Loading...
HEX Minutes 06/12/2025June 12, 2025 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida, June 12, 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 1:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Sean Sammon, Planner III John Kelly, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I June 12, 2025 Page 2 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name's Andrew Dickman. This is the Hearing Examiner -- Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting, June 12th, 2025. Thank you all for being here. On the agenda today we are going to start -- if you would join me with the Pledge of Allegiance, I would appreciate it. Thank you. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All righty. Thank you. Once again, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a board certified attorney. I've been practicing for well over 20 years now in the area of local government, land use, environmental law. I'm not a county employee. I was hired as a contractor to fulfill the Hearing Examiner duties that are prescribed in the Code of Ordinances. My job is to conduct these meetings, which are referred to as quasi-judicial hearings, and to conduct these hearings on whatever petition is on the agenda and to make sure that all the testimony is captured from the county, from the applicant, from the public, and then I will render a written decision within 30 days. I do not render decisions here today. I will basically be trying to get as much additional information as I can here today. I have read all of the applications, the packets, the backup documentation that's all available online to everyone. As far as disclosures, I will tell you that I do visit the sites. I do go by the sites to make sure -- just, one, to June 12, 2025 Page 3 familiarize myself with the area and also to ensure that the signs are up when they're required to be up. I do not have any conversations with -- any substantive conversations with staff about any of the applications. I do not have any substantive conversations with any of the applicants about these things. I have -- I do my very, very best to be here as a neutral decision-maker so that I can conduct these hearings and have the confidence from the public and everyone else that after I render these decisions, that there hasn't been anything that is -- has not been fully disclosed. As I said, that -- my background as an attorney and working specifically in land use and zoning, I'm very aware of the laws that are related to each petition. Each petition has their own unique criteria that are set out in the code, which leads me to what I'm looking for here today. Today -- the kinds of testimony that I'm looking for today is things that are relevant and germane to the criteria that is listed in the code for approval and review of whatever the petition is. Whether you're for or against it, that's what I'm looking for. As far as the public goes, this is a hybrid meeting, which means that the county has set up a really nice system where we have speakers who are here -- you can speak in public, or they may be able to attend via Zoom, and that's worked out pretty well in the past. If you are going to be speaking here today, I do need you to fill out a speakers card and provide it to staff over here. June 12, 2025 Page 4 And then once we get started, before we wrap this part up, I will ask anybody that is going to testify in front of me today to -- they have to do so under oath, and I'll ask our court reporter to administer the oath in a second. Mentioning our court reporter, the county provides a court reporter to take verbatim transcripts of the hearing. So I do my best to speak as clearly and not talk over anyone to make sure that everything is captured. So I'm going to ask everyone to do the same thing; speak up. When you come to the microphone, state your name and who you are and your address so that that's all captured in the record. I will tell you that I have frequently gone back and looked at the transcript just to refresh my memory on a certain topic. So it's really helpful to have these transcripts verbatim and accurate, and we have a really, really talented court reporter here, fortunately. And if there is an issue where she can't hear or understand someone, she'll just stop the meeting. And she has that authority, my authorization to do that because I so -- I believe so strongly in having that transcript for the future. So with that, I will -- the process that we're going to follow is that the county will come up here to this middle podium and introduce the item -- we have a couple of them -- four, I think; four or five on the agenda -- and give an overview of their staff report, which is going to be part of the record, part of the expert testimony that I need. They're going to describe any conditions, any recommendations they may have. They're going to talk about the notices that were June 12, 2025 Page 5 sent out. And then we'll have the applicant or the applicant's representative at the podium that's over here next to the court reporter, and then they'll put on their case in chief. After that, we will open it up for public comment. We'll go through the public comment period. If you haven't spoken publicly or if you have and you're nervous like I am all the time, nervous about speaking publicly, please don't. This is an informal -- although it seems formal and it's set up, it has to be done that way. But I want everyone to relax and just get whatever information out onto the record that you need to get out. Relax. There's no -- no judgments here about anything. Let's just keep it civil. If we -- that's the one thing I do ask. So with that, we'll go ahead and swear in everyone. Anyone who's going to testify here today on any of the items -- on any of the items that are on the agenda, please stand, raise your right hand, and the 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 very much. I believe I've covered everything. As far as the microphones go, when the light is green, it means your microphone's on. When it's red, it means that it's not on. June 12, 2025 Page 6 So with that, we'll get started with the first one. I think it's 3A. One second. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I just spoke with Ailyn, and I guess currently there is a technical issue with our Zoom link where they can't hear and we can't hear them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why don't we take a five-minute recess. MR. BOSI: If she has a five-minute recess, she may be able to reset it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. That's very important. I want to get that set up. As I said, the hybrid part is important. So we'll take a five-minute recess. Come back at 1:15. Thank you. We're in recess. (A recess was had from 1:10 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We're going to call the meeting back to order. Again, for the record my name is Andrew Dickman. I am the Collier County Hearing Examiner. I just want to introduce also -- the county staff is to my right, Mr. Bosi, Mr. Bellows, and we've got -- which planner? Sean. MR. BOSI: Sammon. MR. SAMMON: Sammon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sammon, okay, yes. That's the rotating chair depending on which -- which planner gets to come in. So hopefully we have got the tech issues worked out. We are going to get started with the first item, which is Item 3A on the agenda. June 12, 2025 Page 7 MR. BOSI: Swear in? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did everyone get sworn in? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I thought we did all that. We can swear everybody again. Double swear. MR. SAMMON: Good to go? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hey, Sean. I think we're good to go. MR. SAMMON: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III in the Zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. It's for a variance, Project No. PL20240014059. This is a request for a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.02.C.2.b to increase the maximum allowed RMF-6 zoned fence height from six feet to eight feet on the north, west, and east property lines for the subject property located at 547 106th Avenue North, also known as west half of Lot 12 and all of Lot 13, Block 76 of the Naples Park Unit 6 subdivision in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03, a through h, and staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with the GMP. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F. The agent letter was distributed by the applicant on Monday, June 12, 2025 Page 8 April 7th, 2025. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by the county staff on Friday, May 23rd, 2025, and then the public hearing signs were placed by county staff on Tuesday, May 27th, 2025. I received no calls for opposition pertaining to this petition; therefore, staff recommends that you approve the variance petition as previously noted -- as previously noted and as depicted within Attachment B of the staff report. This concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me just ask you a quick question, because I know this type of variance came up maybe a couple of months ago, and it has to do with the way that you measure your fences, right? And so if I recall right, the measurement of the fence has to do with standing on the abutting property side and measuring up, and then that would give you -- and so these new builds are actually elevating their property due to flood issues -- MR. SAMMON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and whatnot, and so that's what's causing the 2-foot or whatever -- MR. SAMMON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- differential; is that a correct statement? MR. SAMMON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That's what I thought, because I do remember we had an issue like this a couple months ago where it was the same thing, a new build, and they elevated because the older houses are lower. The newer houses are being -- with some fill -- extra fill on June 12, 2025 Page 9 them to get them higher. MR. SAMMON: Right, for the flood elevation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The new flood elevations, yeah. The new maps are out, so there's no criteria, yes. Understood. MR. SAMMON: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. SAMMON: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the applicant here? MR. REGNER: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Come on up, sir. Use this microphone here, and your name and -- MR. REGNER: Good afternoon. My name's Tom Regner. I'm the owner of the property that we'll be discussing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. REGNER: I'm representing myself here today, but I also have Pete Torres with me. Pete is the general -- MR. TORRES: Pete Torres. I'm the general contractor, Premium Finishes, Inc. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Pete Torres, general contractor. MR. TORRES: I've been building in Naples for over 20 years. MR. REGNER: And to the extent we have construction or engineering questions, Pete will be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. June 12, 2025 Page 10 MR. REGNER: How do I switch the slide? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You just say, "Switch slides." MR. REGNER: Okay. Switch slides, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That part's not high tech yet. MR. REGNER: Good. This is just a reiteration of Sean's comments of looking for an increase in the height -- fence height from six to eight feet on three sides of the property, north, west, and east, and we'll go into the reasons for that and details behind it. Switch slides, please. The property is in Naples Park. If you're not familiar with Naples Park, it's an area of a little over one square mile, a little more than 3,000 homes, a mix of single-families and duplexes bordered to the east by Tamiami Trail, to the west by Vanderbilt Drive, 111th Avenue North to the north, and 91st Street North to the south. Switch slides -- and you can see the circle there on my property. Here is a zoom-in. This is a recent aerial photo. In yellow is my house as it's under construction. To the left or west of my house is another house that's under construction, to the east is a house that was built in 2019, and to the north that is a vacant lot that takes up the entire property line of my house that's under construction. I should note that Naples Park has no governing HOA, so we aren't beholden to any rules of an HOA, just really to the county criteria for building, zoning, et cetera. June 12, 2025 Page 11 Switch, please. In summary, I purchased the property in February of last year. It includes -- it included a duplex on a 75-foot-wide lot that was built in 1968. Seventy-five feet is an oversized lot for Naples Park. The standard size there is 50, but there are some 75s and some 100s mixed in. My intention in building -- in buying this property was to demolish the duplex and build a new home. The demolition was completed in July of last year, and construction began in August of last year. Please. The issue -- and I think Mr. Dickman kind of explained this in referencing a previous presentation -- is that the 1968 home was on a slab that had an elevation of 10.8 feet, which was approximately five inches above the elevation of the crest of the road. Other points on the property were as low as nine feet, and during major storms, there was significant water on the property and requirements to do sandbagging of that duplex. The current code requires the slab of a new house to be a minimum of 18 inches above the crest of the road -- as I said a moment ago, the duplex was five inches above -- or approximately 12 feet for this new construction. The slab, as it's been laid, is actually 12.4 feet, so it's a few inches higher than the requirement. The new house slab is -- elevation is approximately 19 inches higher than the elevation of the previous slab, and this required significant fill to be brought into the property to allow for that raising and for meeting code. June 12, 2025 Page 12 The major issue here is also -- again, is that the current code only allows for a 6-foot fence from original grade. And given the significantly higher elevation of the new slab and lanai, very little privacy is afforded to the neighbors as well as to myself. I have some photos here that I'd like to share. Please. To the north of the property is that 100-foot vacant lot. It's actually on 107th Avenue North. This is the rear of my property. The property was purchased in 2022, and I believe the owner has an intention of, in the near future, submitting some plans for building a new home on it. I took some photos of a friend who went back both on that property as well as on the pavement of 107th. Here is -- she's standing in the center of that lot behind my home, and what you see in the foreground there is -- well, first of all, I'm standing on the lanai of the new home, and that fence that you're seeing was from the preexisting home. So the top of that fence is six feet high and, obviously, if I were to go with what's allowed by code with another 6-foot fence, it doesn't afford much privacy and, actually, the top of that 6-foot fence is only about three and a half feet above the level of the lanai, so it's obviously very visible. And here she walked back and is actually standing on 107th Avenue North. And obviously, you can see her in her entirety as well as the house across the street. I should also say that on that previous picture where you could see her from waist up, once the house is built there and that lanai is at a higher elevation, she would be, June 12, 2025 Page 13 you know, quite visible. After these pictures, she, in turn, took a couple of photos of me from standing behind the lot. And obviously, not great pictures, but there's that 6-foot fence again. I'm standing on the lanai. You can see I'm about chest-high visible. So a lot of lack of privacy. To the west is a 100-foot-wide lot with a new house under construction. There was an old existing house there, probably also from the 1960s, that was torn down, and they are building new. The builder there opted to put only the 6-foot fence -- 6-foot-high fence along the backyard. And if you take a look at the pictures, again, my friend -- I'm standing on the lanai of my new house. She's standing on the lanai of that new house. And obviously, that's the 6-foot fence that the builder put up, and she's got a lot of visibility here. Three pictures of her from my vantage point on my lanai to her on that lanai. And then also, again, she took a picture back at me from that lot. Switch, please. So you could see where she's standing on the lanai that I'm visible as well. So really, looking to -- oh, and then -- then I took -- to the east of this property is a 75-foot-wide lot on 106th built in 2019, and that house has a 6-foot fence built on a 2-foot wood retaining wall. And as you can see, there's no visibility between the properties. And this is, in effect, what I'm looking to accomplish on the north and west sides. One more, please. June 12, 2025 Page 14 And this is another view of that property to the east where there's no visibility between the two properties. So my request is for a variance to increase the maximum allowed fence height from six feet to eight feet on the north, west, and east property lines. The 8-foot height would be accomplished by installing a 6-foot fence on a 2-foot retaining wall, and this would require a minor easement use agreement to be filed with the fence permit since the retaining wall is in a public utility easement. The houses in Naples Park still have telephone poles in the backyard with wires above, and therefore, would -- you know, there could be some say from the utilities using those lines. Next. MR. TORRES: We have "no objection" letters from FP&L. MR. REGNER: Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: He's got to speak on the mic. MR. TORRES: We did obtain the "no objection" letters from FP&L. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I need -- I did want to talk to you, so please put your name and -- name and -- you're the general contractor, right? MR. TORRES: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So name, and take a little -- name and name of your company, a little bit about the work that you've done. I just want to qualify you as an expert. June 12, 2025 Page 15 MR. TORRES: Sure. My name is Pete Torres. I own Premium Finishes, Inc. I've been a builder in Collier County for over 23 years. I've built approximately 65, 68 homes in Naples Park. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MR. TORRES: I'm very familiar, working in hand with some of the guys out there, the inspectors and the flooding, and McKenna and everybody for years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. TORRES: It's been an ongoing issue. Of course, the hurricane threw us all off. Ian changed the game there. Most of the old houses that are going up. Some of the lots are higher than the others. The one house he's talking about, the brand-new house on the left, you can't actually see -- you're not going to have a 2-foot retention, because they're already up about 12. You're actually going to see the two boards in the rear empty lot that's going to be built in the future, and obviously that's going to go up. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. TORRES: You know, so they're going to have to bring in a foot and a half of fill. By the time that happens, basically this wood retention is going to disappear in the dirt, which is the same thing that's happening on the other side, the person to the east. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me ask you a couple questions because -- just because I really want to -- part of the hearing is to get expert -- competent substantial evidence from an expert. No offense to the property owner, but I would like to get some -- for sake of June 12, 2025 Page 16 the record, a little information on the -- MR. TORRES: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- on here. So what we're talking about here is the -- where to measure from now. And so you talk about the crest of the road, right? So that would be, what, the center line of the city's pavement? MR. TORRES: That's for the elevation of the house, the finished floor. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. And so the crest is because the road is slightly -- MR. TORRES: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- peaked so that it would drain off, correct? MR. TORRES: Right. And then we do have a drainage plan for the lot. If there was a -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's something else I wanted to ask you about, too. MR. TORRES: We have all the gutters and downspouts and a grade and swale -- Type 2 drainage plan on the property with the plans that were submitted. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I wanted to ask about. MR. TORRES: So we can retain the water. And it flows out just like -- basically, on 106th, all three homes are going to be reapplying. You're really -- what you're going to notice is the one in the back that hasn't been built yet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. June 12, 2025 Page 17 MR. TORRES: LaGrasta built two on the left side of that, and the two with the metal roofs as you seen on the pictures, this other gentleman is building that one. The other one's fairly new. We went up a foot higher, the Ian code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. TORRES: And it's wood. I mean, it's not a concrete block retention, which is one of the issues that we had last year with not being able to remove a concrete wall or anything like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. And so when you're talking about the slab, just for sake of getting it on the record, we're talking about measurement to the -- if you're standing on the slab, you're talking about the top of the slab. So if the slab is eight inches thick, or whatever it is, you're talking about the top of the slab? MR. TORRES: Yeah. What happens there, to get to that elevation, we have larger footings, and to get there, your garage is allowed to be about six inches, four inches. With the slope, it's going to be six. To the step to get into your house is four inches, but the finished floor for living space has to be a minimum of 18 above that crest of the road. This lot was flooded all the time. The water went backwards in about 10 inches into the lot. So any kind of rain you got in Naples Park, that lot was flooded. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So -- MR. TORRES: That's why we had to tear down that duplex that was there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So -- but for the fact that this is a new build and it has to meet the new June 12, 2025 Page 18 flood requirements and to be safe, flood safe, really, in reality, you're asking, essentially, for the same thing everyone else would get on their property, which would be a 6-foot privacy fence, but the difference is that it has to be -- by code, it's being measured by the previous grade, correct? MR. TORRES: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. TORRES: All the grades on the three properties. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that's fair. That's fair, because either -- I think, like every variance, we have to take it on a case-by-case situation. I know that this neighborhood, like a lot of neighborhoods in Collier County, are going to have meet the new flood criteria, and it's going to create this little bit of -- MR. TORRES: Unfortunately. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- difference between older homes versus new homeowners. And I see -- obviously, I understand the situation of having a -- essentially, a 4-foot fence on this property would really not achieve privacy. It might contain your dog, but it wouldn't really get a lot of privacy, which is what these are. These are privacy fences. And I do appreciate the -- you putting on the record the fact about the stormwater and capturing the stormwater on site so that there's not this idea or fear of having stormwater flooding off onto the neighboring properties, because that's something that people are concerned about. June 12, 2025 Page 19 MR. TORRES: Right. Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Again, I've dealt with this situation in another case. It was the same situation. Some of this stuff is rhetorical. I just want to get it on the record so that it's here. I want to make sure that you, as the general contractor, are putting some of this information on the record. And you've also heard that the county planning staff are recommending approval of this, and I assume that you will adopt -- you're adopting their -- MR. TORRES: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- recommendation, their staff report also, that's correct? MR. TORRES: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. TORRES: I bugged them enough trying to keep up with them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You bugged them enough? They enjoy the interaction. MR. TORRES: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go to public comment. And if there's any questions that come up, you can address those. I'll give you time for rebuttal if necessary. MR. TORRES: Thank you, sir. MR. REGNER: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do we have any public comment on this item? June 12, 2025 Page 20 MS. PADRON: Good afternoon. I have no in-person speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. So there's no -- no speakers, public speakers. You did -- did I see that you said you had some letters of no objection, sir? MR. REGNER: Yes. I did send out the letters to all the property owners within 150 feet, and the county also sent out letters. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. REGNER: I had five inquiries. I walked through the project with all five of those parties to their satisfaction, and I did have three letters of support from neighbors. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for doing that. I appreciate that. Anything else from the county? MR. SAMMON: Yeah. I just want to follow up on that. Sean Sammon, for the record. The letters of support are in Attachment D to the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I wanted to get that on the record; make sure we had that. And I do understand your point about the HOA. It's a voluntary HOA. They do good work in the neighborhood. We appreciate them. But it's not your deed-restricted community situation that you would normally have. All right. Well, this is a pretty straightforward situation. I anticipate the county's going to be faced with June 12, 2025 Page 21 this situation in the future going forward as Naples Park, like a lot of neighborhoods change, from '50s, '60s, '70s built houses to newer build houses. And that's -- you know, we did learn from last year, a lot of this area did flood, and it's better to, you know, meet the flood criteria than not meeting flood criteria. I don't have any other questions. If you have anything else -- I think you-all did a nice job; nice job on the presentation. And I don't have anything else. I will get -- I understand everything, and I will get a decision out as quickly as I can. MR. REGNER: Thank you. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate all the efforts of Ray and Sean and their staff. They're very helpful and supportive. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate you not just throwing a fence up and having to come in after the fact, so thank you for that. MR. TORRES: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Do you have something you want to -- MR. BOSI: Could we have one more -- could we have one more five-minute break? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Absolutely. MR. BOSI: I guess they're still having -- but they think they've reached upon a solution. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we're going to take another five-minute recess and come back shortly before quarter till. (A recess was had from 1:39 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.) June 12, 2025 Page 22 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're going to reconvene. We've partially worked out the Zoom issue. These kinds of hybrid meetings are always tricky sometimes with the technology, depending on how the Internet's working, so forth and so on. But anybody who chooses to participate via Zoom, they also assume the risk of any IT issues, rather than coming here in person. So I don't want to delay this any further, so we're going to go ahead and go forward with all of these. ***So we're going to go to Item 3B. 3B. MR. SAMMON: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Sean Sammon, Planner III, Collier County Zoning services standing in for Tim Finn, Planner III. Before you is Agenda Item 3B. This is a conditional use for One Life Church Naples, Incorporated, pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 and 2.03.02.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code. It's a request to allow an approximate 25,000-square-foot, 400-seat church on lands zoned Estates in a Residential Multifamily Six, RMF-6(3). The subject property, approximately 14.88 acres, is in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Crews Road in Sections 8 and 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out May 23rd, 2025. The hearing advertisements and June 12, 2025 Page 23 property signs were constructed at the property by the applicant per the affidavit of posting notice included in Attachment E of the backup materials. That concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Good afternoon. MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Patrick Murray, for the record, RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're with RVi Planning and -- Planning and Landscape Architecture? MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I had trouble hearing you, sorry. MR. MURRAY: I'll try again. For the record, Patrick Murray, RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. Thank you. Can you give me a little -- I don't believe I've met you or had you before. MR. MURRAY: No, certainly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you can give me a little bit of your background so I can qualify you. MR. MURRAY: Certainly. I've been working with RVi Planning for approximately four years. I'm ASE certified -- AICP certified. I brought a zoning variance to yourself -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. June 12, 2025 Page 24 MR. MURRAY: -- within the past year. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And how long have you been practicing? It must be at least four years to get your AICP. MR. MURRAY: Correct. So I've been in the planning field for approximately six to seven years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Great. I see you as a -- I qualify you as an expert. Thank you. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. We do have a presentation, if you can bring that up. In the meantime, I do want to thank your staff. Mr. Finn has been very responsive and very helpful through this process. So thank you, Tim. This is a conditional use request to allow for a church within the Estates and Residential Multifamily zoning district. Our project team includes Pastor Randy Holdman and Brooks Witcher, and then myself from RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture. The property is a three-parcel assemblage located south of Crews Road, north of Whitaker Road, and west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Again, the property zoning is split between Estate and Residential Multifamily and includes three different future land-use categories to include urban rural, urban residential, and urban mixed use. Next slide, please. Surrounding properties include Falling Waters PUD to the north, Santa Barbara Boulevard to the east, further east is June 12, 2025 Page 25 Christ King Presbyterian Church, and south is Whitaker Woods multifamily development, and then immediately to the west is undeveloped property. According to the environmental report as well as noted in the staff report, the property does not contain any native vegetation. Next slide, please. The general request is to allow for a 400-seat church within the Estate district and Residential Multifamily district with specific conditions. This includes one principal structure not to exceed 25,000 square feet limited to specific days of the week and the hours of operation. It prohibits schools and daycares and also requires traffic control enforcement to be provided during services. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MURRAY: Next slide. This is the general site plan. Outlined in blue is the property boundary, the 14.8 acres. Primary access will be located to the north along Crews Road with a secondary access on the south towards Whitaker Road. There's a 15-foot buffer to the east and west with a 10-foot buffer to the north and south. I'd also note that there is a 15-foot setback along Crews Road and Santa Barbara right-of-way. Parking to accommodate 400 seats, and offsite improvements will be provided for Crews Road along the property boundary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can I ask you a quick question? So there's no access off of Santa Barbara; is that correct? June 12, 2025 Page 26 MR. MURRAY: Correct, correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then -- so you have a lot of property coming off of Whitaker, and then you've got quite a bit of property off of Crews, and that property's just going to, for now, remain vacant, and -- MR. MURRAY: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- maintained? MR. MURRAY: Yes. So that will account for approximately 11 acres of open space at the site. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. MURRAY: And then the development itself will contain about four acres. And the reason that it comes off of Crews Road and Whitaker Road is that there's the Santa Barbara Canal that separates the property and Santa Barbara Boulevard itself. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Got you. And so turning in, you will be making -- it will be a left -- left turn -- I think it has decel lanes there, right, to turn left off of -- MR. MURRAY: Yes. It will be brought up to county standards. Right now Crews Road is not adequate to handle that and will be required to. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I didn't mean to jump ahead of your presentation, sorry. MR. MURRAY: No, by all means. Next slide, please. This is a more zoomed-in version of the site plan specifically outlining the development area out behind. In pink is the actual structure itself and then the 252 parking June 12, 2025 Page 27 spaces. You'll notice that the primary access will be off of Crews Road. If you orientate yourself, to the left is north. And then the secondary access will be located to the south on Whitaker Road. I also want to note that -- the 75-foot setbacks from Crews Road and then also the Santa Barbara right-of-way. Next slide, please. The conditional-use criteria includes safe access. There are two points of ingress and egress to the site: One from Crews Road, the second one from Whitaker Road. Offsite infrastructure and improvements will be required along Crews Road. Traffic control enforcement will also be provided during church services. The site is designed to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties. Primarily the activities will be conducted within the building. Outdoor lighting will be designed to reduce any light spillage. And traditionally, churches are known not to reduce any property values or emit obnoxious [sic] odors. As for compatibility with adjacent properties, the building setbacks and landscape buffers meet or exceed Land Development Code requirements. Similar uses are found along Santa Barbara. And the site does include 11 acres of open space, which is approximately 72 percent of the site. Next slide, please. To conclude, the conditions include one primary structure limited to 25,000 square feet with a maximum of June 12, 2025 Page 28 400 seats. Limited hours include 8 a.m. -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you that real quick, because, I mean -- so I'm looking at the conditions that are on -- in the staff report. And I don't know if this should be directed to you or to staff, or maybe we need to look do this. But Condition No. 2 in the staff report says, "Limited to 400 seats with up to 300 members." And I'm just wondering whether you can actually make that a condition of how many members they can have rather than just, like, conditioning it to the actual space. Do you know what I mean? Because someone could be a member and not really go to church. I mean, people do that. I don't know. MR. BOSI: And the -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The traditional way we do is not members; it's just seats. Three [sic] hundred seats is what the church is. They can have more members than the seats. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. BOSI: It's the seats that dictate the impact that the facility is going to have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct. So, argumentatively, let's say they have 600 members but only 50 percent of them actually attend or they alternate on different days, things like that. So I'm just wondering -- maybe we'll put a pause on that, and that's something -- you might want to, like, just check with the County Attorney on that. But I'm just questioning it as a condition if it's even possible to condition June 12, 2025 Page 29 that. MR. BOSI: Most certainly. It's -- and we'll explore that with the County Attorney's Office. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Because I think it's logical to do it by seats. That's the typical way. That's what generates your parking and everything, right? MR. BOSI: Well, I know most of the churches have more than one service, so not everybody goes to the same service. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct. MR. BOSI: So it's the seats that regulates the intensity, not the membership. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Do you have anything to add to this? MR. MURRAY: I don't, but I do have Pastor Randy here who may be able to shed some light on -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The only reason I'm bringing it up is you didn't put it on your condition list, the 400 -- MR. MURRAY: The 300 members -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. MURRAY: -- of the 400 seats? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. MURRAY: Yeah. And my understanding, that there is a certain amount of congregation currently, and then the 400 seats would allow for additional guests that may occur. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I understand that. June 12, 2025 Page 30 So let's just pass by that. I'll think about it. As an attorney, that's why it caught my eye. I'm not sure that we can limit you to the -- I mean, you could be a member and not even go to that church. I mean, they may have virtual services. I mean, I don't know. So I think it's really standard -- the standard zoning performance standards are to say how many seats, square footage, things like that. That's what propels you to look at how many park -- what parking you need, things like that. That's the typical way. So I'm just going to put a question mark by that, and I'll look at it later. MR. MURRAY: Certainly. And I can check with Pastor Randy, but I think we'd be more than accommodating to remove the 300 members and just leave it at -- limit it to 400 seats. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, it's not even -- it's hard to enforce, too. Like, what if someone says, "Oh, they've got more than 300 members" -- and I just don't -- the enforceability of it is hard, too, right? So... MR. MURRAY: Certainly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm just bringing it out. I may -- I may strike that and just leave it at the number of seats, and you guys can make sure you stay within the -- you know, within the boundaries of what you're supposed to be doing. MR. MURRAY: Absolutely, absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. MURRAY: To continue, the limited hours, are to be between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. for administrative operations, June 12, 2025 Page 31 and then on Sundays there will be morning services and then allow for additional groups up until 9 p.m. Limited to two functions on Sunday services with one youth group function per week. Childcare will be limited only to Sunday services and those members of the church. Improvements to Crews Road will be required, and traffic control enforcement will be provided during services. The applicant is in agreement with all conditions, and staff recommends approval for the conditional use subject to the conditions noted above. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So -- and I don't want to -- I don't want to seem argumentative or anything with anybody, but I'm very familiar with the federal RLUIPA law, and I'm concerned about also identifying a youth group function. I think -- typically I see things looking at, like, is there a school or not a school. Is there -- you know, because what if it's a men's Bible study? I mean, who cares? As long as the space is being used accurately and correctly, why call it a youth group? What if they changed it to youth and adults? I just get concerned that we're getting in the weeds on some things that are hard to enforce when we're really concerned about the -- so the reason it's a conditional use is because it might be appropriate in this location if certain conditions are enforced, and so those conditions have to be tied to trying to ameliorate any adverse impacts to the adjacent area, whether it's traffic or things like that. And I get concerned about -- because, ultimately, I'm going to have to draft a decision on this, and I don't want June 12, 2025 Page 32 somebody looking at this and saying, "Okay. You've got -- you capped the number of memberships," and then you've said that they can only have a youth group, but what if they want to do a Bible study? And then it's not youth anymore. You know what I'm saying? I'm getting a little worried about that. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The genesis behind that has a long history that I don't want to get into. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: But I would say that what -- the reason why staff asked for the activities that are going to be happening at the church is to understand the frequency and the intensity, and that frequency and that intensity has very much to do with how we make a determination as to what are the conditions and what is the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- effect upon the existing environment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: So I agree that the specificity probably doesn't need to be just the number of activities -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- and how we classify it. So we'll -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. As an attorney, I know how to word these types of conditions. So I'm just letting you -- I'm alerting you to -- you know, I suspect that maybe some of this was driven by what the church plans on doing. And they gave you this agenda of June 12, 2025 Page 33 things that they want to do, and nobody really thought about, well, we've got to be careful with the RLUIPA laws and things like that that have to do with religious land use and not trying to get into first amendment problems and so forth and so on. MR. BOSI: I understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I'm just alerting you that I may reword some of these conditions. MR. MURRAY: Certainly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I have a feeling -- am I wrong in that -- or right that the suggestions about the youth group and things like that are just -- because that's what you guys plan on doing, right? MR. MURRAY: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But if I'm going to put it into a legal document, I want to be careful not to cross over into the religious land-use laws that the federal government have passed that are really basically favorable to ensuring that houses of worship and other religious uses -- religious land uses are allowed. And I don't want to go too deep into that because -- I've got a lot of experience with it, but it's a complicated situation. But I may touch up those conditions a little bit just so that they're, one, enforceable, and, two, they don't cross the line. MR. MURRAY: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for your consideration. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MURRAY: And that concludes my presentation. Again, happy to answer any questions. We also have the June 12, 2025 Page 34 construction group here as well and members of the congregation, including Pastor Randy himself. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And one thing I do know about churches, temples, houses of worship, basically, that they evolve. They change. You know, the board of directors come up with new ideas. They want to succeed, and to succeed, they can't be corralled in so much with conditional language. And I understand -- I think the county planners are really just doing exactly what they're supposed to be. They're supposed to be looking at, you know, the intensity and what can we do to offset anything that may be a traffic impact to the neighborhood. That's why it's a conditional use. That's a classic conditional use. It could be per -- it's not permitted as of right. It's not excluded, which would be probably a violation of RLUIPA, but it's a conditional use which is a -- the black letter law on that one is that it may be permissible with certain conditions, and you take it, you know, case by case depending on where it is. So I think they've done a good job with that, but I certainly don't want to think -- have anybody think that I'm criticizing them on this, but just as a lawyer, I've been involved in a couple of these cases, and I want to be very careful with it. So why don't we go to public comment -- MR. MURRAY: Certainly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and see what we've got. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. June 12, 2025 Page 35 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anybody signed up to speak? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. No speakers. Okay. Do you want to rebut that? MR. MURRAY: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think you've said enough. You've done a really, really good job presenting this. Very concise. I've handled a couple of churches while sitting here over the last couple years, so I understand that. And unless the county has any objections, I will, you know, maybe have you-all check in with your lawyer. MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then if there's any issues -- but I -- I have enough information, and I would like to maybe massage the language on these conditions a little bit if, in fact, it is approved and just to make sure that we're not crossing over anything. But if you would, just please check in with your -- the County Attorney's Office on some of these things to make sure -- and mention RLUIPA specifically. MR. BOSI: Will do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. All right. Great. Good job, everyone. Let's move on to the next items. Now, these two, I believe, are companions. Is that correct, or no? These are June 12, 2025 Page 36 separate? MR. BOSI: Separate. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***Sorry. I was thinking -- I think I'm thinking of a different agenda coming up next meeting. Got my agendas all mixed up. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III with the Zoning department. Before you is Agenda Item 3C. It's a boat dock petition, PL20240011350. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 72-foot boat dock extension beyond the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 92 feet into a water that is 2,766 plus-or-minus feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 388 Calusa Drive approximately 90 feet west of Mangrove Lane in Chokoloskee in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida, and it's Property ID No. 26088570002. It's located within a Village Residential (VR) zoning district. The subject property comprises 0.65 acres with 90 feet of shoreline consisting of a mangrove fringe in front of riprap revetment, which was recently improved with a single-family dwelling. The petitioner proposes to construct a 4-foot-wide finger-pier style dock with a 10-foot-by-15-foot terminal June 12, 2025 Page 37 platform with two boat lifts each capable of supporting a 27-foot vessel. The proposed dock will extend 92 feet as measured from the riprap line into a waterway that is approximately 2,766 feet wide. The required 15-foot side riparian line setbacks will be respective on both sides of the dock facility. This petition was reviewed based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 10.03.06.H -- or, I'm sorry. That's the public notice requirements section. And so with respect to that, the property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the county on May 23, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by county staff on May 28th, 2025. Back to the review criteria, they are as contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies four of six with the sixth being not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan, and it has been found to be consistent with both the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. With respect to public comment, I received one phone call when the sign was initially posted at the property, and the caller indicated that they would be present today to speak on the project. I haven't heard anything since. I did send them the hearing agenda or hearing packet when it was published. The applicant's agent provided me with 15 letters of no objection yesterday afternoon, and they were compiled into Attachment E. I've provided a copy to the court reporter and June 12, 2025 Page 38 provided other persons with an email copy last evening. If anyone needs a copy, I have them available. Also staff -- with that, staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment B. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Mike, Ray, I just want to compliment you-all at how much you interact with the community, or your staff does, actually, because I'm just really impressed at the returning of phone calls, the providing information. That's music to my ears because, as you know, one of the three prongs here is due process, and I think giving people that kind of, you know, help, I guess, is really -- it really makes me feel good. So congratulations. That must be a policy that you guys put in place. But I know John always talks about that, and so does Sean, and I appreciate the county does that. MR. BOSI: And I appreciate it. And it's a credit to Ray, our staff, but also Mr. French who runs this -- our administrator. I mean, he's been here. He's always had the greatest attention to customer service, and attention to customers' needs is what he tries to instill upon -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, it's not just the applicant, that's what I'm saying. It's the neighbors, the people that are calling -- MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- because June 12, 2025 Page 39 they're interested. It's not just the applicant that are getting good service. It's people that are concerned about it. So when I hear that you guys are responding to people that see these signs, get their notices, it makes me feel good that the due process arm of this three-pronged chair -- quasi-judicial chair is being satisfied nicely. So thank you. MR. BOSI: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Thank you, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How are you? MR. PEARSON: Good, good. For the record, my name is Nick Pearson. I'm the owner/operator of Bayshore Marine Consulting representing the property owner, Andy Bowman. I guess I'll go through my spiel for the sake of things. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Well, I want to tell you every time I hear the name Bayshore Marine I get hives, because when I was a kid in Tampa, I worked for Bay Marine Construction building docks, and it was the single reason why I decided to go to college, because it was such a hard job. MR. PEARSON: Marine construction is brutal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So to all those marine contractors out there, God bless you. It's not easy. MR. PEARSON: My background. I have a Bachelor of Science in marine biology. I've been a consultant for nearing on 10 years now. I've worked with surveyors, engineers, marine contractors, all kinds of people. So I'm -- I consult for everybody. And in this particular case, this project is at 388 Calusa June 12, 2025 Page 40 Drive on the very southern tip of Chokoloskee, as you can see. So this is a little bit better. You can see just on the southern tip the circle around the applicant's home. That's the recently built single-family home there. And if we could go to the next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just for the sake of -- where is the Smallwood house? Is it still there? MR. PEARSON: If we back up, I can point that out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I went out there, and I was trying to -- MR. PEARSON: So next -- directly next door is a house, and then across that kind of wooded area to the west is that building along the shore. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In here, right here? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: They own that and I believe all of that -- or at least most of that wooded section. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So for those of you who are here or listening, this is a super historic area. I've read a bunch of books on it, and they're great. Great books. MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. So this is the subject property. As you can see, it's a more or less rectangular shape. So this area is unique for a couple reasons. First of all, there is a fairly sizable mangrove fringe between the actual uplands on the site and June 12, 2025 Page 41 the water. And if you look closely, you can kind of see there's a blue line on the very kind of waterward edge of the mangroves. That's the mean high water line. Then you have the mangroves. Then above that towards the house is a small riprap embankment. So the county's code, as you all know, measures protrusion from the most restrictive point, and then there's a number of locations where they might measure from. In this case, the most restrictive point was deemed as the toe of that riprap slope. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This part? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Even though this is -- MR. PEARSON: Even though there's -- the high tide line, the property line sticks way out into the water. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. This is all riprap underneath this green shading, right? MR. PEARSON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not? MR. PEARSON: It's pretty much just solid mangroves. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, okay. Gotcha. Okay. Mangroves. MR. PEARSON: Yes. And I have some photos later on. You can see it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: The other thing I want to draw attention to is the riparian lines here. They're a bit unique. June 12, 2025 Page 42 So the orange line is the offset which would form the setback from the riparian lines. Obviously they do not go straight out, so I just want to point that out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Why don't they? I'm just curious what -- I know the -- the conventional thought is that you take your side yards and you go straight out, but I think it has more to do with whatever the center of the water area is, plus a couple of other things? MR. PEARSON: And I should point to the county has some code for certain areas, and I think this is primarily for canals and more or less linear water bodies where the angle of the riparian line is set at an equidistant angle from both sides. In this case, it's not linear. I mean, this is an undulation shoreline, albeit slightly undulating. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's based off of this blue line. That's the angle of the line? MR. PEARSON: And these are set by surveyors. So I don't have any real say in how those lines look. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I get it. It's math. MR. PEARSON: I -- the survey shows it. The county staff has accepted it. So I have to believe that it's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Got it. MR. PEARSON: So that's my take, really, on this. So, yeah, it's 15-foot side setbacks. It's a bit strange, I think, with consideration of the property lines, but I just wanted to disclaim that. And I think that's all for this one. If we could go to the next slide. June 12, 2025 Page 43 So this is the proposed dock. As you can see, 28 feet of protrusion just from the toe of riprap to the high tide line. I mean, that alone -- that distance alone exceeds what the county typically allows, which is 20 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are these numbers low, mean low, or mean high? MR. PEARSON: Yes, low tide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Half a foot. MR. PEARSON: Yes, very shall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. PEARSON: So yes, I just wanted to point out the distance through the mangroves is more than what the county typically allows under the normal code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So the code would be 20 feet, so it would be somewhere right there. MR. PEARSON: Well, probably a little closer, but yes, it would be in the middle of the mangroves. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It would be kind of an illegal dock, actually because you would have to hack up a bunch of mangroves. MR. PEARSON: Yes. Well, I suppose you could have it, but you'd have to get all the approvals with the state, the feds, and it would, at the end of the day, be pretty much useless. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You would have no water. MR. PEARSON: Yes, yes. It would be more like an observation deck at that point. June 12, 2025 Page 44 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. PEARSON: We have already obtained the state and federal approvals for this design. And so -- you know, just to run through really quickly, the max protrusion, as you can see from that riprap line, is 92 feet. We have shown two boat lifts on the end of it at present. I think the applicant is only going to be truly building one of them. You know, he's put that second one in in case he changes his mind in a few years and wants to get another boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So -- okay. So to that point, yeah, I want to make sure that we're -- I mean, if that's the desire -- MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- correct me if I'm wrong, a single-family home, you're allowed to have two -- up to two vessels. MR. PEARSON: Two, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so we're looking to approve two lifts, and it will be their option of whether they build it. There may be a timeout period of -- I don't know how long that -- MR. PEARSON: I know this is a little irrelevant. In talking to the neighbors, I think it's -- and it's just his desire at this point. We wanted to go for this approval with potentially a second one so as to avoid needing to go through all this again in the future. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. PEARSON: You know, it's just a cumbersome process, especially just for a single boat lift. You know, June 12, 2025 Page 45 especially given the circumstances where an additional lift, in our opinion, probably wouldn't impact anything with regards to navigation, the environment, what have you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me get this clear on the record. So you want to go forward with approving two lifts. Staff, you reviewed it, according to two lifts, right? That's what your recommendation is based on. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we're moving forward with two lifts? MR. PEARSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And whatever you-all decide, if it's one boat, that's on you. MR. PEARSON: Yes. I understand. As you can see -- and I know we talked about it already -- the water depths, they are pretty restrictive. Unfortunately, this area just is inherently shallow, even to much further from shore than here. So this design seems to be kind of the best bang for your buck in terms of reaching some water and not, you know, creating an outrageously long dock that goes further and further out from shore. I think that's it for this slide. If we could go on. So here again is the cross-section. It shows where the high tide line is just landward of -- or excuse me waterward of the mangroves, also visible at the low tide. So very little water at low tide, but this is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's some long pilings. MR. PEARSON: Yes. Those are probably a little June 12, 2025 Page 46 excessively long, in hindsight, but you can never be too safe. Also, I want to point out that we are allowing for a little bit -- or petitioning, rather, for three feet of protrusion from the vessel off of the end of the dock, so that is included in the 92 feet overall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. PEARSON: Next slide, please. So this is just kind of an overview of the waterway. As you can see, it's over 2,700 feet wide. There are several other docks in the area. These all exceed 20 feet. And if you look actually at the north end of Chokoloskee, there's quite a few more docks that exceed these lot widths. So that's not really unusual for -- to have, you know, docks in excess of 20 feet out here. Next slide, please. So submerged resources survey. I personally dove this whole area. There's no seagrasses to be found under the proposed project. Next slide, please. So this is just a map of where all the no objections came from. And as you can see, pretty much all the neighbors have been in contact with the applicant as well as some older -- other folks on the island. None of these folks oppose the project. Next slide, please. So this is that -- kind of the -- I guess you'd call it a shed roof shape. In the middle is the applicant's house. The dock would be protruding from near to the center line of the house and kind of coming straight out. June 12, 2025 Page 47 Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And those mangroves will stay in place, correct? MR. PEARSON: Yes, except for the 4-foot access that would have to go through. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I understand that part. MR. PEARSON: And quite honestly, you know, there is actually a difference between removal, pulling them out of the ground, versus trimming them roughly a foot or two off the ground. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. PEARSON: And general trimming off the ground is going to be the easier method. I presume that's what we would be doing here. So top left is facing east, more or less, and top right would be facing to the west. And in the center on the bottom, that is straight out. So you can kind of get an idea how wide open the space is here. Next slide, please. I'm not going to run through all of these, but the only criteria we didn't meet here was the vessel-to-shoreline length ratio. It's obviously more than 1-to-2, so that one's not met, and the MPP is not applicable. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah. One, I appreciate the narrow catwalk, not overdecking that. So I appreciate that. The reason I asked about the mangroves, because everyone knows mangroves are important to the ecosystem system in terms of just water June 12, 2025 Page 48 quality for the little fish to grow, things -- all kinds of things. So, you know, I appreciate that, making sure that mangroves stay intact. And I understand, like, if you came in with a five-to-10-foot catwalk, you would be taking on a lot more, but the 4-foot, I think, is reasonable to get out to where you've got a 15-by-15 platform where you can safely get into either vessel and do whatever staging you have to do. So I appreciate that. MR. PEARSON: Yeah. And I think it's a 10-by-15, but, yes, I gotcha. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Anything else? MR. PEARSON: I think there are a couple more slides. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: I'll run through them real quickly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARSON: I'm not going to hover on this. I already went over the DEP and Army Corps authorizations. This was just a code. This is a state code for riparian rights, you know, essentially explaining how they're inured to the subject property which, for this -- the only reason I bring this up is because I think it is relevant considering the mangroves and kind of how difficult of a situation this is with regards to protruding through those mangroves. Next slide, please. And that's all. Any questions? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no. Let's June 12, 2025 Page 49 see if there's any public comment. Anybody signed up? MS. PADRON: We have none. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow, okay. Anything else from the county? MR. BOSI: Nothing more from the county. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. As usual, you did a great job presenting this. Thank you for the photographs. You know I always like seeing photographs. It brings a lot more context to the decision that has to be applied. I understand the reasoning for the -- you know, the -- why you're here. And I will get a decision out as quickly as possible. MR. PEARSON: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here. ***All right. Last but not least, 3D. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. Once again, John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. This is Item 3D. It's Variance Petition PL20240011254. It's a request to have the Hearing Examiner consider an after-the-fact variance from Land Development Code Section 2.03.01.B.2.d for a 75-foot-wide nonconforming lot of record to reduce the required eastern side-yard setback from 7.5 feet to 4.2 feet to allow for the continued existence of a pool equipment shed and to allow a further reduction of said side yard to 2.9 feet to accommodate the structure's 1.25-foot roof overhang. The subject property comprises 1.14 acres located at June 12, 2025 Page 50 3620 White Boulevard, also known as the west 150 feet of Tract 84, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 27 in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, of Collier County, Florida. It's Property ID No. 3798784000078. It's located within an Estates "E" zoning district. As for public notice requirements, they were satisfied pursuant to LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The required agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about April 24, 2025, as per notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the county on May 23, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by the applicant's agent on May 27th, 2025. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03 and is consistent with both the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. Staff notes that the subject property is legal nonconforming due to both insufficient lot area and width. The LDC, therefore, allows for a reduced side setback of 10 percent of the lot width which is 7.5 feet in this case. The requested variance is required to allow a pool shed that was constructed by a prior property owner to remain. No buildings were -- no building permits were previously obtained for the offending structure which is accessory to a single-family dwelling. No phone calls or correspondence has been received in response to advertising for this petition. Staff is inclined to recommend the Hearing Examiner approve the requested variance to accommodate both the June 12, 2025 Page 51 structure and its roof overhang as depicted within Attachment A, as the structure has existed since 2010 and was not the result of actions by the current property owner, who is presently attempting to abate a code violation. And we do recommend the following condition of approval, and that is an after-the-fact building permit must be applied for and obtained for the construction of the storage shed as described herein in the specified location. Required inspections must be requested and, upon satisfaction of said inspections, a certificate of completion must be obtained. And that concludes staff's presentation. The petitioner is here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. Come on up. MS. ORANGIO: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. Kira Orangio. I work for Phoenix Associates. I've been there for almost four years. I have 10 years in permitting experience. I've been in the civil engineering -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ORANGIO: -- field for about seven. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. ORANGIO: And I'm currently a student for a civil engineering degree. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, great. Tell me a little bit about Phoenix Associates of Florida. Is that an engineering firm? MS. ORANGIO: We are commercial development June 12, 2025 Page 52 mainly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ORANGIO: And in rare cases like this one -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MS. ORANGIO: -- we do help out residential. In this case, it was a cry for help that we answered. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And you're familiar with zoning laws, setback laws -- MS. ORANGIO: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and what they all are, what -- the requirements and things of that nature, and variances, when they have to be requested, et cetera, et cetera? MS. ORANGIO: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And about how many years have you been doing all this? MS. ORANGIO: With the variances, with Phoenix, about four. Civil engineering, seven. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. I see you as an expert. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. So this is our petition. Next slide, please. So our request for variance, we would like to request a variance for single-family residence setback requirement. We are requesting that the required 7.5 side-yard setback required for lots deemed nonconforming due to the lot width be reduced to 2.95 to allow for the continued existence of the pool equipment shed measuring 6.8 feet by 12.2 feet June 12, 2025 Page 53 with a roof overhang of 1.25 feet. The offending structure was constructed before the current owner took possession of the property. No permits are known to have been obtained. And a building permit will be applied for and obtained as a condition of approval should the requested variance be approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you understand that that will be probably triple the cost, right? MS. ORANGIO: Oh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: After the fact, aren't the permits triple? MR. BOSI: Double. MS. ORANGIO: It's double, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, I understand. My bad. MS. ORANGIO: We understand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry to interrupt. MS. ORANGIO: That's okay. That's an aerial shot of the property on White Boulevard. Next slide, please. And those are the pictures of the offending structure. As you can see, it's well maintained. It's not an eyesore. It's very nicely done. It matches the house. And those are the plans that we -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So before you go on, like -- so is the pool back here under the -- under the cage? June 12, 2025 Page 54 MS. ORANGIO: Yes, that's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is pool equipment, meaning the pump, the filter? MS. ORANGIO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so the pipes go underground here. For some reason, they decided to put it right here on -- practically on the property line. MS. ORANGIO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The prior owner, whoever did it. MS. ORANGIO: That is correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. As opposed to up against the house. MS. ORANGIO: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, okay. Thank you. MS. ORANGIO: You're welcome. Next slide, please. The criteria for a variance, the first one is are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size, and characteristics of the land, structure, or buildings involved? Yes, this is a nonconforming lot with a lot width of 75 feet. Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So just for the record, it's a legal nonconforming lot, right? It's a legal nonconforming lot. MS. ORANGIO: Legal. June 12, 2025 Page 55 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We want to make sure that that's there. MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct. So it's a legal nonconforming lot, which means that it doesn't meet the zoning -- the zoning dimensions for this area, but it was there before the new zoning came in so, therefore, it's considered, under the law, a legal nonconforming lot. MS. ORANGIO: Correct. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as preexisting conditions? And, yes, the encroaching accessory structure, a pool equipment shed, was constructed in 2010 prior to the purchase of the subject property in 2021 by the current owner. It has no negative impact to the existing site. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Quick question. So the pool equipment, is -- is there a noise issue or anything, or does the shed actually help with the pool equipment, when it's on, quiet any noise that might go off site? MS. ORANGIO: I have not been out there, but I would imagine that it absolutely quiets the equipment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ORANGIO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the shed, I don't remember the material. Was that made out of wood, or was it cement cinderblock; do you know? MS. ORANGIO: I believe it was cinderblock. June 12, 2025 Page 56 Correct? MR. KOGOK: Stick built with stucco on the exterior. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you. MS. ORANGIO: Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning code work unnecessarily any [sic] undue hardships on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant? And yes, it would be very difficult to move all of the plumbing and such that has existed for 14 years. The structure was already built prior to the purchase in 2021. And again, it has shown no negative impact to the existing site, and we will be applying for a building permit for the structure as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I would also add that I think you would have to completely abandoned this, and -- MS. ORANGIO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you would probably have to replumb all the way to the pool to put the pool equipment up against the house, whatever that pool equipment is. I think this whole thing would have to be abandoned. It would be a major -- I think a major project. I don't think you could pick that up and move it. I just don't see that happening. MS. ORANGIO: Correct. Next slide, please. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of land, building, June 12, 2025 Page 57 or structure? Yes. Next slide. Thank you. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privileges that is denied by these zoning regulations? And yes, it would reduce the side-yard setback that normal -- normally would prevent you from building that close to the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And honestly, that particular criteria is kind of a little bit of a circular argument because, yes, that's the whole point of a variance -- MS. ORANGIO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- is to get a special privilege, but anyone similarly situated would be able to ask for that variance, although every variance would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. But yes, it does -- it's kind of an interesting criteria, but it's the typical criteria that you see for most variances in other jurisdictions, so I will tell you that. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's not the county coming up with some strange language. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code? And yes, the structure has existed for 14 years and has had no negative impact to the site or neighboring properties. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the intent of the zoning code is really just to establish -- with regard to June 12, 2025 Page 58 this, is to establish reasonable side-yard setbacks in order to not offend neighbors, but again, I think, going this -- I would also add to this the fact that it's a legal nonconforming use, which means that the side yards are a little bit more challenging than they normally would be in this case. So I would -- I would say that that is also applicable to this criteria. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of this regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf course, et cetera? No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And so what the -- yes. The answer is no to this one, obviously, because there are no -- there are no easements. There are no preserves in the back. There are no lakes or anything like that. This was -- this is not a criteria that I think you could ever be on this particular set of facts. MS. ORANGIO: Correct. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Yes, the variance is minor, supports smart growth principles, doesn't burden infrastructures or public services, and the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And I assume you're adopting the recommendation that the county has for approval, correct? MS. ORANGIO: Yes, absolutely. June 12, 2025 Page 59 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I'm having a little trouble hearing you, but I'm the old guy in the room. MS. ORANGIO: Sorry. I'm soft spoken. That's my fault. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're going to get you over that -- MS. ORANGIO: Thanks. Eventually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- next time I see you. Anything else? MS. ORANGIO: No. Just to summarize, the request, for the side-yard setback be reduced from 7.5 to 2.95 to allow for the existing pool equipment shed to remain. The structure was built in 2010. The current owner bought the property in 2021. The structure has existed for 14 years with no negative impact to the existing site, and a building permit will be applied for and obtained as a condition of approval should the requested variance be approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so the underlying code enforcement case is stayed currently now until -- to give the applicant time -- maybe John's the one to answer this -- to give -- so the underlying code enforcement case is stayed while we're going through this process; is that right? MR. KELLY: I believe they're waiting for a resolution from -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, whether it happens or not. Okay. June 12, 2025 Page 60 Anything else? MS. ORANGIO: I also want to give thanks to the county, and especially John Kelly, for helping prepare me for today's meeting. That was -- I love the communication with Collier County. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think you did a great job. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just project your voice a little bit more next time you're here, and you'll be fine. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is there anybody here from the public who would like to speak? Okay. MS. PADRON: Yes. We have the property owner, William Kogok. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You could use -- you're here with your team here, your consultant, who's come here to help you out. How are you, sir? MR. KOGOK: Great. I have a -- William Kogok, Jr., homeowner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KOGOK: I'm the one who was lucky enough to purchase this house with all these deficiencies on it. I wanted to thank both Kira and Phoenix Associates for their great job. I couldn't find anybody else to take an after-the-fact permitting request. June 12, 2025 Page 61 I wanted to let you know it's more than just a pump house. It contains the well pump, irrigation pump, of course, the pool pump, the house water pump, a breaker box, and two junction boxes that connect the seven conduits going through the east side of the concrete foundation; three fixed water filters standing, a hydrogen peroxide tank, a wall-mounted reverse osmosis water purifier and filter, a wall-mounted pool pump timer, irrigation controller, and pump start relay; seven PCV [sic] pipes for the pool, floor-mounted pool filter, eight wall-mounted safety outlets, and overhead lighting and a camera, as well as cameras on the outside, and three lights on the outside, and the building also has two fixed windows in it. To move the building would require a total retrofit at this point, and the practical difficulties are prohibited in retrofitting the many systems contained in this building. The building has stood for 14 years without lessening the safety of the surrounding residents or environment. It does have downspouts on it and a good roof. It's even made it through 14 years of hurricanes with no visible damage. The neighbor's house that is closest to the property line where it sits. He's on a larger 2.7-something-acre lot, so his house sits further away from it than if they were on a nonconforming 1.14 lot, plus his house has been a nuisance property for 18 years. The home was sold to me by a Realtor herself and her electrician husband without any disclosure whatsoever. The disclosure form said -- asked if there was anything unpermitted, and they wrote, "No." And I also spent June 12, 2025 Page 62 $16,000 getting the garage out back permitted. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So that, unfortunately, does happen. Realtors are licensed in the state of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulations. You're welcome to contact them about that. I don't know how this came to be, but I'm assuming somebody must have reported this. MR. KOGOK: The nuisance property owner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. In the state of Florida, you cannot report code enforcement violations anonymously any longer. So that's okay to disclose who did that. So you're in Florida. You're allowed to look up and find out who did that, but that's outside of my world. I just assumed that. MR. KOGOK: Well, he did it -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a couple of things, because I assumed that there was more than just pool equipment there, because you're on well water, correct. MR. KOGOK: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And one of the things that I would want to -- if I were to approve this, is I would want to make sure that we keep all of that equipment in good shape. MR. KOGOK: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Meaning that if you get a pump that starts whining and it -- you know, sometimes those pumps will get old and they'll start a high-pitch whine because of some friction or something like June 12, 2025 Page 63 that. Also, the structure itself needs to be well kept and well maintained in order to keep, you know, any kind of noise affecting, you know, the neighbor and things like that. If I were to approve this, I may add some of that kind of condition in there -- MR. KOGOK: That's fine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- just to make sure that -- going forward, that all the inside conditions are all kept up. Because you mentioned a number of different reverse osmosis and a lot of that different mechanical type things that -- motors run out, they go bad, and, you know, it's just going to be up to you, because typically that would be further away from your neighbor, and maybe the noise would be slightly less. So you have no objections to me writing in some other conditions like that? MR. KOGOK: I'm OCD. I take care of stuff. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I imagine you do. I imagine you do. And then if you do sell, know this, that they will have to -- you'll have to disclose this. But if I do approve this, these variances run with the land, and so it's something that you would -- that a subsequent buyer would have the benefit of as well. MR. KOGOK: Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do we have any public speakers for this item? MS. PADRON: For this item, we do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We do not. June 12, 2025 Page 64 Okay. So it's been properly advertised. The neighbor -- neighbors, plural, all know about this because there's a nice sign outside your property. Very skinny, long property with all of you out there. It must be fun to mow. But I don't have any other questions. This -- you know, look, this happens from time to time. Unfortunately, yeah, the Realtors probably should have disclosed, you know, what they know. Realtors are trained in the basics of zoning and setbacks and things like that. So I encourage you to take that up some other way. And thankfully you found a company that is willing to walk you through the process. However, I will tell you plenty of people have come through the process on their own successfully because the county happens to deal with homeowners very well in coaching them through this. And this is not as formal as going in front of the County Commission or the Planning Commission. This is what this is intended for is to have just a good interaction where I can get as much information as possible, and between you and your future engineer there, we have been able to get all the information I needed. And I especially like the fact that you disclosed everything that's in the structure. MR. KOGOK: It's quite elaborate. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I would imagine, yes. Okay. All right. Anything else? MR. KOGOK: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else from the county? June 12, 2025 Page 65 MR. BOSI: Nothing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All done. Okay. So I will get a decision out as soon as I can. And I appreciate your candor. Sorry for your troubles, but, you know -- I don't know. I don't want to get into the code enforcement case, because I do code enforcement in other places, and I know how they all work, and that's none of my business. I'm just dealing with the variance. MR. KOGOK: I have no problems bringing it up to current code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. Very good. MR. KOGOK: All right. Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. And nice job -- MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- being here. We hope to see you soon, again. MS. ORANGIO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. What else have we got to talk about today? MR. BOSI: I believe we are done. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I want to remind everybody we're in hurricane season now, so be prepared. Hopefully nothing to -- nothing will happen but be prepared anyway. MR. BOSI: And have a plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And have a June 12, 2025 Page 66 plan. Get those canopies off the boat -- the boat things that you're supposed to get off. MR. BOSI: Okay. Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anyway, everybody have a lovely rest of your week, weekend. Happy Father's Day to all you fathers out there, and have a good one. Thank you. Have a nice day. We're adjourned. ******* June 12, 2025 Page 67 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 6/23 , as presented ✔ or as corrected ___________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.