length. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Remind me, do you measure it from the -- are these outboard motors? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So this is LOA. Page 37 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. This is length overall. So it's really a 32-foot boat, you know, that we're -- LOA is 34 with the outboards. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Got it. MR. ROGERS: So No. 4, moving forward, whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterway view of the neighboring property owners. We have a couple things here. Existing dock, existing docks everywhere on the waterway. It's a common use for the neighborhood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are they even going to see it with the mangroves? MR. ROGERS: That's where I was going with this. In this case, we have a natural buffer with the mangroves. So yes, they will. When the boats are in the up positions on the lifts, the neighbors will see probably the T top portion of it above the trees because the trees are maintained, I will tell you that, in height, at 10-foot above mud line. So that is an allowed exercise by homeowners by the State to maintain a view of, you know, 10 foot in this case. So number -- that was No. 4. Number 5, seagrasses. I dove it a couple times over the course of permitting this, and there are no seagrasses within this area, so that criteria's met. And No. 6 is our favorite pertaining to manatees for single-families. It's not applicable here, so it is met -- or not applicable, let's say. That's it. Happy to answer any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Pretty straightforward. Do we have any public speakers? MS. PADRON: We do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Blowing right through it. Page 38 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. Any rebuttal? MR. ROGERS: You know, I think I'll rest my case. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're not going to rebut yourself. Anything -- John, anything you heard that you disagree with or take offense to? MR. KELLY: No, sir. It sounded great. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ROGERS: Thanks, guys. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll do my best to get this done as quickly as possible. Thanks for being here. MR. ROGERS: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So these are companion items, E and F; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Yes, the next two. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. KELLY: Just a moment, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem. Take your time. Do you guys need a recess, or are you just situating yourself? MR. KELLY: Okay. Sorry for the brief moment there. This is going to be two companion items, Agenda Items 3E and 3F. The first part's a variance, PL20230012485, and the second's a boat dock extension, PL20230008895. If it's okay with you, we'd like to present those both together. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. What I'd like to do is let's do the one presentation. There are two items. They will end up being two separate decisions. MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. KELLY: Okay. So the petitioner's requesting that the Page 39 Hearing Examiner approve both a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required side yard riparian setback from 15 feet to 8.1 feet on the southernmost side for a lot with 67.53 feet of water frontage and for a 32-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 52 feet into a waterway that is 534.8 feet wide pursuant to Section 5.03.06.H of the LDC for the benefit of the subject property which comprises 0.36 acres and is located at 10030 Gulf Shore Drive, also known as Lot 30, Block B, re-subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Estates, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. This is located within a Residential Single-Family 3, RSF-3, zoning district. Public notice requirements were as per for the -- correction -- for the variance were as per Section 10.03.06.F.2 and for the boat dock extension per 10.03.06.H.2. The agent letter to property owners within 150 feet was sent by the applicant's agent on July 3, 2024. The property owner notification letter and the Clerk's posting were satisfied by the county on October 25, 2024, and the public hearing sign was posted by Zoning staff on October 30, 2024. The variance application was reviewed by staff based upon the criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03, a through h, with the findings stated within the staff report. The boat dock extension was reviewed based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six, with one criterion found to be not applicable. Both have been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Page 40 A letter of no objection was received from the owner of the neighboring property to the south at 9990 Gulf Shore Drive. No other parties have contacted me in reference to this petition. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the variance in accordance with the proposed plans contained within Attachments A and B of the respective staff report, and staff recommends approval -- excuse me -- staff recommends approval of the companion boat dock extension in accordance with the proposed plans contained within Attachments A and B of the respective staff report. That concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon. MR. OREUS: Afternoon. How you doing today? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm doing well, thanks. MR. OREUS: Mark Oreus, Greg Orick Marine Construction. Pretty clear, straightforward petition. We've got an owner here who wishes to build a boathouse. Unfortunately for him, where the angle of the boathouse is, kind of forms a pie shape waterward, so it's very restricting. Also unfortunate for him, he has 67 feet of water frontage, so his setbacks had to be held at 15 feet as opposed to seven and a half, which if it was 65 feet or below, he would have been able to maintain a seven-and-a-half-foot setback. So those two feet cost him 15 feet. So we had to -- the way we designed this project here -- through several different ways to try to minimize the amount of impact and decking that we needed, this was the best design that we could come up with to house his 45-foot boat and two 13-foot PWCs. We managed to maintain the setback on the north side to keep as much as possible away in the south side with the consent letter also Page 41 from the neighbor. That's where we went from the 15 feet to the 8.1 feet that we are requesting to be on that -- on that south side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me ask you a quick question. I just want to walk through this. I mean, obviously, it's a large vessel. It's quadruple outboards. So this is -- I just want to be clear, this is -- what's this width right here? MR. OREUS: So currently that width is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that five or three? MR. OREUS: I believe it's three feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: We wanted to maintain minimal amount that we can walk through with, say, a YETI cooler or something like that to load the boat. We didn't want to do any excessive decking. Typical we would do four or five feet, but we didn't want to do any excess decking just for the simple fact that it's already a super restricted shoreline, and we also didn't want any objections, especially for the area being -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this lift, what is this? Is this a kayak lift or -- MR. OREUS: Yeah. So that's going to be a platform lift with PWCs. So basically watercraft area, personal watercrafts. So jet skis, basically, for two jet skis. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so this is -- it's necessary to have it that far out, or is some of this stuff -- I mean, I'm just kind of looking at this as a way to reduce. I mean -- MR. OREUS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- it's a big ask for a big boat. MR. OREUS: So if we had reduced to try to bring that in a little bit more, the only simple fact is that still falls within the 20 feet Page 42 restric- -- of what the normal would be, so that's the only reason that's a little bit more to load out from the front and still provide it, because the customer wanted finger piers on the outside. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. OREUS: And width restriction and everything like that, we couldn't give finger piers nor did we think it would be safe enough to bring that PWC lift a little bit closer to the seawall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this -- these lots, are they still vacant? I mean, the aerial was showing them vacant. MR. OREUS: Yeah. So the north side lot, I believe, is currently still vacant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And they don't have a docking -- a docking facility yet, right? MR. OREUS: The north side does have one right now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, it does? MR. OREUS: That's currently there, uh-huh. It has a wood dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: That's currently there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: Basically, from that property on, I don't know if they can -- on the other one -- there's an aerial. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have the aerials; that's fine. I was just wondering about that. MR. OREUS: Okay. Yeah, that shows the dock about 68 -- 69 feet away kind of on that lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But that's an odd-shaped lot as well. MR. OREUS: Yes, that is also a pie shape, and also the southern -- the southern neighbor that signed the consent form is also a pie shape. Page 43 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the lots on either side of your client's are -- they have minimal -- you know, minimal shoreline compared to their street frontage, right? MR. OREUS: Yes. And also, unfortunately -- I know this doesn't have anything to do with this specific petition, but they will most likely have to do a BDE, too, if they want anything standard above 20 feet within there -- within their dock to come in safely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So that's what I'm wondering about is when that request comes in and their vessel versus this vessel, you know, any conflicts, how -- because it's almost like they're going to have to have a perpendicular type of dock almost if they ask for -- MR. OREUS: Yeah. So on the aerial, also, if you could see, the neighbor to the north side as well has a dock that you can only come in through one way, and basically, anything in that corner, like I said, above 20-, 25-foot boat would -- perpendicular to the shoreline would be the best and safest way just because you do have, like it says, 530-plus feet in between the mean high and the mean high of the other one. So perpendicular coming straight in to avoid running into any other docks or having to -- especially with a vessel that large, to get in and out with being parallel to the shoreline. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Okay. Are you finished? MR. OREUS: Yeah, for the most part. I mean, like I said, you could see the thing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. OREUS: I mean, that's also the main reason we designed for the bigger vessel to be on the southern -- south side like that is with the neighbor -- before we did this, we made sure that the neighbor also had consent in saying, "Hey, this is something we're thinking about designing," and the neighbor's like, "Yeah, this is Page 44 perfectly fine because I know I will also have to come in perpendicular as well. So you will not be restraining my design in the future." So basically, it was almost an agreeance that that's probably the best way to do it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. When you say "neighbor to the north," are you talking about the -- MR. OREUS: South side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: South side. MR. OREUS: Uh-huh, the neighbor to that south side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Right. MR. OREUS: Which is further in that corner cut. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Actually, the other neighbor is to the -- more like to the east. MR. OREUS: Right, yes, a little bit northeast there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's see if there's any public speakers. MS. PADRON: We have none. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What the heck? MR. OREUS: Trust me, I was concerned, too. I was just like, some neighbors might, especially in this neighborhood. If it's something that they don't agree with, they will definitely come forward in that Conner's neighborhood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I totally understand that's why I'm -- yeah. Okay. All right. I understand. This is a tricky one. I know your company is -- I live in this area, not next to this so I don't have a conflict, but I see you-all working out here all the time. So apparently, people do appreciate your work and the history of your work, so -- but I want to -- yeah, I'm going to have to think about this just in terms of these lots and making sure that there's no -- we're not Page 45 setting up a hazard or anything like that here, but I think I have -- MR. OREUS: Perfectly understandable. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have enough information. I'm just wondering about the -- you know, the personal watercraft floatation thing, if that wasn't there -- but still you'd be moving the boat further that way, which would interfere with the future dock on that side, right? MR. OREUS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's why you're saying -- MR. OREUS: Yeah. So -- yeah. So if we moved that -- if we had removed the personal watercraft, which the owner already has personal watercrafts. So if we were even, let's just say for the sake of just saying, remove that completely, then to be able to get in with the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In order to avoid that -- MR. OREUS: -- setbacks -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In order to avoid that variance -- MR. OREUS: Variance, we would have to move it to the middle, which it would still be sticking out further and causing almost more of an influence -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: More. MR. OREUS: -- to the north side neighbor. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I was thinking, too. MR. OREUS: Yeah. So that's why we made sure the only person that will -- not the only person. The person that would be most affected by this would be okay with this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I get it. You put a lot of thought into this. Thank you. I appreciate it. Page 46 MR. OREUS: It's been good year-and-some-change petition with the owner designing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? Oh, gotcha. MR. OREUS: Trust me. He wanted a 50-something, and we said, "No. Listen, you got what you got. You're not changing." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. No public speakers. Anything else from the county? John, last words? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thanks for being here. I appreciate it. MR. OREUS: No problem. I appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's good to see you. You've been here before, right? MR. OREUS: Yeah, yeah, I have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, right. I've seen you. I remember. MR. OREUS: And we wanted to make sure -- there is a house being built on that lot. We're not going to go through that again. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We're not going through that one again. I remember that one. That's one I remember. MR. OREUS: All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Enjoy the rest of your day. MR. OREUS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. Well, we only have one other person in the audience, so... MR. KELLY: Okay. Again, John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. Before you are -- is another companion project. It's Agenda Page 47 Items 3G and 3H. First is a variance, PL20240004206, and a boat dock extension petition, PL20230018267. And, again, we'd like to ask permission that we present these together and require two decisions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So this is companion items. You're going to -- the presentation will be combined, but the decisions will be separate. MR. KELLY: Correct. Okay. So the petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve both a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required side yard riparian setback from 7.5 feet to 0 on both sides for a lot with 32 plus-or-minus feet of water frontage and for a 26-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 46 feet into a waterway that is 133 plus-or-minus feet wide pursuant to Section 5.03.06.H of the LDC for the benefit of the subject property which comprises 0.03 acres located at 267 3rd Street in Bonita Shores, and further described as Lot 3, Block G, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3 re-plat in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 feet of unincorporated Collier County, Florida, which is located within a Residential Single-Family 4, RSF-4, zoning district. Public notice requirements for the variance were as per Section 10.03.06.F.2 and for the boat dock extension per Section 10.03.06.H.2. The agent letter to property owners within 150 feet was satisfied by the applicant's agent on July 11, 2024, the property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the county on October 25, 2024, and the public hearing signs were posted by Zoning staff on October 30, 2024. The variance application was reviewed by staff based upon the Page 48 criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03, a through h, with the findings stated within the staff report. The boat dock extension was reviewed based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies four of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And both have been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan as well as the Land Development Code. Staff further notes that the subject property is a recognized boat dock lot as per the Board of County Commissioners Resolution 87-260, and the variance request is consistent with Resolution 2000-51. No inquiries have been received in response to advertising of either of these petitions, and staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the variance in accordance with the proposed plans contained within both the proposed dock and/or the alternate design plans contained within Attachment A subject to the following conditions of approval: One, the dock is private in nature and shall not be used for rental purposes, and, two, the dock shall not be used for any commercial purposes, including mooring commercial boats. Staff also recommends approval of the companion boat dock extension in accordance with the proposed plans contained within Attachment A subject to two additional conditions of approval. First, the approval is predicated upon the approval of the companion variance by the Hearing Examiner absent which the appeal -- the approval of the boat dock extension is void, and two, prior to or concurrent with obtaining a building permit for the dock, a right-of-way permit shall be obtained for access improvements to prevent roadway and drainage system damage if not previously obtained as per Resolution 87-260. That concludes staff's presentation. Page 49 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, John, just for the public's edification, what is a boat dock lot? MR. KELLY: It's a non -- pretty much a nonconforming lot. It cannot be used -- it's too small for the use as -- for a principal structure, which, within the RSF -- I believe this was RSF-4 zoning district, would be a residence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is one of those anomalies where there's not going to be a residence. So you can't have a dock generally on a vacant parcel except for an area like this that's been declared a boat dock lot because it's too small. MR. KELLY: And, technically, it was done per a conditional-use authorization which is the resolution that I referred to, and I believe -- back then I don't believe it was a conditional use. I think it was referred to as -- MR. BELLOWS: Provisional. MR. KELLY: Pardon? MR. BELLOWS: Provisional. MR. KELLY: -- as a provisional use. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. I think I've had a few cases on this street. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. KELLY: Quite a few, actually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for that explanation. All right. Is the applicant here? Thank you, John. Last but not least. Good afternoon. MR. PEARSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nick Pearson Bayshore Marine Consulting. I walked in a minute late, so I missed the swearing in, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You get your personal Page 50 swearing. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. PEARSON: I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for telling us. MR. PEARSON: Okay. So here's my presentation. Just real quickly, this is kind of the general location. It seems like you-all are aware already, but it's on this little peninsula street of 3rd Street West. And if we can go to the next slide. So I have to admit I made a mistake on this slide. I barely missed the wrong -- the lot, so -- with that red circle. It's actually the one just over to the right of that one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Hold on a second here. Are you talking about this one? MR. PEARSON: Yes. Yeah. So, I noticed just last night that I accidently did that, so -- but I think it still shows exactly where the lot is. It's the third boat slip lot in from the eastern side -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. PEARSON: -- before you get to some of those actual residences. If we could go to the next slide. So this shows the existing dock facility. This dock was also approved through a BD and a side setback variance. The variance allowed for 0 feet on both sides, and it allowed actually for 33 feet of protrusion. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did you handle this property, too? MR. PEARSON: Yes, I did. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I remember that one. I Page 51 remember that one. MR. PEARSON: It was a little while back now. But yes, that was Mr. Wingfelder. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. PEARSON: So you can see kind of exactly what's there now. With the -- with the boatlifts, they could have had 0 feet on both setbacks. And I guess the as-built came to about 31 feet. But again, they were approved for 33 feet and some change. And I -- you know, I suppose you can also see kind of some of the other docks on the street a little bit here with the canopies and whatnot. Next slide, please. So this is -- this is the proposal. Essentially, it's just adding a slightly longer finger pier onto what was already there. So again, the setbacks remain basically the same as 0 feet, but the protrusion would be an additional extension. Otherwise, the lot itself basically remains the same. As you can see, the lot line extends pretty far out into the waterway, and the mean high is kind of -- I don't want to say set back, but it's, for lack of a better word, set back from the property line. This lot does have a very gradual sort of water depth to it. So it's sort of hard to tell on this image, but it's more or less actually a natural shoreline with the exception to kind of where that marginal dock segment is. And there actually are some small mangroves on the waterward side of it as well. And if we could go to the next slide. The alternate, as John alluded to, it's basically exactly the same as the proposed except that it has been flipped kind of on a mirror image. The reason that we have this is that I did get a call from the neighbor to the west after the mailing went out, and it -- I didn't get the call until it was kind of too late for me to really change our design Page 52 without kind of starting over the petition. So I spoke to John about this. He recommended kind of including this in our exhibit set that rather than -- you know, I am sort of gun shy on surprising you with a whole bunch of alternate designs at this stage, but it is so similar to the exact, you know, proposed design that, you know, I'm okay with it, my client's okay with it, and the neighbor was more okay with this design, actually, because the boat in this instance that would be on that side is situated slightly further forward. It allows them a little bit more visibility. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. With this -- the difference with this one is the lift is going to be further out in the water or not -- or not? MR. PEARSON: Well, it's the same protrusion, same side setbacks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. I mean, where you have the lift on the -- MR. PEARSON: It's just that you can see, like, the two lifts are offset from one another a bit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Because here's the back of this lift. Here's the back of this lift, right? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I guess it's the opposite on the other one, right? MR. PEARSON: Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So this would be out here? MR. PEARSON: We -- yes. So we made this -- we made this proposal basically so that the line of sight from ingressing and egressing from her slip would not be blocked as much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this her slip? MR. PEARSON: Yes. Page 53 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: I -- you know, as a professional, frankly, this is a slow zone. I don't really think that it would matter a whole lot if you're going slowly on and off the lift. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Again, I made this design purely for her interests so that, you know, she would be okay with it otherwise. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's be clear here. So this is an alternate design that you're proposing? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So if -- I just want to make sure that -- like, so this is going to be an option that I will be looking at, you know, in terms of this one versus the other one based on the criteria? Okay. MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. PEARSON: I know this is sort of difficult to make these proposals this late in the game. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, it's okay because you're not really changing the decking, right? You're just changing the location of the lifts. MR. PEARSON: Yes, I think so. And correct me, Ray, if I'm wrong. The only change -- the lifts are slightly different widths, and this is another thing I want to point out is that the dimension on this alternate design on the larger lift, the 12-foot that you see there on the width is actually -- that should have carried over all of the pile. Yes. So that would have actually been 14. And if you look at the other picture, it is 14. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you go back to the original? MR. PEARSON: Yeah, so the last slide. Page 54 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The prior -- there it is. So you didn't -- you didn't put the -- MR. PEARSON: So it was an oversight -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's okay. MR. PEARSON: -- that the dimension just should have been dragged over a little further. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's just the two feet -- two feet difference, okay. MR. PEARSON: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I see. MR. PEARSON: So you can kind of tell how the pier shifts going back and forth between these slides. It's not a whole lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So like -- so if this boat's here, I think that's what you were talking about is maybe that angle right there. MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: That's what I mean. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what the neighbor's concern was? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: More or less. MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: So we can continue; the next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. PEARSON: And I think -- yes. So here is the waterway width. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this is the one that you brought in rather than before; we did this one before? MR. PEARSON: Yes, yes. So in putting these designs Page 55 together, I do think it's important to kind of maintain the -- I guess call it a contour along the rear portion of these docks. I don't -- I don't want to go any further out than that, so that's kind of what helped us limit ourselves in this case. But as you can see, we are maintaining an ample amount all of the waterway, and I'll brush on the criteria for that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one -- 01 and 02 must have been right at the very beginning of the year, right? MR. PEARSON: I don't recall the exact date. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 2024, so that would have been -- MR. PEARSON: It was somewhere around there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 01 is like -- numerically. So they haven't built the dock yet? MR. PEARSON: I don't think so. The last time I was out there, no, which was -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. PEARSON: -- probably a month or two ago. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can keep going. MR. PEARSON: We can go to the next slide. So really the main thing I want to point out here is that yellow line, the standard protrusion limit. Obviously, it's a very small area, and the depths are really not great within -- within that 20-foot protrusion limit. That's probably all I have to say here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I see. MR. PEARSON: I mean, you know, if we can go to the next slide. So, again, I just want to point out, I know we always review these individually, but I do think it is important, too, to understand the area's characteristics, you know, some of the protrusions that are in this area. Page 56 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That is a dense, dense bunch of docks. I guess the resolution is what -- John, right -- gets FP&L out there? Because usually they won't put power out there unless there's a house, but... MR. KELLY: I don't know how they got electric, to be honest, except that they did receive approval by conditional use. And yes, there is a resolution in place that reduced the setback to many of these lots, but I don't believe this was one that was granted that at the time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Interesting. MR. KELLY: So -- and just one other thing, if I may, to add. To the alternative design, staff suggested that be submitted so that staff could review that as well. We did review that alternative design and found that our responses to the review criteria did not change. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So same -- okay, gotcha. Thank you. That helps me. MR. PEARSON: There are houses at the end of this street, too, so I -- and I would surmise that's probably how power is out there. But I guess I've never asked anyone on this street about that, but it is actually possible to have solar power lifts as well. A lot of these are utilized out on Keewaydin Island, actually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do it the old-fashioned way, crank them. Just kidding. All right. What's next? MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. So here are the criteria again. I don't want to run through all of these. I mean, some of them are pretty clearly met, not met. The waterway width is something I do want to point out. Obviously, we are exceeding the 25 percent in use of the width of the waterway, but Page 57 again, because of the other side of the water basically just being a mangrove island, I wouldn't foresee that ever really being utilized especially because it's a condo. They already have docks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, right. So, I mean, yeah. The intent of this, the policy behind this is obviously for boat safety -- MR. PEARSON: Did navigation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and navigation, not having vessel-on-vessel conflicts or anything like that. But I get your point, the opposite shoreline is not developable. It's still mathematics, right? MR. PEARSON: I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can't -- MR. PEARSON: I accept we don't meet it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. PEARSON: But also to that effect, you know, I think we're basically more or less maintaining the same kind of channel in there with the other docks, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: -- I think that's worth pointing out. The other one, again, the vessel-to-shoreline length ratio, this is almost impossible to meet, you know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I get it. MR. PEARSON: So I don't really have much to say on that one either. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: So next slide, please. So here we are. This is kind of just de-cluttered. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did your client over here give consent? Page 58 MR. PEARSON: I did call him. I had his number, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARSON: Some of the -- communications with clients is really something I'm trying to be -- and with the neighbors is something I'm really trying to be better at than I think that's happened in the past. And it was unfortunate with the other neighbor because I just didn't receive feedback from them until very late in the process. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARSON: But I do care about, you know, our -- the areas -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MR. PEARSON: -- and, you know, respecting people's feelings with these projects. And I do my due diligence, but sometimes it's just not possible to always get everybody. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I mean, the basic due process was done. The notices went out, the signs are up, I guess, right? Signs -- you put signs up? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What else? Anything? MR. PEARSON: I think that's about it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Public speakers? MS. PADRON: There are none. MR. KELLY: Should I put balloons on the signs next time? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm going to go put something on the signs pretty soon. Okay. Yeah, none -- yeah. This is a -- this is a boating/fishing community, lots of boats, and some of these properties are challenging. So did we have anything in writing from the neighbor? MR. PEARSON: No. She -- well, she called me, and we Page 59 e-mailed back and forth a bit. I mean, I actually drew up some additional concepts and things. There was quite a bit of feedback back and forth between us. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, did you hear from the neighbor at all? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Ultimately, she was okay, basically, as long as, you know, I indicated we would be willing to flip the slips. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll have to give that some thought. MR. PEARSON: Frankly, it didn't really matter to my client either way. I think it serves the function that it was intended either way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. Good presentation. MR. PEARSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Otherwise, we're finished. That was it. So I'll get a decision out as -- decisions, plural, as quickly as I can. Thanks for being here. MR. PEARSON: Of course. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So we have to talk about the rest of the year, right? MR. BOSI: Yes, we do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: Currently, in reviewing, we have two petitions scheduled for the 12th of December. We currently have no petitions allocated for the tentatively scheduled December 26th hearing. This room on the 26th is scheduled for some technology upgrades. Based Page 60 upon that and based on the fact that there are no petitions currently scheduled, we are requesting that that meeting be canceled. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The -- MR. BOSI: 26th of December. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think that's smart, and you're going to upgrade the room, all right. MR. BELLOWS: Does that include an espresso machine? MR. BOSI: That -- we're still evaluating the public purpose of that, but everything else -- we believe we're going to address the technology in a little bit more holistic way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Some light control would be nice so I don't have to be getting up and down. But, yeah, that's fine with me, canceling the 12th, and we'll be -- or not the 12th but the 26th, day after Christmas and other things, so it makes sense. And so you'll move those to June -- January, what, 9th? What are we talking -- yeah, 9th? MR. BOSI: Yeah, the 9th. And like I said, there are no petitions currently scheduled for the 26th, so the next scheduled -- the next petition that's eligible will be directed to the January 9th hearing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Sounds good. Anything else? MR. BOSI: Nothing else from the county. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thanks, everybody. As always, I appreciate the hard work everyone puts into handling these meetings. Much appreciated. Meeting adjourned. ******* Page 61 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:43 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 TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.