Loading...
HEX Minutes 06/26/2025 June 26, 2025 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida, June 26, 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 1:01 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 Maria Estrada, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I Kevin Summers, Manager - Technical Systems, Operations June 26, 2025 Page 2 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. All right, everybody, good afternoon and welcome to the June 22nd [sic], 2025, Collier County Hearing Examiner Meeting. My name is Andrew Dickman. I am the hearing examiner. We have an agenda today, and the agenda starts with the Pledge of Allegiance. So please join me. Thank you. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A few basic formalities. Again, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney for over 20 years working in the area of land use, zoning, local government. I am not a County employee. I am hired as a contractor by the Board of County Commissioners to specifically fulfill the duties of a hearing examiner that are prescribed in the ordinance. My job here today at this hearing is conduct a, what's called a quasi-judicial hearing. These are the types of petitions that come -- that are prescribed by code to come here. I am here as a neutral, impartial decision maker. My job is to get everything into the record regarding the testimony or evidence with regard to the criteria that's established in the code for the particular petitions. The way that we conduct this is usually I will have the County get up and present briefly their staff report, any recommendations, any conditions, things of that nature. Some back and forth might happen at that point. Then we'll go to the applicant or the applicant's representative. They will have time to put on their case in chief. Then we will go to public comment. Now, if anybody is here to speak publicly in here, we have speakers' cards. Please fill them out and give them to the young lady over here. This is a hybrid meeting, which means that the County has given the courtesy to people who can't attend here in the afternoon to June 26, 2025 Page 3 participate via Zoom. So we will be doing that. And that part of -- once we are done with public participation, public comment, I will close and give the applicant any opportunity they need to address anything that came up during public comment. This is informal. Anybody nervous about speaking, please don't be. The real reason for me being here is just so that I can get everything that I need, any final questions answered, and also for the applicant and everyone else to make the record, because after today I cannot speak with anybody about the application. I'm not going to do any meetings. I have not had any meetings with any of the applicants. I have not had any meetings with anyone at the County about the applications. I have reviewed everything that's in the record that's also available to the public, and I'm here specifically in order to make sure that you feel that you're in front of someone that's impartial. Again, it's very important for you all to just address -- you can say whatever you want, but I recommend that you address the issues of the criteria that's in the code for me to look at and render a decision within 30 days. I will not be making any final decisions here today. I have 30 days to issue a written decision. Typically I'm able to do that quicker. Also we have a court reporter here, who is going to be taking verbatim transcripts of everything that is said. So I ask everyone to speak as clearly into the microphone as possible. Let's not talk over one another because that makes the transcripts less -- less clear. I do go back from time to time and look at the transcripts when I'm developing the decision in order to confirm some things. So that's that. I don't think I have anything else to state other than anyone who is going to testify here today must do so under oath per quasi-judicial requirements. So I'm going to ask the court reporter to administer the June 26, 2025 Page 4 oath. If you're going to speak here today, please stand and raise your right hand and you will be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***All right. Appreciate your cooperation. I think we're ready to get started. We have one, two, three, four items to go over. So start with 3.A. MR. FINN: Hi, I'm -- can you hear me? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, we can hear you, Tim. MR. FINN: Okay, good. For the record, I'm Timothy Finn, Planner III. This is for the following two companion petitions. The first petition number is SRAA PL20040009899. CSC Farm, LLC, requests an insubstantial change to the Collier Rod & Gun Club at The Preserve Compact Rural Development Stewardship Receiving Area, SRA; Resolution Number 2023-183 as amended to reconfigure the design of the residential lots and lakes, add deviations from maximum wall height, construction materials for the internal pathways, and lighting standards along internal/private streets, remove the exchange of impact fee credits for the Immokalee Fire Control and Rescue District, correct scrivener's errors, update Trailway cross-sections, realign internal Trailway, eliminate the linear parking line, pedestrian/golf cart connection within the southwest corner of the SRA property, modify the pedestrian/golf cart connection along the SRA's western boundary to a vehicle connection, add language to Section IX, Item 9.2.C and Section II, Item 17, addition of a new ingress/egress along Oil Well Road for the purpose of providing a direct access connection for the adjacent property, remove Principal Uses 2, 3 and 5 from the Compact Rural Development Center, Section V, Item 5.2.1.1.A, specify certain accessory uses and structures incidental to single-family residential June 26, 2025 Page 5 development, reserve land for future expansion of Oil Well Road and update the Master Mobility Plan. The subject 259.43-acre parcel is located south of Oil Well Road, approximately a half mile west of State Road 29, in Sections 18, 19, 24, and 30, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, Collier County, Florida. And the second companion petition to this petition number is CU-PL200400099O1. CSC Farm, LLC, requests approval of an amendment to the conditional use for the Collier Rod and Gun Club at the Preserve, Resolution Number 23-184, to eliminate the access from Oil Well Park Road, add a vehicular interconnect with the adjacent property to have a direct access connection to Oil Well Road, relocate the back-of-the-house maintenance golf course operations, decrease the acreage from 911 acres to 901.7 acres, modify the design of the internal/private street and pathway system, relocate the member-only lodging cabins, adjust preserve areas to include SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands, eliminate the vehicular maintenance trail connection to Oil Well Road, modify the Trailway roadway cross-sections, modify the golf cart/pedestrian interconnect to a vehicular interconnect, amend Condition of Approval Number 11, and reserve land for future expansion of Oil Well Road, on property zoned Rural Agricultural A within the Mobile Home Overlay, MHO, and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District, RLSAO, and Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay, ACSC-ST, pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.A.1.c.17 and 2.03.01.A.1.c.20 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a 901.7-acre property located south of Oil Well Road, C.R 858, and west side of State Road 29 in Sections 18, 19, 20, 29 and 30, Township 48 South, Range 30 East, and Sections 23 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. This project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, June 26, 2025 Page 6 staff recommends approval for both petitions. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out on June the 6th for both petitions. The hearing advertised by property signage were constructed at the property by the applicant per the Affidavit of Posted Notice included in Attachment D for the SRA petition and Attachment F for the conditional use of the backup materials. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Tim, thank you very much. I'm going to -- if you'll bear with me for a minute, I need to make just a clarification on the record regarding the agenda. For some reason the agenda that my office printed out had a different arrangement, and I had originally said that 3.A. I was looking at 3.A., which is now -- which is the 201 Shell Island Road is now D, and the 2200 Curtis Street is now C. Don't know how that happened, but I want to also put on the record since we're doing this as a companion item that, to make it clear, that there are going to be two decisions, and that it's perfectly fine to do a combined presentation. So the two items are companion items. There will be two separate decisions, but it's perfectly fine to do one presentation that addresses all the topics, all the facts, everything. So we're fine with that. There's no problems with the notices. I just checked. It just seems like they -- we printed out in an older version of the agenda. So I just wanted to clarify that on the record, so that's why we're going forward on the companion items. I would have stated that if I had a different agenda, but, anyway, I hope that's clear. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Richard Yovanovich, attorney for Item 3.B. June 26, 2025 Page 7 I'm supposed to be over there, aren't I? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I was going to say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to clarify that the properties are not companions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, they're not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They are two separate projects that are adjacent to each other, but they're not companion. One is not reliant upon the other. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're happy to present both of them in one presentation. Unless you prefer, we are prepared to do them separately, but they're not companion items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that we're clear on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So did you want to do separate presentations? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever is convenient. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He just presented both the staff reports. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know he did, and we're okay with that, but just make sure -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're separated. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- they are separate items. We'll present them separately. We'll go one first, then the other, but they are not companion items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Fair enough. So we're not going to treat them as companion items -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- although we will incorporate Mr. Finn's presentation into the second item as you stated, if that's okay with you. June 26, 2025 Page 8 MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as you're comfortable with -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I felt bad I made a mistake saying the wrong item. I think we got it all cleared up. Probably should have gone over the agenda at the beginning. MR. YOVANOVICH: No worries. We're here. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So we are ready for the first item. MS. HARRELSON: Good afternoon. I'm Jessica Harrelson. I'm a certified planner with Peninsula Engineering. I'm the agent for the applicant, and I have been previously accepted as an expert witness on land planning by the Collier County hearing examiner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. HARRELSON: Here with me today are Richard Yovanovich, our legal counsel; John English with Peninsula Engineering; Norm Trebilcock, he's our traffic consultant; Jeremy Sterk with Earth Tech Environmental; and we have Karl with Barron Collier Companies also here today. Next slide. So we're here today seeking to amend the Collier Rod and Gun Club conditional use and stewardship receiving area. Both were originally approved in 2023; and as Rich stated, these are separate projects but are adjacent to one another and they do provide no connections. Go to the next slide, please. So beginning with the SRA, it is in the form or a compactual development located south of Oil Well Road and west of State Road 29. The site is roughly 259 acres and is approved for a maximum of 225 single-family dwelling units, residential amenities and goods and services for residents. Next slide, please. The changes are not considered substantial per the criteria listed in LDC Section 4.08.07.F.4.B. Next slide. So these are depictions of the master plans. We have the updated plan here on the left, the existing plan on the right. The SRA consists of two contact zones, The Compact World June 26, 2025 Page 9 Development Center, which is that location that will remain the same. This is where goods and services and residential amenities are located, and this beige color represents the neighborhood general contact zone. It's for residential lots. So the neighborhood general area has decreased from the original approved plan. This is allowed for the lakes to be expanded, as well as the green open space. The SRA provides -- is required to provide 1 percent of the total area as public green space. This was previously designed as Linear Park that meandered through the SRA. This is now designed to be located within the Compact Development Center and the 300-foot HSA buffer. We have redesigned and reconfigured the internal roadway to meet the current design. We've added a new access location from Oil Well Road. This does not serve the SRA but the adjacent conditional use property. And at the southwest corner, we eliminated one pedestrian/golf cart connection, and we have modified the other two vehicular connections for service and employee access. Next slide, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. MS. HARRELSON: Oh, sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Would you mind going back to the previous slide here. MS. HARRELSON: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. This is really important for me because I can see -- MS. HARRELSON: I could go over all of these. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can see the site plan, the site has changed considerably, but it's important that we get it on the record that I have jurisdiction here as an insubstantial change. So can you just like go through the bullet points. June 26, 2025 Page 10 MS. HARRELSON: Sure, I didn't want to bore you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Since you're the expert, I want you to get it on the record. MS. HARRELSON: Okay. So there are no changes to the SRA boundary, no increase in density, intensity or height of buildings, no decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation or open space, no relocation and non-residential uses or increase in size of areas for non-residential uses, no increase in traffic generation or significant changes in traffic circulation or impacts to public facilities. There are no changes in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic, no changes that result in a requirement for increased storm water retention or storm water discharge, no change that creates an incompatible relationship with adjacent land uses. All changes are consistent with the elements of the County's Growth Management Plan. No changes to the SRA master plan or SRA document that are substantial, deemed substantial. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So on the fourth bullet, no relocation of non-residential uses or increases in size of areas for non-residential uses? MS. HARRELSON: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That would -- that would include open space? That would include what? MS. HARRELSON: That being the Compact Rural Development Center, which has remained in that same location and the same size. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. I just wanted you to walk through that before we -- MS. HARRELSON: All right. Thank you. We can skip ahead, I think, two slides now. So the projects are planned with an interconnected Trailway system, which is in lieu of a June 26, 2025 Page 11 typical roadway. It is designed to reduce impacts on the environment and allows different modes of travel. A share of the road signs are required to be posted throughout the SRA. Posted speed limits will be a maximum of 15 miles per hour, and a five-foot pathway will be provided along one side of the main corridor to the development. The Trailway cross-sections have been updated with this amendment by increasing the green space between the Trailway and the pathway, increasing the width of the pathway from a minimum of four feet to a minimum five feet. Both changes promote pedestrian safety and travel, and the Trailway has also been designed to accommodate utilities and storm water requirements. The updated cross-sections also include the different development scenarios adjacent to the Trailway. We have updated the street corridor and added street tree requirements. Next slide, please. So for text changes, we have corrected a scrivener's error that was within the legal description, which resulted in a slight decrease in the acreage from 259 acres to 259.43 acres. This did not change the boundary. The language pertaining to the location of the public green space was updated that I previously went through. We have added clarifying language to the development schedule, which now requires the minimum goods and services for residents to be provided on the completion of the 100th home. Residential amenity uses were removed from the list of permitted uses and were more appropriately added as accessory uses such as clubhouses and recreational facilities. There was a previous commitment to convey four acres to the Immokalee Fire District in exchange for impact fee credits; and through our coordination with the fire department, they no longer needed the property, so we deleted that commitment. The mobility plan notes were updated also, which were the June 26, 2025 Page 12 things I touched on when I was reviewing the Trailway cross-sections. And we also added developer commitment regarding the 50-foot reservation for the future Oil Well Road expansion. Next slide. Three deviations have been requested. The first requesting to allow an increase in maximum wall height from six feet to a maximum of 16 feet for a wall/berm combination for the purposes of noise attenuation and security. Next slide. The second deviation is requesting to allow the use of ADA alternative materials, ADA compliant alternative construction materials for the pathway in lieu of concrete or asphalt allowing alternative materials that better meets the vision of the project, which includes a natural setting and feel. Next slide, please. The last deviation is to allow for no streetlights along the private streets, except for at intersections. Low level pedestrian scaled lighting is proposed to protect the nighttime environment. Next slide. And then moving on to the conditional use, which is, again, a separate project, it consists of 901.7 acres and permits a golf course, shooting and sport amenities, up to 20 member-only rental cabins and up to 300 club memberships. Next slide. The requested changes are insubstantial. They're minor and internal to development. No changes in intensity of conditional use, no changes that result in higher traffic trips generated to the site, and the EAC review is not required. Next slide, please. So, again, we have the updated plans to the left. The existing plan is on the right. The size of the constructional use has decreased, like I previously stated, 911 acres to 901.7. We've pulled the boundary back along Oil Well Road 50 feet to accommodate the extension of Oil Well Road in the future. We still have our golf course and our golf club along the south here. Utilities and maintenance are still centrally located in the site. There was a previous access planned along Oil Well Park Road June 26, 2025 Page 13 to a maintenance back-of-house facility here. This access has been eliminated, and we have relocated that maintenance back-of-house operations here. And like I was reviewing during the SRA, there's that interconnect that will be a direct connection to Oil Well Road. The internal roadway was slightly reconfigured. The members-only cabins were slightly shifted eastward, more towards the property line, and -- oh, there's a -- sorry -- a maintenance trail, an access connection along Oil Well Road here. We have deleted that, and now it's just one large, expanded contiguous preserve area. Next slide, please. We amended two conditions, the first being the mobility plan noting the allowance of ADA compliant alternative materials for the five-foot pathway, and also not requiring streetlights along the Trailway to protect the nighttime environment. And the last condition is regarding the reservation of 50 feet along Oil Well Road for future expansion of the right-of-way. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So just for the record, I want to make it abundantly clear, while these are not companion items; they're abutting one another and there's some interrelationship. You covered both items. So this would be CU-PL20249901, and then also SRAA PL20249899, and you as the planning expert for the applicant I'll put on the record your presentation for both of those items. Okay? MS. HARRELSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MS. HARRELSON: No, thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Any other folks on your team going to speak? MS. HARRELSON: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not yet? MS. HARRELSON: No, not yet. June 26, 2025 Page 14 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not unless. Tim, are you there? MR. FINN: Yeah, I'm here, but you're cutting in and out. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I apologize about that. You were cutting out too. Do you have anything in response to any of that or is that no comment? MR. FINN: From what I -- no. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning and zoning director. Mr. Ray Bellows and myself both concurred with the presentation as accurate and factually limited to the proposed conditions. No further comment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, perfect. All right. Great. So let's go on to the public comment section. Anybody sign to speak for this item? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers for both items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We have no speakers for both items. I don't know if staff or the applicant want to state any final -- have any final comments. The only thing I do want to probably get on the record is that, because this is kind of a -- you know, I as hearing examiner am always qualified to hear the jurisdiction insubstantial changes, and I just want to make sure because there is a big area; it looks big, but if it meets the criteria, it meets the criteria. I would like, Mr. Bosi, if you could just confirm on the record that it's properly before me. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi again, planning and zoning director. As these applications were submitted, we had internal discussion among staff related to the changes, reviewed the criteria as the applicant highlighted in terms of what was the substantial change, what was not a substantial change, therefore insubstantial change; and staff arrived June 26, 2025 Page 15 upon the decision that these qualified as an insubstantial change, one that is authorized for the hearing officer to hear. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Yovanovich, if you would just concur with that. You're here. I just want to make sure, if I render a decision, that everybody is okay with me doing this. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. We also met with staff and were able to assure ourselves that you are the proper person to hear this petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we are comfortable being here today and you rendering a decision. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. I feel much more comfortable having that on the record. And, once again, these are not companion items; however because of there -- there are some -- the geographic closeness, interconnection, same -- it looks like the same owners, more or less, that they were presented, all the facts were presented together. They are not companion items. They will be separate decisions, and we'll treat it like that. Everybody in agreement? All right. Great. I see we have already got -- great job. I have already looked at all this. It's pretty straight forward. Appreciate the presentation. It's always nice to see you all here. We'll get a decision out as quickly as possible. Thank you. Enjoy the rest of your day, and happy 4th of July. Now, we're going to C, right, which is 2200 Curtis Street? MS. ESTRADA: I do have a couple of emails. Do you want these? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: These are emails. MS. ESTRADA: Oh, these are from the two adjacent June 26, 2025 Page 16 neighbors concerning the flooding and drainage. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MS. ESTRADA: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II, Zoning Services. Before you is Agenda Item 3.C., which is a variance request for PL20240012113. This request seeks a variance from the Development Land Code 4.02.01.A., Table 2.1, and Section 4.02.03 to reduce the front setback requirements from 25 feet to 15.16 feet for the principal structure, 11.83 feet for the front steps and 10 feet for the attached outdoor bathroom and pool equipment. It also requests a reduction to 15.25 feet for the pool and enclosure back on a proposed Lot 1, PPL Construction Plan PL20240000374, at 22 [sic] Curtis Street, Naples, Florida 34112, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Staff has reviewed the petition according to the criteria established in LDC Section 904.03.A through H. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria outlined in LDC, as well as with GMP. Regarding public notice requirements, they were met as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F. The applicant distributed the agent letter on Tuesday, May 20th, 2025. The property owner notification letters were handled by staff on Friday, June 6th, 2025, and public hearing signs were posted by County staff on Tuesday, June 10th, 2025. The communication I received from the public involved two neighbors inquiring for more details, just informational; and then two other neighbors to the south of Church Avenue who had opposition regarding the petition concerning flooding and drainage issues. And those are the emails that I brought, that I received. Staff recommends approval of the variance request as detailed in the Attachment B of the staff report. And this concludes staff's summary. June 26, 2025 Page 17 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Nice job. Thank you. All right. Let's go to the applicant. MR. LOMBARDO: Good afternoon. For the record, Zach Lombardo for the applicant. Since those emails were provided, I would like to provide some emails as well. Is that possible in response? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Absolutely. Do you have copies? Thanks a lot. MR. LOMBARDO: And just as to the -- a little quick note on the description of this -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: State your name and -- MR. LOMBARDO: Oh, sorry, Zach Lombardo here on behalf of the applicant, E & I Curtis. The corporate representative, Mr. Hoxha, is sitting back here. Can you wave. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. He's here. I see that. And I assume you're adopting what staff is recommending? MR. LOMBARDO: Yes, we are adopting staff's recommendation, their findings and the planning analysis provided by Maria Estrada. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LOMBARDO: I do want to clarify in her reading the title, she said "22 Curtis Street"; it's 2200 Curtis Street. I do see that's correct in the agenda, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did I misread it? I may have. MR. LOMBARDO: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's 2200 Curtis Street. Okay. MR. LOMBARDO: The -- as far as the flooding objection, I think I'd like to reserve until after the comments to address that. So I June 26, 2025 Page 18 will do the presentation in full and then come back around to that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sounds good. MR. LOMBARDO: Next slide. Next slide. The -- we went over the requested variances here, but I do want to point out, and it's going to be especially relevant in responding to the flooding concern, is that there is currently pending a plat and plans to subdivide this into three lots; and through that process, as we'll get into, there is storm water review. So I just want to put that out there that there is -- and on the record, that's PL20240000374 is the companion plat and plan that's being reviewed by staff separately for this variance application. Next slide. This is an aerial of the subject property here, and from this aerial what you can see is we have the improved and used Curtis Street traveling to the east of the property; and then we have the unimproved and unused Church Street traveling east-west to the south of the property, and that is the area that we're focused on in this variance. Next slide. The specific dimensional adjustments are here. They were read into the record by staff, and we believe that they are accurate. If you go to the next slide, this is a lot easier to look at. This is the specific layout of every single adjustment here. And we at the direction of staff were very granular in this process, and I would note a couple things about this site plan because, as we will see in the discussion here, there was a variance along these lines immediately to the north of this that allowed a front-yard setback variance for a development to the north as to Curtis Street, which is an actual used road, and it reduced it down to 7-1/2 feet. Here the principal structure is still 15 feet from the property line, and given the width of Curtis Street, it remains substantially far from the project to the south. So I just want to confirm that this is a very granular approach. June 26, 2025 Page 19 This is what has to be built pursuant to staff's analysis of this. But I also want to note since the objections are here and we can go over this, there's a 10-foot drainage easement on the south side of this that is shown, and it also is on the -- the back side there's another 10-foot drainage easement providing the -- one of five detention areas that are going to be on site as part of this development. So I just want to emphasize that, when we initially conceptualized this variance, we were hoping to get a 7-1/2-foot setback from the south, but, because we had to specifically address the current storm water requirements, that was not achievable based on detention areas. So I think it's important to note that the -- especially when you get into the question of minimum requested, this variance request is with the reality of the current drainage standards taken into account. Next slide. Next slide. So we have to meet the variance standards here. The first one I think is the most obvious one here, and staff concurs with this, as we'll see at the end of the power point, the special conditions and circumstances. The special condition here is that we have two front yards and two front-yard setbacks as a result of Church Avenue, but Church Avenue was platted 93 years ago. It's never improved. It's never been accepted by Collier County, and essentially its only function is it serves as a driveway to a house to the west. If it were a driveway, the setback would be 7-1/2 feet, but it's not a driveway. It's a platted street, and so the setback is 25 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it improved or no? MR. LOMBARDO: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It is unimproved access for a lot? MR. LOMBARDO: Yeah, there's one house to the west of this lot that it's the only access for that lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It would be landlocked? June 26, 2025 Page 20 MR. LOMBARDO: It would be landlocked. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's kind of a flagged lot a little bit, but -- so I was wondering why they hadn't made the -- MR. LOMBARDO: And that's -- so we -- the initial approach was to vacate it, but we couldn't get agreement on that. The Church Avenue has been vacated west of that lot, so it no longer connects to Sandpiper, and there's a house sitting where it used to be. And that's where that site here, Resolution 2005228, vacated the balance of Church Avenue but not this portion. Next slide. All of the conditions that we just discussed were not created by the applicant. My client was not the subdivider here and did not create the plat. Next slide. It is our opinion and assertion that this does create a practical difficulty here and creates a hardship, and I believe staff agrees with this. Again, if that were a driveway, we'd have a 7-1/2 setback. And interestingly enough, the current -- it's now been demolished, but the house that was on this site was closer than 25 feet to the southern setback. I'm not sure how that happened and if there was -- there was no variance that we saw filed to that, but for years it maybe had been treated like that, it's just a driveway. Next slide. As far as minimum variance, I wanted to just again double back on the drainage piece. We are providing actually more than sufficient detention on site, and as a result could not be 7-1/2 feet from that bottom line. So it would suggest it is the minimum variance. For the record, Church Avenue is 30 feet wide. So there's more than a 40-foot setback to the nearest property to the south. That's not to the structure; that's to the property line to the nearest property to the south; and a 40-foot setback is certainly considerable. Next slide. Our position is that there is no possible special benefit here primarily because of HEX Decision 2018-'20 in which June 26, 2025 Page 21 the development to the north, which is called from Kona Cove, I received a setback variance for the front yard from Curtis Street, and they got all the way down to 7-1/2 feet there. They oriented the entire development facing to a driveway that they built, as opposed to this development, which will be oriented to Curtis Street. So -- and I guess for clarity's purposes, we are keeping -- we are keeping the full front area setback to Curtis Street. So all of these resulting lots will have front area setbacks. Next slide. As far as the Condition F, harmony, intent and purpose of the zoning code, we see no issue here, and staff agrees with us. At the end of the day, what we're going to have is three lots that have a front-yard setback, as you would expect in this area. And I think it's important to note that the density allows for these three eventual units to be here. So this isn't creating any kind of especially unique result here, and it is in conformity with the rest of the neighborhood just built out in single-family residences. In fact, it will be a little non-conforming in that there will be great setbacks as to this property to the south than there would be really anywhere else in this neighborhood because, if you go directly north of here, Kona Cove is wedged in there with the normal setbacks. Next slide. We're unaware of any natural conditions that impact this. Next slide. And it is our opinion and agreed to by staff that there is no consistency issue with the Growth Management Plan. The Policy 1.2, Property Rights, supports being able to use property and develop it. So we believe that, in addition to future land use consistency, this is the outer coastal subdistrict, and we're not redistributing any of the density. This isn't a rezone. We believe this is fully consistent. Next slide. And here for everyone's enjoyment and delight, I June 26, 2025 Page 22 have copied this entire analysis from staff. I don't want to go through this unless there's questions, but the long and short of it is the staff, as you heard in her presentation, agreed that all the factors were met here. So I think whoever has got the mouse here, you can just start ripping through these because there are probably six of these. So the next slide times five, let's try that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. LOMBARDO: And the recommendation, of course, was approval. We agree with that. We adopt the staff's report. Next slide. And we are available for questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Mr. Lombardo, so this is always an interesting question that I haven't quite -- well, first of all, thank you, paper streets, that's a new term for me. Always learn something no matter how old I am. Okay. So you -- obviously this has to do with competent, substantial evidence. You adopted staff's report, so that's in the record. It's unclear sometimes whether specialized lawyers can offer competent, substantial evidence or whether they're restricted to just arguing legal matters; and I only say this because I had my own unfortunate experience in the City of Miami hearing by a commissioner who felt strongly that I couldn't even though I had a planning background in the NCP. So I just want to ask you a couple questions. How long have you been practicing law? MR. LOMBARDO: Ten years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ten years. And how much of that has been in local government and zoning and land use? MR. LOMBARDO: Over five, and I'm board certified in city, county and local government. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So I just want June 26, 2025 Page 23 to repeat that. You're board certified in? MR. LOMBARDO: City, county and local government law, which includes within that ambit all land use, zoning, comprehensive planning matters. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So I -- and I do appreciate especially which some people tend to gloss over the addressing of the Growth Management Plan and then finding relevant policies that you put in there that address that, but that is important. We all know the Compact Plan drives development, and so appreciate that. So I don't know whether we, you know, heard both sides of this, but I definitely see you as an expert in this area. You have been before me plenty of times before. I know you know what you're talking about with regard to zoning, land use and planning as a lawyer, and you can make -- I feel like you're competent enough to put some of this information into the record, so thank you. MR. LOMBARDO: I appreciate that, but what I want to clarify is I believe that, irrespective of that, there is sufficient documentation in the record through Ms. Estrada's testimony -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, yeah, absolutely. MR. LOMBARDO: -- and then all the documents I'm referencing are publicly recorded documents. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. LOMBARDO: And so I -- yes, and but I think it stands on its own. I really appreciate that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem, and that's why I asked you about adopting the county's staff report. Some attorneys come in here and with experts; some choose not to, haven't quite nailed down the law on it, but I think that you're allowed to present competent, substantial evidence to issues that are known to you and that are germane to your background. MR. LOMBARDO: And I would agree, and I would also point June 26, 2025 Page 24 out that the purpose of my email, which I submitted, is this from the engineer of record on the project, Mr. Alex Dunko, and so, you know, I put questions to him if he answered to address the drainage piece, but I kind of wanted to see where the comment was going before I got too deep into about. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fair enough. Let's go to public comments then if you're done. MR. LOMBARDO: I am done unless you have questions as to the variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not from me. Let's go to public comments. Who do we have? MS. PADRON: We have no -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers? MS. PADRON: Yes. Sorry. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MS. PADRON: We have Jeff Collignon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take the podium. Speak into the speaker, sir, if you can just give your name and address and -- MR. COLLIGNON: Oh. Jeff Collignon, 2201 Church Avenue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. COLLIGNON: I live on the paper street. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Thank you for being here. MR. COLLIGNON: My concern with the variances is the drainage. It's a huge problem, and in the 20 years I have been there, on Clark Street townhouses were put in. They were given a variance with the proviso that they would dig out the drainage ditch, which they never did, and it was never enforced. The project behind me was given a variance. Same situation, the house behind that project gets flooded out every time there's major rain or a storm. So I am totally opposed to the variance unless June 26, 2025 Page 25 there's a written agreement that drainage will definitely be addressed because we have flooding problems now with rain and storms. That whole area is terrible. And with three more houses and more concrete, it's going to get much worse. That's kind of all I have to say. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. And I assume you have got the email that was -- you sent that and that was you. MR. COLLIGNON: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. We have that. And I appreciate you being here today. Thank you for coming in. MR. COLLIGNON: Thank you for listening. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think we need to address this very specific issue of storm water on site. MR. LOMBARDO: May I ask -- may I inquire? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, yeah. Would you like to -- MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Would you come back up, sir. So just let me set the stage. In quasi-judicial hearings, the parties are allowed to examine people who testify here, and so he's going to ask you some questions, and it's all going to be very polite. MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. Thank you. Have you reviewed any drainage plans for the eventual development here? MR. COLLIGNON: No, I haven't seen them. MR. LOMBARDO: Okay. Do you know whether that would be required for the development of this parcel? MR. COLLIGNON: I would assume it would definitely have to be. June 26, 2025 Page 26 MR. LOMBARDO: Okay, but you haven't reviewed any existing plans that are on file with the County? MR. COLLIGNON: No. MR. LOMBARDO: And -- so you wouldn't know whether the proposed site has more or less water retention than required by the code? MR. COLLIGNON: No, I would not know. MR. LOMBARDO: As to the Clark Street property, you mentioned that there was a ditch that was never actually -- MR. COLLIGNON: Yeah. MR. LOMBARDO: Did you file a code enforcement complaint? MR. COLLIGNON: I assumed that it would eventually be addressed. I talked to inspectors about it, who told me it was too late to do anything about it because it was done. MR. LOMBARDO: And do you know if the County has already reviewed the drainage for the proposed development here? MR. COLLIGNON: I do not. MR. LOMBARDO: I have no further questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you for that. All right. So first of all, I want to state that the law of when I'm dealing with variances is that variances do not set precedent, legal precedent for me, in these hearings, and so they are taken on a case-by-case basis on their own merits and particular facts. So I think what we have to drill down at is whether or not the storm water, i.e., drainage, is being maintained on site. And I think we also have to address the issue of impervious area, make sure that, you know, we're hitting that issue, that we're staying -- we're not going over the standard for imperviousness. MR. LOMBARDO: And if I could -- in addition to how I would frame this is so Factor F requires that this not be injurious to June 26, 2025 Page 27 the neighborhood, and so I think it makes a lot of sense that the drainage would be part of the consideration in that factor. The email that we have submitted here, Alex Dunko is an engineer with Grady Minor. As I mentioned in the beginning of my presentation, there's a plat and plan that's under County review, as indicated in that email; but also on file with the County is a drainage plan for this site, and it's included in the back of the email here. The drainage plan shows how many cubic feet of detention is required for the site at build-out. It then lists how many cubic feet of detention will be provided at build-out; and as can be seen from the drainage plan, there is more detention being provided than is required, not a huge amount, but the point is it meets the standard. And so -- and drainage certainly does matter. There are rules and regulations. And if they wanted, we would have agreed to a condition that we have to meet all drainage requirements as part of this approval, but I will note that we -- that application with PPR for the plat and plans, it hasn't been issued because this variance needs to be issued first, but the storm water review has completed and it has been approved. So the drainage plan that you have in that email is pursuant to County staff's opinion compliant with all drainage requirements, and it will address that. I want to note, just because I appreciate your concern about development gets approved and the things that are on development plan don't happen, that's a real concern. A code enforcement complaint should be filed, and the County should fuse their mechanisms to enforce their development orders. What I want to emphasize here is we do have to get a development order. We're in the process of getting it. There are strenuous requirements employed by the State of Florida as to drainage, and per our engineer in his email, we meet them. And I guess I also want to note for the record that obviously this June 26, 2025 Page 28 email is hearsay, and -- but as I understand Chapter 162, hearsay can be considered basically as it's weighted. And what I want to point out about how to weigh this piece of information is everything in Mr. Dunko's email can be verified by going into the GMP public portal, plugging in the PL number and reading the staff's comments and looking at the drainage plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me put this on the record. So when he's referring to the engineer at Grady Minor, who is Alex Dunko, D-u-n-k-o, he's an engineer, senior project manager, and he has provided responses to the email that was submitted with regard to storm water. MR. LOMBARDO: And the final thing I will note, unless there's more questions to go into further detail to be helpful, again, the overall design here was actually dictated by meeting the drainage requirements. So initially it was attempted to do a 7-1/2 foot setback, and that was not feasible, not because we didn't think that we could meet any sort of nebulous variance request. It was because we didn't need the empirical rules to make calculations for the variance and noted that the variances are not set in precedent; however, I do think that the reasoning and the looking at the facts in that scenario when the properties are adjacent when we are talking about the exact same roads and streets, it's at least instructive in some way, not binding in any sort of way, but I do think it's instructive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask the County. I want to be clear on this, that the variances being requested are not triggering any deficiencies on the performance standards with regard to drainage or impervious surfaces or anything like that. And, in fact, that will be something that you all will make sure is adhered to once -- if this is approved, it gets into more of a granular evaluation, right? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning and zoning director. June 26, 2025 Page 29 The variances requested today are from yard setback standards. This will in no way alter or provide any modification or exceptions to the required storm water management plan that would be associated with the plat plans that are submitted. So there's no relationship to a development standards variance in any effect upon the technical review that's provided from a storm water management perspective. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah, because we all see it every day, our people will over-pave their driveways, over-pave areas, and if you're asking for side yard variances or rear yards, whatever types of variances, the idea is that you're putting development on it, which is impervious, and that means, you know, it could impact the overall calculation for open space or impervious areas. So what I'm hearing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that none of that is being -- that they're staying within the minimum requirements for that, correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And, yes, drainage is a key component of the Growth Management Plan for every local government in Florida because ultimately, you know, water drains off somewhere, and it's either through when it rains or sprinklers go on. And the worst case scenario is all of the fertilizers and other things get into the surface water and ultimately end up in Naples Bay and other places, and that's why there's so much emphasis on storm water and drainage, as well as just not wanting to have it sitting around, you know, mosquitos and so forth. So the County takes it very seriously. Anything else? MR. LOMBARDO: Just a couple closing comments. I am sympathetic and understand the concept of the variance changes the June 26, 2025 Page 30 shape of the buildable envelope, and that is the concern; but, again, the -- there are other rules out there, including the drainage, that will then redictate the size of the buildable envelope, as has happened here on this site. The fact that these are being developed together as three, although not necessarily from these variances is relevant, but I think it's helpful based on the objection, they are going on a coordinated system that will help improve the way they retain water. And then at the end of the day, where this goes per the drainage plan is Curtis, and I will note that because Church is not accepted by the County, it's not part of the storm water system, and so any lots that only front on Church don't have a storm water system to empty onto, and so there are just some things to keep in mind about there's some non-conforming development in this space that this would not be. And, finally, I very much appreciate the neighbor's comments, but he did not review the drainage plan and so it's not -- I think it would be a little bit more -- if he had reviewed the drainage plan and thought for some reason that the variance was impacting the way we're following storm water rules, I think that's a different kind of objection. I think this is based more on an observation, and the reality is this hasn't been built yet, so we don't know that this detention does or doesn't work. Other than that, we ask for approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That was a nice discussion. I thank the neighbor for being here. Marie, would you mind making sure that he has -- the gentleman that just spoke has a copy of the answers -- MS. ESTRADA: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- so that he could see what the engineer wrote back because I don't think he got a copy of June 26, 2025 Page 31 that. Let me make sure. MS. ESTRADA: I will definitely -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LOMBARDO: I will give him a copy. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: With that, I think I have heard enough, read all the information. It's been a good presentation by the County, by the neighbor, by the applicant. Lots of things to take into consideration. Thanks, everyone, for being here. We'll move on to the next item, and the last item, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. Before you is Agenda Item 3.D. It's a boat dock petition, PL20230014016. The petitioner requests that the hearing examiner approve a 264.084-foot boat extension beyond the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.8.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for walkways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 284.08 feet into a waterway that is approximately 1,250-feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 201 Shell Island Road, Folio Number 00743080002. It is also known as the west half of the west half of the northwest corridor of Section 16, Township 51, South Range 26 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's located within a conservation zoning district with an ST special treatment overlay. The subject property comprises 40 acres with 646.42 feet of shoreline before becoming submerged land that is within the Henderson Creek, the tributary of Rookery Bay that is 250 feet wide at this location. This petition number proposes to expand upon an existing June 26, 2025 Page 32 80-foot long dock that has traditionally only been accessible at high tide. The petitioner now desires to extend the dock 208 feet to reach deeper water. The required 15-foot side riparian setback will be respected on both sides of the dock facility. Public notice requirements as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H, the property owner notification letter and clerk's posting were effected by the County on June 6th, 2025. The public hearing sign was posted by the applicant's agent on June 11, 2025. This petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC 5.03.06.H. Note the primary area criteria it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies five of six, with the sixth being unapplicable. It's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. No public comments were generated by public advertising, and staff recommends that the hearing examiner approve this petition as described to allow the permitting and construction of the proposed dock facility as depicted within Attachment A. That concludes staff's presentation, and Joshua Maxwell is here for the petitioner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. I appreciate that. Welcome, sir. MR. MAXWELL: Thank you, John. For the record, Josh Maxwell, professional engineer previously recognized by Collier County's mixed marine construction planning and permitting, currently licensed in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MAXWELL: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. June 26, 2025 Page 33 MR. MAXWELL: Please go to the next slide. So the project is -- the Carrells bought the project -- property in 1980, and the first dock was constructed in 1984 and was only 40 feet long. Unfortunately, there wasn't a readily available aerial of that, but the one on the left was in 1995, which represents how the dock was extended in 1997 to an 80-foot total length. I have had the joy of growing up on this property with the family and can attest that it was very accessible for canoes and kayaks, but for anything outside of a small johnboat or skiff, it was only accessible at high tides. So the dock is -- you know, withstood the test of time but was replaced in 2002 in the as-is configuration. It has been through numerous hurricanes with which it's gone through some needed repairs to remain operational. And after Hurricane Ian, it went through some substantial damage, and in the replacement of it, they would like to expand upon it to be more accessible. The family has extended their boats from being johnboats to, you know, the common skiffs we see on our waterways today. The property is owned in a trust. It was originally purchased by Ernie Carrell and Ray Carrell, and since Ernie's passing, there's been -- you know, the rest of the family is enjoying in the ownership of the property. Next slide, please. On the top is the existing configuration. It's an 80-foot dock. It goes out to -- it's all fixed dock -- a small terminal platform with two small boat lifts. The proposal is to push it to deeper water depth about 2-1/2 feet, and there will be two boats. One appears to be very large for that area, but they have acquired a shallow drafting houseboat. And back in the '80s and '90s, one of the family members had one, and they're kind of bringing it back for traditional family use, and they'd like to keep it on a boat lift so that way it's out of the water June 26, 2025 Page 34 at all tides except when in use. Boat lifts are good for the environment as it keeps bottom paint out of the water, also allows for some sunlight to penetrate the water as the boat is not in place all the time. We have proposed to put a floating dock at the end so that it's a little bit more easily accessible. Traditionally it's always been a very low dock, which has gone under water at high tide, and that's primarily to make it easy to get in and out of the small crafts that they have used in the past. So the thought is to kind of have a combination of fixed and floating, but also it's nice because it makes the terminal platform easily defined because the terminal platform is the floating dock itself. Next slide. This is just a cross-section area of just kind of showing that we are proposing to do an 8-foot slip for the houseboat. That would be the largest boat that could probably ever access the property. I'm showing also that it will be polyfloat dock, which means it will be supported on plastic tubs. So it will have adequate water depth underneath it. Even at low tide, it will not be sitting on the bottom. And the upland tie-in will be through a fixed dock. It's what's traditional for the area. Next slide. We had a survey conducted by Paraquatic early in the planning stages, and that's a little snip on the right. It's showing that the one foot mean low contour line is at the end of the dock. So that just gives you an idea of how shallow it can be. Running through the primary criteria, we feel that we have satisfied all five. There is only two slips, which is appropriate for a single-family dwelling. The water depth currently is too shallow for regular use by the common vessels in the area, and there is no adverse impact on navigation as the existing channel is about 384 feet away from the June 26, 2025 Page 35 proposed dock location. As far as protrusion, we are underneath the 25 percent maximum at 22.7, and there are no neighboring docks, so, therefore, we're not interfering with any access to any neighboring dock structures. Next slide, please. For the secondary criteria, the first one, you know, outside of water depths are either mangroves or oyster beds. While they are present on the site, they are not the primary impact to not being able to utilize the dock structure. So we do not meet Secondary Criteria 1. Items 2 through 5, we feel that we meet, and then as John said, we feel we meet Number 6 because the Manatee Protection Plan is not applicable to the single-family use. As far as that it does not exceed excessive deck area, to comply with the State of Florida, we have got 160-square-foot terminal platform, which is quite small for the average dock in Collier County. For length of the vessel, the -- it's a very large property. They have approximately 650 feet of waterfront, just under. And there's only a 58-foot combined length, so we are at 9 percent, much less than the 50 percent allowed. And as far as impact views, the proposed project will not impact the views from any of the neighboring properties. It's state owned either side, none of which are developed, none of which have a dock. As far as sea grass beds, we did have Turell, Hall & Associates conduct a sea grass survey, and no seagrasses were found within 200 feet. There are some oysters present closer to, but most of them appeared to be dead at the time of their survey, and -- but those oyster beds have been there as long as I can remember over 30 years. Next slide. As far as relevant examples of other docks in the area and also in the county because I know that this is a longer boat June 26, 2025 Page 36 dock extension than typically proposed, this is the County's -- sorry. This is Rookery Bay's floating dock up on the north end of Henderson Creek, and you can see that it sticks out approximately 48 feet from the shoreline, and it doesn't protrude really in the navigable waterway, so it's not interfering with anything, but that is the most -- the closest dock to the property. Next slide. The next closest dock is the one down at the end of Shell Island Road, and this is the one that was originally constructed by Rookery Bay, so technically a commercial dock when it was constructed. And you can see that it sticks out about 260 feet from the mean high waterline, and it's presently used for giving tours, as well as FWC has multiple slips at the docking structure. This one is a concrete floating dock requiring a slightly deeper draft and is also in a narrower spot on Henderson Creek. So while it also is very far away from the navigable channel, it, you know, is approximately a little bit more percentage-wise impactful to the width of the creek. Next slide, please. I'm sure you're familiar with this area of Isle of Capris. It's been a very tight area to fit boat docks in, but this is really probably the longest residential use boat docks nearby, and they stick out about 197 to 165 from an aerial observation. Obviously this is at the end of a large lagoon. It does not impact navigation. Next slide. And then the other kind of relevant example is down on Chokoloskee, on Chokoloskee Bay. This dock protrudes about 180 feet from the shoreline. Also, it does not impact navigation, and does not, you know, affect the neighboring views as the neighbors have full right and access to the view of their waterway in front of their property. Next slide. So with that, I'd like to close. That's the view from the porch of the cabin known as Bear Hammock that the Carrells own. Obviously going out further will impact their view, but they're June 26, 2025 Page 37 okay with that as they're the applicant for it. So with that, if you have questions, I'm here to answer them, and we ask that you agree to staff's recommendation to approve the boat dock extension. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. I do understand and you're not the first one and won't be the last one to, like, give me other relevant examples of other variances. Again, I take every variance on a case-by-case basis. I know that it's -- it seems logical to me, if I were on the other side of this, I would want to be able to say, "Look at these other variances. Why not me," you know, but the reality is these are all on -- I have to look at the facts of this particular -- this particular request, apply the criteria as it relates to the facts; and staff has done the same thing with their staff report to this, but no criticism of you. I think it's interesting that everybody seems to do that. MR. MAXWELL: Well, I'll give you a little background. My previous life consulting here locally, a lot of times we had a lot of public objection for trying to go out, get a usable distance on the docks, and a lot of times it was to show the public that was here that their docks may extend beyond 20 feet; and some of them, we found out during public hearings, didn't have a BBE. So it's just -- I think it's just habit. Sorry for that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, because you ran the crowd out of here. Anybody sign up for public comment on this? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. There's nobody in the room. So I think you're safe. Nice job with the comparisons because you obviously scared everybody to death, and you silenced the crowd. Nice job, and it was nice to meet you. I don't think you have been in front of me before. June 26, 2025 Page 38 MR. MAXWELL: It's been a while. I was the chief engineer for Hall & Associates for 15 years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, okay. MR. MAXWELL: So I came to support Nick Pearson and Tim Hall and Jeff Rodgers on a few, but I left the area a few years ago to expand my reach to -- I work for Bellingham Marine now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. MAXWELL: So while I'm not doing consulting, as I said, I have known the Carrell family for 37 years, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. MAXWELL: -- felt like I could give them a hand here and make sure that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, that's very nice of you. You did a great job. MR. MAXWELL: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand everything that I have here. Does the County have anything else? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Then I will get a decision out as quickly as I can. MR. MAXWELL: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here. MR. MAXWELL: All right. Have a great day. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MR. BOSI: Nothing else from the County's standpoint other than we apologize for giving you a outdated -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, no, no. That's okay. MR. BOSI: That's our fault. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's all right. If something -- if there's not a zinger in one meeting, it will be another meeting, right? I got it worked out pretty quickly. June 26, 2025 Page 39 MR. BOSI: Appreciate it. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem. Anyway, thanks, everyone, for being here. Have a lovely weekend, rest of your week, whatever. Thanks all for the County and everyone for all the hard work that you do to put these on for the public, and I think they go on really well. So have a nice day. ******* June 26,2025 pg. 44 work that you do to put these on for the public, and I think they go on really well. So have a nice day. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:15 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER _____________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ___, as presented ___ or as corrected ___. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY SUSAN SIMONETTI, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.