Loading...
HEX Minutes 03/13/2025March 13, 2025 P a g e 1 | 69 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida March 13, 2025 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 2:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Building A, Suite 110, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Planner III Ashley Eoff, Planning Technician Kevin Summers, Manager - Technical Systems Operations March 13, 2025 P a g e 2 | 69 P R O C E E D I N G S. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the Hearing Examiner for Collier County, and this is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting of March 13th, 2025. It's 2 p.m., for the record. Let's all stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, everybody. As I said, my name is Andrew Dickman, and I'm a Florida Bar attorney practicing over 20 years in Florida in the area of government, land use, zoning, environmental law. I was selected by the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill the duties of Hearing Examiner that are outlined in the Code of Ordinances. I'm not a county employee. I'm here to be an independent impartial decision-maker. So my job is to take -- to conduct what are called quasi-judicial hearings. So I'll be acting in the capacity of a quasi-judge. So it's somewhat formal but much less formal than a typical, you know, courtroom setting. The parties to these hearings will be the county who are here, Mike Bosi, Ray Bellows, and you'll meet the staff, our secret guest appearance by staff and others; and then the other party would be the applicant. All of these meetings, by law, are open to the public, so we will be taking public testimony. The county has -- I think this one's also online, right? Right? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. March 13, 2025 P a g e 3 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hybrid. Yeah. So the county has made arrangements for these meetings to be done as in-person and also -- basically a hybrid meeting where people can watch and participate via Zoom. So we'll be doing that, and thanks to the county for doing that. We're in a different space for March, so this is a different space, but I think it's going to work out perfectly. We're going to go back into the other space, the regular space, probably in a month, and it's going to be -- there are going to be some technical upgrades there. The process that I want to follow here -- that we follow is that I ask the county planner who is in charge of the particular petition to testify here and tell me a little bit about the application, any notices that went out, any -- any recommendations or any conditions that they would have, just a summary of that. I'll leave it open for the county if there's anybody else from the county that wants to testify. We want to get all the county testimony done first. Then we'll go to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative to speak and do their case in chief. And then once that's finished, we'll take a pause and allow for public testimony, if there is any public testimony, and then I'll allow, after that, time for the applicant or the applicant's representative time to rebut anything that they may have heard from either the county or the public and clarify any issues that come up. So that's generally the procedure for a quasi-judicial hearing. Anyone that is going to speak here today in front of me does have to be sworn in and testify under oath, and we'll get to that in a minute. Also, as the decision-maker here for the county, I have March 13, 2025 P a g e 4 | 69 to disclose any what are called ex parte communications or research that I've done outside of this arena, so I'm going to do that now. For both -- or all three items. I have done a site visit on my own. I have not had any conversations with applicant, public, staff, anyone. I don't have private meetings. I want to make sure that the sanctity of the impartiality is really preserved here to the best as possible. In addition to that, the -- I will not be making any decisions here today. The code allows for me to take all of the information that's presented here today and up to 30 days to render a written decision. Usually I get those out faster than that. I try to. But that's the nature of a quasi-judicial hearing, that after today, the record, so to speak, is closed. So I won't be able to take any more testimony. I won't be able to get any more information from anybody. It's going to -- my decision will be based on everything that I have here. And I have read everything that's in the record. There's quite a thorough record that is available to the public, that the county has made available to the public, and I've read all of that. So having said all of that, at this point -- first of all, I also want to explain, on the agenda today we have three items, but two of those items are in connection with the same address, the same project, and -- that's correct, right? MR. KELLY: (Nods head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. So we refer to those as companion items. So instead of repeating the same thing twice, we're going to have -- have those two items be heard at the same time, although there will have to March 13, 2025 P a g e 5 | 69 be two decisions rendered, ultimately. So those will be companion items, and they will be presented at the same time, and that's permitted under the law. So with that, anyone who's going to speak here today or may think that they are going to speak here today, please stand, raise your right hand, and I am going to ask our court reporter to swear all of you in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Speaking of our court reporter, everything is being transcribed verbatim, which is another nice thing that the county does. Instead of just having minutes, these are verbatim -- verbatim records. Sometimes I do need to go back to those and reflect on what was said at hearings when I'm thinking about the decisions that I have to make. In order for the verbatim -- verbatim transcript to be correct, we all need to speak clearly. We don't have any microphones, so I'm trying to do my best to project my voice, so please try to speak clearly. Let's not talk over each other or else there's going to be -- it's going to be difficult to capture that. And she'll definitely stop us if she's having trouble understanding things. It's very critical for me. I want -- I want the record of this hearing to be very clear. If someone 10 years, 20 years down the record -- down the road wants to read what happened here, I think it's important -- in fact, you know, March 13, 2025 P a g e 6 | 69 sometimes those -- that information I use from prior issues that may have happened 10 years ago, and they're very important to that. So please follow along with me on that. So I don't think I have anything else to say. I'm finished with that. So unless anybody else has a procedural issue, we're ready to jump right into the first -- the first, Item 3A. MR. KELLY: ***Good morning, Mr. Dickman. I'm just going to speak from here so my back's not to the public. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Before you -- for the record, John Kelly, Planner III, with the county. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. It's Boat Dock Petition PL20240007420. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 32.25-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow the construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 52.25 feet into a waterway that is 209 plus/minus feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.e.1. The subject property is located at 185 Topanga Drive, also known as Lot 90, Southport on the Bay, Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. It's located within Tract H, a residential component of the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development. The subject property comprises 0.43 acres with 136.62 feet of water frontage, consisting of a riprap and mangrove shoreline. There is a 20-foot-wide conservation easement March 13, 2025 P a g e 7 | 69 landward of the property mean high water line -- they are pretty much the same -- for which the Conservancy has provided a letter of no objection. The proposed dock facility has been designed with two boat slips, each with a boatlift, one for a 35-foot vessel and the other for a 28-foot vessel. A third lift is planned that is to be decked over for the placement of up to two personal watercraft. Environmental staff has reviewed the docking facility and is requiring a supplemental planting plan to be provided and approved for the planting of native plants within the conservation easement. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H, the property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the county on February 21, 2025, and a public hearing sign was posted by me on February 25, 2025. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And the petition has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Correspondence expressing objections to the subject petition was received from the Barefoot Bay Property Owners Association. Said correspondence is contained within Attachment F. It's staff's recommendation that the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the March 13, 2025 P a g e 8 | 69 proposed dock plans provided within Attachments A and B, subject to the following conditions: One, before issuance of the building permit, a supplemental planting plan must be provided and approved to plant native plants within the conservation easement; and two, a certificate of completion for the subject dock facility may not be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the principal structure for which -- which is under construction with a building permit. That concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. I appreciate that. Is there anything else from the county at all? Nobody else? MR. BOSI: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. We're going to go to the applicant or the applicant's representative. MR. ROGERS: Should I stand here? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it. We're all improvising a little bit this month. MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon, everybody. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates here today representing Brian Wasko, who's the owner of 185 Topanga Drive located in Southport on the Bay, as John described. The application in front of you is for a boat dock extension for an additional 32.25 feet from the allowed 20- foot standard rule for Collier County, as outlined in the Land Development Code. I do have a PowerPoint. I don't know if that's March 13, 2025 P a g e 9 | 69 accessible here. I don't know. MR. JOHN: It should be coming on. MR. ROGERS: But it's always my standard thing to do for you guys. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. ROGERS: With that application, the applicant is proposing two boat slips, one for a 28-foot Caymas and a 35-foot Costa custom boat. It's the name of the vessels and type. One's a cat hall -- one's a 35-foot cat hull, and the other one, 28 is a standard center console vessel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And then additional to that is the platform lift that is proposed to have personnel watercrafts on it but is also -- potentially could be used for kayaks and paddleboard access to the waterway as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: In front of you on the screen is pictures of the existing waterway. I try to give you guys an idea -- the uniqueness of this particular development is the land -- or the conservation easement that is on every property within this development that is standard practice here; that is a 20-foot area platted out that way when it was developed. That is, I guess, not deeded, but the easement is granted to Collier County slash the Conservancy of Naples. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Conservancy. MR. ROGERS: And part of the staff's review and our submittal process is to always coordinate with them directly to verify that they do not object or have any issues with that, as locally here -- there is an HOA, but there are no additional restrictions in place on dock guidelines and structures. March 13, 2025 P a g e 10 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you recall who you coordinate with specifically? MR. ROGERS: Nicole there. I forget her last name. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nicole Johnson? MR. ROGERS: Yes. She's the one that's always there, yes. We do have the letter. I think I provided it to staff. Staff has it on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But that's who we mail it to. And whether she's the one that responds or not, they do provide a letter back. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Yep. Standard practice here is to run through the criteria. Let me move forward on the slide as well. A couple things with this waterway, it is a natural waterway, okay, so it's considered state lands, so it is dated back to the 1950s. It's pretty much as you see it other than, obviously, the houses and the other docks previously approved on this waterway. I've done probably all the ones east of this property. I did work just off -- you know, just a point, I did work with this client prior to his purchasing of this during his feasibility study of the property, and it was between this one and the one immediately to the east that were pretty much the last two vacant ones in the neighborhood for sale at the time, and obviously, pushed him towards this one due to the little bit square, straight-up-to-the-shoreline riparian line access, and a little bit easier to design a dock per his needs at the time. March 13, 2025 P a g e 11 | 69 So I did work with him to come up with which property I would recommend based on the rules per the state, as well as Collier County. This one shows you the different widths of waterway. You know, there is others that I did include -- well, this one does have the waterways moving to the east and further west that shows the chokepoints of the waterway that are, obviously, a lot more restrictive than this particular area. On this aerial, too -- I'm kind of elaborating more because there was some pushback on the dock design. The waterway -- or directly across from us is -- that's Bonita Beach Road immediately to our north -- northwest, and there's no dock -- no houses or potential of any other docks being built directly across from us in this. So this is a unique, you know, area of the -- of the waterway, so to speak. So moving forward, this is the proposed dock. It's -- there's the easement with the mangroves, obviously, called out, kind of outlined in the green hatched area, you can see. The walkway is 4-foot wide, which is the standard rule for state and federal permitting, as well as what's called out in the actual easement language, allowing a walkway to go through and get past the mangroves and out into, you know, adequate depths to build a dock that's accessible. So with that up on the screen, I can start touching on the criteria real quick to get it on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Primary Criteria No. 1 is whether or not the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterway length, location, upland land use, and zoning of the subject property. March 13, 2025 P a g e 12 | 69 In this case, myself and staff agreed this -- well, this criteria is met. We are proposing two boat slips. One -- the third is unique in that typically the county doesn't count platform lifts for kayaks or jet skis as a boatlift. So that is -- that's the fine line we're walking here with that additional lift. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And are there two of those? Two of the -- are there two -- MR. ROGERS: Well, there's one lift. It's 12 by 12, so you can fit two jet skis next to each other on one lift like that or have one jet ski and still have room for kayak/paddleboard access as well. Maybe -- did staff -- No. 1, primary, criteria met. So that's -- up in front of you is not -- it is satisfied. That's a mistake on our PowerPoint. I guess I overlooked that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. On the staff report it does say -- just to clarify, it says, "Criteria met." MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is staff's analysis of it. MR. ROGERS: Mine's wrong. I said, "Not satisfied." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem. MR. ROGERS: So moving on to No. 2, whether or not water depths at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of a general length, type, and draft, as described by the petitioner, is unable to launch or moor at low tides. Here, within 20 feet, we can't do anything because of the natural shoreline. So there's numerous BDEs within this neighborhood. It's a common practice here so it's -- you March 13, 2025 P a g e 13 | 69 know, the water depths are restrictive here as well as the mangrove fringe. Natural shoreline creates a -- you know, a small shelf to get out past. So there's multiple factors. But yes, the water depths technically are too shallow within the allowable 20 feet that we have to typically work with. Criteria No. 3, whether or not the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. Those words are important here because this is not a marked or charted navigable channel. It's basically a local-knowledge channel, slash, the navigation is between the existing docking facilities on the waterway. So -- and the waterway does vary in width as you ingress and egress through this out to Little Hickory Bay, which is also a natural waterway, which ultimately goes out at Wiggins Pass, which we all know is a very, you know, water-restricted, water depth natural bay that's also changing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Jeff, let me ask you about this criteria because, you know, this is very frequently almost a nonissue because there's so many places that don't have marked -- you know, officially marked and charted navigable channels. And we've talked about this, because, you know, there's a whole -- there's a larger process out there for things to become marked and channeled. There's other agencies involved in that so -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But absent that word -- I know it's -- let's just talk for a minute about navigation in general. You know, because I know you're a captain. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. March 13, 2025 P a g e 14 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And, you know, can you give me any feedback just on do you sense -- do you feel, in your professional opinion, that -- forget about the marked or -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- anything like that. Is there any navigational issues here? MR. ROGERS: No. Personally, I do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: It's a no wake zone. You know, standard no wake zone, slow speeds. If people were blowing here -- as you work your way out of Little Hickory Pass towards Wiggins Bay from here, there's a couple areas where you're allowed to go fast, but the waterway is really restrictive, and there's other docks on it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I'm just saying, that's -- again, that's not a marked -- that is a marked channel, but it's different -- totally different perspective. But if it was something like that, I would stick my neck out and say there is an impact to navigation for sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And you've been in front of me many, many times, and that's why I'm asking you this, because I'm not quite sure what the history is of saying these "official marked," because there's so many places that just don't have those channels; that they're just, like, known -- what's the word for it? It's, like, common-knowledge channel? MR. ROGERS: Local-knowledge, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Local-knowledge, yes. March 13, 2025 P a g e 15 | 69 MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I appreciate your input on this, because I know that you would tell me -- you probably would tell your client before they came here that I think you've got a problem. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. On the screen I created an exhibit because of some of the feedback we received from the HOA of, you know, navigational questions, let's say. And it's to scale. It's hard to see it. I zoomed out just to show a full perspective. That is a 35-foot boat, which is a larger boat for that waterway, but it's not uncommon these days. So that is a 35-foot boat, two of them passing each other within the -- throughout the area, just to give you a perspective of two boats slow -- go slow in through here, you know, can pass safely by the docks and all of the -- what I called out as chokepoints. You know, just looking at it, I think this one over here -- you can't really see it. This one is the tightest one, in my opinion, as well as others. So -- and this one shows you a turning radius of a 35-footer in this bay. So other restrictions in this waterway are just natural shoals that do occur a lot, and there are common -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: You know, this corner right here is so shallow. Doing those docks -- when I worked on those docks with the county, same process here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. ROGERS: We went, you know, bow to shore, so to speak, because, A, there's no water so you had to put the stern of the boat out into deeper depths, and B, the property March 13, 2025 P a g e 16 | 69 shoreline's a lot less, which is, again, why I pushed this applicant towards this property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I think some of what you're talking about is also applicable to Criteria 4, right? MR. ROGERS:Yes.Yeah, exactly. It's within the 25 percent width of the waterway.It's -- we do maximize that, as we commonly do. It doesn't mean we're allowed to go out that far, you know, per Collier County. State and federal, that's their limit as well. I do have a federal permit for this. The county -- or excuse me, the state permit is forthcoming. So that has not been -- I do not have that in hand, but I do not see why I won't be receiving that here very soon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But the feds did issue for this already. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: We talked about 4. Let's jump ahead to No. 5, whether or not the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. Clearly seen on this exhibit, there is a neighboring dock to our southwest, and his is further south on that property line. So backing out, we have a 25 -- that's another thing. We do have a 25-foot- plus setback provided. Because it is state lands, we are required to provide a greater setback than what the county requires of 15 feet. So we're already well within the required setback.Provide -- my point being is that there's sufficient room to back out without even crossing over the subject riparian line on that side. So that's always a hot topic sometimes in other docks that we do. March 13, 2025 P a g e 19 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And would you, just to get into the record, describe what Collier County requires to -- with the definition of what the riparian line is. MR. ROGERS: So riparian line's an extension of -- I won't say "extension." It's from where the property line -- the platted property line meets the mean high water line in this case. And then you're -- it's established by a surveyor, a licensed surveyor. It's not something that we come up with, right? It's either a judge or a surveyor establishes riparian lines, and we always -- part of the requirement is to get a certified survey, but -- that's common practice for us, and then they basically determine where the threat of navigation is of the subject waterway, and they'll extend your -- that riparian line from the property corners out to the center of the waterway. And then from there, that's kind of establishing your property -- I don't want to say property, but your property rights area, riparian rights area to then generate setbacks and buildable footprint area for a proposed dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that's not a hard 90-degree angle from the shoreline, right? MR. ROGERS: No, typically not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's more of a -- there's more of a matrix involved -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- with looking at the waterway and the side yard property lines where they meet the -- MR. ROGERS: In the center of the bay, you know. I've done some where -- this would classify as a small bay March 13, 2025 P a g e 20 | 69 maybe, you know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: -- a very small bay, but you picked the center point kind of where that vessel's shown on the screen, and pick a point, and then if there's a lot of properties, everyone would have a line going from their property line to that point. You know what I mean? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: So it's a shared principal position. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for getting that on the record. MR. ROGERS: Yep. So that's primary criteria wrapped up. Secondary, moving forward, whether or not there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property or waterway. In this case, I've already touched on it. It's a Conservation Collier easement that is additional criteria -- design criteria that's taken into consideration here. That is unique and special for here. Everyone has it, so it's not just for this particular property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: But another thing special, in my opinion, on this one is the width of waterway here. We do get a little bit wider, as well as nothing can be built directly across from us. Not that, again, we're impeding navigation. I feel there's plenty of room to navigate around, you know, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I want to ask you a question because you're -- the justification for this one is largely on the conservation easement. MR. ROGERS: Yes. March 13, 2025 P a g e 21 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what would it -- let me put it this way: Could you not put a -- have a catwalk going through the conservation easement and then have the dock -- the 6-foot -- it's not a finger pier, but it may be -- just goes directly parallel to the outside of the conservation easement and have both vessels on the outside? MR. ROGERS: Yes, you could. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You understand what I'm talking about? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, 100 percent. And we did consider that, looking at this. The issue with that is thin water depths get a little bit more restrictive as you're closer to the mangrove fringe, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But with the two boats in the shallower water depths, it's harder to -- not harder. It's nice -- it's -- it's a benefit of this property, basically, that you can pull the boat up, tie it off to the dock for a short term, loading and unloading, because, technically, per the engineering of boatlifts, you're not supposed to ride the boatlifts up and down with people on it. It happens all the time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if -- based on -- and I'm sorry to cut you off. MR. ROGERS: No, you're good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Based on what we're talking about, you're saying that if the length of the dock entailed two lifts, there would be no place to temporarily moor a boat for boarding and off-boarding. MR. ROGERS: Correct, 100 percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that what March 13, 2025 P a g e 22 | 69 you're saying? MR. ROGERS: Yep. Yes, sir. And we did look at that, and the applicant chose to -- and you're going bow to bow at that point. That would be my recommendation. You'd be more of an L-shaped dock, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Understood. MR. ROGERS: So -- I mean, we are an L-shaped dock, but more of a T-shaped dock, let's call it. You can't do a second walkway out either. So it's -- this, in our opinion, was the best plan to push forward that met the client's needs as well as -- yes, it goes out far and, yes, we are asking for an extension request, but ultimately, it does provide safer access to the boat, you know, at all times, whether the boat's on the lift and/or in the water, which is part of the criteria as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, thank you. I had to ask that question. MR. ROGERS: Yep, no problem. Number 2 of secondary, whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable safe access to the vessel. So I just touched on this. You know, I think that additional area -- the 6-foot L-shaped dock finger pier does provide sufficient access as well as maintenance, but the additional area that you could moor a boat up in the water for loading and unloading adds to that value. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is 6 feet absolutely the minimum you think that they could get away with? MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you think a 5-foot would? March 13, 2025 P a g e 23 | 69 MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it -- yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yes, you could. Yes, I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Any smaller than that would probably get a little clumsy, right? MR. ROGERS: Four-foot is the most restrictive we'd ever want to go. Imagine walking down the dock with a cooler in hand or just stuff -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. MR. ROGERS: -- you know what I mean? The piles are then in -- so that 4-foot turns into a 3-and-a-half, you know, quickly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, of course. Like me, my flip flop would get caught on something, and I'd fall in the water, of course. That's how clumsy I am. MR. ROGERS: So 6-foot is plenty big, put it that way. Could you dumb it down a foot? Yeah, you could. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Save a little -- MR. ROGERS: Yep, a little protrusion. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A little less. MR. ROGERS: Understood. Yes, sir. Number 3, for single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel or vessels in combination exceed the 50 percent linear footage of shoreline. And on this one, yeah, we're -- it's -- I guess the criteria's not met because -- I said it was met, but it's not based on how the county -- I messed up on my end thinking jet skis weren't part of that calculation, at least one of them. So John and I worked through that and understand why staff said it was not met, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we're March 13, 2025 P a g e 24 | 69 talking about two boats? MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And one jet ski? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are they called jet skis nowadays? MR. ROGERS: Personal watercraft, jet skis, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I stay off them. MR. ROGERS: Yes, me too. So based on how the county does their calculations, and I totally agree with that; that the criteria is not met. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: So that's No. 4. Number 5 is seagrasses within 200 feet, and there are none. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: skipped over 4. MR. ROGERS: Did I? I'm sorry. I think we HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You just did 3. MR. ROGERS: I did. My fault. Okay. Moving back. Sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is views. MR. ROGERS: Yes, views. So in this case, in our opinion, there's no additional impacts to views. The mangroves are, you know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have any pictures of that -- MR. ROGERS: They're full grown. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the water level? Did you get in the water here? March 13, 2025 P a g e 25 | 69 MR. ROGERS: I did. Go back to the existing conditions, beginning -- opening of the slide. I just have some in-water -- there you go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So there's -- it's not great in regards to the height, but you can see those mangroves are full grown right? And it's a low tide that were there. So that also shows you how shallow it is, you know, on -- up closer to shoreline. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: MR. ROGERS: But it's -- Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: It's a tight waterway. I get it. I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. ROGERS: So we are asking -- that's why we're here today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep, that's why you're here. MR. ROGERS: So, sorry. Moving back to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Seagrass. MR. ROGERS: -- No. 5, seagrasses, no. There's pictures there. None of me swimming it, but I did. Number 6 is the Manatee Protection Plan, and for single-families, it's not part of the review. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So, you know, to touch on -- I think I did, but there was a letter received from the HOA. I reviewed it, went through it. I tried to touch on some of their concerns in this presentation. So I don't need to really, you know, elaborate on that, but, you know, I stressed that it's a -- you know, it's a -- it's the widest part of March 13, 2025 P a g e 27 | 69 the waterway.We've kept it as tight as we can. I do understand navigation-wise, but it is, in our -- my opinion, you know, from a consultant to a captain, it's a safe waterway as proposed and should not impact anybody negatively. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did you have any contact with the abutting neighbors? I see the east side is a challenging lot. I don't know who's going to take that one on, but it looks like it's going to be challenging. MR. ROGERS: I'll probably be in front of you one day for that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What about the other one? MR. ROGERS: That one, the owner -- the applicant knows him. I personally did not have any direct contact with them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So, no, but they are well aware of the petition in front of you today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I do want to point out something. And this is probably -- it looks like it's just a printing issue. On the first page of the coastal engineering stuff, it looks like -- it's showing the project location, and it must have -- the printing must have been off, but it's showing the project location -- here. I'll show it to you. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I can't -- I'm not sure. Is it -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just want to clarify it for the record. Because I know where the location is, but it's -- I'm going to show it to you. MR. ROGERS: Oh, on the location map? March 13, 2025 P a g e 28 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. You can see what I'm saying. I'm going to give this to you. MR. ROGERS: Yes. It looks like it needs to be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: -- over. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think it looks like it came through the printer or something wrong. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I just want to make sure that it's -- it's showing it in two places, but -- MR. ROGERS: It is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think the one place is correct, but the other one is clearly not correct. MR. ROGERS: Is not correct at all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. ROGERS: might have, but -- Happy to answer any questions you HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think at this point, let's go ahead -- you've covered everything, as you usually do. Let's go ahead and open it up for public comment and then, of course, I'll allow you to have time -- or expect you to have time to get up and answer some questions. Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's open it up for public comment. Who do we have first? MS. EOFF: We have two in-person registered speakers. We have Gary Kiesgen. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. March 13, 2025 P a g e 29 | 69 MS. EOFF: And he will be followed by James Walsh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MR. KIESGEN: Can we have Jim go first? MS. EOFF: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, yeah, sure. MR. KIESGEN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: up the way you want to do it. MR. WALSH: Sure. Thank you. You guys set it HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, sir. Thanks for being here. MR. WALSH: Yeah. Hey, thank you for having me here. So I'm James Walsh. I was -- actually, my boat was in that picture that we had. I live directly across -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: -- from the property. And I agree with most of what was said. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you give your address and any title that you're here officially under? MR. WALSH: I am a -- my address is 5344 Barefoot Bay Court. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: I'm here representing, with Gary Kiesgen, the Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association. Gary's on the board. I am not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You are not on the board? MR. WALSH: I am not on the board. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MR. WALSH: But our president is away and asked if March 13, 2025 P a g e 30 | 69 I would come in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Go for it. MR. WALSH: So it is absolutely a shallow waterway. We agree that everybody needs an extension beyond the 20 feet, right? It's just -- we all have them because there is no other way to get a boat in. The objection is to the length, not to the width of the slip, but to the way -- at the amount that it juts into the water. I boat there all the time, as do all of our nine neighbors. Everybody in our development has a boat and/or lift and/or slip. And in that entire canal, there are places where there are two boats. Anywhere that there's two boats, though, they are much smaller boats. There's nowhere that has two boats and two water skis that I've witnessed or seen. I agree with, you know, in essence, the question that you asked about -- the problem is how far -- the additional 32.25 feet that that dock goes into the water. I drive through there all the time. I'm not a captain, by the way. And I just happen to drive a boat, like many of the recreational boaters in the neighborhood. And other people -- we have a lot of the rental boats come into that section, the tiki bar boat. So there are a lot of people that are not captains that drive in that area. And the reality is, in the winter lows, that is a very shallow waterway. I've measured it myself. I've gotten 5.5 feet deep at high tide, 3.5 feet -- and I'm talking about in the dead middle -- at low tide, and then it falls off from there. The reason that we need the dock extensions is to be able to have enough water in the bay for our boats to get in. March 13, 2025 P a g e 31 | 69 There are days I can't get my boat off the lift. But that goes on both sides of the water. So it can't be deep on one side and shallow on the other. The reality is that it's very difficult for two people to pass by. If we were to extend -- and I put a picture in of what that would look like. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so that dynamic, I think, is because this is a natural waterway, right? MR. WALSH: Oh, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: mangroves. So it's -- MR. WALSH: Yeah. It's nobody's fault. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: opposite of a dredged canal -- MR. WALSH: Hundred percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: seawalls on each side, right? MR. WALSH: Absolutely. So it's It's the -- with HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. WALSH: Yeah. And we're not contesting that there's an extension needed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. WALSH: It's the size of the extension -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. WALSH: -- is the challenge. I don't believe that -- we don't believe. I shouldn't say "I" because this is -- we're representing the nine homeowners. We had a meeting about this. We discussed it, and we don't see anywhere that needs that kind of boatage, if you will, in a single-family home. We're all for people having boats of their choice, what March 13, 2025 P a g e 32 | 69 have you, but if one of those boats or the jet skis weren't there, we could very easily make this work with 15 feet less of dock, which would be fine with all of us. It's just a matter of the size of the boats and the fact that they go -- in the document, one, and then you've got your decking, and then you've got another boat. That just juts it out too far. If you were able to put them both either -- immediately on the outside and move that dock closer into the land, that would be wonderful, or the other way around, if you wanted to put the dock first and then basically put the boats on the outside, you know, nose to nose, or however you wanted to do it, that's fine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: vessel do you have? MR. WALSH: Mine's 27 and a half feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: request is for a 28-foot? MR. WALSH: And a 35. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: vessel. MR. WALSH: Right. How large a Okay. So this And a 35-foot HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. WALSH: And I would say -- I believe, and I agree, I think there probably is another 35-foot vessel in there somewhere. There's nowhere that has a 35 and 28 or anything near like that. And then, you know, I think as we said, the technicality or the fine line we're walking here -- the request is for three lifts; one for jet skis and two for boats. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. WALSH: And I just think that for that March 13, 2025 P a g e 33 | 69 neighborhood that's excessive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. WALSH: And I shouldn't say "I think." We think. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. WALSH: That's it. There's nothing -- we were all for -- we want our neighbor to have a great experience. The house is going to be beautiful. We think the docks -- and I think they can figure out a way to get the two boats on there if they really so chose without it having to get a 32-and-a-quarter-foot extension beyond 20 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Let me just ask you these questions. It seems like this waterway -- if you go south, more or less, does it come to a terminus? MR. WALSH: It's a dead-end. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Dead-end, essentially. MR. WALSH: It's a dead-end. And what happens is a lot of amateur boaters don't know that, especially the rental boats. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're wandering around looking. MR. WALSH: And then they realize it, and then they turn around there. So I sit -- and, you know, my view is right basically onto there, and we see people turning around every day at that point, and often it's boaters that don't know the area. And so do I see that -- if you had two boats in there going -- by-directional and the dock approved, that you would have somebody that basically ran aground in low March 13, 2025 P a g e 34 | 69 tide? Yeah, very high probability. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, all right. You ever see any manatees? MR. WALSH: So I think it's a safety concern. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you ever see manatees in there? MR. WALSH: I do see manatees. We had one there the other day, and we see dolphin all the time as well. And then it's a common -- I'm not saying people can't fish there. There's plenty of people fishing in there, but yes, you do see manatee in there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Great presentation. Great job. MR. WALSH: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Who do we have next? MR. KIESGEN: Gary Kiesgen. Good afternoon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gary, hi. MR. KIESGEN: I'm a homeowner next to Jim. My address is 5332 Barefoot Bay Court. And I'm also a board member of our nine-home community. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you are on the -- MR. KIESGEN: I'm on the board. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: On the board for the HOA, that local HOA? MR. KIESGEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because you have multiple HOAs in there, right, and then a master, or how does that work? MR. KIESGEN: We have nine homes. We have March 13, 2025 P a g e 35 | 69 association for nine homes in our community. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: For nine homes? MR. KIESGEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it, okay. Because that whole Lely development has lots of different HOAs, or -- MR. KIESGEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're on the board of directors for that HOA? MR. KIESGEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. KIESGEN: Right. So like Jim said, we want, you know, all our neighbors to enjoy the great waterways, and, you know, have a great experience, have a boat at their home, but I think with this, it is excessively large. Known -- all the previous homes that are built there and have docks, including my dock, they all met with the regulations of the rules, and they're much smaller. A lot of them don't have an outside dock, like Jim talked about. So I definitely think it needs to come in. And if they want, you know, personal watercrafts, they make portable docks that you can tuck in anywhere nice and neat, and you can get to them. That's an option maybe for them; that way they could bring the dock in and have two lifts versus three. So if you look around there, there's hundreds if not thousands of docks that comply with the current rules. I'm sure everybody would love to have a bigger dock, myself included. But I bought my home. It was built to the rules, to the standards, and I think this should be -- all the previous March 13, 2025 P a g e 36 | 69 homeowners and people in the neighborhood all the way around there should be honored that they've met the rules, and this should meet the requirements as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I want to just confirm a few things. When Mr. Walsh spoke, he said the primary -- the primary issue was the -- MR. KIESGEN: Extension. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the extent -- the extent of the extension. MR. KIESGEN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How much extension they're requesting. MR. KIESGEN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that the same for you? MR. KIESGEN: Yes. Same argument, yes, exactly. Because like Jim said -- Mr. Walsh said, the water's very shallow, and after all the hurricanes we had, the water's even less. There's a lot of sludge in there now. So when you get up in that corner there, at low tide you can't even get a boat in there. So you talk about turnaround radius, you don't really have that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And again, once again, your association -- I just want to get it clear. You're with the Barefoot Bay Property Owners Association? MR. KIESGEN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I see a correspondence in here from Alisa Argust. MR. KIESGEN: Alisa, yep. She's our president. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Okay, March 13, 2025 P a g e 37 | 69 anything else. MR. KIESGEN: No. Appreciate you hearing us, and we wish the new owner, you know, much success. But again, we don't feel that extension should be granted. Thank you. MR. WALSH: Can I make one point that I forgot? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Once second. If you come up and -- you come up and do it on the record and say your name and address again so it's clear. MR. KIESGEN: I'm all done. Thank you. MR. WALSH: So again, James Walsh, 5344 Barefoot Bay Court. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: And one of the conversations was about safely temporarily mooring a boat, or what have you. None of us have that today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: We're not able to do that. All of us just have -- all we have, because we're so space constrained, is we have a dock, and then we have a lift, and that's it. So we don't have anywhere to temporarily moor boats either. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand. Thank you for make it clear. MR. WALSH: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Who else do we have? MS. EOFF: We have a registered Zoom speaker. Give me one moment here. MR. SUMMERS: Brian Wasko. Just listening, okay. That's all we needed to clarify. We do not. The person on line is just listening. March 13, 2025 P a g e 38 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? Okay. All right. That's all the public speaking we have right now? MR. SUMMERS: (Nods head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. I'm going to close the public speaking portion of this, and I'm going to ask the applicant's representative to come back up, and let's talk through these issues that were raised. I like the -- I'm sure he's taking notes as well. MR. ROGERS: For the record, Jeff Rogers representing the applicant. Brian, that's on the phone, is listening in. He is the applicant. I had him be there in case we do need him to speak, so he's available if you wanted. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Just -- I know how that does hold some weight sometimes. So he doesn't need to, in my opinion, but I just wanted to let you know why. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, here's -- yeah. So I want you to -- you understand -- I mean, you understand -- I mean, I think it's pretty succinct what the opposition is. It's not, "We don't want the dock." It's just, "We're concerned the extent of it." MR. ROGERS: Understood. Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So any rebuttal to that? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. I mean, honestly, I -- this property is unique in that it does allow -- and the waterway that is on it is greater in width and is not as restrictive just based on where it's located on the waterway. So does it grant -- does that grant it the ability to get this variance? March 13, 2025 P a g e 39 | 69 No. Right? But it does allow for us to protrude out further than potentially other places on the bay -- or on these waterways than in other cases. If you go forward, I did throw a bunch of aerials in at the very end of this PowerPoint that I didn't show earlier that do show the rest of the whole subject waterway. Keep going forward, if you would. So keep going. We saw this one. So, you know, this is -- this is just south of us on the same neighborhood, just along the south side of it. And you can see the dock -- and the point of this is to show that, yes, not all the docks have three slips on it, but there is -- I did three of these docks, you know, on this waterway. Actually, all four. I did this one personally. So we take these into consideration, all the location, the waterway restraints, and things like that, for all these docks. So we do put a lot of thought into the layouts and, of course, take navigation and access and everyone's riparian rights and, obviously, maintaining the waterway use into consideration. As you know, we've put a lot of thought into this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: you this question. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me ask So we talked about the fact that this is a natural waterway -- MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: unique for a community, r i ght ?M R . ROGERS: Right. -- which is HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that natural March 13, 2025 P a g e 40 | 69 waterway, is it fair to say, kind of dictates the way the lots are laid out and the roadways -- MR. ROGERS: Of course. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that currently are laid out? So they've platted based almost -- in part, based on the waterway channels? MR. ROGERS: Correct, yeah. And when this was all -- it was all dredged and filled. It was back in the -- I think it was done in the 1990s, because I've done a lot of state compliance issues in this neighborhood with things. So it was platted in the '90s this way with the natural shoreline and the conservation easement keeping it natural, right? That was the main goal of the development when it was done. So because of that, the waterway meanders. And rivers create oxbows, right? You know what I mean? So that's what waterways do. And then we come in and play God and change it all, right? So in this case this shoreline wasn't changed that much. It was left pretty natural. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in other words, the lot -- the water -- the water frontage or the water -- how much water frontage you have is going to vary -- MR. ROGERS: Hundred percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- depending on where you are. And I would imagine that people are depending on -- like you said, you know, if they're looking around for a lot to build their house on, that may come into play, like, how much of a -- how much -- because, as you know, like, mathematically -- some of the criteria is just strictly a mathematical formula of vessel length to how March 13, 2025 P a g e 41 | 69 much shore -- waterfront you have. So, you know, I see that dynamic here as opposed to, say, like, Conner's subdivision -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- which is strictly a -- I don't know what you would call it, but it's seawalls on all sides, and it's dredged and filled, and it's a very right-angle- type situation. MR. ROGERS: And the lots are a lot -- they're -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're very similar. MR. ROGERS: Shoebox -- you know, cut. They're just straight squares, so to speak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Like, 50 feet. All of them are almost -- MR. ROGERS: Sixty-five feet, 60 feet, something like that, yes, sir. I was just going to say something, and I totally forgot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is there any way -- we talked about the -- maybe bringing the six feet down to four feet at minimum. That brings it in two feet. Is there anything else that can be done to sort of -- MR. ROGERS: No. I mean, losing -- the reason the platform lift -- I was okay with proposing the platform lift. It's flush with the outer edge of the dock. It's not increasing our protrusion. It's the boat on the outside and -- as well as, obviously, the vessel on the inside. But going with the L-shape allows for that lift to be in there and be flush with the dock, not increasing our protrusion, but then limits us to not being able to do the bow to bow parallel -- straight parallel mooring to the shoreline, right? March 13, 2025 P a g e 42 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How many personal watercraft are on that -- MR. ROGERS: Two. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Two. What if it was just one? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. I mean, it could get skinnier, right? I mean, you could go from a 12 by 12. They're 3-foot wide, so you could probably go with a 5 by 12. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So all of those incrementally brings it closer to the conservation easement, right? MR. ROGERS: Well, that wouldn't, I mean, because what's pushing us out there is the shape of the dock being L, right, and you have a lift on the landward side and the lift on the water-ward side of the L, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So I would -- ultimately, if the lift on the inside, the smaller boat, was not there, I could technical bring everything in probably -- you know, without looking at the depths, off the top of my head, three, four feet, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: And potentially more, right? I'm not sure. But there is opportunity there to do that and bring it in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But if I did do that, then I would not -- my point being is the platform lift would ultimately be eliminated, which is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And I -- I really -- you've been in front of me many -- I don't know, like 50 times probably. March 13, 2025 P a g e 43 | 69 MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I know you're being candid with me. And I don't want your client to think that you're not -- not advocating for your client, because you've done that, but I expect honest answers from you, and you always give me honest answers when I ask you those questions. And so -- because I'm trying to ascertain -- because I think what's happening here is that -- if I think about it in terms of land use, the intensity of use in the shoreline is pretty high. I think on a scale of 1 to 10, it's a high level of intensity in terms of, like, the amount of things that are going to happen there with the pretty good-sized boats and the watercraft and different types of things like that. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But at the same time -- and I may ask for the county to confirm this. I think the code does allow for two vessels per single-family home. John, am I right or wrong about that? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's -- by code, you're allowed to have two vessels, and they don't include the personal watercraft; is that correct, John? MR. KELLY: What the -- what we have is a criterion that says -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. KELLY: I have to read this. It's not a straight regulation. It's a criterion that -- give me just one second, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take your time. March 13, 2025 P a g e 44 | 69 MR. KELLY: It says, "Typical single-family use should be no more than two slips." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. That's on the Primary Criteria No. 1, right? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It says -- and this is verbatim from the code, right? So it says -- in, parentheses, the number should be appropriate. "Typical single-family use should be no more than two slips." Typical multifamily -- well, we're not talking about multifamily. So two slips, that would be the lift, and I know that you've -- I think that you-all have interpreted that to mean not including personal watercraft. MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right? Jeff, you want to go back to your criteria? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, because it's kind of -- you can't see it here, but remember how I said I messed up on the first one -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: -- primary, I said it was not approved? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Because my original submittal I've said I do not meet this based on my interpretation of it. Two slips, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. ROGERS: But John and I talked -- and I don't know if Ray was involved in those conversations -- and they provided feedback to me that per their typical historical way of seeing this, the personal watercraft lifts were not March 13, 2025 P a g e 45 | 69 considered a slip. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So I, then, in one of my submittals back, I changed it. So of course I'm going to go with staff, right, and their interpretation of it. But in my initial submittal to the county for this request was that we did not meet this criteria for No. 1. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we've seen some applications where there are 45 and 50-foot -- MR. ROGERS: Can't do it here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- vessels with outboard motors where -- you know, it's a single vessel on a single-family home, and we've talked about this, because the technology now is different than, you know, a vessel that size would have an inboard with a straight shaft prop, not the outboards that could be tilted up. So this particular waterway would not be, you know, appropriate for that older type of vessel, but now more frequently we're seeing very, very large vessels with two, three, four engine -- outboard engines on them that can get in and out of these types of places, albeit it seems like the tidal range seems to be around two feet here. Is that a fair statement? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, I think the people that live -- the speakers spoke to that, and they live there, and I believe it. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, there's lots of tidal. But I'm concerned about -- you know, I've always been March 13, 2025 P a g e 46 | 69 concerned about that because I'm not sure that this code is aware of -- this policy. This is a policy that I didn't invent. It's a policy that was put in place by folks that were elected a long time ago, or maybe not, but the technology is changing, and the code's not changing. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so -- but -- so I -- my job is to follow the code and do the best job I can. They've set up a -- I think a pretty good matrix. So it's not just one criteria and approve it; it's a matrix of different types of criteria. But I think one of the things that I'm looking at here is ways that we can try to minimize or bring that -- the distance out into the waterway, if we can minimize that in any way in order to take into respect some of the neighbors' concerns, you know what I mean? Like, even reducing the -- MR. ROGERS: The dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- parallel part from six feet down to something and then maybe changing it to a single water -- personal watercraft instead of a double personal watercraft, you know, does improve things a little bit, right? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that would go to kind of like excessive decking. I mean, I could use that as one of the criterias that I have to look at is do I think there's excessive decking here. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that might be -- that might be the case. March 13, 2025 P a g e 48 | 69 MR. ROGERS: Oh, okay. I gotcha. I see where you're -- yeah. So another thing to think about -- because I know where you're going with this, and I'd rather work with you now on this than get a denial and, you know, go a different direction or start over. Go back one more slide for me, if you would. Is there any way to make this larger at all? I'm just asking. It's okay if you can't. I'm just asking. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can see it perfectly. MR. ROGERS: So right here we have a 14-by-14 lift. So I don't need that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you talking about the outside or inside? MR. ROGERS: On the inside. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Inside lift? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. The inside lift, that's a 28-foot boat. We all know that the beam of that boat's going to be somewhere around nine, maybe; if you're really beamy, you're 10, right? With two outboards. That's -- my point being is I could get away with a 12-by-12 lift there, ultimately eliminating two more feet of protrusion right there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Twelve-by-twelve. MR. ROGERS:So what would that provide?That would provide safe accessibility into the lift with a 10-foot-wide boat.A foot of play on each side is the March 13, 2025 P a g e 49 | 69 standard -- industry standards, if you can meet that, if you have the room to meet that. In this case, you know, we do, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that saves two feet. MR. ROGERS: That saves two feet right there. So that landward side lift is 14 by 14, as you see it there. We could get away with a 10 -- or excuse me -- a 12 by 12. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And then the -- well, not where you have your personal watercraft but where you have the kayak and the other thing -- I guess that doesn't really matter. MR. ROGERS: That would be -- MR. KIESGEN: I guess it would have to be reduced by 12. MR. ROGERS: That's 12 by 12 already. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Already? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So that's basically the size of the jet ski lift as well as that kayak storage and recreational storage area, and then the lift itself on the landward side lift for the 28-foot vessel is 14 by 14, which -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And then if we reduced the width of the catwalk, then we could save a foot or two there, too, right? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, because that's 6-foot, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: So if I'm sacrificing anything, I'm sacrificing some width on the lift, two feet right there, so that takes it down to 50.25 feet, right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: So we're getting somewhere. And March 13, 2025 P a g e 50 | 69 it's still -- the vessel's still in adequate depths even though it's at low tides, as they've stated, and I totally agree with that statement that the wintertime tides -- when everybody's in residence, the tide are extremely different than from that point moving through the summer, right? So, you know -- but the big lift on the outside is also a 14 by 14. I would want to keep that that way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But I do have some flexibility on that lift. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I guess what I'm thinking about here is that if I -- thank you for that, and thank you for your honesty. And it's better -- it takes a long time to get to these hearings, folks. MR. ROGERS: It does. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's a lot of work involved, there's a lot of money involved, and I try to get things resolved here -- MR. ROGERS: Hundred percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- when I can just because I don't want people looping back through the system and solving those problems. So I'm going to be -- in my deliberations, I'm going to be looking at your offer of the 12 by 12 instead of the 14 by 14 and possibly reducing the width of the catwalk. Sir, I need to listen and talk a little bit, so if you guys want to chat -- MR. KIESGEN: I'm sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you could sit outside -- go outside. March 13, 2025 P a g e 52 | 69 MR. KIESGEN: I'm sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's okay. It's just I'm trying to get through this. MR. KIESGEN: I thought I was being quiet. I'm sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Perfect. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. So trying to work through that, so -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. If I may chime one more thing in, when you're taking the width of the dock, terminal platform, catwalk, whatever you want to call it, finger pier, is 6-foot. I would ultimately like to see that at four and a half, because with the way the piles inset to the dock, typically they're 50 percent in the dock and 50 percent out of the dock. That's how they're constructed, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. ROGERS: If it's a true four, that walkway then gets down to 3-foot in between piles, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So maintaining a 4-foot walkway would being ideal for stuff going onto the boats. As we all know, that's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So doing those two things, does anything else need to be addressed and -- like the personal watercraft? MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That can be brought in, right? MR. ROGERS: I mean, it could, but honestly, I mean, this shows you it's flush with the outer edge of the dock. So I did the -- March 13, 2025 P a g e 53 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's going to stay flush. MR. ROGERS:It's going to stay flush.It's not going to -- that's not pushing us out any further.The only thing that's doing is creating less of a setback on my southwest side, but I still have 25 feet there. So that change right there, in my opinion, is not necessary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Anything else? MR. ROGERS: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: the county? MR. JOHN: No, sir. Yes, okay. Anything from HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. This is a little unorthodox, but I'm going to do this anyway. So -- MR. ROGERS: I appreciate the dialogue, I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate your candor, as always, and you're good at this. Mr. Kiesgen, Gary Kiesgen, I'm sorry. Could you come up, please? Do you mind speaking again? MR. KIESGEN: Sure, no problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just want to ask you a question. So you heard what I talked about, and we talked about. And we got -- I think we're bringing it in, almost four feet. That's pretty significant. Is that something that you think -- I mean, I know I'm trying to find a compromise here. MR. KIESGEN: I understand. And, you know, we appreciate everyone's trying to do a compromise here. If you have both boats both hoisted on the outside, you can bring it in a lot more. You can bring it in 10 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand March 13, 2025 P a g e 54 | 69 that. I'm not asking you to say "I support" or -- because you have a board to report to. MR. KIESGEN: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I'm just trying to see what your thought process is. I get your original position is the boats on the outside, whittle it, it would bring it in 10 feet. MR. KIESGEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I'm trying to do the best I can -- MR. KIESGEN: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- with -- because this is the last time I get to talk to anybody. MR. KIESGEN: I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't have another opportunity to call you or -- MR. KIESGEN: I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- call Jeff or anybody. MR. KIESGEN: I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is my opportunity to talk to everybody and then call it quits, and then I've got to figure this whole thing out. MR. KIESGEN: Right. Well, on the rule there, you talk about two lifts. It's technically three lifts because they're all motorized. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. MR. KIESGEN: Are they all motorized? Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. KIESGEN: So that's three lifts. March 13, 2025 P a g e 55 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get that. But unfortunately, the way that it's interpreted here is that the personal watercraft lifts are not included as part of the lifts. MR. WALSH: Slips. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The vessels. There's two vessels per single-family home. MR. KIESGEN: Correct. MR. WALSH: Two slips. Two slips. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir. MR. WALSH: Yep. MR. KIESGEN: You know, in my opinion and for our board, we think the boats should be on the outside, and that could bring it in further, and I think that would satisfy the rules and regulations, and it would also satisfy all the history of all the -- of the people that had to deal with the same thing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you want to stick with your original position, then? MR. KIESGEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you very much for that. MR. KIESGEN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I think we've got through that one. It seems like, Jeff, you're always on the tricky jobs. That's what you do. Would you like to come on up and say one last thing before we call this a day? Again, this is the last time I get to talk to anybody. MR. ROGERS: Yes. So I mean, the applicant is in a little March 13, 2025 P a g e 57 | 69 bit of a pickle because he is getting delivery of these vessels that have been ordered. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: So we, ultimately, are on a tight schedule to get this thing built. So I -- to avoid a potential denial or redo, so to speak, I don't have time, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, the things that you have -- the things that are confronting your client is a potential appeal? MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Or potential denial. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those are the only things happening. MR. ROGERS: Correct. And I'm happy to go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I've already walked through with you my thought process on how we could minimize a little bit of the impacts, so I'm not going to put the association or the neighbors on -- yeah, I'm not going to ask them to commit to anything. I just wanted to get their feedback, and they're nice enough to give that to me, but they don't have to -- they don't have to commit to what their position is right here and right now. MR. ROGERS: Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm happy to -- I think I've heard enough of what I need to hear. Like I said, I'm not making decisions here today. You know, it's -- MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The only other choice you have is to say, "Yeah, we'll put both lifts on the March 13, 2025 P a g e 58 | 69 outside," and -- MR. ROGERS: If I knew where we were going in your thought process fully -- I know -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It doesn't -- unfortunately, it doesn't -- MR. ROGERS: -- it doesn't work like that -- I would obviously on the phone. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I will say that I didn't ask you these questions about what would happen if we changed these things -- I didn't ask you those for no reason whatsoever. MR. ROGERS: I understand that, and I did ask the applicant yesterday on the phone about options like this to take into consideration. Ideally, we want what you have proposed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you had authority to make these concessions? MR. ROGERS: The concessions in regards to the dimension changes, yes, sir, 100 percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I think he'll be fine with those, no problem. And the bow-to-bow design, I understand that, you know, I do, and it would reduce it, whatever, eight feet, 10 feet -- whatever it may be, right? I don't know without really looking at it -- is an option -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- but not ideal, let's just say that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. I understand the reasoning for that. So again, what I want to say is that when I'm dealing with variances -- and most of the professionals like yourself, March 13, 2025 P a g e 59 | 69 there are a few other companies out there, you know, like to show all of the other things that went on around in the neighborhood, and this was approved, and this was approved, and -- but into the law, variances, you take them case by case. MR. ROGERS: Right, I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's very situational. It's based on the property and the situation. So I really don't look at, you know, precedent. This doesn't set precedent in my opinion. You know, you take every -- all these variances as they come. So I want to put that on the record. MR. ROGERS: And to be honest -- and on the record as well, I mean, this is a unique dock in this neighborhood -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. ROGERS: -- you know what I mean? Because it is a unique property in regards to the waterway width as well as the linear straight footage of shoreline, but it doesn't meander as much as some of the others. So it does provide additional area to still meet the criteria and the state and federal rules to propose what is in front of you today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, like I said, I asked all these questions. I took a lot of time with this. MR. ROGERS:Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think staff did a great job with analyzing this. Good job. I appreciate the neighborhood and the neighbors coming out and speaking during a weekday, and it's not easy to get here sometimes traffic-wise, especially from all the way over there. I really appreciate that and the input on that. March 13, 2025 P a g e 60 | 69 Maybe, you know, at the end of the day, your client, Jeff, will just have to have a conversation maybe with them at some point again. But I've heard enough, I think, to make a fair decision based on all the information, and I guess that's all I'll say at this point. But I appreciate everybody's candor. The information was great. And again, the information was very on point to the criteria that I have to look at rather than just nebulous "we object" and "we don't like it" and that kind of thing. It was very specific, and I appreciate that. That's exactly what I need to hear at these hearings because after this is over with, I'm not calling -- I'm not calling John; I'm not calling the county; I'm not calling Jeff; I'm not calling you guys. I can't do that. That would be unfair. So I have to get all the information I can right here today. So I think I've heard enough, unless the county has anything, last-minute things. They're saying no. MR. JOHN: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think we've heard a lot. So I'm going to close this item. I appreciate everybody, and I'll get a decision out as quickly as I can, all right? Thank you. MR. KIESGEN: Thank you. MR. WALSH: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, everybody, for being here. All right. So now we're going to the companion items, 3B and 3C. Do we need to take a break? THE COURT REPORTER: No. March 13, 2025 P a g e 61 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're good? We'll keep going, then. MR. KELLY: ***Okay. Before you is Agenda Items 3B and 3C being heard as companion items. It's Variance PL20240008511, and a boat dock extension, PL20240008508. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve both the variance from Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required side yard riparian setback from 15 feet to eight feet on the northernmost side for a lot with 67 plus-or-minus feet of water frontage and for a 30-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility with boathouse that will protrude a total of 50 feet into waterway that is 551.8 plus-or-minus feet wide pursuant to Section 5.03.06.H of the LDC for the benefit of property located at 9990 Gulf Shore Drive which comprises .31 acres and is also known as Lot 29, Block B, re-subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Estates, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. It's located within a Residential Single-Family 3, RSF3, zoning district. Public notice requirements for the variance were satisfied for Section 10.03.06.F.2, and for the boat dock extension, the Section is 10.03.06.H.2. The agent letter required for the variance to property owners within 150 feet was sent by the applicant's agent on January 29, 2025, and the property owner notification and the Clerk's posting for this meeting were satisfied by the county on February 21, 2025, and a public hearing sign was March 13, 2025 P a g e 62 | 69 posted by me on February 25th, 2025. 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 was reviewed based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six with one criterion found to be not applicable. It also satisfied the boathouse criteria. And has been -- both petitions have been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. A letter of no objection was received from the owner of the neighboring property to the north at 10030 Gulf Shore Drive. No other parties have contacted me in response to advertising for either of the petitions. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the variance in accordance with the proposed plans contained within Attachments A and B of the respective staff reports and the companion boat dock in accordance with the proposed plans contained within Attachments A and B of that staff report. And this concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And staff in this case is Planner III. MR. KELLY: For the record, John Kelly, Planner III, with the county. Sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know everybody always knows you, but sometimes we've got to get the record straight. March 13, 2025 P a g e 63 | 69 MR. KELLY: Thank you, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I visited the site, as I said before. It's quite a challenging site. I think I remember dealing with the property right next to it. MR. KELLY: You did. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think that was one of our items as well, and I see that they're out there constructing the dock right now. So let's go ahead and hear from the applicant's representative. Hey, Mark. How are you? MR. OREUS: I'm good. Good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's nice to see you again. 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. OREUS: I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Name, title, just a little bit of your record. I'm going to -- MR. OREUS: I gotcha. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- do the expert stuff. MR. OREUS: I gotcha. Mark Oreus. I work with Greg Orick Marine Construction, permitting for marine consulting for about four years now, and beforehand, worked in permitting for about six years here, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. You ever do any of the fun stuff, the construction stuff? MR. OREUS: Yeah, the design stuff, the construction, the consulting stuff, yeah. March 13, 2025 P a g e 64 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. I see you as an expert. I've seen you before. I just wanted to get that on the record. MR. OREUS: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So go ahead and go at it. This is the opposite of the last case where they actually have a smaller shoreline than a larger shoreline. MR. OREUS: Yeah. So what we're doing here at 9990 is petitioning to get that -- just that little extension up there to fit a 40-foot boat and also two PWC -- two 12-foot PWC lifts. We did do the one -- I did do the one just to the north, that's literally almost a carbon copy on the opposite side, to kind of help out on that one. We are -- what we're looking at is bringing the boat in perpendicular to shoreline just because of the sheer size of the vessel. There is -- after several design attempts to design it in a way -- unfortunately, the customer only has 67 feet of shoreline and a pie shape, which makes it very challenging to get even a 20-foot boat into that facility there. For the most part, it's the -- what we came -- what we designed was the best design. After -- like I said, the northern customer is also one of ours, and he had no objection to get the -- to allow that to be built. The eastern customer is a condo association that has several -- several dock slips on that. There is an aerial and stuff like that, that you'll see that boatlift on there, so that -- and they had a wider area to allow for the boat to come in at that small -- at that angle to allow safe navigation for the customer and everything else. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mark, have you heard from them at all? March 13, 2025 P a g e 65 | 69 MR. OREUS: Have I heard from them? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. OREUS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. MR. OREUS: the very beginning. Since the original -- I'd probably say HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. OREUS: But nothing -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: -- at all. We -- for the most part, like I said, they are -- when we measured, about a hundred -- they're going to be about 170, I think, feet -- no, -75 feet, I'm sorry, from the dock facility we're proposing to build. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. It does appear that they're pretty far away, even though their property line is pretty snug up against it. Okay. MR. OREUS: So we did get enough space for everything like that. In terms of -- the customer, like I said, has two personal watercrafts and a boat, and after several designs, the -- we tried to minimize everything we possibly could in that area to just better -- because the customer has a small, 67 -- it would -- it's one of those few cases where if the customer had three less feet, it would be a lot easier because then we wouldn't have to apply for the variance because he would have seven-and-a-half-foot setbacks, but unfortunately, we have to apply for the variance to get everything to fit in without excessive decking. We even designed the finger piers that are on the outside to be smaller than our usual four, five, six feet. March 13, 2025 P a g e 66 | 69 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate that. MR. OREUS: We proposed it just to be three feet -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate MR. OREUS: -- which is tight, to say the least, and a that. 40-foot vessel, because you're going to be loading and unloading. But at the consultation of the client, we decided that would probably be the absolute best just to minimize any impact for anybody around. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I appreciate you doing that. I'm trying to -- I was just out there. I'm just trying to visualize -- because the aerial photograph has just your barge there, but there's already pilings in the water. So I guess it's going to be, essentially, the same -- is it going to be on the same angle as the -- MR. OREUS: Literally a mirror -- yep. Literally a mirror as the other one on the north. They're both going to be -- so this customer, his bigger boat is going to be on the north side. Our northern customer is going to be on the south side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: So they can basically back out and go out in terms of just that specific side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. OREUS: Because the other neighbor, same thing. If we were to do it on the opposite side, it would be even more restraining to get the boat in and out of there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And -- all right. Let's go ahead and see if there's any public March 13, 2025 P a g e 67 | 69 comment on this item. Any speakers signed up? MS. EOFF: We do not have any speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers for this item. Okay. We're going to close the public comment part of this. So I guess there's really nothing for you to rebut. MR. OREUS: A little simpler than the first one. I figured we'd give you guys a break. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I did notice -- and I don't know if that -- so the property two doors down on Bayshore, there's a dock there, but it's vacant. And for some reason I remember I was -- I thought that that was an item that came before me. Is that one of your docks? MR. OREUS: The two to the north of that one? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, where the vacant lot is there. MR. OREUS: I believe we might have done a project on that street there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. OREUS: So I don't specifically remember. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just -- the reason I'm asking is I want to make sure -- because it looks like a new -- MR. OREUS: That is a BDE, too, I believe. That is also an extended dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So I just -- it looked like a new dock, so I wanted to make sure there wouldn't be someone -- the likelihood of someone coming in -- because there's obviously going to be a house March 13, 2025 P a g e 68 | 69 built there because now it's been demoed, but there's a dock in place. For those of you wondering, it's on -- this is Lot 91 on Bayview Avenue. So it's on the eastern side of -- MR. OREUS: That 10031, yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So I just -- it doesn't look like the likelihood that that corner -- I was just concerned about the intensity of that corner, you know, of the canal, because you've got -- MR. OREUS: Yeah, I fully understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But that dock seems pretty far away from -- MR. OREUS: Yeah. And it's also a little better, because the way we designed the one to the north, they are coming -- the longer side of the pier is on the southern side. So if that northern customer felt like doing a dock or even coming from any side, they're allowed to come in from any side because we gave them ample space of where they want to come into. So their options are still fully available on that northern dock without us hindering any of them, because we tend to want to make sure to look at that, because a lot of times, unfortunately, people get kind of out of luck because someone builds something before they do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Last in. MR. OREUS: Yeah, last in, unfortunately. So it's like if we had built that one to the other side, that other customer, even though we're in -- fully in our standards and practices of what we're allowed to have, out of courtesy, it's not really a nice thing for the poor guy that just bought a house there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. Okay. This one's straightforward. Thanks for that. March 13, 2025 P a g e 69 | 69 Anything else from the county? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Then I have no other questions for you. This is pretty straightforward. Thank you very much. MR. OREUS: All right. No problem, then. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. MR. OREUS: I appreciate you guys as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So that's all the items we have for this meeting. The next meeting is going to be in two weeks? MR. BOSI: Two weeks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In this same room, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. BOSI: Same room. We only have one petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One petition. MR. BOSI: One's better than none. MR. BELLOWS: March 27th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. And I look forward to that. Thanks for -- staff for setting all this up, making the arrangements, getting these applications through. I appreciate it. Everybody have a nice two weeks, and go Gators. MR. BOSI: Go Gators. ******* March 13, 2025 P a g e 70 | 69 __ ___ _ There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 3:26 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