Loading...
HEX Minutes 05/08/2025 May 8, 2025 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida, May 8, 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 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Planner III Kevin Summers, Manager - Technical Systems Operations May 8, 2025 Page 2 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Andrew Dickman. I am the county's Hearing Examiner. This is May 8th, 2025, 2 p.m. And on the agenda, we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Again, welcome, everyone. As I said, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney. I've been barred in the state of Florida for over 20 years, practicing in the area of local government, land-use, zoning, environmental law. I am not a county employee. I was contracted with by the county commissioners to fulfill the duties of the Hearing Examiner as they're expressed in the code adopted by -- the ordinances and the codes adopted by the county. My job, in a nutshell, is to prepare for these hearings, review all the application materials that are in the record, do whatever I need to do to prepare for this hearing, and conduct a fair and impartial quasi- judicial hearing. What does that mean? It means that I'm here as a neutral decision-maker, and I have not had any conversations with county staff about substantive issues regarding the items that are on the agenda. I have not had any conversations with the applicant or neighbors or anybody regarding substantive matters about these petitions. I have reviewed everything that's been filed that's available to the public. And I will tell you that I have done site visits. I'm allowed to do that. I'm disclosing that here on the record procedure; I did site visits on both items that are on the agenda. But aside from that, I am here as an impartial decision- maker. May 8, 2025 Page 3 So my job is to take the competent substantial evidence that's provided to me here at this hearing by the county, by the applicant and their representatives, by the public, and ferret out all of that relevant information as it relates to the criteria for review of these types of applications in the code. And I will not be making any final decisions here today. The code asks that I take all the information back and within 30 days -- render a written decision within 30 days. Typically I'm able to do that much quicker depending on, you know, the issues that are involved, but I won't be making any decisions here today. Anyone who is going to testify here today must do so under oath, and I'll ask our court reporter to swear all the witnesses in in a moment. I do want to tell everyone, while this is a quasi-judicial hearing, it's a formal hearing and the record stops after today, meaning that I have to make the decision based on everything that is in the record here today. I can't have further conversations with the applicant or take in other information because this has been a noticed hearing to the public to satisfy due process. So I want anyone who's going to speak to do so. Relax. Some people don't like speaking publicly. Some people do like speaking publicly. But if you're nervous, don't be, please. I would like -- I'm more interested in getting the information that I need rather than, you know, be worried about the clock. I'd rather give you whatever time you need to get the information I need in order to make the decision. This is a twofold -- this is an in-person -- it's a hybrid meeting. So it's in-person and the county has set this up so that individuals can participate via Zoom. So that's another luxury that I think the county has offered to people. It's not always easy to get here in the afternoon May 8, 2025 Page 4 on Thursday. But if you are here, I promise you it will be well worth your while. I try to get my ratings up. So the way that we're going to do this is the county will start first. They'll give me a summary of their staff report that's in the packet, backup materials, any recommendations, any conditions, so forth and so on. They'll use the middle podium. The applicant or the applicant's representative will use the podium over here on the other side. And then once they finish their presentation, we'll go to public comment. After I close the public comment, I will allow for rebuttal from the applicant should they desire to address any issues that were brought up during public comment. So I think I've covered everything. With that, anyone who is going to testify here today, please stand, raise your right hand, and our court reporter will administer the oath. 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. Thank you, everybody, for that. I think we're ready to go forward with -- we've got two items on the agenda, correct? MR. BELLOWS: (Witness nods head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right, good. So 3A is the first one that I'm showing. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. It's Boat Dock Petition No. PL20250010366, which the petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner May 8, 2025 Page 5 approve a 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 45 feet into a waterway that is 203 plus or minus feet wide, pursuit to Section 5.03.06.H of the Collier County Land Development Code. The property is located at 228 Bayview Avenue, also known as Lot 38, Block B, Conners Vanderbilt Estates, Unit No. 1, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. It's located within a Residential Single-Family 3 zoning district. And the property comprises .22 acres, for which a prior boat dock extension, No. BD95-16, Collier County Planning Commission Resolution 96-42, was approved for a 33-foot protrusion. Except for the existing dock facility, the subject property was razed, and a new three-story Single-Family 1 is being constructed per Building Permit No. PRFH20231148058, issued on January 24, 2024. The petitioner desires to replace the existing dock facility with a short perpendicular facility with two boat lifts, one for a 42-foot vessel and the other to be decked over for the keeping of two 14-foot personal watercraft. The petition was reviewed based upon the criterion within LDC Section 10.03.06.H -- I'm sorry. This is -- the notification requirements were as per 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter in the Clerk's posting were effected by the county on April 17, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by the planning staff on April 22, 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, the May 8, 2025 Page 6 Manatee Protection Plan, and has been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. With respect to public comment, I had none until yesterday, at which time I received a call from a neighbor at 210 Bayview expressing concerns that the canal was only 200 feet wide. I later received a formal objection letter from the same residence and actually a second letter, and those have been placed into a new Attachment E, which I will introduce into the record at this time. You should have had a copy before you upon arrival, and a copy has been provided to the clerk -- or to the court reporter, sorry. Ms. Esposito, who I believe authored the letters, is in the room today. I don't know if she'll be speaking or not. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment A and B subject to the following condition, and that is 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. And that concludes staff's presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Let me ask you a quick question. I think I heard you say that you -- did you personally go out and put the sign -- the yard sign up? MR. KELLY: No. It was another member of our staff. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Another one, okay. So county staff. And that was -- so I want to address this, because in my site visit -- I did that today -- this was a sign that was down, flipped upside down into the bushes. I don't know how long it was there. I know there are other -- other ways that these hearings are advertised. There are mailings, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. May 8, 2025 Page 7 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then there are also newspaper things, or they're on the website as well. But here's what I want to say about that. I mean, I see these signs as my signs, and I'm going to tell you why, because part of the thing that I have to ensure happens here today is due process. What is due process? Notice and the opportunity to be heard. I'm not directing this at you, sorry. I'm just telling you what I found, because I believe if the county goes out, they take the time, they put it up, whether contractors took it down, a neighbor got mad and kicked it down, I don't know. But it's the responsibility of whoever is asking for this particular application to ensure that those signs stay up and that, you know, for whatever reason they don't go down. But I see this as my sign because I want to ensure that all of the criteria is accomplished with regard to due process. The other things that I have to ensure is that the decision is made based on competent substantial evidence and that the decision is made based on the criteria. So due process is one of the three big prongs of how a quasi-judicial hearing is to be held. So I'm putting this message out there very clearly. I don't think that -- I don't believe that this is a fatal flaw, if you will, because there are other ways that this was advertised, but I want to put this message out there that if you're an applicant and the county goes out there -- you pay for these signs in your application fees -- that the county goes out there, they put the sign up. It's not their job to keep driving around and making sure signs are up. It's the applicant's job to make sure the signs stay up because, frankly, you know, you're taking a risk if you don't. And I'm putting it on the record. I do think that it's not a fatal flaw, but will somebody disagree with me and take up an appeal May 8, 2025 Page 8 because of that? Maybe. I don't know. I'm going to go forward with the hearing, but I'm just telling everyone that I take this personally because I see those signs as my signs; that's why I started going out and doing site visits, because I wanted to make sure that everybody is being put on notice properly and as much as possible so that they would have an opportunity to be heard here at a quasi-judicial hearing. So I put the sign back up. Don't know if it's still up now, though. MR. KELLY: I would just like to add that there -- we typically have two types of signs. One is for properties that are greater than one acre. It is a professionally installed sign that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I've seen those. MR. MR. KELLY: -- that will not blow down in the wind, will not be disturbed by mowers and tractors; however, for properties that are under an acre, we'll use the typical snipe sign, and those can get blown down. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. KELLY: And it does happen. I understand what you're saying. So I believe the director wants to make a statement. MR. BOSI: And thanks. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I will say that based upon the -- you know, the facts and the discussion -- and I understand that there are a number of different means for the due process, and I think that's why we have the redundancy. But you're right, the on-site sign is the most immediate to the local neighborhood so we know that it's important. What we can do -- we don't have the staffing to be able to provide for constant, you know, observation or daily observations that the signs remain up. We could confirm that we put them up, take May 8, 2025 Page 9 a photo of the -- of the signs as we install them, and then we can make -- specifically, we will put on our process to remind the applicants that periodically between when you post the sign and send them an email, you know, "I posted the sign," ask the applicant to periodically check to make sure that sign stands up. And that's -- I mean, that's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's all you can do. That's all you can do, and that's why -- I just want to make -- the county's job is to make sure that the signs get put up. And, John, I appreciate what you're saying, because those other signs are basically, like, you know, plywood. They're four-by-eights on a four-by-four post. It's not easy to knock those down with that. But these other ones are more like yard signs. But I very infrequently see the signs knocked down, you know. So this particular site, there's a lot of construction going on. There were a lot of contractors there on site. They may not have -- they may have just decided on their own to, like, pull it up because they were putting in new landscaping, and they just decided to toss it to the side. But nevertheless, the burden is on the applicant to make sure that that sign stays up. MR. KELLY: And I will just add that we also pick these -- retrieve these signs and reuse them. So we do know if the sign has been up on most cases because we will be there today or tomorrow -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. KELLY: -- to retrieve the signs. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I appreciate that. And like I said, that's kind of why I started doing site visits -- that's partly why I started doing site visits because I just wanted to make sure that, you know, those signs were up and that there's no issues with regard to that. May 8, 2025 Page 10 All right. So we're going to go forward. Thank you, John. I appreciate that. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Hey, Mark. MR. OREUS: How you doing? Mark Oreus, Greg Orick Marine Construction. Just to start off, I did go down to the jobsite, I'd say, two, three weeks ago, because we are doing two other petitions on the same street, and we're now currently building them, and it was there. So I will now, when it comes to our applications, BDE processes -- because we have been before where we have to postpone those -- I will most likely periodically check them once a week now just to make sure that the process is done correctly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think that's a good idea. And I don't know if this is the wind blowing it down. I know right at the -- down the street I know you've got two other projects that are happening there that came before me, but, you know, there are -- there are people that will just knock them down from whatever reason. MR. OREUS: No, I fully understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So please -- please swoop by there every now and then and make sure the sign's up and that it's secure and that it's going to be there. So I'm going to ask you this question: Do you want to go forward? MR. OREUS: Oh, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, all right. Let's go. MR. OREUS: Just -- that's why I was just saying, just in case, in the future. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: By the way, I May 8, 2025 Page 11 recognize you as an expert. You've been here in front of me before. I get it. MR. OREUS: Yeah. So in the future I will periodically check these most likely once a week just because -- I'll just make it a personal thing to do it myself since the whole process is on me as the applicant. So moving forward with this project, we have a -- we are asking for a 25-foot extension from the regular 20-foot for a total protrusion of 45 feet. The current owner who is building the house has a 42-foot vessel. That is the vessel out to the outboards. So after numerous designs, we came up with this one as to be the best, because the applicant does currently have a 33-foot dock that has already gone through the petition. And we just wanted to add just the 12 feet. We didn't want to go -- because of the PWC crafts and the lift, if we were to put it parallel to shoreline with that lift, we would have had to ask for a variance, and we know the neighboring house has a dock, so we did not want to protrude further into the variance of theirs, so we rather had just kept it behind the person's house itself rather than extend it on the side-yard setbacks. So after the current designs, this was the best design we came with. I do understand there was a concern for waterway width on this jobsite. Currently, from mean high to mean high, which is basically seawall to seawall, we are at 203 feet wide. And when it comes to -- if this was to be passed -- and we look at from dock to dock on the opposite side, about 160 feet. So -- which, from a marine construction site, is more than enough for any type of vessel that would ever come down this type of street. I mean, just for -- just for a little example, the -- let's say, to be May 8, 2025 Page 12 kind of an extreme example, the USS Gerald Ford is in the waterway line 134 feet. So that would be able to cruise within these waterway if both docks were still in there, and that's the current biggest aircraft carrier that the Army has. So that just kind of goes -- I know it's a bit of an extreme example, but that just -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Unless it loses a few jets. It might be a problem. MR. OREUS: Well, that's just to say on the water line, basically, side, you'd be able to -- still be able to navigate throughout the water. And in terms of nature and everything, we did our due diligence in terms of we had our expert go out there and do our submerged resource survey, which found no oyster beds, no seagrasses. Currently, under FWC and DEP, there is no exotic animals or endangered animals that are in that area to be seen or ever -- or calculated, basically, and that is also not a manatee zone. So all the precautions have been taken care of to make sure that this structure here, if built, would not impede on navigation nor would it impede on any underground submerged resources. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you back up one slide just for a minute? I want to ask -- you may actually have a slide for this, but tell me if you do. So there's no dimensions on here. Do you have another slide? MR. OREUS: Yes. So the next slide over would be, yep, dimensions. So you're looking at 5-foot finger piers. We typically like to stray at 3 -- we typically like to stray at four or five feet when it comes to this type and size vessel just so you can get everything you need to get in and off the boat safely when it comes to, you know, coolers or whatever it is so you can adequately get off the boat without having any problems. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me May 8, 2025 Page 13 just -- real quickly, just -- so this -- this particular line is right at 20 feet, right? MR. OREUS: Yes, so that would be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's -- the only extensions are these -- MR. OREUS: Just the finger piers, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're saying they're five feet wide. This is going to be on a lift, right? MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. So that's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And in your professional opinion, is it necessary to have it go all the way out to where the engines are or -- MR. OREUS: So as one of the criterias and one of the things with the BDE, you have to measure the vessel from the bow all the way to the end of the motors. So if we were able to do it with just the vessel itself with the outboards hanging off, we could have chopped off about three or four feet. But the particular vessel is a 42-foot boat with -- I believe they have three -- three 450s or 500s on the back, which are significantly sized engines. So we wanted to make sure we covered everything within the footprint of the dock so nothing would be hanging off, because we don't want to have any accidents whatsoever with any boats coming in or out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The point of that is not having the tail end -- the stern, right? MR. OREUS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did I get that right, the stern? MR. OREUS: Yes. We didn't -- yeah, we didn't -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Where the engines are, you don't want them hanging out past these for -- I get that -- safety sake. May 8, 2025 Page 14 MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the other reason I'm asking is just -- there is a criteria about overdecking and things like that. So you've got, like, this area in here. But in your professional opinion, the five feet on either side inside the pilings is what is necessary -- minimum necessary? MR. OREUS: Yes, just for the simple fact when you go from center to pile to center pile, it's about -- you have about six inches on each pile. So technically speaking, walking-wise, it's about four feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: Because you have the piles in that instance. And then everything else -- they did want bigger finger piers, but we suggested to keep it at a bare minimum for the excessive decking, and everything else that is next to the platform lift that might be considered excessive decking is within the 20-foot protrusion of a normal dock with steps. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's this little notch? Is that just to get -- is that to help get onto the vessel? MR. OREUS: Yes. So that's basically where you're going to be - - sometimes they load and offload on that side, but that's also where your beams are going to be and everything like that, and to get underneath the beams and stuff like that, there's a lot of times we have a small little notch just like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. MR. OREUS: So after -- after many designs, this was the best one we found to be the safest and the most less intrusive in the waterway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Any more slides? MR. OREUS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it. You need to May 8, 2025 Page 15 have one that says, "The end." MR. OREUS: That's basically it. Huh? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You've got to have one that says, "Any questions?" or something like that, or else I'm just going to keep looking at it. MR. OREUS: Yeah, that's basically it for the most part. If you guys have any questions or anything... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You answered the questions that I wanted to ask about. I was curious about that, and you -- and you answered those questions. Why don't we go to public comment on this, and if there -- you know, maybe take some notes and see if anybody's got some issues that you want to address. So if you want to take a seat and let's see. Is there any public comment on this? Ma'am, if you're a neighbor, please don't be nervous. If you want us to be -- please come up to the microphone, though. You have to come up to the microphone and put your name -- And, John, please help her. As I said, don't be nervous. This is the only time you're going to have the ability to speak on this item. MS. ESPOSITO: Yes. too THE COURT REPORTER: I need to swear you in, HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you raise your right hand, please. 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? MS. ESPOSITO: I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. May 8, 2025 Page 16 Your name and address? MS. ESPOSITO: Should I give my name? Mary Lorraine Esposito at 210 Bayview Avenue. My main concern is 45 feet into a 200 -- approximately, I'm talking -- 200 feet across. And then on the other side, on Tradewinds' side that faces the bay or the -- whatever -- is 20 feet, say. So this leaves you with 135 feet. I'm just looking at traffic, on the weekend especially, coming and going into the lagoon, and they do not do zero wake. And I'm just -- I'm thinking about the traffic jam. That's how I'm viewing it with my eyes. I love looking out there, and I see the boats. Everybody's having a wonderful time. I love seeing the kids on the hover boards and everybody else, even the kayaks. And I'm thinking, with these boats going passing each other constantly -- and they're getting bigger and bigger. That's my only concern is -- not the design or anything like that. My designed (sic) is for 200 feet. That's bothering me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I have a couple questions for you. Do you have a dock on your property? MS. ESPOSITO: Yes, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do you feel that this design is going to interfere with the use of your dock for a vessel? Do you have a boat? MS. ESPOSITO: It's not being used. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESPOSITO: Yeah. And we have also -- that was built there, I guess, 50 years ago, a covered dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESPOSITO: And that's grandfathered in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So do May 8, 2025 Page 17 you also feel that -- do you have any opinion with regard to any visual interference from your property, if you're looking out on the waterway, any visual aspects? MS. ESPOSITO: The only thing that bothers me is the 200 feet - - HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're concerned about -- MS. ESPOSITO: -- and boats coming and going -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MS. ESPOSITO: -- on the weekend. And then all of a sudden, this weekend, I'm looking out and something seems strange. They're all going low speed. And I said, "There must be signs up, or there's a sheriff sitting at the edge there." But, you know, I have no way of going out there and looking. But -- and even this morning when I'm looking out, I see the boats are going slow. So I don't know if there's more signs being put up, the zero wake signs. There used to be one right across there on the round point, but – HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MS. ESPOSITO: -- it went years ago. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I'm hearing that your primary concern is the navigation interference with the -- MS. ESPOSITO: With the traffic going back and forth. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESPOSITO: And where are the boats going to wait? You know, where are they going to wait there? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. ESPOSITO: Right in that little lagoon area where all the, you know, boatlifts are and stuff. In fact, just the other day, or last week, when there was renters next door, a little boy on his kayak -- May 8, 2025 Page 18 the boat came so fast, he went under my dock. I never saw anybody go under my dock before -- because he was nervous about the wake. So, you know, I'm just -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Was he okay? MS. ESPOSITO: These are things that are concerning me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Was he okay? Was the little boy okay? MS. ESPOSITO: Huh? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Was the little boy okay? MS. ESPOSITO: Oh, yeah, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MS. ESPOSITO: I was -- because I didn't know him. He lives -- he was renting. They were renting next door. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MS. ESPOSITO: But -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You did a great job. Thanks for being here. Never be afraid to speak in a public meeting, okay? MS. ESPOSITO: Thank you. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Appreciate it. If you could fill that out, please, and give it to -- Is anyone else signed up to speak here? MR. SUMMERS: No more public speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We have no more public speakers. I'm going to close the public speaking portion of this. Mark, do you mind coming up here again? MR. OREUS: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Give you a little exercise. Do you know anything about the -- this waterway in terms of -- I want May 8, 2025 Page 19 to get this on the record -- in terms of, like, the speeds of boats? Are there any signs out there that say no -- MR. OREUS: From the last one, there's no navigation signs that said "slow wake" whatsoever. I believe in that Vanderbilt Lagoon there, it is -- it's definitely, I don't believe, a no wake zone, unless there's new signs that have been put up, like the neighbor had said. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OREUS: I haven't seen anything that -- maybe 20 miles per hour, but I know it's not a normal -- resume normal speed zone in that area, just because you are coming around that corner. So, yeah, I would definitely have to take a look into it to see if there were any new signs that were put in. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so, once again, the concern that the -- that their neighbor has is navigation. You had testified that the extent of the waterway is -- or wherever the -- it touches, the next dock across the way, which is, by the way, Tradewinds, which is actually connected to Vanderbilt Drive, so there's, like, a little weird overlap there. I believe this entire place was practically done via dredge and fill once upon a time. MR. OREUS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I've been told by long timers -- old timers that this was actually a natural waterway that did open up at one time to -- MR. OREUS: And they basically cut out all those. All those inner slips are now manmade with dredging and everything like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Okay. So once again, just for the record, in your opinion this will not, or will it, infringe upon navigation? May 8, 2025 Page 20 MR. OREUS: In my opinion, I do not believe so because if passed and built, we will still leave 160 -- 160 feet from the tip of our dock to the – HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Other dock. MR. OREUS: -- Tradewinds dock that is currently there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. OREUS: So, yeah. So that should be more than sufficient in terms of navigation, whether it be high boat traffic or anything like that. That should be more than enough size. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you for that. MR. OREUS: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate it. Anything else from the county on this item? MR. JOHN: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. All right. I've got enough information. I appreciate the public comment. I appreciate all the hard work everyone's put into this. Thank you. And I'm going to close this item, and I will get a decision out within 30 days. Thank you. So we're going to 3B now. Guess what? Another dock. It's dock day. MR. KELLY: Again, John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. This is going to be Item 3B. It's a variance petition, No. PL20240009438, and it's a request to have the Hearing Examiner consider a variance from Collier County Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.6, to reduce the required eastern side yard riparian setback of 15 feet to 7.3 feet for an existing cut-in boat slip on the northern property line of a lot with 360 feet of water frontage. Staff notes that the subject property was razed; however, Building Permit No. PRFH20230520199 was issued on August 18, May 8, 2025 Page 21 2023, for a new two-story single-family dwelling. The property comprises .5 acres located at 261 Oak Avenue, also known as Lot 18 and the north half of Lot 17, Block I, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit No. 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida, and it's located within a Residential Single-Family 3 zoning district. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about March 12th, 2025, as per notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and the Clerk's posting were affected by the county on April 17, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by planning staff to the front of the property on April 22, 2025. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03 and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Staff noticed that the cut-in slip is existing and would otherwise be recognized as legal nonconforming if not for the desire to add a lift. The subject property is at the terminal end of a roadway with canal frontage lots on both sides of the road. One phone call was received in response to the property owner notification letter, and the caller requested additional information and has not made further contact with me. Staff also received a letter of objection requesting specific modifications. Said letter is contained within Attachment F. Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition PL20240009438 to reduce the side yard riparian setback from 15 feet to 7.3 feet along the eastern side property riparian line as depicted within the proposed dock plans contained within Attachments A and B subject to the following condition of approval: That being a certificate of completion for the subject dock May 8, 2025 Page 22 facility shall not be issued before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the principal structure on the subject property. That concludes staff's presentation, and Jeff Rogers with Turrell Hall will be speaking. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Will the applicant or applicant's representative come up. MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell Hall & Associates representing the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi, Jeff. Before you get started -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- when was the last time you were at the site? MR. ROGERS: Probable a month ago. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. This sign was also down -- MR. ROGERS: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- as was the -- I think it's Orick doing the construction here? MR. ROGERS: Orick did the seawall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That sign's down as well as it looked like some kind of realty sign. So the signs were down again today. The sign. My -- the sign that I care about, which is the public notice sign, is down. I did notice there was a camera that somebody put up on the pole, so if somebody wanted to look at that camera -- but I think it was on the other lot, the lot to the south -- maybe you'll find out who -- how the sign fell down. It just seems strange that to me two signs, you know, at the same time, are May 8, 2025 Page 23 down. I'm not going to go into the same lecture, but I take due process serious. You know that. So I am going to ask you, given the fact that that sign is down and also given the fact that there are other means of notifying the public of this hearing, do you wish to continue? MR. ROGERS: I do. I do. And the reason I do is because the encroachment is on one of the -- on one side that we're requesting, and that is a gentleman that called me. He did, I know, officially get the notice, and I spoke to him directly about our petition. So I feel confident that not -- maybe not everybody saw it because the sign was down, potentially, but at least the most directly affected party did see it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ROGERS: So I feel comfortable proceeding. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And I know that you-all do the design work, but not the construction work. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So whatever policies and procedures you-all have in place, you may want to talk to your client about periodically going by the property. These are unimproved land, so no one's there on site all the time -- but making sure during this notice period that the signs are actually up. These are yard signs, so they're easy to pick up and knock down. This one was turned over. I don't believe this was done by wind, but who knows. MR. ROGERS: Right. Actually, your other petition, I was talking out there thinking this is something I've never done before or even thought about doing in regards to checking the signs. So I think, moving forward, I will definitely make it something that we start doing to verify the May 8, 2025 Page 24 proper noticing is done. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. It's to your client's benefit -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- because, frankly, it is something that if somebody wanted to appeal, they could say that, you know, we don't know how long the sign was down. But I'm definitely checking them because I want to make sure not only I see the site, but I also want to make sure that the notices are up, you know. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that's exactly why I asked county planners to put in the record that they did everything that they're supposed to do with regard to notice so that it's not on the county. It's on the applicant. MR. ROGERS: And the amount of time, energy, and money spent -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not worth it. MR. ROGERS: -- to get to this point, it's not worth, you know, missing -- the sign not being up for a two-week period, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So we're going forward. MR. ROGERS: Yes, moving forward. As John outlined to you, and I will reiterate, the petitioner is proposing to build a new single-family home on an existing vacant lot located at 261 Oak Avenue in the Vanderbilt Lagoon neighborhood. As on the screen, you can see some existing-condition photos. The seawall has been replaced about, I think, going May 8, 2025 Page 25 on two years now, and the land has been sitting vacant, I believe -- the house was obviously torn town. I think it was directly flooded by Ian. So that property was sold and torn down, demoed. And the applicant is here today, and he's been working on a new house plan and has it done and set. Still vetting builders, but it's proposing to build a new home on the site. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I noticed that there are a few of these in the neighborhood. What do you refer to these as, embayments? How do you refer to them? MR. ROGERS: They're boat slip cut-in -- they're cut-in boat slips -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Cut-ins. MR. ROGERS: -- basically, is what it is. And this one, if you move forward on the slide show, you know -- keep going forward, if you would. I've got some old aerials here for your reference. These were very common back in the early days, right, to obviously build and fit the vessels of the time inside of these cut-ins, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: So -- and a lot of them, historically, would have boathouses, roofs over them as well, as this one did, dating back to 1968, in your top left-hand corner there, you know. So this is a very common thing. There's your boathouse there and the existing position as it is today. The applicant chose not to fill this boat slip in because he wanted to utilize it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I would think they're priceless. MR. ROGERS: They are. I mean, historically, it's been a difficult thing to get the state and the federal May 8, 2025 Page 26 government to allow these. The county code will allow it locally, but, you know, you've got to deal with three agencies before, you know, you can actually construct something. So -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Does that include me, too? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, you're the fourth. Well, you're part of the county. So it is valuable to the landowners to keep these if the site allows the area for these new homes to be built on as well. In this case, this is a larger property, based on the location, than some other common in this area, right? Being at the terminus end of Oak Avenue. I know the property immediately to our south also is very similar. If you looked on an aerial -- I don't know if you did or not -- but it has the same cut-in basically in the same location that, as it sits today, encroaches into the required setback of Collier County for the amount of shoreline the subject property has if a dock were to be built there at any time within that basin. So moving forward, go through a couple more aerials. As you can see, here's a 2009, and then 2015 here. The boathouse is still there. The house still remains, so -- it's been there for decades. And the boathouse has been removed. The roof has been removed, so it is, as you saw in those earlier pictures, a more wide open-area now. So the applicant is, like I said, getting ready to construct a new home here in the near future, and part of that is to ultimately build the new dock. And with that dock, we -- working with him, we decided to try to utilize that cut-in. And as I stated, the cut-in dimensions, built May 8, 2025 Page 27 historically, are much smaller per -- as you know, the building industry has changed, right? So vessels are getting much bigger. So if this were being built today, the depth of it would have been a lot more to encompass the whole vessel. In this case, the applicant is proposing to moor/store a 36-foot vessel in there with the dock mostly built within it. The vessel, you know, totally being built within it. It's just the vessel extending out past. Let's move forward so I can give more visuals. There it is without the -- it's a current aerial as of today. Well, not today, but last year. So the cut-in is -- seawall's all been done, redone. The cut-in's wide open now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the other dock got removed, right? MR. ROGERS: Yep, the dock has been removed as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Probably by the storm. MR. ROGERS: Yep. Yeah. So it's a vacant lot, currently, as you saw. It's basically ready for construction. Moving forward. So working with the applicant, he has a very unique property, and he and I worked on this and had to take in numerous codes locally. We're showing you the full picture here, just to be open with you and have the conversation. This is fully permitted, state and federal. The dock is within the allowed 20 feet from the property line, which is the most restrictive point here. I'm getting into the boat dock extension criteria a little bit. But just going over the design restraints that we follow. May 8, 2025 Page 28 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So all of this is legal? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so are we focusing on this area? MR. ROGERS: Next slide, if you would, zooms in on where the encroachment to the side-yard setback is. So if you see, the dock is shown in brown. And that is the outlining -- going around the cut-in, basically with the boatlift in the middle, and everything is contained just on the face of the seawall, let's call it. All the piles, all the decking. Nothing really extending out into the setback other than six inches of those piles and the vessel itself. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is the seawall that cuts in? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's measured 7.3 from the outside of the seawall or -- MR. ROGERS: Basically -- no. It's -- the deck will be built over top the seawall, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. MR. ROGERS: So it's a smooth transition from the backyard right onto the deck, and no step up or anything. But it's -- the encroachment -- I went back and forth with county staff on this because I was originally showing the encroachment to the vessel, because that's really the part that's out over the water, but they reeled me in and said, "Let's go with the 7.3." I kind of made the argument, "That's over land." It's -- you know, I -- so here we are, and we're settling on the 7.3 encroachment, which is -- you know, it does encroach into the setback, but it's a gray area in regards to a dock, right, and the structure? That was my May 8, 2025 Page 29 argument. I'm happy with it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a question, though. I'm trying to think of my jurisdiction here. MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the entire wraparound thing my jurisdiction, or are we just talking about -- MR. ROGERS: Just this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- this area? MR. ROGERS: Just that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ROGERS: But speaking with John and staff, we wanted to show -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I appreciate that MR. ROGERS: -- what was permitted to you – HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: -- so that you understood the dock itself, the whole property. So the encroachment is the 7.7 feet into the required 15-foot setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: So they would be providing a 7.3-foot setback from the riparian line, but to the edge of the vessel, it's approximately 13 feet. That dimension's not shown, but it is 13 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What about this line? Is this within the 20 feet out? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. If you'd go back a slide for me, if you would. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just wanted to see that. MR. ROGERS: Yep. If you could zoom in in that corner, if May 8, 2025 Page 30 that's possible. Yeah, in that area. I don't know if you can blow that up. So the red line is your property line, platted property line, and it is landward of the seawall/mean high water line significantly. So the protrusion is taken from that point being the most restrictive, and out to the edge of the dock is 20 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROGERS: So that technically is within the allowable code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So what's in front of you today is the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm just dealing with the side -- the side setback? MR. ROGERS: That's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The east side setback. MR. ROGERS: I totally agree, and that's – HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it? MR. ROGERS: That's it. That's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Excessive decking is not part of the variance setback encroachment being proposed. So running through the criteria really quick, of the variance application, A of A through, I think, H. So there's quite a few. I'll go through them quick; get them on the record. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are particular to the location, size, and characterization of the land, structure, or building involved? And in this case what's special on what we took into consideration is the existing cut-in itself. We're repurposing it, reutilizing it for what it was built for back in the '60s; however, the May 8, 2025 Page 31 vessel is much bigger than what was -- it was actually designed for. So we're trying to reutilize that without having to fill it in and get rid of it. So B of the criteria, are there special conditions and circumstances that do not result from the applicant's action such as preexisting relative to the property which are a subject of the variance request? Basically, again, it kind of goes back to the cut-in being there and the fact that the dock does not extend out into the waterway. It's just the vessel itself extending out past the cut-in slip dimensions past the seawall that, you know, is out over the water within the setback that's actually in the water outside the decking that's up over the seawall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you this question: So would -- if your client wanted to -- with the same boat, didn't use the cutout and wanted to build another dock, would that require an extension? MR. ROGERS: It would, based on the water depths along the seawall, or it would require significant dredging. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: We did collect water -- we considered a lot of items here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. MR. ROGERS: And if you -- going back to the big plan -- not that you need to go back. But if we put a vessel on the outside of that marginal portion, it would be inside -- or outside of the 20 feet at that point. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So they're staying within -- to not utilize this slip -- I mean, to utilize this cut-in is actually a benefit by not extending further out into the May 8, 2025 Page 32 waterway. MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Even if you did parallel to the decking, which is at 20 feet, then you would have to have -- you would only have one side of access to the boat and not -- MR. ROGERS: The routine maintenance – HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It creates a couple of different problems. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, yeah. I mean, the property is unique. It does have a lot of shoreline to work with, right? But the fact that the water depths really restricted where we could put it without -- this section is actually state lands. So the last petition that was brought up about state lands and whatnot, part of Vanderbilt Lagoon is a natural waterway, historically. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me -- let me ask that question. Is there slow speed zones in there? Are there people that say, oh, you can't really -- MR. ROGERS: It's an established local no -- minimum speed zone. So you can't -- 20 miles an hour, no, you can't. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I thought. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's 100 percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not very deep at all. MR. ROGERS: No. And my guess is that the difference between now and December/January is the locals actually know the rules of the waterway versus some people that are just visiting might not understand it's a no wake zone, minimum speed and go a little bit faster. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Vacation and renters. May 8, 2025 Page 33 MR. ROGERS: Yeah, things like that come in. Education, basically, is what it is, right? That's my interpretation and understanding of it. But it is established -- from Water Turkey Bay, Wiggins Pass south, it's a no wake minimum speed zone, 100 percent. It could probably use some more policing, though. So moving on to No. C, will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work, cause unnecessary -- code work/cause unnecessary or undue hardship on the applicant or create particular [sic] difficulties for the application? If he's not granted this, then, like I just mentioned, then we would be thrown into the boat dock petition. So either way, we're going to be asking for some sort of variance. And our opinion was this was the least impactive to the waterway, to the neighborhood. It's an existing, you know, cut-in that we're just trying to repurpose. So we chose to present the encroachment on the side-yard setback based on that. D of the criteria, will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure and which promotes standards of health, safety, and welfare? Yes. Basically, we've kept everything in regards to the dock itself landward. We're right at the mean high water line, other than within the cut-in itself. So the protrusion out into the setback moor is just really the vessel in regards to the overwater portion of it. E, will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? And basically, I mean, this is allowing us to encroach into a side- yard setback. So I mean, yes, I mean a variance is a privilege to have. May 8, 2025 Page 34 It's not -- you're not going to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not a right. MR. ROGERS: No guarantee. It's not a right that you're going to get this. But again, we felt this was the least impact active variance to ask for versus the protrusion out into the waterway. F, will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code and not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Again, I keep going back to this, but this has been an existing cut-in for years, and boating -- this is a boating community. We're just trying to repurpose an existing historical structure for today's, you know, standards, I guess, in regards to vessels. So that one we feel like we meet as well. G, are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that eliminate the goals and objectives of the regulations such as natural preserve/lakes? Not in this case. This is a natural waterway, like I said. So technically a 25 -- 25-foot setbacks are required on our south side but looking at the map -- this is where I got into it with DEP, the state. The portion of this where the boat is -- the slip is is actually manmade. It was uplands, so I had to work with them on historical aerials to show this actually -- this side does not require the 25-foot setback where on the other side we are required to have the 25-foot setback. So if I was to have an encroachment into a setback with the state, a setback waiver would have been signed by the neighbor immediately to our east. But because it wasn't, we're not encroaching into their setback. H, the final one, will granting the variance be consistent with the May 8, 2025 Page 35 Growth Management Plan? Yes, it will. This is a, you know, single- family. It's proposing a boat slip, and it should not affect anything in regards to the Growth Management Plan within the area. So that's it in a nutshell. We're asking for an encroachment of 7 - - you know, 7.3 feet -- well, a setback of 7.3 feet into the required 15- foot setback. Again, I want to stress that is for the dock itself and not the vessel that will be out into the waterway, which is about 13 foot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good job MR. ROGERS: So overall, it's least impactive. Happy to answer any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. I have one question. Part of this criteria has to do with water depths and that kind of thing, you know, water depth and the vessel, whether it can be built in a certain area. These -- I imagine that these -- this area was dredged and filled, what, in the '60s, to create these? MR. ROGERS: To my knowledge, it was the late '50s, early '60s. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? Okay. MR. ROGERS: Okay. I'll bring in historic aerials for you sometime. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'd love to see them. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But my question is more to this. Like, over time I would imagine that these canals and some of these areas, and even maybe that cutout, you know, silts in with sand, right, as the turbulence occur. Whose responsibility is it to maintain those waterways? MR. ROGERS: The applicant or the landowner of behind -- right behind your house. Like, if the owner of this case, Steve, if he May 8, 2025 Page 36 wanted to dredge that cut-in to get deeper, it's on him, you know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What about -- what about the -- like, in the canal area and all that where people share that area, is everybody individually required to -- MR. ROGERS: No. I mean, if it's for -- maintaining safe navigation of a waterway, it's up to the local municipality. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Unless it's, like, a federal channel, then it's on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain it. Like Gordon's Pass, right, of Naples, that's a federal channel. Naples Bay is a federal channel. So the Army Corps is on the hook to maintain that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But anything outside of that is a local -- state or local requirement to maintain, ensure -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- navigation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I guess it all travels back to when the land was platted, and the platted -- the platting part had to do with the dredge and fill because you plat the lots, but you also indicate where the right-of- ways are as well as the canals. So then the county would know that there are waterways being created here that have to be maintained by somebody similar to what the right-of- ways are, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct, correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the logic? MR. ROGERS: Yep. I believe the county pays for the dredging of Wiggins Pass. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know they do that. MR. ROGERS: Right? May 8, 2025 Page 37 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know the pass is dredged. MR. ROGERS: So -- and that's -- that's -- I mean, who can make the argument it's not state land; you know what I mean? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: So that's where it gets a little gray area. But yes, it's up to a local municipality or the state or the feds just based on history. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. The reason I ask is -- and we've had this conversation before -- bigger and larger boats are on the -- on the rise. And I just worry about that as, you know, the decades go by, this area, especially with the storms coming in, it does change -- it certainly changes the Wiggins Pass quite a bit. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But it seems like this area would be, you know, losing its water depth, but then you have -- you know, you have water -- you have sea level rise, I guess -- MR. ROGERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- to some people, so that might help to some extent. Maybe not. I don't know. MR. ROGERS: Well, also -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a bigger discussion for that. I'm just curious about the -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Water Turkey Bay is your way out of here, too, right? That's when you get, like, north of the Dunes and the Bluebill bridge, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: That was recently dredged, too, I believe, by the county. May 8, 2025 Page 38 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And that is a natural waterway that is considered state lands. I did the Dunes docks. That's why I know all this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And that -- but the county did pay for that. They formed a local taxing district, I believe, and the residents paid for it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A special taxing district. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So when John gets up, it means he has something important to say. MR. KELLY: Yes. If I could please get Attachment F, the last page of that, to be put on the projector. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: See how he commands the room. MR. KELLY: Again, I just wanted to address the neighbor's concerns if we could. He had three asks, and I wanted to see, for your benefit, if any of those could be satisfied. They'll be on the prompter in a second. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Jeff, are you aware of these? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Yes, sir. I did speak to the applicant. I forget his name off the top of my head. But I spoke to him on the phone and discussed his -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's the neighbor here, right? MR. ROGERS: Yes. His concerns were elevation of the pilings. He's mostly worried about his view of the waterway. And, you know, he wants no cover over the -- over the boat, the cut-in, right? And he's May 8, 2025 Page 39 asked if we could keep the pilings at a certain elevation and then keep the landscaping at a certain elevation to maintain his view. And, you know, I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, the canopy is not -- you're not asking for -- MR. ROGERS: We're not asking for a canopy, but I don't want to give up the rights to potentially do that one day. I don't want to do that on my client's behalf. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. ROGERS: But he might be able to speak to that if you want to. But ultimately, there was historically one here forever. It was ripped down after -- I'm not sure when. I'm assuming demo of the house. But the elevation of the piles, I think, is a -- is an okay ask other than the potential of limiting the applicant of raising the boat higher during storm surges, because, you know, there's nowhere to put boats on the uplands anymore. You know, people like to just raise the boats up during a storm and ensure its safety through a surge. So number -- that pertains to No. 2. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just want to make clear that this is probably a typo, right? It's not -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's Oak Avenue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I don't know if this individual's going to speak or not, but we'll go ahead and -- MR. ROGERS: No. He said he's not going to be here. He just wanted to submit this. Because the variance application process -- just so you know, us, as the agents, sends out letters; the applicant sends out letters. It's a little different than the boat dock extension request. So we sent out letters with them to call me, and my email on it, so he did, and also May 8, 2025 Page 40 sent the letter to John requesting the same three items, and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this No. 2 one is -- help me understand that one. The boatlift will not -- MR. ROGERS: So I didn't realize he was going to use my education of him of what we typically spec against me a little bit. So I told him the standard boatlift piles are, you know, six-six above deck, 6 feet, 6 inches above deck. It will allow the most average common size person to walk underneath the I beams to get onto the boat without hitting their head. And on top of that, you have the I beam, like I just said, of a boatlift that is, let's say, 12 inches high additional, getting you up to that 7.5 elevation. So there is no limitation per code on pile heights here in Collier County. So that would be a special ask, especially not knowing what the applicant would want to do with his vessel during a surge. But I just said to Matthew, the typical elevation is this, and he then pull it on paper. So talking to John when this letter came out, you know, I told him I'm not going to guarantee I'm going to, you know, say yes to all this. I would have to consult with the applicant. There's already a giant hedge there blocking the view, and your view is technically within your riparian rights. You know, we can get into the weeds here of this, but there's no insurance that somebody can build one day on a vacant lot and your view changes, basically, is an easy way to think about it. But -- so your view's not guaranteed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You know my position on view issues. MR. ROGERS: I do. That's why I don't want to open this can. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I don't think -- when they're talking about the riparian view, I think they're May 8, 2025 Page 41 talking about their view. MR. ROGERS: Their view. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And their view would be kind of out either direction. MR. ROGERS: Luckily the variance doesn't reference riparian views or riparian rights. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. MR. ROGERS: So that's -- you know, I didn't tell this gentleman that. But I get what he's saying. There is currently a hedge there with significant height. I think it's 10-foot or -- yeah, it's 10 to 12 feet tall currently, so it's not like he's seeing over that. But a vessel -- typical vessels have some sort of top, T top, canopy tops. And when you raise it up on the lift, that goes higher, right? So there are obstructions above that hedge that you would potentially see. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's see if there's any other public comment. Anybody else? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, we do have Matthew Palumbo. Mike, if you want to tell him to unmute himself. He's not responding. He's not responding. I tried to text him and chat with him in Zoom. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So they're not responding? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. Anybody else signed up? MR. SUMMERS: That's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just that. Okay. What was their name? MR. SUMMERS: It was another Palumbo. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it's related to this individual? Okay. May 8, 2025 Page 42 MR. SUMMERS: Yeah, it was Matthew -- David Palumbo, but he's not online. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, fine. All right. We'll close the public hearing. With regard to those three conditions, what is your final decision on those three? One was about the canopy. MR. ROGERS: Right. If you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're -- I agree with you, you don't want to waive that away, but you're not here asking for one right now either. MR. ROGERS: No, no. And if we did, I don't believe we would come in front of you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I don't think so. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it would just be an application, unless we ask for a deviation, which we wouldn't be. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not sure. If that's part of the setback, but anyway. Second part was the height of the lift, the maximum height of the lift, the seven and a half. MR. ROGERS: I think it’s okay, but I know -- I did speak to the applicant before -- he's here. You know, maybe I'd like him to talk about that if he's okay with that. I don't want to speak for him. But it is a common elevation. But if he wants to -- storm surge and not having anywhere to take the boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, what if we had it that during normal -- normal operational times it's no higher than seven and a half feet, but during -- in order to protect the property and safety, it can go above that? May 8, 2025 Page 43 MR. ROGERS: I think if we -- if you let me take the piling up to seven and a half, put in the lift -- the lift on top of it up to eight and a half, that would give me the extra foot of elevation. I would feel more comfortable doing that, because anything higher than that, we're -- it's impractical with the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROGERS: -- top heaviness of the structure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So if you limit to the pile height of seven and a half, I would agree to that 100 percent. The pile height, not -- I forget how he worded it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You said eight and a half, eight and a half. You want the pile -- MR. ROGERS: The pile, that's limited to seven and a half with the lift on top would then be eight and a half height overall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So if you limited me to eight and a half overall height, I'd be cool with that, put it that way. I'd be good with that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: And the hedge, I would assume there's going to be some sort of landscaping buffer between them anyway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. So can you just get some -- you want to have your client -- I just want to -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Come on up and put your name on the record. MR. ROGERS: He filled out a form to speak. I didn't turn it in, but I've got it here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just want to wrap this up. Name and address. May 8, 2025 Page 44 MR. TALLIDES: Hi. Thank you for having me. Steve Tallides, 594 104th Avenue, Naples, Florida. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. TALLIDES: So the question you had about the height -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. TALLIDES: -- I'm never going to put the boat up there. That's just in case, God forbid, a storm. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, of course. MR. TALLIDES: The boat's always going to be low. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, okay. MR. TALLIDES: You know, that's -- yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And then the landscaping hedge -- MR. TALLIDES: Of course I'm going to landscape. But right now -- I believe there's 11-foot right now that's right there on the border. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you'll maintain that? MR. TALLIDES: Oh, absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You'll maintain that or equivalent to that? MR. TALLIDES: Absolutely, or higher. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you, sir. MR. TALLIDES: Thank you, sir. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else, Jeff? MR. ROGERS: That's it. Thank you, guys, as always. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else from the county? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, May 8, 2025 Page 45 John. All right. I think I have enough information to make a decision on this. I'll get one out as quickly as I can. Thanks for being here, everybody. Nice job. I appreciate it. Have a wonderful day. I think we're done, right? We're done with everything? Next meeting is? MR. BOSI: Next meeting is the 22nd, and it begins at 1 o'clock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One o'clock. We're switching to 1. Everyone be aware, we're switching to 1, and also be aware that I do do site visits, so let's keep those signs up. Have a great day, everyone. We're adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 3:13p.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on __5/23/25___, 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.