Loading...
HEX Minutes 12/12/2024December 12, 2024 Page 1 of 45 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida December 12, 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: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Planner III Sean Sammon, Planner III Kevin Summers, Manager - Technical Systems Operations December 12, 2024 Page 2 of 45 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good morning, everybody. I do that a lot. Good afternoon. This is the December 12th, 2024, Hearing Examiner meeting. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you very much. My name's Andrew Dickman. I'm a board certified attorney. I've been practicing in the area of land use and zoning environmental law for over 20 years. I am not a county employee. I've been contracted by the Board of Commissioners to fulfill the duties of the Hearing Examiner as they're prescribed in the code. My job is to hold this quasi-judicial hearing to hear all the petitions, to take testimony from county staff, and also from the applicant, the applicant's representatives, and also from the public. It is -- we're still doing hybrid meetings, correct? Yep. Okay. So this is a hybrid meeting, which means that the good folks that are here in person can fill out a speaker's card, give it to the gentleman over here, and speak, and then we will also go to anyone that's participating via Zoom. So I would ask that if anybody's going to have any -- I see there's a number of people in the audience. If you're going to have any conversations -- the sound does carry in this room, so if you would just step outside and just chat among yourselves, turn off your phones and any other devices that make sounds. The procedure that I like to follow here is that the county planner who is in charge of the file will get up and give me a quick presentation, overview, recommendations, any conditions, anything that I need to know. Then we'll go to the -- and he'll use that podium, then we'll go to the applicant or the applicant's representative over at this larger podium, and then we'll go to public comments. And I will allow for the applicant and the applicant's representative to reserve a little time for rebuttal. I do want to point out that the county does provide a court reporter, as you can see. It's very important to get everything down in the record verbatim. So if you would, when you come to the microphone, obviously, announce your name and address, but also try to speak as -- clearly and not speak over other people so that it is clear and can show up in the records. Frequently I will look back on some of these transcripts just to confirm some things, and that's why, in part, it's very important. So the way that this will be conducted is that anyone who's going to speak here today will have to do so under oath, and in a minute I'll ask the court reporter to administer the oath. This is an informal proceeding, although it is still a quasi-judicial hearing, and I'm in charge of making sure that we follow a procedure. As for the public, you have the right to say whatever you want within boundaries, obviously, but it would be most helpful to me if you would just focus your statements to the application and also to the criteria that I'm required to use to evaluate each petition. That's the best information I can get from any speaker. Just like any quasi-judicial hearing, when this hearing is over with, that's it. I mean, the record is closed. I will not be making any decisions here today. My job is to take all of the information and as well as the information that's in the record, take the testimony here today, and then within 30 days render a written decision. I have reviewed all the materials for all the files that are in the record. I have not had any what are called ex parte communications or any outside communications -- with December 12, 2024 Page 3 of 45 not even staff. I haven't met with staff about the applications. I haven't met with the applicants. I haven't met with anybody from the public. The only thing that I have done is I've -- I've started doing site visits. I usually drive by the site just so I can see it and have a better understanding of it and see the sign that's posted and so forth and so on, so I'm disclosing that right now. I find that to be helpful. So with that, I will go ahead and ask the court reporter to swear in any witnesses that are going to testify here today. So if you're going to speak here today, please stand and raise your right hand. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you very much. So we are going to get started. We have a number of items on the agenda to get through, but we have plenty of time. So we'll start right off the bat with 3A. Sean. MR. SAMMON: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III, with the Zoning division standing in for Tim Finn, who can't be present because of extenuating circumstances. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. (Microphone issues being corrected.) MR. SAMMON: Do you want me to start over or keep going? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I heard you. MR. SAMMON: Okay. Good. Before you is Agenda Item 3A, Petition No. PL20240006001. This is a request for approval of a conditional use for the Fun Time Early Childhood Academy to allow for on-site food preparation for the schoolchildren and staff only through the expansion of the existing kitchen area, superseding Resolution No. 88-76, and pursuant to Subsection 2.03.02(C)(1)(c)(1) of the Collier County Land Development Code on approximately 1.11 acres located at 3144 Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out on November 22nd. The hearing advertisements, property signs were constructed at the property by the applicant per the affidavit of posting notice included in Attachment F of the backup materials. Therefore, staff recommends approval in accordance with the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you, Sean. I appreciate that. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative here? How are you, sir? Come on up here to the podium over -- directly across from me. MR. POLIZZOTTO: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you're going to be handling this presentation alone? MR. POLIZZOTTO: I guess. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good for you. Well, just relax and let's get through it. December 12, 2024 Page 4 of 45 All right. State your name and address. MR. POLIZZOTTO: My name is Robert J. Polizzotto, P-o-l-i-z-z-o-t-t-o. I reside at 5871 Marble Court, Naples, Florida. I'm here representing Fun Time Early Childhood Academy, and I'm currently a director on the Fun Time board. Fun Time Early Childhood Academy is a non-profit organization that -- okay -- is a non-profit organization that provides affordable, high-quality early learning to underserved children from working families. Our goal is to prepare these children for success in kindergarten and beyond, ensuring that they have the tools they need to thrive academically and socially. We currently serve over 243 preschool children at four locations: Downtown Naples, Golden Gate, Poinciana, and now our newest location at Santa Barbara Boulevard. The location on Santa Barbara Boulevard represents a new addition to our growing network of early childhood educational centers. We are committed to create a safe, nurturing environment where every child can grow, learn, and flourish. We understand that the early years are critical in a child's development, and we are proud to provide the crucial service to the community. When we took over this school from Child's Path earlier this year, we noticed immediately that during meals, whether it was breakfast, lunch, or snack, the children were not bringing healthy food options to their lunchboxes. The original Resolution 88-76 stated that "no meals shall be prepared on site." It's our understanding that many families face challenges when providing healthy meals for their children. For some parents, it is only sometimes feasible to pack a nutritional lunch because of time constraints, multiple jobs, cost, or the demands of a large family. We also recognize that at times parents may pack food that their children will eat even if it is not the healthiest option. Our original location in downtown Naples has a fully equipped kitchen and a dedicated chef who prepares nutritious balanced meals for our children. Fun Time Early Childhood Academy needs to be able to prepare and serve balanced, healthy meals to children because nutrition plays a crucial role in their overall development, learning, and well-being. This ensures that children are well fed and ready to focus on learning activities throughout the day. Proper nutrition is essential for physical growth, cognitive development, and maintaining appropriate energy levels, all of which are critical during the early stage of education. We plan to bring the same approach to the Santa Barbara location. Our goal is to ensure that every child has access to healthy meals throughout the day and that our children are well fed, energized, and ready to learn. To make this possible, we are requesting approval of a conditional use for the Fun Time Early Childhood Academy Santa Barbara Boulevard location to allow for on-site food preparation for the schoolchildren and staff only through the expansion of the existing kitchen area superseding Resolution No. 88-76. The food service will be internal serving only those at the facility. The revised concept plan shows that -- the proposed kitchen expansion with proposed buffers, which will be provided to the greatest extent practicable. Per the original approved CU, site plan, the only access to the site is Santa Barbara Boulevard. There will be no changes to this access or any other changes to the site parking areas with December 12, 2024 Page 5 of 45 the modified CU. We aim to make this transition as smooth as possible for the children and the community. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. A couple quick questions. So first of all you're a director on the board -- the board of directors? MR. POLIZZOTTO: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're a director, and they asked you to come here and speak on their behalf, right? MR. POLIZZOTTO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so with regard to the expanded cooking area, this is just for breakfast and lunch, or what is this confined to? MR. POLIZZOTTO: It depends on the nature at the time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. POLIZZOTTO: It's breakfast, lunch, or a snack. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. You're not opening in the evenings -- MR. POLIZZOTTO: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- evening events or anything like that? MR. POLIZZOTTO: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. And you did hear Sean's presentation. He's the county's planner who spoke here, and they're recommending approval -- MR. POLIZZOTTO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- of this, and so I guess you adopt his recommendation as well? MR. POLIZZOTTO: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Approximately how many children are -- you know, what's the capacity there at -- MR. POLIZZOTTO: At Santa Barbara. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- at Santa Barbara? MR. POLIZZOTTO: Currently we have 66 -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sixty-six, okay. All right. MR. POLIZZOTTO: -- but we're limited to 100. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. Okay. Let's go to public comment, see if there's any public comment. MR. SUMMERS: (Shakes head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No public comment? MR. SUMMERS: Nope. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I'll close the public comment. This is a pretty straightforward request. We get these from time to time, so I don't have anything else. Does the county have anything else that they want to add? MR. SAMMON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. Okay, great. Thank you very much. And I will get a decision out to you as quickly as I can. MR. POLIZZOTTO: Thank you. December 12, 2024 Page 6 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***All right. Let's go to 3B. MR. SAMMON: Good afternoon again, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III, standing in for Tim Finn. Before you is Agenda Item 3B. This is Petition No. PL20240002891, Aspire Living, LLC, requests an insubstantial change to the Blue Coral -- Blue Coral Apartments RPUD, Ordinance 21-31, for, one, the addition to Exhibit A, Tract B, accessory uses, to allow a fenced dog park and sunshade structures and, two, the addition of a footnote to Table 1, development standards accessory uses, adding a north minimum yard requirement for a dog park and sunshade structures. The approximate 9.35-acre parcel is located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Juliet Boulevard in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by operations staff. The advertisements and mailers were sent on November 22nd. The hearing advertisement property sign was constructed on the property by the applicant per the affidavit of posting notice included in Attachment G of the backup materials. Therefore, staff recommends approval in accordance with the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Is the applicants here or the applicant's representative? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Sean, I know you're filling in for Tim, but I presume that they're aware that this hearing was taking place since there was posted signs out? MR. SAMMON: As far as I know. For the record, I'm not entirely sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. This is kind of unusual. I never had a situation where the applicant didn't show up. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll tell you what, why don't we continue this item to the end of the agenda -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- in case they're having some kind of car problems or something like that, and maybe they'll show up. Let's just do that. So I'm going to continue this to the end of the agenda and move to 3C. And if -- I don't know if you have anyone on your staff that has their contact information; maybe they can reach out and -- reach out and see what's going on. MR. BELLOWS: I'll text John. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You never know. There could be a traffic issue. MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Dickman, we have a request from Vadim Muchnik to see if they can speak on Item 3C, which would be your next agenda item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: Through Zoom. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We'll be getting to that. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks. December 12, 2024 Page 7 of 45 MR. SUMMERS: I just got a message the engineer is stuck in traffic for 3B, yeah, so he -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let him -- MR. SUMMERS: He's in the car. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let him know that we rolled it back. MR. SUMMERS: You got it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***So we'll go to 3C. Let's go with that one. Who do we have? Sean again. MR. SAMMON: Three in a row. 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. PL20240001659. This is a request for a variance from the Land Development Code Section 5.03.02.C.2.b to increase the required RMF-6 zoned fence height from 6 feet to 8 feet on the west and east side property lines and the south rear property line located at 824 and 828 98th Avenue North also known as Lots 37, 38, and part of Lot 39, Block 64 of the Naples Park Unit 5 subdivision in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. An agent authorization letter was distributed to you that was submitted by the applicant, Chris Moran, to have his associate, Alister Munro, represent him here today in his absence. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03, a through h, and staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with the GMP. With respect to public notice requirements, they were complied with per LDC Section 10.03.06.F. The agent letter was distributed by the applicant on Friday October 4th, 2024. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by county staff on Friday, November 22nd, 2024, and then the public hearing signs were placed by county staff on Monday, November 25th, 2024. I've received one call for opposition. This opposition is included in the letter from their lawyer that was included in new material I distributed earlier. There are also four letters of support provided by the applicant that was also distributed to you. Therefore, staff recommends that you approve the Variance Petition PL20240001659, a request for a variance as depicted within Attachment B of the staff report. That concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Sean. I appreciate it. All right. The applicant's representative is here hopefully. Come on up, sir. MR. MUNRO: Good afternoon. My name is Alister Munro. I reside at 1324 Andalucia Way, Naples, Florida. I'm here today to represent Mr. Moran. We -- I own a property management business, and we manage other properties for Mr. Moran, and these ones are just built, and hopefully we get to manage those, too. And he wasn't able to be here today, so he asked me to come here to explain why he wanted the -- wants the fence the way -- the way it is in all the other documentation, which is -- in short, it's for privacy for his homes as well as the surrounding homes that -- the way that -- being a new build, the house is raised up compared to surrounding December 12, 2024 Page 8 of 45 properties. Putting a lower fence would -- we'd just be able to look into the neighbors' houses and pools and the backyards. So it's privacy for Mr. Moran's properties as well as the surrounding properties. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Are these homes -- I know that they're new builds. Are they properties that are going up for sale, or is -- is Mr. Moran going to be living at one of them? MR. MUNRO: No. The plan is to rent them -- to have them as rentals. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Rentals? MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Vacation rentals? MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. And so the situation that you're -- so I'm looking at the staff report, and it's got a cutout of the survey. It says, "Proposed 8-foot fence from original grade to match height on 6-foot fence on the retaining wall." Can you explain what that is? What is the retaining wall? MR. MUNRO: So it's -- the fence that we're proposing is actually a 6-foot fence but the property is raised up, you know, between 18 and 24 inches compared to the properties next door just because of the new building codes. So when fences are measured, which I didn't know this, but I know this now, it's measured from the neighbor's yard. So neighbor -- up to the top of the 6-foot fence would be 8 feet up from the original grade before the houses were torn down that were there before and, you know, as I said, it was built up to meet building codes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Have these fences been built already or no? MR. MUNRO: The fences, no, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, they haven't. So there are no fences around these properties? MR. MUNRO: Correct. There's a temporary construction fence up right now that's the cloth -- the cloth type. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And we do have a video prepared, if you are -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, we do. Okay. Let's watch that then. MR. MUNRO: I'm the cameraman on this one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. You're going to narrate for us. MR. SUMMERS: One second. MR. MUNRO: I didn't have a sound tech with me with one of those microphones that -- you know. (The video was played as follows:) "And I am asking for the variance to have a 6-foot fence built on my property to keep privacy for me, for my neighbors, and the neighbors in the back, and I'll explain why. "As you can see, the retaining wall at the beginning of my property -- we're in the front of the house now -- starts at only 14 inches. "Now, at the back of the house, we're at 22 inches. At the highest point, it's 24 inches. "Right here we are at -- this is a 4-foot fence now. So if we do the 4-foot December 12, 2024 Page 9 of 45 fence, you'll see that neither neighbor will have any privacy. "In the utility easement area, we will do the 8-foot fence so we maintain the same elevation as the 6-foot fence that's coming over here to give that total height of eight feet in the easement. "All right. So here in the back, this fence is on my property, so this will be removed. But five feet back of the utility easement, I'll have the 8-foot fence over there. This is just under a 6-foot fence now, and as you can see, the same situation as before; there's just no privacy. "So we are now at the west side of my property of 824, and this is where -- as you can see, this is only about 18, 19 inches of a wall. So a 6-foot fence would put it up about to seven and a half feet from the neighbor's yard. This is the neighbor that we are all aware of that did write in a letter that is against it. I would still prefer to have a 6-foot fence for the purpose of all the guests, and them in their backyard will be able to see each other clear as day if we don't." (The video concluded.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it, okay. All right. Obviously, you've probably seen the criteria. It's laid out in the staff report. There are a number of different types of criteria that are used for a variance, because a variance is relaxation, if you will, of the existing adopted zoning code. I didn't know if you wanted to go ahead and put any other testimony besides that into the record. MR. MUNRO: No. I think -- I think that says it all. And like I said earlier, it's just for, you know, privacy of not just Mr. Moran's houses but, you know, the surrounding houses as -- you know, as most of the neighbors did send a letter and have expressed that they would prefer that also, because it just -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did your -- all abutting neighbors give you letters? MR. MUNRO: Yes. Yeah, I do have them with me, too. I think they were also in the documentation. There's, you know, one on each side and then two behind the -- actually three behind, because there are two lots -- there's actually three lots behind. There's a total of five neighbors. And I have four -- you know, we have four letters of -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Why don't we go to public hearing [sic] on this one. I'll take some public comment, and I'll give you a chance afterwards to come back and do a rebuttal if you need to. MR. MUNRO: Okay. Should I stay here or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can sit down if you want, and then when we get through the public comments, then if you want to make some remarks -- MR. MUNRO: Sounds good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- regarding that, you can. MR. SUMMERS: There is one person that would like to make a comment on Zoom, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's go. MS. MUCHNIK: Good afternoon, everyone. Can you hear us? MR. MUCHNIK: Good afternoon. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, please. Welcome. December 12, 2024 Page 10 of 45 MR. SUMMERS: We can hear you just fine. You can go ahead. MS. MUCHNIK: Oh, great. Hi. I'm Olga Muchnik. And I'm here with my husband, Vadim Muchnik. We are the property owners of the house next door, the 820 98th -- MR. MUCHNIK: Avenue. MS. MUCHNIK: -- Avenue. So we are -- sorry. It was very spotty when he was speaking, so we had a hard time hearing what he was saying. But I think we did hear that he said the original fence was eight feet. MR. MUCHNIK: No. Original fence were five feet. MS. MUCHNIK: Yes. MR. MUCHNIK: From the start. MS. MUCHNIK: And just to kind of lay out some of our concerns -- I know you want to keep this brief, but we have some very serious concerns about -- you know, we have a modest house. It's not very tall, so blocking of the sun -- we do believe it will impact just the facade of our house as well as just feeling like you're locked in. MR. MUNRO: Close to eight feet. Eight-feet fence, it's going to be almost as high as our house. MS. MUCHNIK: Yeah. MR. MUCHNIK: Plus, he raised the ground -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. Can I interrupt you, please, because two people are talking at the same time. Can -- Ms. Olga, can you please talk and not be interrupted? MS. MUCHNIK: Yes. Sure. I'll say a couple of items, and then my husband. Yeah, we're saying the same thing. I'm in alignment with what my husband is saying. So I was just kind of giving you a few bullet points, right, just, like, three concerns that we have so you have them framed up. One is the blocking of the sun. Like, we actually have a window, and where he wants to put a fence -- our house is very close to where the fence would be. Like, you literally can touch the fence with one hand and then our house with the other hand. So we do feel it will definitely have an impact on the amount of light and sun that we have in our small little house. The second concern is just the impact of the facade, right? Like, if you look at the contrast between the height of an 8-foot fence and the height of our house, it looks like we're actually being, you know, devoured into this, you know, space. It looks like our house is within the frames almost, like jailed in, you know, in comparison to such a high, you know, height. So the height is just not symmetrical, and it's just not appealing, right, which we do feel will impact our property value. And then the third concern, we actually feel -- we are really hoping and trusting you, because, obviously, you know, you represent us, too. You know, we trust you. We pay taxes for Collier County, and we really, you know, enjoy this community, and we have trust that you've done the diligence to ensure that there's no encroachment on our property, because it looked to us, when he removed the fence, that the new line where he's trying to put the fence is actually more on our property lines than where the old fence has been. And, by the way, the old fence was removed without our permission. So those were kind of the items. I do want to make sure I give my husband a December 12, 2024 Page 11 of 45 chance to speak. Is there anything else? MR. MUCHNIK: Yeah. I just want to add, we just -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. One second. One second. So this is -- can you just give us your name, please. MR. MUCHNIK: My name is Vadim Muchnik. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So that's V-a-d-i-m. MR. MUCHNIK: V-a-d-i-m. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Last name, M-u-c-h-n-i-k. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. MR. MUCHNIK: Yes, correct. Yes, I just want to add really quick that those 8-foot fence, it's going to be almost high as our house. It just not going to look balanced to the neighborhood. Those fence going to be just sticking out so high, it just not going to look good. And on the top of it, because he raised the ground -- when he built the house, he raised the ground almost two feet. And on the top of it, now we're having water issue to our house almost to the front door. And you can check the records. I've been calling Collier County every time that I'm getting, now, water to my house, and now he wants to put 8-foot fence on the top of it? It's just not right. I hope you're just going to make a right decision. Whoever wants 8-foot fence, let them have it. We're not approving it. MS. MUCHNIK: Not from our side. MR. MUCHNIK: Not from our side. He can do whatever he wants on other side, but not on our side. I really appreciate for listening to us, and it's just a concern it's going to be too high, those 8-foot fence. I'm okay with fence, but not 8-foot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Muchnik, I have a letter here from an attorney. Is your -- MR. MUCHNIK: Yes. MS. MUCHNIK: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is your attorney here at the hearing, or is that just a letter that you wanted me to read? MR. MUCHNIK: It's just a letter. MS. MUCHNIK: Yeah. We didn't ask her to come. We thought the letter would suffice for this hearing, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHNIK: And also our e-mail with the letter attached. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Is that it? MR. MUCHNIK: Yeah. We've been -- I just want to say we've been living, like, three years through that construction debris, noise, and I never said anything, never complained. But lately, when I start getting water to my house, I did make few calls to engineers, and they tried to do something, but -- it's better, but still having water. And now he's coming with an 8-foot fence. It's just not right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. MUCHNIK: Possibly on our property line. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. December 12, 2024 Page 12 of 45 MR. MUCHNIK: Yeah. I'm not okay with 8-foot fence. I'm okay with fence, like a regular zoned -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much for participating. I appreciate it. Do we have any other speakers? MR. MUCHNIK: That's all. MR. SUMMERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you had a copy of this letter. Did you get a copy of this letter? MR. MUNRO: I do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have an extra one, Sean? Can I give him mine? And then you have an extra. So we're going to close the public hearing if there are no other speakers. So this is obviously one of your neighbors that has an issue. They laid out three things. One is the blocking of the sun, number two is just the overall impact of a much larger wall close to their property, and there was, obviously, encroachment. I would hope that the county is not going to allow you to put a fence on their property. They mentioned the prior fence and whose was that and who took it down, and then let's hear a little bit about this stormwater runoff into their property. MR. MUNRO: Yes. Like you said, obviously, the fence, you know, will be permitted, and you're not -- that's what the county inspectors are for, to make sure it's not on their property and on Mr. Moran's property instead. So there's no concern there. As far as the sunlight, you know, the fence would be -- this is -- their property's to the west, so it's to the east, which, you know, sun rises in the east. But that -- that is, you know, minimal, I think, as far as the sunlight. The water runoff, I mean, again, that is all according to building codes, and the county had a whole -- has a whole plan that was, you know, required to raise it and an entire drain system underneath, you know, inside the retaining wall. Engineers that have, again, all -- all according to county code. And as far as -- Mr. Moran is aware there's no water runoff into the neighbor's yard. If anything, it's -- you know, there is storm drainage that is built there to deal with that per the engineer's recommendations. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me ask the county -- I don't -- one of you can answer, I don't know. But, I mean, this is in a -- I know this neighborhood. It's in a hurricane -- you know, that's the first place that evacuates when there's a hurricane, so there's a lot of -- but there's a lot of new construction, and I have noticed that the new construction, they're required, I guess, to elevate with the new FEMA maps. Can one of you speak to that, like, the reasoning for that? Because I know there are also older homes that were built in the '60s and '70s, and they're very different. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the planning manager for the county. The FEMA flood elevations have changed over the years, and so homes built in the '60s and '70s didn't have to meet the current FEMA height requirements of first flood elevation. So the newer homes have to meet the new flood elevations, so they tend to be up either on stilts or that they bring fill in to get the first finished floor above the flood December 12, 2024 Page 13 of 45 elevation. And in many cases, those are done with retaining walls or stem walls, and that's the case here. Unfortunately, the way we measure height in Collier County for a fence is you take the average height between the adjoining property owner and the property the fence is being located on, and that's added to the height of the fence being added. So if they're putting a 4-foot fence or a 6-foot fence on something that's 2 feet, you're going to get an 8-foot-high in the county's regards, and that's why they're here to get the variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. So I also want to ask you -- and I've noticed this with some new construction that there seemed to be some -- I don't want to call them catch basins but almost like stormwater runoff techniques on the topography on the grass, almost like ditches and things like that. Is that -- is the intent of that to avoid this type of runoff onto -- I mean, you really shouldn't be impacting someone's property rights by causing stormwater runoff into their property, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Most of these subdivisions have an overall drainage plan, and the individual lots drain into a central drainage ditch, and I think that's the case here in -- MR. MUNRO: It's all designed to drain towards the street from the back of the property, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So along the -- because I've seen some of the homes in there. Along the side property lines, are there, like, almost little -- small little swales that -- MR. MUNRO: There are either -- some you'll see on top, and some you see down -- they've done a -- you know, like a corrugated pipe underneath to grade the top, you know, that's at a slope that goes all the way down to the street to the main storm drain. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so those drains are in the back, and then the conveyance system -- MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- to the street is underground. MR. MUNRO: The back and then probably in the middle somewhere. So it could be a few locations where it drains all towards the street to actually -- to avoid it from going into the neighbor's yard. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think legally you have to do that -- MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- because if you were to infringe on somebody else's property rights, that would probably be a lawsuit. MR. MUNRO: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so I don't think the county would permit something that's going to cause flooding in somebody else's backyard, front yard, side yard, whatever. But I have seen those techniques with this situation in Naples Park. So -- MR. MUNRO: And just to add, the neighbor on the west side, to my understanding, they do not live in the house. They rent the house out to tenants. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Everybody in Naples Park has a vacation rental there, trust me. I live in Naples Park -- MR. MUNRO: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and every house around me is a vacation December 12, 2024 Page 14 of 45 rental. MR. MUNRO: You should start renting out your house. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I live there. I love my neighborhood. So -- all right. So these things, this is a unique way of measuring fences. Everybody wants fences. Everybody wants privacy, especially if the intent is to have a vacation rental. It's my understanding in the county, the vacation rental rule is that they can have vacation rentals as long as there is somebody locally that can be contacted if there is any commotion happening at the property. MR. MUNRO: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And again, I speak from personal experience. MR. MUNRO: Correct, yeah. We would -- you know, as we do, we manage Mr. Moran's other -- two other properties where -- well, one other one is almost done also where we would, you know, get the proper permit. It's under the right-of-way permits, I believe, where it's a vacation rental permit with us as the designated -- as the property manager as the designated company to contact in case there's an emergency or any -- you know, any neighbors as well as the sign out front with a phone number on it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, I get it. You know, the unique part about all this is that in a typical neighborhood, neighbors get to know each other, you know, and they say, "Hey, I'm going to put up a fence. Do you mind?" "No, go ahead. I understand," and they work together. And, you know, it's very common to have privacy fences among homes in this type of -- but when it becomes vacation rentals, you know, they're not going to get to know anybody. MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's nobody going to get to know the neighbors that are there permanently. MR. MUNRO: It's the nature of Naples having a lot of communities that have an HOA that prevent vacation rentals, so there's not much left that can -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is not an HOA situation. MR. MUNRO: Correct, that's why it's one of the few places and there is so many vacation rentals just because there's not much else in Naples that is close to the beach and doesn't have an HOA. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's close to the beach, and it's close to Mercato -- MR. MUNRO: Right, right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and all the good things that people want to go to. MR. MUNRO: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, I think the interesting thing here for me is that -- is the technique of measuring. I mean, absolutely everybody -- the new builds have to be prepared for flooding. You know, I know this is on the 800 block, but the folks in the 500 block got affected very badly during the hurricane, so I know that, you know, there's -- all the new builds are having to deal with the new topography and the new flood maps and, unfortunately, sometimes it creates these little differences that are occurring. December 12, 2024 Page 15 of 45 So unless you have anything else to say, I understand everything that's going on here. I will also add that I know that -- I noticed that this is one of the streets that's now going through one of the major changes with all the new plumbing and all -- MR. MUNRO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the new everything. They're going street by street through Naples Park, so you'll have new drainage there. MR. MUNRO: Correct. I think they're on the 700 block now of 98th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, so -- MR. MUNRO: We're the next block over. Right in the middle of the winter season, we'll have the street tore up, and it will be interesting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, it's already torn up. I went -- MR. MUNRO: On 98th already? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. They told me to get out of there. But the sign was up, Sean, don't worry. All right. I understand this one. I'll take all these -- MR. MUNRO: Just one question. You know, I know it's a variance for -- a request for all the way around all three sides, if you will. The fourth fence would be in the middle between the two properties, but -- so if for some reason it's not approved, would it be approved for the other sides and then a lower fence on the other sides where there's an issue? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, the only reason you're here is because you're going above what is -- what can be approved administratively. MR. MUNRO: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if -- if my decision is denial, then you would have up to whatever is allowed administratively, and you would just deal with it that way. But let's talk about the -- I mean, it is two single-family homes. MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And what's in between the two houses? MR. MUNRO: Right now there's nothing, but there would be the same fence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But the request is to put another -- MR. MUNRO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- 8-foot fence there or 6-foot? MR. MUNRO: That would -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because that -- MR. MUNRO: That would be 6-foot, so the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. MUNRO: -- but the measurement there, the neighbor is the same -- the same two houses are built up, so that would be within the usual -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that one's not going to have to be part of this. It's just really the fence that goes around the -- MR. BELLOWS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- part that's been elevated, right? MR. MUNRO: Around the two parcels, basically. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So -- MR. BELLOWS: They didn't ask for one separating the two structures. December 12, 2024 Page 16 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand that. Okay. So typically I can get my decisions out within a few weeks. I'll try to -- we've got Christmas coming up, and this is the last meeting, so I'm going to try to hustle as much as possible, so... MR. MUNRO: Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I thank you for being here, and -- yeah. All right. That was 3D. Should we go to 3E now? Did the gentleman make it here? MR. SAMMON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So why don't we go back to 3C since -- MR. SAMMON: 3B. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- since I see the engineer is here. MR. SAMMON: 3B. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 3B? MR. BELLOWS: Do you want him to reread it? MR. SAMMON: Reread it or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is 3B. Okay. So why don't you come over here. ***So I'm going to bring back Item 3B. It's already been introduced by the Planning Department, you know, the notices. They basically laid out their recommendation, their analysis of this. So you got caught in traffic, so we pushed you back. But here you are. Swear him 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? MR. HARMON: I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is the dog park. We're talking about a dog park. MR. HARMON: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Joseph Harmon, vice president of RMEC Engineers and project manager for this project, Blue Coral Apartments. Since it's been Blue Coral, it's been renamed to Aspire Naples, so if we go back and forth, you'll understand. We received approval for an RPUD back in 2021. We have also received our SDP and are under full construction right now. It came up that in our SDP we had shown a dog park in the front yard of the plans, which we assumed, in the PUD, fell under that amenity normally seen in a multifamily use. But when the owner requested to have sunshades added to that dog park, it kind of raised a red flag, so we were asked to do two things: Number one, clean up the Item B accessory uses, No. 6, to specifically include dog park as part of an incidental and accessory use to a multifamily. To clean that language up -- staff asked us to clean that up. And then the actual ask here is to be able to put sunshade structures in the front yard. And as you can see, the highlighted is the same as the principal structure, but we're asking to put shade structures in that dog park within the front yard. December 12, 2024 Page 17 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Is that it? MR. HARMON: I think so. Do we have -- we have a couple more slides, if you'd like to see what they look like or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go through that, like, just get it into the record so it's all there. MR. HARMON: Sure, okay. Next slide. MR. SUMMERS: And that would be nice. I'm just trying -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're frozen? MR. SUMMERS: Yeah, I'm frozen. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Frozen up. All right. MR. SUMMERS: I'm looking at it; it looks great. No, I'm just kidding. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It doesn't work that way. That's okay. MR. SUMMERS: It will catch up here in just a second. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's -- there we go. MR. HARMON: The dog park is in the north end of the site between -- or up against Immokalee Road. There's, of course, a large landscape buffer there that was already required as part of the plans. It's in the northeast corner of our property. You can go to the next slide, if you can. It's going to be an artificial turf dog park, fenced in, two different areas for smaller and larger breeds, watering stations, waste receptacle stations, and the normal toys that they wanted in there for the dogs to play around. But the owner would like a shade structure -- two shade structures in there. MR. SUMMERS: Let me try to disconnect really quickly. MR. HARMON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have a question of Sean; I have a question for you about this. So, you know, I indicated earlier that I went out and looked at some properties. So when it's -- I think it's up against -- like, on the east side is an apartment -- rental apartment building? MR. BELLOWS: I believe so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How does that notice work? Because those are rentals. Do they go to the owner of the mail-outs? Does it go to the owner of the property? MR. SAMMON: Yeah. For the record, Sean Sammon. I believe the notifications go to property owners, so it would be the owner of the apartment complex. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So if any apartment renter or tenant -- you know, they would see the sign and, presumably, that would be their notice as well as -- MR. SAMMON: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- what you put in newspapers and other places? MR. SAMMON: Yep. It's in the newspapers. It's a sign on the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MR. HARMON: It was sent out in over 300 neighborhood letters. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? MR. HARMON: Yeah. December 12, 2024 Page 18 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's a lot of big parcels around there. I'm surprised that you have -- MR. HARMON: Well, the apartments -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's the radius? MR. HARMON: -- the condos next door, and then there's a condo association. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, there's a condo. MR. HARMON: Yeah, a condo association across the street, so it -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Bermuda on the corner. MR. HARMON: Bermuda Palms, yeah, right, uh-huh. There it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. HARMON: So there's the style of fence. Of course, you don't allow chain link fence here in this area, so the owner is recommending or proposing this aluminum bronzed fencing. Let's see. We've got a next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You have the staging area to get the dog off the leash. MR. HARMON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's the sunshades. MR. HARMON: There we go. And that's a similar structure to what the owner's proposing. It's basically a sail shade on four posts, but technically, according to staff, it's a structure, so we needed to come here to get that approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. That's what happens. All right. Any -- I'm going to go to public comment now. MR. HARMON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is there anybody signed up to speak on this item? MR. SUMMERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We're closing the public hearing part. This is pretty straightforward. I get it. I understand what you're asking for. Unless the county has anything they want to say, or if you have any last comments, it's -- this is something that's pretty straightforward. MR. HARMON: Okay. I'm good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'll have a written decision out as soon as I can. I have up to 30 days. You weren't here when I said that, but I will try to do it as quickly as possible. MR. HARMON: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it, and I, again, apologize for getting stuck in traffic. Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll take care of all that traffic stuff. MR. SAMMON: Please do. MR. HARMON: If only. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Where were we at? Remind me. Three. We've done C, right? Let me get -- okay. Yeah, we've done C, we've done A, so we're on 3E. MR. KELLY: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III. December 12, 2024 Page 19 of 45 Before you is Agenda Item 3D. Can I just ask in the audience, is Addie Mentry here? Okay. Glad you were able to make it. So this is a request that the Hearing Examiner approve an after-the-fact sign variance from the Land Development Code Section 5.06.04.F.1.A to increase the allowable sign height from 15 feet to 17 feet and from Section 5.06.04.F.1.B to decrease the required setback from 10 feet to 2.7 feet to allow a pole sign for the Northtide Naples RV Resort. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Airport Road South and North Road at 3120 North Road in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The subject 3.18-acre parcel is located within the Northtide Naples RV Resort, which is within a travel-trailer/recreational vehicle campground zoning district, TTRVC. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The agent letter was sent by the applicant's agent on or about November 12, 2024, as per notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and clerk's posting were by the county on November 22, 2024. Public hearing signs comprise two large signs that were posted by the applicant on or before November 27, 2024, as per a notarized affidavit. This petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.06.08 and is consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Several phone calls were received requesting clarification of the scope of this project; however, no objections were voiced. Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner render a decision to approve the subject petition to, again, reduce the required sign setback from 10-point -- 10 feet to 2.7 feet from the property line and to increase the allowable height from 15 feet to a maximum of 17 feet at the subject location and as depicted within Attachment A of the staff report. That concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, John. So after the fact. Procedurally, why is this in front of me? Is this a code enforcement issue? MR. KELLY: I believe it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. The sign, to me, looked like it was pretty old. This doesn't meet the legal nonconformity or anything like that? MR. KELLY: No. They refaced and did several -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Recently? MR. KELLY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. I know we've looked at this property before on a different issue on the -- MR. KELLY: There was an -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: On the west side we had -- yeah, there was a platting thing. I recall this property being done. Okay. MR. KELLY: And I should add, this has been ongoing. This -- this was opened in 2022. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. December 12, 2024 Page 20 of 45 MR. KELLY: Okay. Ms. Mentry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: By the way, your two very large signs on the property are almost as big as their sign. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi. How are you? MS. MENTRY: Hello, good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Welcome. MS. MENTRY: Addie Mentry, 12 -- 13266 Bird Drive, Odessa, Florida. Okay. So like John said -- and thank you so much, John, for all your hard work on this record. So we are here for an after-the-fact variance for the identification sign at Northtide Naples. Do you have power or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You just have to say, "Next slide, please." MS. MENTRY: Okay. Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's got all the power. MR. SUMMERS: And I hit "next." It just doesn't want to go. MS. MENTRY: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: It's slow today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You just have to look at it like you do. MR. SUMMERS: Let's try this one more time. MS. MENTRY: Okay. So vicinity map, we're on the west side of the county just south of the airport. Next slide. This is the parcel map, and the sign is located at the intersection of North Road and Airport-Pulling Road. Next slide. So as John said, our proposed variance request is to request a reduction of setback from 10 feet to 2.7 feet specifically on the north frontage fronting North Road and to increase the height from 15 feet to 17 feet based on the elevation of where the sign is and the center line elevation of the road. Next slide. All right. So this is just the site plan showing exactly where the sign is going. It is the 2.7 feet from North Road, and it's 17.1 feet from Airport-Pulling, so it meets that setback. This is the proposed sign. So for history, this sign was -- we put a new cabinet on it because we found that with the kind of entrance boulder water feature here, that unless we refaced the existing sign, there was not a sign -- there was not an alternate sign location that met current LDC code that would be visible from Airport-Pulling, which is the main thoroughfare that people come to this site. It would be set back too far; that a sign would essentially just be rendered invisible. So that is why we wanted to just reuse the poles. We did engineering to ensure that the cabinet would be sufficient for those existing poles to hold, and we changed the cabinet on here. Per the LDC, we will need to go back and add these pole covers to make sure that it is within that code, and we will do that if this is, like, granted approval because, you know, we're dealing with an after-the-fact variance here. December 12, 2024 Page 21 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if I -- if I do -- if it is approved, it's going to look like that? MS. MENTRY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the bottom part of it's going to have to be wider, the 2.2? MS. MENTRY: Yes. And we'll obviously go in -- like, what we thought we could do is to kind of do a reface with the cabinet and had not -- we didn't pull a permit. So if this is approved, we'll have to go back through the permitting process, pull the permit, and we'll include this proposal. And once the permit is issued, we'll go back and do the work for the pole covers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And how did this come about? Was there a sign there prior? MS. MENTRY: Yeah. The sign -- that we can tell, the sign has been there since at least 2007. So we just couldn't -- there's just -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This sign hasn't been here since 2007. MS. MENTRY: The poles. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, the poles. MS. MENTRY: Yeah, yeah. There was -- I mean, the size of the cabinet is the same size as what was there. We just could not reuse the cabinet that was there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. MENTRY: Yeah. Next slide, I think, are just some other photos showing -- I mean, the poles do look a little weathered, but we painted them. We tried to make them look as nice as possible, and we think that the new cabinet is an upgrade from what was there. I think what was there was a wood sign. It was a wood cabinet, and so this is aluminum and can withstand engineering, so... Next slide. So I just wanted to quickly go through some visibility just to show that it's imperative that this location stay where it is for visibility sake on Airport-Pulling. So the next three are just north, 500, 250, and 100. Next slide. And then there's -- I'm sure that you've seen these. They were in the record, in the backup package, and if you haven't, they are available to you in the visible study that was submitted. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is going to be the only sign for the -- I mean, because I noticed when you showed the property, you only showed the parcel towards Airport-Pulling, but it's -- MS. MENTRY: Yeah. We still do have an issue on North Road that this sign doesn't even -- like, you can't see it on North Road, and so we're trying to find a way to maybe put some smaller directional signs at the roads that are there that is within code. But this is the only -- it's the only sign that's going to be there. I don't think a sign that is this size can fit on North, realistically, so this is really kind of the main entry identification for those, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So just -- before you -- before they put up any other signs, please check with the county. MS. MENTRY: Oh, yes, for sure. We've learned our lesson. December 12, 2024 Page 22 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. MENTRY: I don't know if it's going to -- no? Okay. And then just south 500, 250, and 100, again, just showing that even south -- for travelers traveling north, it is -- the visibility is an issue, which is why we'd like to maintain the location of the current sign. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How long has this RV park been there? When was it established? MS. MENTRY: Oh, goodness. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. MENTRY: I'm not sure, honestly. I mean, at least -- at least 2007. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. MS. MENTRY: I think definitely older. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I believe -- yeah. I believe that I heard an item on this one with regard to the platting or something like that. MS. MENTRY: There was an NUA that came through last year. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I remember. Okay. There was a platting issue and -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that's what I remember. MR. BELLOWS: NUA is a petition that allows for changes and modifications to a preexisting nonconforming park. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Anything else? MS. MENTRY: No. I mean, I have the criteria to go through if you need me to. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. Why don't you do that just to get it on the record. You never know. MS. MENTRY: So the first, that special conditions or circumstances are particular to the land. We believe that because of the entrance feature, the absence of an alternative visible location, and the necessity of visibility and safety, especially because this is a 55-plus community, that is essential for us to maintain the location of the sign. The second, that the literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the rights. We believe that it would impose undue hardship on the applicant to have an alternative sign location just because there really is no sign location other than the one that's there because of the boulders and that water entrance feature that really does render any viable visibility. The third, that the circumstances and special conditions are particular to the land. We believe that they are because of that kind of entrance feature. Not everybody has that entrance feature. If that weren't there, we could have an alternative location. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're talking about the rocks, the boulders and the -- MS. MENTRY: Yeah, and the entrance and all of that. Yeah, we'd have to essentially clear that, so we'd have to go behind that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. MENTRY: It doesn't confer on the applicant any special privilege. We don't believe that it does. We believe that it's a unique circumstance, this being senior living. We know senior living is very big in this community, but just with the entrance feature December 12, 2024 Page 23 of 45 combined with a lack of alternative visible location. And that it is the minimum relief. We do believe it's the minimum relief. I mean, really, essentially, the variance is from one of the frontages, and because of the center line of the road, that's why we wanted to increase to 17 feet. It actually doesn't -- it doesn't even max to 17 feet. I think based on the survey, it's something like 16 and a half feet, so about a foot and a half over the 15 feet. And, you know, we want to comply as much as possible, which is why we've designed the alternate pole covers to ensure that it meets the maximum intent of the LDC. That's my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah. Oh, I wanted to say I do recognize, I think, your company, but I don't think you've ever come before me, right? MS. MENTRY: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you just -- have you done public hearings before like this? MS. MENTRY: I have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you just tell me a little bit about your background and -- MS. MENTRY: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- how long you've been doing it. I just want to -- MS. MENTRY: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- get you established as an expert. MS. MENTRY: Oh, for sure, yeah. I have been in the sign industry for over a decade now. I've worked at several sign companies. I worked at Creative Sign Designs, who did this design originally, and opened my consulting practice in 2023 when I left them and have been doing land use specifically for signage. I mean, in my entire career with the sign industry, but now through my consulting practice. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Perfect. I see you an expert. MS. MENTRY: Oh, thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have you had a colleague who came here before? MS. MENTRY: No, it's just me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know where Odessa is. That's why I'm saying that, because I thought I had heard someone say that before. Okay. Let's go to public comment. MR. SUMMERS: (Shakes head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's shaking his head "no," there are no public comments. So any last words? I suppose that this is stayed at the Code Enforcement Board right now until we decide? MS. MENTRY: Yeah. We've been just working on it through the variance, and then we'll have to report back to Code Enforcement what the determination of the case is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I will get a decision out as quickly as I can, and please remember, no more signs without checking with the county. MS. MENTRY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. MENTRY: Thank you. Happy Holidays. December 12, 2024 Page 24 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Take care. ***Now we're going to E, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. Again, John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. This is Agenda Item 3E. It's Boat Dock Petition PL20240006028. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 103-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width to allow a new boat dock facility protruding a total of 123 feet into a waterway that is plus or minus 1,064 feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 62 Dolphin Circle in Isles of Capri, also known as Lot 92, Isles of Capri, No. 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The property is located within a residential Single-Family 4, RSF-4 zoning district. The subject property comprises 0.18 acres and supports a single-family dwelling adjacent to Pompano Bay located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. The petitioner desires to remove the existing dock and boathouse to then construct a new residential dock facility with two slips, each with a boatlift, one for a 30-foot vessel and the other for two personal watercraft. The property has approximately 65 feet of a riprap shoreline with scattered mangroves, requiring 15-foot side riparian setbacks. The 103-foot protrusion is necessary due to water depths and the inability to dredge within the aquatic preserve. Public notice requirements were as set forth by LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and clerk's posting were affected by the county on November 22, 2024, and the public hearing sign was posted by Zoning staff on November 26th, 2024. The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria it satisfies four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be consistent both with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. No public comment has been received in response to advertising for this project, and staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment A. And that concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Rogers, how are you? MR. ROGERS: Good. Good afternoon. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates here today representing the applicant, Frank Bruno, who resides at 62 Dolphin Circle, and this is his full-time residence. So as John just did a great overview of the project, it is located on Isles of Capri. On the screen in front of you is some existing on-site pictures of the dock and a boathouse that are there currently. As John mentioned, this is in the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. The dock is considered a grandfathered structure, as it was built prior to the county's grandfather date December 12, 2024 Page 25 of 45 as well as the state's grandfather date, being 1985. The applicant has chosen, due to the existing on-site conditions, mostly pertaining to the shallow water depths, to not rebuild the grandfathered structure and basically construct a new dock that basically is allowed to go out -- extend out, per the state rules, to the negative 4-foot mean low water contour line. A survey was done. The contour line was established by a professional surveyor, and then from there we basically have designed a finger dock extending straight out with two boat lifts, one on each side. So moving forward, if you can, when you can, no rush, there's -- you can just -- you can leave that picture up when you get back to it, if you would like. I can run through the criteria real quick, just to get it on the record. Primary Criteria No. 1, whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use, and zoning. And as John and everyone -- and as you know, this is a single-family residential neighborhood and lot; therefore, it is allowed, per the LDC, two boat lifts, and that's what we're proposing here. One is to accommodate a 30-foot vessel, and the other is to have two personal watercrafts on it as you can see the pointer there. Most importantly, I'll point out, with this, this is the negative 4-foot mean low water contour line. So the terminus end of the dock, per the state rules, has to end there, and the vessel nor the motor nor bow pulpit or anything can overhang that line. So that is the state rules. County rules, they allow you 20 feet. As proposed per the Land Development Code criteria, it's from the most restrictive point. In this case, it is the platted property line; however, a TIF deed, if you're familiar with those, was received by the owner, and what that is is basically allows you to not change the plat but change the land ownership and establish that you actually own out to the mean high water line, because there's an area of land, "No Man's Land," per the plat in between the platted property line and the mean high, who has the rights to that. You know, the County Attorney went through all that, and the TIF deed was provided to show that he actually owns out to the mean high water line. So basically, with that, we are asking for a 103-foot extension from the allowed 20 feet. So Criteria No. 1 is met. Number 2 is whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as described by the applicant is unable to launch, moor at mean low tide. And yes, that is the case. We do have water depths again. The negative 4-foot mean low water contour is way out here. In between, it's just a really shallow natural waterway that was never historically fully dredged. The Deltona settlement agreement, basically, when all the dredging and filling was shut down by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers way back in the '60s, this was the last bay to actually be dredged, and it never got completed. So therefore, that's why this is one of the shallowest waterways in Isles of Capri. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I was going to ask you that question, because the dock is obviously -- the existing dock is obviously substantially closer to the upland area. So I was just wondering if things had changed since then or if it's always been this way. MR. ROGERS: I would say it had to have, because there's no way to get a vessel December 12, 2024 Page 26 of 45 in and out of that slip currently today. I mean, the depths up there are, like, one foot. Now, again, that's mean low water. So on a high tide, you might have two and a half feet potentially, but still for -- yeah, it's pretty shallow. So I don't know exactly -- the dock was built, like I said, prior to 1985, so I don't know the exact date. But this area is very dynamic. It's sandy bottom, so with the -- obviously in the last five years, 10 years, with the storms we're having, it's definitely changed; however, this bay -- if you go one slide further, if you would, on Slide 8, this bay's known to have really long docks, especially down in the bottom left corner, down here. I mean, I've probably been in front of, you know, the HEX for most of those over my course of time. And that's the corner that was never fully dredged. If you look at old aerials, it's pretty cool. You can see where the dredge stopped, and it was shut down back in the '60s, if you look at old, old aerials. And it was because of the Deltona settlement that came into effect by the federal government way back yonder. So Isles of Capri was the last one to be dredged and filled. Marco, Barfield Bay also was really affected by that as well on the south end of Marco. Give you a little history. Go ahead. Oh, sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Number 3 on the primary, whether the proposed dock facility may have adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. There is no navigable marked channel in this particular bay. There is out here on the -- more of the ICW, intercoastal waterway. So in here the whole bay's open for navigation, meaning there's safe navigation between each shoreline and the subject docks on each side. So there is no impacts to navigation existing as well as, you know, right next to us we do have a dock just to our immediately southeast already that extends out pretty much the same distance that we are as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What condition is that dock in? Did that get damaged as well over time or -- MR. ROGERS: Which one, the one adjacent to us? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, the long one. MR. ROGERS: You know, it's still standing. They're all still there, all the ones on the screen; however, a lot of them did sustain some damage, meaning some piles might have lifted out, decking came up, so they've been repaired and replaced in the existing footprint. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: As long as you stay consistent with what was previously approved, nine times out of 10 you're not coming back in front of you if you maintain that footprint. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Number 4 of the primary, whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent width of the waterway, maintaining 50 percent. The waterway width was measured to be a little over a thousand feet wide. We're 123 out. Really not that far into the waterway, but 123 out, so we're, like, 11 and a half percent. So we're well within the allowed 25 percent width of the waterway, maintaining more than 50 percent open for navigation. So that is met as well. Number 5, the final of the primary, whether the proposed location and design of the December 12, 2024 Page 27 of 45 dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. In this case, we meet the county's setbacks. It is a state waterway, like I said, so the state does actually provide more restrictive rules for setbacks, being 25 feet. We did get a setback waiver signed by the neighbor immediately to our southeast, the existing dock, because we are encroaching into the 25 and maintaining the 15. So point being here is we're providing what's required, if not more than what's required, as well as the shape of the dock and where the boats are located being straight in and straight out parking versus parallel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So along the open pier area, the walk-out, is that going to be -- is there going to be some kind of barrier there where you can't moor boats? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Handrailing is required. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, that's what I thought. I remember you telling me that. So it is required. Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. It will be hand-railed up and down each side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Handrailing being a minimal of, like, a rope rail, or you could do -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, whatever prevents you -- MR. ROGERS: It prevents mooring. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a state requirement, right? It's part of the state requirement? MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it prevents mooring of boats. MR. ROGERS: Or additional vessels, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: Okay. So secondary criteria, whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property which justify the proposed project. In this case, it's the aquatic preserve, and, you know, the requirements there as well as where the platted property line is and things like that just added up the overall protrusion out into the waterway. Number 2 of the secondary, whether the proposed dock facility would allow safe, reasonable access to the vessel for loading and unloading and routine maintenance. I could show you the dock, but basically the dock is 4-foot wide all the way out, and then it flares out to 6-foot wide for the area where the vessels are attached to the dock. The State does limit you -- if you go to Slide 6 or 5 real quick, the red area, once it's up on your screen is -- shows the terminal platform, and that's -- the State limits you even more on the terminal platform where the vessels attach to the dock, being only 160 square feet of terminal area that you can have. So you have to maintain that, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that it's only going to be one side where you can get onto the vessel, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct, correct, yeah. So that one is met as well. Number 3, for single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel or vessels in combination described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property linear waterfront footage. In this case, we do not meet this criteria. Shoreline's 65 feet long. The vessel proposed on the screen and the applicant's vessel is 30 feet long, December 12, 2024 Page 28 of 45 plus two jet skis, about 12 feet long each. We're over the -- you know, we're about 50 feet or so. So we're over that one, so we don't meet that criteria, basically, which is a common one not to meet these days. Number 4, whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on waterfront view of the neighboring properties. In this case, we meet the setbacks. It is a boating community, so it is common for this subject waterway to have docks extend out this far. We don't feel it will be a significant impact to anybody's views; however, it is an increase of the protrusion out into the waterway versus what's there today. But we did get a setback waiver signed from the neighbor next to us, and the other neighbor did not object or provide any objection, so we're assuming there's no significant impacts. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All these people are here to object? MR. ROGERS: I hope not. Moving on. No, I'm just kidding. Number 5, the final one is -- it pertains to -- no. Sorry, not final. This one pertains to seagrasses. I did have photos of me in there snorkeling if you looked really closely. Yeah, they're in there. So the first couple slides, I did include those, and I will every time. So there were no seagrasses found, but this is a known area to have seagrasses. Number 6 is not applicant. It's the Manatee Protection Plan. So that really concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, happy to take them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Let's go to public comment. Any public comment signed up? MR. SUMMERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. No public comment. Jeff, you go through these things. I know -- I know your presentation by heart now. Just always interested in the configuration of your dock, so you're the guy. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I will get a decision out as soon as I possibly can. Does the county have anything further at all? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So then we are closed on this item and -- MR. ROGERS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- good luck. Merry Christmas. MR. ROGERS: Merry Christmas. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***Okay. Here we go. So 3F and 3G are companion items, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So we're going to do two items, and so everyone knows, it will end up with two different decisions. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, once again. John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. Prior to the start of today's meeting, I distributed an Attachment F1, which is a letter of objection that was received after publication of the package for today's meeting. December 12, 2024 Page 29 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. This is the e-mail from -- okay. The e-mail here? MR. KELLY: It is, from the Smotryskis. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, thank you. MR. KELLY: Okay. So before you are Agenda Items 3F, which is a variance, PL20240007332, and Agenda Item 3G, which is a Boat Dock Petition PL20240003998. Combined, it's a request for the Hearing Examiner to approve both a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required side setback from 7.5 feet to zero on both sides of a lot width plus or minus 20 feet of water frontage, and for a 13-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1 for waterways 100 feet or greater in width to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is plus or minus 100 feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The petitioner desires to replace the existing dock facility with a finger pier and single boatlift to accommodate a 31-foot vessel. The subject property is an unplatted boat dock lot that comprises .13 acres deeded with and located north and immediately across Pettit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 26 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida, also known as Goodland. This resident -- or, rather, this lot is located in a residential Single-Family 4, RSF-4, zoning district within -- also within the Goodland zoning overlay. Public notice requirements were as per -- well, for the variance were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2, and for the boat dock petition per Section 10.03.06.H. The required agent letter to property owners within 150 feet was sent by the applicant's agent on or about November 1, 2024. The property owner notification letter and clerk's posting were affected by the county on November 22, 2024, and the public hearing sign was posted by zoning staff on November 26th, 2024. The variance application was reviewed by staff based upon the criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03, a through h, with 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, and of the primary criteria, it satisfied four of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan. And both have been found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. With respect to public comment, a neighborhood petition was received in response to the boat dock petition, and one letter of objection was received in response for the variance, as was one for the boat dock extension before publication of the hearing package. An e-mail objecting to the variance was later received after publication, of which I referred to at the beginning of this statement. It's staff's recommendation the Hearing Examiner approve both the variance and boat dock extension in accordance with the plans contained within Attachment B of the individual staff reports. Approval of the boat dock extension is predicated on the approval of the companion variance. And with that, I turn it over to the petitioner, to their agent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. I appreciate it. December 12, 2024 Page 30 of 45 Come on up. MR. PEARSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, my name is Nick Pearson. I'm the owner of Bayshore Marine Consulting representing the property owner, Joseph Noble, who owns this property through a -- I suppose it's a corporation or LLC. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: LLC. MR. PEARSON: Just to reiterate some of what John has just said, you can see, based on this cover, essentially, where the property is. It's on sort of the north end of Goodland in the more eastern of one of the two inlets on the north side. The address is 203 Goodland Drive, but it consists of actually two kind of separate parcels, if you will. And this kind of depicts better where they are located. The primary structure is landlocked, and then across the street is the smaller parcel where you can see there is an existing dock. And if we could go to the next slide. So this is the boundary survey that we had completed for this project. This doesn't include the primary structure, as you can tell. It just focuses on the smaller parcel. And there's a couple things I want to point out about this. Obviously, the first part of it is that more than half the parcel does not have land, so the mean high water line is the most restrictive point from which to measure protrusion here from, and it's more than halfway landward of -- you know, in the parcel. So the interesting thing about that, though, is also that if you follow, kind of, where the mean high water line is, outside of this parcel it actually kind of pulls a right angle on the lot three to the left. So this is sort of almost like a cut-in. And I will show you some aerial photographs a little later that kind of show that a little bit better. I also included this because you can see kind of what the water depths are at this location. It's a little small on the screen, but you can probably tell it's very shallow right against shore. Out by the end of that dock, it looks like, I think it says, 1 point -- well, 1-point-something at the end of the dock. Again, that's low tide, so, you know, those water depths do change if the tide comes in. But worth pointing out, water depths are somewhat restrictive here. And then the last point I want to make about this existing dock is that you can see it's located basically in the center of the parcel. So on the left side of it, there are only -- there's only approximately five feet of mooring space, and on the right side it's only a little bit larger. This is sort of problematic, obviously, for mooring kind of modern-day boats if you're attempting to actually moor within your property lines. These docks that you're seeing existing here have been here for a very long time. So obviously, some of the boats nowadays are a little bigger. They don't fit into those dimensions quite as well as maybe some of the older vessels used to. We can go to the next slide. So I only want to focus on this for a minute because this design has kind of changed a bit. When we -- prior to us submitting for the petition, I had advised my client to speak to the neighbors, make sure they weren't opposed to anything. At that time, they said they weren't, and so we had submitted our petitions. And I guess there was some misunderstanding about the design, because they changed their mind and basically said, "Well, hold on. We do have a problem with it now." And so we were able to scramble and get in kind of an alternate, which, you know, December 12, 2024 Page 31 of 45 I want to impress that that's not something I set out to do on these petitions, but I do want to factor in what the neighbors think. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this the original proposal or -- MR. PEARSON: This was what we had originally proposed, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: If you go to the next slide, this shows what has been agreed upon by the direct abutting neighbors. So the reason I brought up kind of the historical nature of these docks is because, again, there's not a whole lot of room between them. The neighbor on the east side only has about five and a half feet on the west side of their dock for mooring. Otherwise, they're hanging over the property line, and they're actually on my client's property. Normally I understand, you know, for side setback purposes, some of this room may be utilized for ingress and egress, but for the sake of these lots, because they're so narrow, it seems to me that -- I'm not sure you have that allowance here. I would defer to the county staff to make a determination on that, but that's kind of my impression. Still, we are trying to satisfy what the neighbors have said, so Mr. Noble did agree to push his dock basically as far to the one side as possible so as to maintain room for the eastern neighbor. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the dock that will be demolished is the white one, right, the one that's in the middle? MR. PEARSON: Yes, the one that you can see on the aerial photo. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Correct. And I'm sure you can see that there's a boat attached to it. It's almost certainly overhanging his property line as well, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So has the county reviewed this design as well? MR. PEARSON: Has county staff? MR. KELLY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So -- MR. PEARSON: It actually fits inside of the footprint of what was proposed. So it -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let me just hit this issue real quick. So, John, this alternative design, you've -- I mean, it makes sense. You know, you get some feedback, they get feedback, and so they try to make some different designs. But does your staff report remain the same for the alternative design? MR. KELLY: It does. They were requesting a zero side setback. They have increased the side setback on one side so it's within the footprint of what we reviewed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to get that on the record. MR. PEARSON: Sure, sure. So one other thing I want to point out here, again, going back to how the land here is pushed into the parcel. So you only have about half of the land that you'd otherwise have here. Protrusion beyond the property line here, which I know is not how we measure per se in this case, but it only goes seven feet beyond the property line, which is sort of like, in this case, a cut-in. Again, I know that's not the county's official interpretation, but -- December 12, 2024 Page 32 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're saying that that's actual property, the property line, in the water? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so those aren't riparian lines that you're showing me? MR. PEARSON: Well, the riparian lines you can see up there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARSON: They actually jut off at -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They take -- they go out that way. MR. PEARSON: Yeah. They go off at kind of an angle. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Interesting. MR. PEARSON: And those are established by the surveyor also. So just to be clear -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. PEARSON: -- it has nothing to do with me. Okay. So next slide, please. So the reason I bring up that 7-foot issue is really to impress that I don't think that navigation is being impacted here. There are bottlenecks tighter than are being created by our dock on either side of us in this case. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So as an expert, I'm asking you, do you believe that navigation is impacted, yes or no? MR. PEARSON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. That's what I want to know. MR. PEARSON: Unequivocally. So the canal here is 100 feet wide from mean high to mean high. That's the typical interpretation that I would -- that I think the county would make for waterway width. But again, if you look at some of the other factors here like distance between structures, distance between, like, the property lines, I think when you frame the proposal in this light, it doesn't seem too unreasonable. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What you're showing here is the alternative design, right? MR. PEARSON: So that was actually the original. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: But the only difference between those two is really the walkway width. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. PEARSON: So it went from -- and it's been -- the whole lift and the dock has kind of been compressed and then moved over, so that does actually -- unfortunately, the nature of how I had to make this -- the alternative, I just didn't have enough time to kind of redo everything in the whole petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. PEARSON: I'm sure you know, but it's kind of an enormous amount of documentation that you have to put together for these things. December 12, 2024 Page 33 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. PEARSON: So we can go to the next slide. So I also want to, I guess, provide kind of some perspective on the waterway here. You can see kind of to the west you have some of these other docks basically right across from each other, each 20 feet out from the waterway. So that was kind of the other bottleneck that I was talking about. That is tighter than the waterway that's being left beyond our proposed dock. But you can see also there's other docks around here that don't necessarily, you know, meet the county's typical 20-foot rule whether they're grandfathered or whatnot. I know you don't factor in precedence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I understand. You're just giving me some context, I get it. MR. PEARSON: Yes. So next slide, please. This slide I included primarily just to show the water depths. You can see that yellow line on the fourth pile from the right is the typical 20-foot protrusion limit, so just to give you some perspective on what the depths are like inside of there. Obviously, mooring a boat in a parallel fashion here is really not an option at all, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's only a 20-feet-wide lot, right? MR. PEARSON: Yes. So you're essentially required to moor a boat in this orientation. Next slide, please. Okay. So here are the criteria. I don't necessarily want to run through all of these, but there is one that I do want to speak about, and that is the waterway width, which I've kind of already spoken about. Again, depending on if this criteria is met, whether you're exceeding 25 percent of the waterway width, whether you're maintaining 50 percent for navigation, it really depends on how you measure these items. And for the sake of being conservative, I just went ahead and said we didn't meet this, but I think it is important to factor in kind of where the property lines are, where the waterway limit is, and how far you're going into it. We are going seven feet past the property line. There are other docks down the waterway that are going 20 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: As far as the channels, I mean, that has -- I know it's -- I know the verbiage is marked channels, right? MR. PEARSON: Uh-huh. You're talking about the criteria above that? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I'm looking at the -- if you go up one from your -- the primary criteria, No. 3, channels. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, I mean, obviously I have the visuals. I know how boats are coming in and out of that area, but you're telling me there's no marked navigable channels there. Because that's what the language in the code says is "marked," although channel -- there could be -- I forget what they're called, but they're just known channels. MR. PEARSON: I'm not aware of that being a marked channel, but besides that, I still don't think it's being impacted by our project -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: -- either way. That's the only one I'll spend time on here, unless you want to talk about any of December 12, 2024 Page 34 of 45 these. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no, no. I mean, it's covered in the staff report, and this is in -- you know, I understand this as well. MR. PEARSON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MR. PEARSON: Could we go to the next slide? So there is one other thing that I was going to ask John about, but I do want to pause on this slide just because it kind of speaks to what I had spoken about earlier. You can see the inlet is 40-some-feet wide as is the next chokepoint down the canal, 40-some feet, and it's about 70 feet where our proposed dock is. So I just -- I want to show that just to show that we're not obstructing the canal, which I think some of the complaints that I've seen seem to point towards. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: And the other thing I was going to ask John about -- I had sent him some photos this morning of the site. If we want to review those, I think that might be helpful as well. It's a PDF. MR. KELLY: Yeah, coming up. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. If you could go through those, they could be into the record so I can have those. MR. PEARSON: Sure. So the first two of these photos are aerial photos. This one is 1952. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the cutout's not there, huh? MR. PEARSON: The cutout is not there. And if you go to the next one in '63 -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This it is. MR. PEARSON: -- it is there, along with all the docks. So just for information purposes I think it's interesting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, it's interesting. I find these things fascinating. MR. PEARSON: It does sort of beg the question in my mind, you know, if they hadn't cut that out, they would be able to probably still go 20 feet or 20 percent the width of waterway which, you know, I think would be more than seven feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. The next ones are all site photos. These are photos that -- these are photos that the property owner took. It's kind of hard to see here, but that is actually the canal bottom right there at the end of the canal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's very low tide? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: You can just go through every five seconds or so. So that's the inlet. As you can see, very narrow. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the bottom, right? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mud or rock? MR. PEARSON: Mud. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. December 12, 2024 Page 35 of 45 MR. PEARSON: Yeah. It's like that everywhere on Goodland. So that white dock is the current existing dock on my client's site. Just kind of general lay of the land. That's the waterway. That's higher tide. These are photos that I took different timing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You had to sit there all day to wait for the tide to come in? MR. PEARSON: I did not. You can keep going. MR. SUMMERS: That's all I have. MR. PEARSON: Oh, okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Can you guys make sure I have those if they're not in the record? MR. PEARSON: Oh, that's one more. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Here we go. MR. PEARSON: So that's looking further down the canal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, are you finished? MR. PEARSON: That's all I have for now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I imagine we have some public speakers here. So why don't you have a seat, and then I'll give you some time afterwards to come back up. So why don't we go into public speakers. MR. SUMMERS: Yes. If we want to start alphabetically with F -- we have Amanda. And you'll have to forgive me. MS. TESSARZIK: Tessarzik. MR. SUMMERS: Tessarzik. MS. TESSARZIK: Hello. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi. Thanks for your patience. I appreciate it. MS. TESSARZIK: Amanda Tessarzik, T-e-s-s-a-r-z-i-k. I reside at 212 Goodland Drive East, and we -- my husband and we have a partner, we have an LLC that own the dock just directly adjacent to Joe Noble's proposed dock extension plan. And initially, I am here -- I first opposed the initial layout and plan that was submitted. We had gotten together with Joe to do the neighborly thing, to talk about maybe where we could meet in the middle and make -- be happy neighbors and be able to reside without any issues. So we got together and came up with the -- well, with -- Nick then created the alternative proposal, which we are okay with and we can live with, and it's all fine. So I'm just here to make sure, you know, if -- I don't want -- I'm afraid that, you know, if he gets approved for the zero setback, you know, I don't want that to be what gets moved and what's then documented. I want -- I would like to -- it be known and stated that the alternative dock with the -- that gives us access to our west side of our dock be the -- be the plan that gets taken into consideration. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're in support of the alternative plan -- MS. TESSARZIK: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- but opposed to the original plan? MS. TESSARZIK: Yes. December 12, 2024 Page 36 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. TESSARZIK: And that's really it. I don't really oppose the extension too much. Actually, really, not at all, just the access that we would have or the agreed upon for our dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MS. TESSARZIK: Which is just west or east. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, thank you for being here. MS. TESSARZIK: Okay. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Next? MR. SUMMERS: Next up we have Kathleen Falvey. MS. FALVEY: I think I'm on the wrong one. I'm on the waterway part. Is that still -- are we doing them both at the same time? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, we're doing both of them at the same time. MS. FALVEY: Okay. Hello. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi. Thank you for being here. MS. FALVEY: My name's Kathleen Falvey. I own a mobile home in Drop Anchor with a boat dock, and I'm here because I don't want that waterway blocked. I've had great memories since 1992 going out on boats with my family, being able to have access from my mobile home and go out and enjoy the day. And I just -- I'm just here because I just don't want that area -- because it's very narrow as it is. When you go through, you've got to be really careful. And low tide, obviously, we don't go out on low tide. We always went out -- we always watched the tides and went out on the high tide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And how far away are you from this property? You're not one of the abutting property owners? MS. FALVEY: No. I'm at Drop Anchor Mobile Home Park. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. All right. MS. FALVEY: Yeah. So I'm across from, like, Kirk's fish house. That's where my trailer is right there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for being here. MS. FALVEY: Thank you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. MS. FALVEY: -- for listening to me. I'm a little nervous. I've never done this before. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Don't be nervous. Nobody needs to be nervous here, please, please. MS. FALVEY: I just want my voice heard. And we all get together, a lot -- you know, a lot of retired people, not me yet, but soon. And people come from all over, and we get together, and we go to Stan's and enjoy. So I just want to be able to keep it the way it's been all these years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MS. FALVEY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. Next? MR. SUMMERS: All right. We have Robert Edmunds. December 12, 2024 Page 37 of 45 MR. EDMUNDS: Hi. Robert Edmunds. My name's Robert Edmunds. Thank you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you could use this one right here. MR. EDMUNDS: The podium right here, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickman and Mr. Kelly, for having us here this afternoon. I kind of want to make three salient points, or several, if I can. And I'm here also from Drop Anchor. We have 61 residences that have access to this channel. Most of us have boats and enjoy being able to use the channel. Again, the petition does state that this waterway is 100 feet plus or minus wide. That is shown fairly clearly that it is not 100 feet wide for its length, and that varies greatly in depth as well. Now, there are times you can't get out, as well, as the gentleman's slides have pretty clearly shown here. Again, I confess, I'm not familiar with all the criteria from the county or anybody else about the things that have been presented, but I can certainly say that there's going to be some obstruction from this. I have a concern that approval of a dock that's this length is going to set a precedent in this narrow and very shallow channel that other boat docks are going to be able to be extended to this same length also. If one is approved, then sometimes others are approved also. Bigger docks but wider docks usually equate to bigger and longer boats. And as this gentleman's diagram even showed from the side view showing the construction of the dock, the boat sticks out further than their proposed extension of the dock. And you also saw the mud that was up against the dock, and clearly, I don't see how you're going to put a 31-foot boat and dock in the mud, and you can't dredge in here. So by allowing bigger and longer docks, again, I think there's going to be an issue with this. The water depth is a real problem here. So I'm just here to state that I think there's going to be navigation issues with this because the boat's going to be too big. And if you look where they've measured this across from the boat dock -- and if you allow me to point out here, I can show you that up here this -- where they're showing 70 feet, a bunch of this is not navigable because it's already filled in with sand, and up here at the top where the channel is noted at 45 feet, this is covered with mangrove, and we are not allowed to do anything with the mangrove either, so there's a problem with how wide that channel actually is, and it's not navigable on the north side. It's pretty shallow over there. So again, my name's Robert Edmunds. I'm at 414 Papaya Street, Unit 43. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: May I ask you a few questions? MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So looking at this graphic right here -- MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- I'm kind of curious -- because the main point you made was navigation -- MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- which is a safety navigation issue. MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So going -- if you were leaving, and presumably you've got to know the tides, depending on the size of your boat, because, you December 12, 2024 Page 38 of 45 know, very, very low tide looks -- MR. EDMUNDS: Right. Can you go back one side? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I want to stay on this one. MR. EDMUNDS: Sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I want to stay on this one. Okay. So if you're leaving, how far towards the subject property would you have to be in order to make the run to go out? MR. EDMUNDS: You've got to be close. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's what I was wondering is, like, do you go to the middle? Do you -- I mean, is it too shallow on the other side? I mean, what -- MR. EDMUNDS: It's shallow on the other side. You have to run, you know, 5 to 7, maybe 10 feet off of the docks that are there now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh, to make that straight shot out? MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And as far as -- MR. EDMUNDS: And I'm not on a big boat. There are big -- I'm in a 16-foot boat, and there are bigger boats than me that are in there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. MR. EDMUNDS: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. Thanks for being here. MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, sir. MR. SUMMERS: And our next speaker is Richard Hamming. MR. HAMMING: Thank you, gentlemen. Richard Hamming, 414 Papaya, Lot 11. I'm also in Drop Anchor Park. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. HAMMING: And I navigate a 22-foot center console out of that marina that's located on the -- it would be the western part of that bay. Like Bob was talking, that marina, as in most areas where you see a riverbed or anything like that, the deeper part of the channel is always going to be on the outside. It's close to that. It's not exactly there, but if you end up having two boats coming -- one boat coming in and one boat going out, it can be pretty close. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that even possible to get two side-by-side boats? MR. HAMMING: At high tide, you can get it right there, but where you exit the marina, you've got to be aware of what's coming in and what's going out, because it is very close. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. HAMMING: And if I could just read something here. Our corner of paradise houses 63 trailers and 11 homes that circle this area here in our bay. It sustains a unique harmony with nature and accountability to the Gulf of -- accessibility to the Gulf of Mexico. Our daily experiences and livelihoods are laced with the ebb and flow of the canal that constitutes our community's lifeline. A proposed 13-foot boat dock extension threatens this balance, hindering not just myself, but all of our neighborhood of water and -- from navigable accesses through our canals. December 12, 2024 Page 39 of 45 So when we do this, we -- yes, that would affect part of the entrance to our park and to our area. So I think one of the main reasons here is if this is allowed, then what happens down the road? I mean, I know each one is taken separately and each one is accounted for, but if we set a precedence here of adding this to that, well, then that's just opening the door for more possibilities of extensions. And that's why our park has limited a boat to 22 foot, because of what you have to deal with getting in and out of that canal. And that's been a rule ever since I've been here since 2000. So -- and lived here and loved our area. Our trailer park is a self-owned trailer park. There's 63 units in it. They cannot be rented. They're all home-ownered people that live there. So everybody's got an investment into this -- into this canal no matter what happens. Would we love to get it dredged? Absolutely, but that's not going to happen in the near future. So with that, I would just like to say thank you for your time and thank you for -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here. MR. HAMMING: -- considering this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate you being here. Thank you. No other speakers? MR. SUMMERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, we're going to close the public hearing part. Nick, do you want to come up and let me ask you a couple questions? MR. PEARSON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: While he's coming up, I want to thank everyone for coming out. I know Goodland's a long way to here. You all have a beautiful, unique community. I went out there and looked at the area as well just to -- I'm starting to do that as a practice so I'm more familiar with everything. So thanks for coming here. So, Nick, I'm primarily getting a -- I mean, they bring up precedent, and you know I'm not -- for variances and things like that, I don't consider -- it's all a case-by-case basis, and -- but I understand everyone always has that fear that somehow, you know, a decision is going to impact another decision. It is what it is. But the primary thing that I'm concerned about -- and your photographs were really dramatic, especially the low-tide one. You know, it does seem to be -- you talk to me a little bit about, you know, in your opinion -- you're an expert. You're here. You know, the boats that are ingressing and egressing out into the larger bay, they're going to have to, like, go through this really -- I mean, you're showing 45 feet, but I think we can all agree, just based on your pictures, that it's not always 45 feet -- MR. PEARSON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for, you know, getting boats in and out. MR. PEARSON: Sure. And I did want to talk about the waterway width. You know, there are a few different ways you can measure it here. You can measure from the mean high, from the property lines, from kind of the general mangrove fringe line where you can see I tried to do that here. It's really hard for me to measure water line depths, you know, aside from -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I totally understand that. MR. PEARSON: So the main reason I showed those photos is truly just to depict December 12, 2024 Page 40 of 45 the range that you can see here. You know, I'm not attempting to deceive at all. I want to be as truthful and transparent here as possible. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So let me ask you, on the alternative design, the lift, is the stern of the boat and the outboards, are they going to be beyond the dock? Are they going to protrude out beyond the dock? MR. PEARSON: Can we go back to that alternative? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because don't we have to measure to that point? MR. SUMMERS: Is that on the original PowerPoint or -- MR. PEARSON: Yes. It was just after the proposed. There. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. There we go. Okay. MR. PEARSON: And I wanted to point out a couple other things about this, too. So 33 feet is the max protrusion. That's measuring to the end of the outboard of the boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: The dock is not going out that far. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: The dock is 30 feet. The other thing about the boat that I want everyone to understand is that 30, 31 feet is the length of that, but that includes every part of the boat; the bow pulpit, the motors, et cetera. So the hull of this boat is not going to be 33 feet. I want to be completely clear about that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. So that we are actually measuring to the actual end of the motor, and that's what the -- that's what the ask is, okay. MR. PEARSON: And I also want to -- yeah. I mean, the boat is not going to be up at the mean high as well. I mean, there is some space there. You always want to leave some -- a healthy amount of room. You know, you don't want to run the bow of your boat into the seawall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. EDMUNDS: That's the way it's run. MR. PEARSON: Well -- no, it isn't. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hang on, folks. We can't have conversations like that. He's here for rebuttal on that. So I just wanted to get your -- this area, you know, it was stated by one of the residents that, you know, they kind of have to hug this side of the waterway in order to shoot out to -- through that. MR. PEARSON: So I'd like to go back to the existing conditions page which shows those water depths. And perhaps we could zoom in so that they're a little bit more visible. Kevin, could we go back to the existing -- to the page with the survey on it? MR. SUMMERS: On the PowerPoint? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He wants to show the water depths. MR. PEARSON: One more prior. So can you zoom in on the square where all those little numbers are? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I actually have it in front of me. I'm looking at it. So it looks like it's -- MR. SUMMERS: Can you read that? December 12, 2024 Page 41 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm seeing 3.1. MR. PEARSON: Yeah. I think we can all read this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just outside of the property line, your client's property line, it's -- MR. PEARSON: So -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you're showing 3.13, 3.4, 3.3. MR. PEARSON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's shallow. MR. PEARSON: So that's more or less -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the mean low water spot, right? MR. PEARSON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So it is shallower, actually, on the other side. It's like it's almost, like, two feet over there. So, yeah, it is a -- I see what people were saying as far as the channel. You've got the channel line right there. So depending on what tide -- what tide you're at. MR. PEARSON: That's the property line -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARSON: -- right there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. PEARSON: And could you zoom back out again just so we can kind of -- there. So I mean, you can kind of see, you know, that essentially would be the center line of the channel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you picked that because that's the deepest at low tide? MR. PEARSON: Picked? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The channel line. Because it's not a marked channel or anything like that. So when you say "channel line"... MR. PEARSON: Well, no. I just say it's the center of the canal. A channel -- poor choice of words. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. So in your opinion, this is not going to affect navigation, yes or no? MR. PEARSON: I do not believe so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes or no? MR. PEARSON: No, it's not going to affect navigation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. In your professional opinion, no. MR. PEARSON: In my professional opinion, no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, this is definitely an interesting one. You seem to get all the boat dock lots. MR. PEARSON: Yeah. There's been a few lately. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's very interesting the story about, like, that cutout because it went from '52 to '53 [sic], something in there happened where somebody dredged that out. MR. PEARSON: I do want to speak about dredging a little bit as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: So this, as we've kind of shown, is all manmade. Just at the mouth of this canal is the boundary line of an aquatic preserve. December 12, 2024 Page 42 of 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARSON: So within this waterway, dredging is legal. It is -- you are able to dredge in here. You need permits. You'd need a maintenance dredging authorization from the DEP, and you'd need a Corps of Engineers permit. But it is certainly permittable. Outside of the mouth of the canal where the aquatic preserve is, you'd not be able to get dredging authorizations for that. It's explicitly in Florida Statutes that that wouldn't be allowed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So beyond that -- but that channel gets -- MR. PEARSON: This channel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That channel at low tide that you showed the photograph of -- MR. PEARSON: It certainly could be dredged, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because it's not in the ST area yet, okay. MR. PEARSON: There may be some ownership difficulties to do with that, I don't -- maybe staff could comment on that. But as far as state and federal permits go, it would be legal. It would just come down to, you know, whose responsibility -- who is going to pay for it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Anything else? MR. PEARSON: No, I don't think so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: I just, you know, I'll say again -- MR. KELLY: Excuse me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John. MR. KELLY: I might just also refer to cross-section 8A to give a better depiction of how the boat is moored, and the protrusion is to the stern of the vessel. It includes the outboards and also the bow of the boat. It is not right up against the riprap. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. I do remember seeing that. All right. Well, if you don't have anything else, then I think you've addressed at least the issues that came up. There's obviously a lot of people here that -- I'm sorry, sir, but the public hearing part has been closed. I appreciate it. You guys actually did a wonderful job addressing the issues that I was thinking about, and I appreciate that, I really do, because some people just like to get up and they say all kinds of things, and I'm trying to figure out -- I'm trying to narrow it into, like, the things that I have to think about when I'm drafting a decision. So thank you very much for doing that, and I don't want anybody to be nervous about speaking in this room at all. Nick, I think you've addressed all the things that I think, for me anyway, came up during the petition, their public comments, and I don't think county has anything else to add to this except for I think we're -- I want to confirm again that, you know, I have -- the alternative design is -- has been reviewed and evaluated and your -- MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- professional opinion -- MR. KELLY: I just want to add one more thing. Mr. Pearson showed some -- showed a historic aerial. And I'll just say that prior to 1979, there was no protrusion limit recognized by the county, so I believe that aerial was -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That might have been why they did that. December 12, 2024 Page 43 of 45 MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because otherwise, you'd be really in the channel. Gotcha. I understand. Because that would have been the property line, and then you'd have to go out further, and you would really be in the channel. All right. Okay. Thanks for bringing me all the tough ones, Nick. I appreciate that. MR. PEARSON: Do I need -- I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but I just want to make sure that the waterway width situation is understood here. I mean -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have all the graphics. I mean, that tells me a lot, and then the part that -- the cross-section, the diagram cross-section showing how the boat is -- MR. PEARSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think it -- you know, this is not a -- this is a tricker area. I mean, you can't deny that, but at the same time, you know, everybody has their private property, and then they need to -- you know, you're just trying to configure a new dock to get a vessel. And just so everybody knows -- I'll say this: Vessels are changing dramatically in this near -- in this short time that I have been here, it's like, what, three, four years, something like that, I'm learning that these vessels are becoming so much bigger because they're lighter, the outboards -- you know, boats that size used to have inboards, inboard engines that now no longer need them, so they have outboard engines, and those are so much easier to navigate. So everybody's buying them. So I'm dealing with this. It's District 2 -- and this is District 1, right, I believe? Those are the two districts that have all these waterways. And it's just amazing the size of the boats. This is not uncommon, the size of the boats that people are getting now, that it's all driven by the new technology of lighter -- lighter boats with outboard engines and, you know, easier to navigate than a typical inboard engine that you used to -- used to not -- wouldn't be able to get in here at that size. So until the county changes its rules about how I have to evaluate these variances, this is what I have to go by is based on someone who has a vessel, and they want to accommodate it. So it doesn't mean that it's a foregone conclusion by any means, because there's the primary and secondary criteria, and some of that is just mathematical equations and some of it is just based on other things that I have to evaluate. So again, I think I have everything I need. You know, thanks for working with the neighbor and coming up with the alternative design. You seem to be doing that a lot, so I appreciate it, and it helps me, in especially getting it to the county in time so that they can evaluate it so I can properly have it in front of me; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to even consider it. So with that, I don't -- I'm going to close this hearing. And again, I want to thank the folks -- the good folks from Goodland being here on an afternoon like this, when you'd probably rather be back home in your nice neighborhood and in the sunshine, although it's getting cold outside. All right. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate it. Do we want to talk about dates in January? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean dates here. December 12, 2024 Page 44 of 45 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. As -- under new business, we have our 2025 zoning division calendar out, and a list of applications. There will not be a HEX meeting on December -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ninth? So nothing in December -- no other meetings -- the 26th I remember we're not going to have. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then what about January 9th? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. January 9th there are no items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Scheduled, okay. So we are looking at the 23rd? MR. BELLOWS: We would like to cancel the 9th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's cancel the 9th, and then you will just throw everything on the 23rd. MR. BELLOWS: The 23rd. And we have a couple items already scheduled for the 23rd. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Sounds good. So we'll -- wow, I won't see you-all for a long time. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Well, we wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: By the way, Mr. Perry has arrived. His seat remains empty. MR. SUMMERS: Just a quick update, if I may, real quick, Mr. Dickman. We're having extensive room repairs in here -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I heard that. MR. SUMMERS: -- to avoid this. The PO is actually cut, and the design is being drawn up right now, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: -- we might be asking for alternative sites in February. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: But we'll work with zoning staff to coordinate anything that might be coming down. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Can you explain a little about what's being improved upon or added? MR. SUMMERS: Yeah. So all these cords that you see will no longer exist. Basically, you will walk in with a laptop, and everything will connect. We will not have microphones on the tables anymore. They'll be ceiling microphones and ceiling -- no more of this (indicating) knocking around nonsense. So yeah, it will be state of the art. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you going to continue the hybrid? Are you guys going to continue doing hybrid for -- it seems to be working fine for a lot of people. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It's my understanding that we will be continuing with that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I think also, like, if you take into consideration the turning on and off of the lights, it would be helpful, because right now I have to get up and turn them on and off, but it would be nice to be able to figure out -- December 12, 2024 Page 45 of 45 MR. SUMMERS: So part of our package is going to include four cameras. So actually, instead of staring at the side of your face, like, you will actually be face to face with the camera when you're speaking, and also, the lights will automatically dim when we have a presentation going on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. And we will have county legal counsel here for every meeting? MR. PERRY: If the room is sufficiently upgraded -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We have your name. MR. PERRY: If the room is sufficiently upgraded. I mean, how do you expect the County Attorney's Office to step in a facility like this? MR. KELLY: Where will the coffee machine be? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's embarrassing. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, yeah, coffee. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No water today. I'm parched. Merry Christmas, everyone. Thank you for the goodies. All right. So we're adjourned. It's 3:20. Thank you, everyone. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 3:20 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.