Loading...
HEX Minutes 07/10/2025July 10,2025 pg. 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida July 10, 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 John Kelly, Planner III Maria Estrada, Planner II Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I July 10,2025 pg. 2 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It is July 10th, 2025, 1 p.m. This is the Hearing Examiner meeting for Collier County. We have an agenda in front of us, and the first item, of course, is please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. My name's Andrew Dickman. I'm the Hearing Examiner for Collier County. I have been retained by the Board of County Commissioners. I'm not an employee of the county. I was under contract. I'm a Florida Bar attorney working in the area of land use, local government, zoning, environmental law for more than 20 years. My job is to fulfill the duties that are prescribed in the Code of Ordinances with regard to all of the applicants/applications that fall under the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. What -- essentially what my job today will be to is take the applications that are in front of us today, which are -- there's three of them, and conduct what's called a quasi- judicial hearing for them. That is in order for me to hear testimony from the applicant or the applicant's representative, from the county, from anybody in the public who would like to speak on the item. I will ask some questions possibly. The role -- my role here is to be an impartial decision-maker. I have not had any outside communication with anyone regarding these applications. I don't meet with anyone. I'm here as a quasi-judge, just like you would want a judge to be here impartially. July 10,2025 pg. 3 I will not be making any decisions here today. My role is to take the record that is made today and is also part -- all the documents that are made part of the record, which is the application and everything that's been made available to the public. And I have reviewed all of that and consider it, consider the testimony, and render a decision within 30 days. Typically I can do that faster than 30 days. I'll do my best. But it won't be a decision made here today. So what I really want from anyone who's going to be speaking today is to address the criteria that's in the code that is necessary to be met in order to approve whatever the petition is asking for. Of course, if anybody wants to speak about anything else, it will probably be irrelevant. I won't necessarily stop you. This is a public hearing. I want people to feel comfortable and be able to talk. This is a hybrid meeting, which means that the county has set up an opportunity for the folks to attend via Zoom and also folks will be here in person. If you're going to speak here today, two things: One, you need to fill out a speaker card if you're going to speak. Number two, you'll have to do so under oath, and in a second I'll ask our court reporter to administer the oath. With regard to the court reporter, the county has made available the ability to have a verbatim record of this hearing, so I am trying to speak as clearly as possible. Let's not speak over one another because it becomes hard for the court reporter to take down everything that needs to be taken down. I will frequently -- as I'm looking at all the information later on, when I'm drafting a decision, I'll frequently take a look at the transcripts just to refresh my memory on some things if I need to. July 10,2025 pg. 4 The process will be that the county will go first, they'll introduce the item. They'll tell me a little bit about the application, not in great detail, any recommendations that they have, any conditions that they may want to suggest. Then we'll go to the applicant or the applicant's representative using this podium over here underneath the television screen, and then we'll open it up for public comment. I will allow the applicant time for rebuttal which is essentially to answer any questions that come up during the public comment phase. So I think that pretty much covers everything. And I think with that, anyone who's going to speak here today on any one of the items, any three of the items, will need to 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 present in the room were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I've never heard anyone say "no" in my whole life, which is good. All right. So with that, we have -- we have three -- are all three items still alive, or are we continuing anything? MR. BELLOWS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, all right. ***So we're going to go with 3A, 3B, and 3C, starting with 3A, correct? Okay. Hi. MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For July 10,2025 pg. 5 the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II in the zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. This is a request for determination that the proposed use of "general office," limited to businesses and organizations, using the space for administrative functions/management services with the SIC Code 8741, is comparable in nature to other permitted uses within the industrial zoning district. The subject properties are located at 104 and 1016 Collier Center Way, Naples, Florida, 34110, also known as the North Collier Industrial Center, Lots 35 and 36, in Section 10, Township 40 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 10.02.06.K.2, A through Z. 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 compiled [sic] with as per Section -- LDC Section 10.03.06.O. The property owner notification letter and the newspaper advertisement were taken care of by staff on Friday, June 20th, 2025. I received no calls or any other communication from the public regarding this petition request, and there has no -- there has no -- hasn't been any public opposition pertaining to this petition. Therefore, staff recommends that you determine that the proposed use of the "general office," limited to businesses and organizations used for the space of administrative functions, SIC Code 8741, is comparable in nature to the other permitted use of the industrial zoning district with only the following condition, that it's noted that July 10,2025 pg. 6 operating hours would be Monday through Friday. Those are typical operating hours for administrative offices. And this concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Just to -- and I want to get this on the record, and maybe you can just tell me if I'm understanding this correctly, that when the city -- or when the county has its zoning in place, it typically lists permitted, prohibited, and conditional uses, but it's almost impossible to figure out all the permitted uses, right? So the SIC codes are for, basically, trying to say this use may match up with a use that's similarly permitted, because it's really hard to put together a giant list for permitted uses; is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Yes, I would say that is a fair assessment in terms of how -- how the approach is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the SIC codes, explain that for a minute real quick. MR. BOSI: The SIC code -- the SIC code will have a number that's associated with it, and then it will have similar type of businesses that fit that specific SIC code giving examples of the various forms that it can take. And because of that, it's not just one type of business normally that fits within an SIC code, but it's a multitude of businesses that have similar characteristics. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And uses are frequently changing, and it's almost impossible to go back and amend the zoning code constantly. MR. BOSI: Correct. And one of the issues we've dealt with over the past 15 years is the SIC code is a 1987 book that we still utilize. And our PUDs and zoning districts are pg. 7 July 10,2025 based upon the uses that are currently engaged within our marketplace have expanded tremendously, as you can imagine. So there's a lot of need for a comparable-use determination because of that dated nature, and at some point in time we will solve that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. So, yeah, I guess drive-in theaters won't be in the new book anymore maybe. MR. BOSI: That and VHS tape rental facilities. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Great job. Appreciate it. Is the applicant here? I wanted to just get that on the record just for the sake of the public if they're watching and listening. Hi. How are you? MS. HARRELSON: Hi. Good. Good. How are you? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wonderful. Thank you. MS. HARRELSON: Well, good afternoon. I'm Jessica Harrelson. I'm a certified planner with Peninsula Engineering, and I'm the agent for the North Collier Office comparable-use determination, and I've previously been accepted as an expert witness in land-use planning by the Collier County Hearing Examiner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Your reputation precedes you. You are an expert. MS. HARRELSON: You can go to the next slide. So the request is for a site specific comparable-use determination seeking to determine that the use "general office," limited to businesses and organizations strictly using the space for administrative functions, is comparable to July 10,2025 pg. 8 other permitted use of the industrial rezoning district. And through coordination with staff during the review process, this specific use is captured under SIC Code 8741, management services. The subject property is located on Collier Center Way east of Old 41 and consists of 2.86 acres. Next slide. The site is zoned industrial and is developed with two office buildings and associated parking. Surrounding the zoning and land uses include industrial to the north and to the east. To the south is a 50-foot drainage easement and an 80-foot right-of- way reservation and also in zoned industrial, and to the west an FPL substation across the only 41 right-of-way, and that's also within the commercial zoning district. Next slide, please. The criteria listed in LDC Section 10.02.06.K have been evaluated to determine that this use is consistent and comparable in nature with other permitted uses of the industrial zoning district which includes evaluating operating hours. Typical operating hours for a general office are Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This is similar to other permitted uses such as an engineering office. Operating hours for general office are also less compared to other permitted uses of the industrial zoning district, such as an eating place and a fitness facility. Traffic volume generated or attracted -- next slide, I'm sorry -- is also evaluated. General office is a low-intensity, low-volume land use and typically generates traffic only from employees. This use is less intense than other permitted uses of the industrial zoning district such as July 10,2025 pg. 9 United States Postal Service or an eating place. Types of vehicles associated with the use; standard vehicles for a general office are your standard car, truck, SUV. More intense vehicles are allowed with other uses of the industrial zoning district such as heavy trucks and trailers. Number and type of required parking spaces; again, this site is developed with two office buildings, and per the approved site development plan, it utilized the office use, requiring one space for 300 square feet. So the approval of this comparable-use determination will not create a parking issue or a parking deficiency. Next slide, please. Business practices and activities will include typical office activities such as answering calls, scheduling meetings, mail, such things like that. This is similar to business practices and activities with other permitted uses of the industrial zoning district, again, such as an engineering office. Next slide, please. For items B through E, there will be no negative impact on neighboring properties. Administrative functions are typically conducted indoors. General office uses are less impactful when compared to other permitted uses of the industrial zoning district such as an automotive repair or outdoor storage yards. The use is consistent with the county's Growth Management Plan. The use is consistent and compatible with other permitted uses of the industrial zoning district. And with it being a low-intensity, low-volume use, it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. July 10,2025 pg. 10 Next slide, please. And just to conclude, four zoning verification letters were issued in the past for this site. One for Big Brothers and Big Sisters, SIC Code 8322, which is individual and social services, and three separate ZVLs for home healthcare services, SIC Code 8082. And it was specified that these organizations would strictly be using this space for administrative functions. Staff confirmed that while those SIC codes were not permitted by the industrial zoning district, since activities would be limited to administrative functions, they allowed the use to occur. And the property owner is just looking to solidify this so that he doesn't need to go through the ZVL process for future tenants. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it's very different than commercial activity. MS. HARRELSON: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Offices, like -- you said engineering office, planning office, just title insurance, real estate where there's not a lot of foot traffic. It might be, at most, employees and -- or with maybe one or two clients that come in -- MS. HARRELSON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- correct? MS. HARRELSON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. I know this area. I've been out there. So, I will -- I don't have any questions. Why don't we go to public comment. July 10,2025 pg. 11 MS. PADRON: We have no speakers for this petition. MS. HARRELSON: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I just wanted to give you just one -- and it wasn't contained in the staff report. About three years ago the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to make modifications to how we do comparable-use determinations in the straight zoning districts. Prior to that direction, if you received a comparable- use determination in the industrial zoning district, it would be a comparable use that would be applicable, then, to any other parcel within the industrial zoning district. They have subsequently provided us, and we have amended the code, to say that the application will be specific to that parcel that is seeking -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's case by case. MR. BOSI: -- that comparable use, so it's case by case. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. MR. BOSI: So just so it doesn't create the entire universe of industrially zoned properties. This comparable-use determination is strictly related to this industrially zoned property at this location. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And does it run with the land, or does it just run with the -- that particular -- MR. BOSI: No, it would run with the -- it would run with the land. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: For that applicant? MR. BOSI: For that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: For that use? July 10,2025 pg. 12 MR. BOSI: For that use. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Only? MR. BOSI: Yes, for that use only. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: As opposed to doing -- and from a policy point of view, that makes sense, because you never know what kind of unintended consequences you might have, like making big, blanket decisions like that. So I understand. All right. No public speakers, then. We will close the public comment. That was very comprehensive, very straightforward. I get these types of petitions from time to time. I will -- I have enough information in the packet. Your presentation was very good. Thank you. MS. HARRELSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I will get a decision out as soon as possible. Thank you for being here. MS. HARRELSON: Thank you so much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate it. ***All right. 3B, or not to be. Hi, sir. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III. Before you is Agenda Item 3B. This is a -- the petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner -- let me see. I got out of order here. I'm sorry. This is going to be Agenda Item 3B. It's a sign variance. It's PL20230001017. The petitioner is requesting that the Hearing Examiner approve a sign variance from Land Development Code Section 5.06.04.F.4 that allows one wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign for each single July 10,2025 pg. 13 occupancy parcel or for each unit of the multiple occupancy parcel within nonresidential districts to instead allow two such signs on the subject property for TD Bank. The subject leased parcel is located at 15285 Collier Boulevard in the Shoppes of Pebblebrooke in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's Property ID No. 66263000085. It's located within the community commercial component of the Richland Planned Unit Development, Ordinance 02-07, as amended. Section 4.4 of the PUD document reveals that banks are a permitted use at the subject location, and Section 2.18 of the PUD document states that signs shall be in accordance with the Land Development Code. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The required agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about June 9, 2025, as per a notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were affected by the county on June 20, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by the applicant on or about June 24, 2025, as per notarized affidavit. This petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.06.08 and is consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. No phone calls or correspondence has been received in response to advertising for this project. And it's staff's recommendation that the Hearing Examiner approve the subject petition to deviate from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4 by allowing a second wall sign as depicted within Attachment July 10,2025 pg. 14 A of the staff report. And we have Jeff Gammil of Claro Development Services to present. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. All right. MR. GAMMIL: I'm bringing this just in case I can't see. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, of course. MR. GAMMIL: Hello. Thanks for hearing the request for the variance. My name is Jeff Gammil. I work for a company called Claro Development Solutions from Miami. We work closely with TD Bank to help them build branches throughout Florida and up through the Carolinas, but primarily here in Florida. And this request is for the bank to add one additional sign that would make it prominently visible from Collier Boulevard. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you, how long have you been with Claro Development Solutions? I just want to get a little bit on the record. MR. GAMMIL: Yeah. I've -- Mr. Kelly mentioned I haven't been before the Board before. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GAMMIL: I've been a licensed architect since '95. I've worked with Claro Development Solutions as an architect. I worked with them back in 2004 and joined their firm in 2008 after the recession when I said time to go to the ownership side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. Then I see you as an expert to provide testimony. pg. 15 July 10,2025 MR. GAMMIL: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. GAMMIL: Can we go to the next slide? So this is the bank as seen from Collier, headed southbound, and the proposed sign will be -- it's the small building in there. The proposed sign will be between two of those windows, and the -- if we could go to the next slide. I presume you've had an opportunity to read all this. I'll just cut to the pictures. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, yeah. MR. GAMMIL: If we could go to the next slide which shows all of the signage. There are numerous signs indicated here, but most of these are very small way-finding signs, things of that nature, handicap signs. There is one sign at the entrance of the building which faces southeast that identifies TD Bank, so it's over the entrance on the southeast side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This area? MR. GAMMIL: Correct. And it's not visible when traveling southbound on Collier. None of the signage would be visible on Immokalee. But the request would be to add a sign on the east facade that would be visible when you're headed southbound on Collier Boulevard. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's only this sign -- MR. GAMMIL: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that you're talking about? MR. GAMMIL: Absolutely correct, okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Which is that -- got it. July 10,2025 pg. 16 MR. GAMMIL: Yep. And if we could go to the next slide. And that is what the sign looks like when you're close up. Of course, in the evening you'll be able to see it because it's illuminated. And that would -- that would basically be the way somebody would know this is a bank and where it's located. There are three banks within a couple of blocks of this location that all have free-standing monument signs. That's not what we're looking to do here. We feel that this would be sufficient to both identify the bank and also, because the monument sign would be so far from the building, it's preferrable to have it on the building. You see the green square, you immediately know, "Oh, that's the TD Bank." So that's why the request is for an attached sign. And this sign conforms to the size requirements for said sign. And that's basically it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, that's it. MR. GAMMIL: Pretty straightforward. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. All right. So, yeah, pretty straightforward. Kind of a -- I don't know how you classify these banks, but local consumer banks, I would say, in a shopping center where it's got multiple signs other places, so sometimes they run over their area limits in the code. So here you are, all the way from Miami. MR. GAMMIL: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Let's go to public comment for this matter. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers for July 10,2025 pg. 17 this. All right. I've read everything in the backup materials. I'm familiar with the area. I don't have any questions for you. If there's anything left that the county wants to say or any last comments you want to make? It's a pretty straightforward application, from my position. MR. GAMMIL: No. I think it's also -- I agree with you, it's pretty straightforward, and I appreciate the time -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GAMMIL: -- and consideration. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. I'll get a decision out as quickly as I can. Thank you. Safe travels back to Miami. MR. GAMMIL: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hope you make it before the traffic starts. All right. One more item. We're moving right along. Last but not least. MS. ESTRADA: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II in the zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3C. This is a request for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 01-53, as amended, the Indigo Lake Planned Unit Development, by amending Section 3, Subsection 3 -- I'm sorry -- Subsection C by removing the existing PUD street tree requirement. The subject PUD consists of a little bit over 181 acres and is located 3,000 feet south of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard intersection adjacent to the south of the Oak Ridge Middle School in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. pg. 18 July 10,2025 The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1, A through K, and 10.02.13.E.2.A, and staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with the GMP. The applicant conducted one neighborhood information meeting on Wednesday, May 14th, 2025. Twenty members of the public attended in person, 25 members of the public attended virtually on Zoom, and details from this meeting are included in the backup package, Attachment A to the staff report. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were taken care of by county staff on Friday, June 20th, 2025, and the public hearing signs were placed by the applicant on Tuesday, June 24th, 2025. There was one call and two -- and one email from two members of the public who had shared their concern in opposition with the petition request. I do have another email that was received after that I'm presenting as a walk-on. Terri has one and the applicant has one, and I can give you this copy. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah, please. Thank you. MS. ESTRADA: Therefore, staff recommends that you approve this petition subject to including Attachment B, PUD revised text, respectively, in the HEX decision, and this concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there's some interesting emails in the backup documents, and one I find July 10,2025 pg. 19 particularly amusing. It's from Ricky Migal, Code Enforcement Officer II. This case is getting older than some dirt. So it looks like there's a code enforcement problem going on underneath this. MS. ESTRADA: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yes, there is. And it has to do with the trees, I imagine, so we'll hear about that from the applicant's representative, okay? MS. ESTRADA: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks. Older than some dirt. Glad he didn't say older than the Hearing Examiner. Sometimes I feel like dirt, old dirt. MS. SUMMERS: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Ellen Summers. I'm the certified land-use planner with Bowman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi, Ellen. MS. SUMMERS: Formerly known as Hole Montes. I'm also senior planning manager there for their planning and development department. I'm here today on behalf of the Indigo Lakes Master Homeowners, and as Maria pointed out, we are requesting a PUDI for the Indigo Lakes PUD. Next slide, please. We -- and I apologize, I had a little bit of a swap-out issue with my PowerPoint, so bear with me here just a moment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sure it was Bob Mulhere's problem. He created it. MS. SUMMERS: When in doubt, we'll say it's Bob. So the Indigo Lakes Planned Unit Development was created in 2001, and that was by way of Ordinance 01-53. pg. 20 July 10,2025 The Indigo Lakes PUD is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard just south of Immokalee Road and the intersection of 951, and it's also directly south of the Oak Ridge Middle School. It's approximately 181 acres, and it allows up to, I believe, 442 dwelling units. And the majority of these dwelling units in the development are single-family; however, it also permits multifamily. The -- in 2000 -- so let me see here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the trees are causing damage. That's what we're getting -- MS. SUMMERS: Trees are causing damage, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what we're getting to? MS. SUMMERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: So the trees were developed back in -- you know, they were replaced when they were initially developing that property. They added the street tree requirement within the PUD, but I do want to note that that is not a typical requirement for Planned Unit Developments. It's something that they elected to do. There is a little bit of unclear history as far as whether or not a street tree plan was submitted to Collier County for review at time of development. So what we are finding is that we have very large oak trees located between the roadway and the sidewalks. There's probably about five or six feet of clearance for these trees, and as we are learning, these oak trees probably need at least 10 feet for adequate growth and to prevent any damage. So in 2007, that's when the first reports of damage to the HOA emerged, and, of course, it was determined that it July 10,2025 pg. 21 was the tree roots causing the uplifting of sidewalks, valley gutters, street pavement, as well as some driveways, and this became a very apparent safety hazard, so much so that, unfortunately, there was a trip-and-fall incident based on one of these uplifting’s of the sidewalk, and I think that ended up putting the HOA into some -- some issues with lawsuits. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can imagine. MS. SUMMERS: So next slide, please. So I just wanted to provide a few images of what these roots have done. This was provided to me by the HOA. As you can see, there's a lot of damage to the sidewalks. Next slide. And it's caused, you know, a lot of money and a lot of work on the HOA's part to kind of rectify some of these issues. And I am going to lean into the code enforcement violation, and we can keep moving through these slides. Thank you. Again, a few more images of driveway damage, valley gutter damage. Next slide. So the HOA started removing some of these trees probably about five or six years ago, and unfortunately, that was a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code. So it enacted a code enforcement case. They issued a notice of violation first in 2023. And the Indigo Lakes created the master homeowners association -- excuse me -- association created a tree committee to determine what the best next steps would be to alleviate the Code Enforcement Board issue as well as to alleviate some of the health and safety issues with the uplifting of pavement. July 10,2025 pg. 22 So they ultimately decided it would best to remove the street tree requirement within the Planned Unit Development, and then once this -- assuming -- or hopefully that once this is approved, they will have to work with a landscape architect to come in through an insubstantial change to the subdivision plat to delineate which trees need to be removed. And another important note here is that these street trees also count as the required canopy tree for the individual residential lots in which the tree sits in front of. So as part of that insubstantial change process to the subdivision plat, they will also have to take inventory of the existing canopy trees on the residential lots to ensure that if a tree is being removed along the right-of-way, that that residence still contains the adequate number of canopy trees. And that's -- I believe that's based on impervious or lot coverage. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're saying that the -- so this is -- well, I'll just call it a right-of-way. MS. SUMMERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's in a PUD -- MS. SUMMERS: It's within the right-of-way, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- but that's counting towards the upland private property owner's canopy -- MS. SUMMERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- requirements. MS. SUMMERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: This is a very well-established, July 10,2025 pg. 23 well-developed neighborhood. So in a lot of these cases -- and, again, this will have to be verified by a landscape architect at the next stage. You know a lot of these houses already have a sufficient canopy tree, but if they don't and they remove that one adjacent to the right-of-way, they will have to replant a tree to replace that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So am I wrong to assume that but for this tree -- street tree requirement -- or because of the street tree requirement, the county cannot issue permits to remove the trees? MS. SUMMERS: They would have to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Therefore -- MS. SUMMERS: They would have to replant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- it's a code enforcement problem, right? MS. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so will there -- I mean, generally, from a planning perspective it's good to have shade trees over walkways. MS. SUMMERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, is there a plan to think about other species that may not have as invasive of root systems? Because, obviously -- the slip-and-fall issue I understand 100 percent, and it is expensive on that end, as well as replacing the concrete, et cetera. MS. SUMMERS: Yes, absolutely. So the HOA will either replace with a more adequate species of tree within that right-of-way or they will provide the option to plant that tree just outside of the sidewalk on the property owner's lot. You know, I know that there's a lot of sensitivity about July 10,2025 pg. 24 street trees within these established neighborhoods, and I do want to kind of make a point on record that it's not the HOA's intention to go in and mow over every single tree. The intent is to identify the trees that they can no longer manage the root system properly and basically identify those trees that have become completely unmanageable for removal. And they are working with -- they have committed at the neighborhood information meeting and as well as follow-up HOA meetings that they will let homeowners know which trees that they have identified and kind of work with those homeowners to kind of figure out a solution that satisfied them, whether that's replanting just outside of the right-of-way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this a widespread problem in this development enough for me to eradicate this whole street tree requirement? Is it so widespread? MS. SUMMERS: It is. It is -- to replace a lot of these trees or to manage some of the trees within that right-of-way, it's becoming a financial issue for the HOA as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I'm talking about -- the financial issue is the cement and replacing the -- figuring out a way to -- when one lifts up, you create a slip- and-fall/trip-and-fall situation, but then you have to remove the cement. I want to know, is this -- these are not isolated problems? These are -- MS. SUMMERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- like endemic to the area? pg. 25 July 10,2025 MS. SUMMERS: From what I've heard recently, there's up to 20 or 25 trees that pose a problem. And that does not include the trees that have already been removed prior to this that kind of initiated that code enforcement violation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: So we did have the neighborhood information meeting. If you don't mind going to the next slide, please -- or two more. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sorry. I cut you off. MS. SUMMERS: No, it's okay. You know, we had about 45 members of the neighborhood at the NIM, 20 in person, 25 over Zoom. And, of course, there were a lot of questions about process, and there was also a lot of concern that the neighborhood was going to just get rid of all the street trees, a lot of reference to Planned Unit Developments that have done that. I think Saturnia Lakes is one of those. And we did have on record one of the HOA board members clarifying that they're only going to be moving those that are beyond manageable. And, you know, they do intend to clearly communicate to the community those trees that are identified. And they also made another commitment to create their own street tree policy within their HOA documents. It's not been completed yet, but it is something that they are working on. I have a little -- I have some sympathy with the HOA board. You know, I understand how that -- you know, these are all other professionals that have other full-time positions that are trying to step up for their community. So they do plan to continually engage the community, July 10,2025 pg. 26 assuming that this is approved, and to come up with a street tree plan that the homeowners can be happy with. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Is that a potential recommendation that I can make, just to make sure that, you know, like -- I don't want to get too specific into designing this, but it just seems like the -- what was it, five feet between the pavement and the sidewalk? MS. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's just really not enough space for mature oak trees anyway -- MS. SUMMERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- with that surface. I can see the roots are going up towards the houses, because that's probably where there's a lot of irrigation, so they're trying to get water from there. MS. SUMMERS: Right. That's a condition and a commitment that I have relayed and that has also been relayed to me from the HOA that they are comfortable with. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MS. SUMMERS: I would see -- you know, from a planning perspective, I can see the comfortability if we had some sort of conditions to make the other homeowners that are concerned have some level of comfortability here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, getting that many people at a NIM is pretty significant. Usually -- you know this. Usually it's none or few. MS. SUMMERS: Yes. You haven't been to too many of mine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Trees bring out the best of us. Let's go to public comment and see -- is that okay? Are pg. 27 July 10,2025 you finished or ready to go to public comment? MS. SUMMERS: I'm ready, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anybody here from the public? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers for this one as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. So, I'm going to be honest with you, here's what my concern is: I'm being asked to make a very sweeping adjustment to this PUD which is basically say, like, you don't have to have any street trees, and then there's no obligation. I don't know what the thought process was for that street -- for that requirement. Maybe the county can shed some light on it. I mean, I do know, as a person working in the field, that it's always a good idea to have, you know, shade trees while people are walking as long as they're appropriate, that kind of thing. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The only thing I can say is there is that requirement that each lot have at least one tree, so that will be a component that, as they go through and revise the street tree, the construction plan to remove the street tree requirement, they will have to satisfy the component of at least one tree per lot. So they won't be devoid of the obligation to provide for trees. It's just the placement of the trees, I think, are going to have to be attention -- the attention to the new street tree program, or whatever the HOA is going to reach with the residents. July 10,2025 pg. 28 I think that's important that they coordinate to make sure that they bring those replacement trees when they're placed on the private property as close proximity to the walkway within a safe distance so they don't have the same issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's hard to know, though, Mike, like, the difference between house A, B, D, E. They're all somewhat different; front yards are different. This is a mature neighborhood. It's been there a while, so things have changed. So I get it. So maybe it's a, you know, one-to-one replacement requirement, whether it's the backyard, front yard, whatever. You know, you get a lot of comments about heat islands and things like that where you have greenery and things -- so I see someone trying to get my attention. MS. PADRON: Yes. We actually do have a speaker for this one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, we do? MS. PADRON: Robert. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Via Zoom? MS. PADRON: That is correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's hear from -- MS. PADRON: I'm just waiting for him to unmute. Robert, can you hear us? THE COURT REPORTER: He needs to start over. Can you ask him to start over? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Robert, can you start over? Because the volume was not up. MR. WEESNER: Sure. Sorry. How is this? Check, July 10,2025 pg. 29 check. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go ahead. MR. WEESNER: Thank you. Thank you for giving me a few minutes. Apologies. I wasn't able to attend in person today. My name is Robert Weesner, and I'm a 10-year resident of Indigo Lakes community. I did attend the May 25th meeting and voiced my concerns at that meeting. I want to make a few points here. Since at least 2022, Code Enforcement records will show that at least 35 trees have been removed without permits and in violation of all the municipal ordinances and PUD requirements. As recently as June 26th, 2025, 13 trees were removed, and there are still piles of shavings in our right-of-way left over from the root and stump removal. The -- if this street tree PUD is removed, I have every expectation that the HOA will continue to remove many or all of the 25-plus-year-old street trees in the community. In my opinion, the continued removal of street trees will have a negative effect on the Indigo Lakes property values as a whole, and I do believe this is a substantial change, not an unsubstantial change. Further, I have no confidence that the Indigo Lakes HOA board is qualified to make decisions related to this and that the board members rotate frequently so the rules can and will change. This also absolves the HOA of their current financial responsibility for the current street trees in their current locations and transfers that responsibility to the individual homeowner. So therefore, I am opposed to removing the PUD street July 10,2025 pg. 30 tree requirement, as this is an endorsement of the willful and continued violation of the PUD and municipal requirements. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Do we have his address? MS. PADRON: We do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Robert, are you still there? MR. WEESNER: I can give it to you, for the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Please, thank you. MR. WEESNER: 14830 Fripp Island Court. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Robert. Appreciate it. Okay. Anybody else? MS. PADRON: No additional speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. First issue I want to address, I'm going to address it to you, Ellen, and then maybe to Mike or Ray. There was an allegation that this is not an insubstantial change, it's a substantial change, which substantial changes I'm not -- that's not my jurisdiction. So as an expert, have you looked at this, and have you -- what is your opinion? MS. SUMMERS: My professional opinion is that this does qualify as an insubstantial change, and I believe that's based on LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Mike or Ray? MR. BOSI: Within -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. July 10,2025 pg. 31 Within the staff report starting, I believe, on Page 5 of 8 and continuing to Page 7 of 8, we evaluated all of the criteria that makes a determination as to whether a petition is a substantial or insubstantial change, and staff's determination was that this petition would qualify as an insubstantial change. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So, I think -- when he said "municipal requirements," I think what he meant was county code requirements. So -- and, of course, I want to get it on the record that as a Hearing Examiner, the county -- the codes don't reach into HOA requirements and all of that. That's sort of an internal situation that -- you know, we deal with the PUD requirements and the county code requirements, but we can't get involved in the actual HOA incorporation, bylaws, things like that. The stories are everybody -- if anybody's lived in a condominium or an HOA, you will know that, you know, it's a -- those are -- those are good and bad, depending on how you see it. But we -- we're not going to get involved in that. So basically, I do need to -- this is going to be something that I have to think about, I mean, because I understand what's happened. You know, there's been -- it seems like there has been -- these trees have gotten big. No one really thought that they would get that big, or they just planted the wrong type of species for such a small area. They break up the sidewalks, and, of course, that's when somebody at night or whenever will trip and fall or slip and fall, and that's a liability for the association, which ultimately is a liability for every association member July 10,2025 pg. 32 because then that -- that's the way that works. But at the same time, I want to make sure that the -- you know, if that many people showed up at a NIM and then we have one speaker, it seems like a lot of -- I mean, that's the purpose of those NIMs is to sort of inform the public, inform people what's going on, why it's being done, things like that, answer questions informally in an informal setting, and frequently that is all it takes; otherwise, everyone has to show up here and get their information firsthand. So it's -- I compliment the county on having that requirement, and, you know, I compliment them on ensuring that the applicants do that first step, because I think it does resolve a lot of issues right out of the box. I think what I'm going to have to do is just give some thought to just ensuring -- I'm just thinking about if -- because I understand the problem that's going on, and I know why it's happened. I'm not going to get into -- code enforcement is not my jurisdiction, so I really can't reach into that area and deal with how many trees have been cut down illegally or not. There's laws on the books about trees and things like that that are a little bit more lenient now with regard to that. But what I do want to ensure is that the intent of this provision is somehow preserved in a way without placing -- without repeating the problem that they're facing right now? Does that make sense to you? MS. SUMMERS: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I'm trying to -- I think because -- I think Mr. Bosi's point is well taken that since these are part of each property owner's -- the upland property owner -- I'll call it upland -- or the July 10,2025 pg. 33 private -- the adjacent private property owner in the area, that's part of their canopy, they're going to have to address that, each -- one way or the other. So they can't remove trees and then create a nonconforming -- nonconforming use or an illegal use, because they have to have a certain amount of canopies. So do you want to give me any suggestions that your client would be okay with? MS. SUMMERS: I'm thinking -- I think, you know, conditioning the approval would certainly be my -- it's kind of where I'm leaning towards. I think that it would be appropriate for the HOA to commit to having -- I'm trying to think how the best way -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So aren't they moving in that direction anyway? MS. SUMMERS: They are. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But they just haven't come up with a plan yet. MS. SUMMERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So can I require them to follow through with that vis-a-vis you -- MS. SUMMERS: Sure, absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- or whoever, and that they meet with staff, and staff ensures that the minimum requirements for shade trees are being put into place. Does that sound like a fair approach? MR. BOSI: Most certainly. And I will point out that the street tree commitment within the existing PUD speaks to that street trees shall be -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can you do that again? MR. BOSI: I would say that within the original PUD, July 10,2025 pg. 34 there is a component related to the street tree requirement, and it says, "A street tree plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval as appropriate." It states that "street trees may be placed within residential lots and shall be installed prior to or concurrent with the construction of individual dwelling units." So the original plan contemplated it doesn't have to be in the right-of-way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: It can be on private property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: And so if I was to suggest a condition, it would be that the street trees would be placed within close proximity to the residential sidewalk, if on private property, within a safe distance or an adequate distance to provide for the roots to expand. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I just don't want to open up -- by doing this, open up a -- you know, let's go clear-cut the whole place and just cut down every tree because everybody wants sunshine and -- MR. BOSI: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- so forth and so on. But at the same time, I have another question for you, Mr. Bosi. I think it was indicated that this is not a typical requirement for your PUDs when they're approved, or is it? MR. BOSI: No. We haven't required a street tree requirement, I don't -- in -- MR. BELLOWS: It was a cluster housing project, and that was an option. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Ray Bellows is saying? July 10,2025 pg. 35 MR. BELLOWS: For the record -- I don't talk that often. For the record, Ray Bellows. They're -- when I was around back when this got approved, it was a cluster development, and trees was a big problem on the individual lots that weren't deep enough necessarily. So, the tree -- street tree concept was approved, but as Mike said there, the option could be have a street tree on the lot -- or a tree on the lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So here's where I'm going to go with that. Thank you for that. Here's where I want to go, because you've indicated to me that the HOA is moving in a direction of -- I mean, they're scrambling to try to deal with a problem, right? MS. SUMMERS: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But at the same time they understand they have to come up with some kind of overall plan to replant, right? MS. SUMMERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're just not there yet. So I feel a good commitment is to have that as a condition of this approval that they follow through with that and they don't just drop the ball; that they follow through and they -- there's some kind of coordination with the county to ensure that the minimum requirements for trees is met, right? Does that sound like a fair approach -- MS. SUMMERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- with its -- I don't want to get into every single property and things like that. I'm trying to design something that's flexible that could be worked out administratively that doesn't have to come back to me. July 10,2025 pg. 36 MS. SUMMERS: Right. From my understanding, you know, once -- if this PDI gets approved, the next step will really -- to formally bring on that landscape architect for them. They will have to submit an insubstantial change to the subdivision plat, and at that time that inventory will take place for the individual single-family residents, you know, and adjacent to where those trees are being removed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: Just to add to that, of course, our landscape subdivision will have to sign off on that with the understanding of the conditions that are being imposed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I think that sounds like a fair approach. I see the problem. I mean, this is -- you know, it's a mature neighborhood, and I'm sure when this was planted back then, it was all like, "This is going to look great," and nobody knew that -- or somebody should have known. I mean, there are predictions on these types of things. MS. SUMMERS: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There are other species that can be planted that aren't as aggressive. But anyway, I understand the problem. I understand why you're here. I just want to make sure that I'm not making a big sweeping change that is going to have unintended consequences throughout it. MS. SUMMERS: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I feel comfortable with your testimony that your client is in the works of bringing on a landscape architect, come up with a plan, will be submitted to staff, staff will have to run that through their experts, and they will ensure that there are pg. 37 July 10,2025 trees that are replanted in the appropriate locations -- MS. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that won't injure or damage infrastructure and will protect the public health. Okay. Does that sound fair? MS. SUMMERS: That sounds very fair. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MS. SUMMERS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Anything else from the county, or anybody? We already closed the public hearing, so that's it. All right. Great. MS. SUMMERS: Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll get a decision out as soon as possible. MS. SUMMERS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here and tell Bob we said hi. MS. SUMMERS: I will. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, Ray, you are the one that put that in there, huh? MR. BELLOWS: It was an interesting discussion. We did have a -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're getting flashbacks? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I do remember an attempt to establish small tree requirements for cluster development, but we didn't get a lot of support back then. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Understood. All right. Well, this has been a really great meeting. Is there anything else we need to talk about before we adjourn? July 10,2025 pg. 38 MR. BOSI: Nothing other than we -- the July 24th HEX meeting is officially canceled -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. BOSI: -- and we will be picking it up, I believe -- August 14th -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- will be the first meeting in August which we'll have our regular scheduled hearing at 1 o'clock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Full slate of stuff to deal with. Okay, great. All right. Well, everybody enjoy the rest of your summer. I guess I'll see you all in August. Okay. Thanks, everyone. Have a good day. July 10,2025 pg.39 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 1:58 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ____________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on __, as presented __ or as corrected __. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.