Loading...
HEX Minutes 08/28/2025August 28,2025 pg. 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida August 28, 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: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I August 28,2025 pg. 2 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. Today is August 28th, 2025, 1 p.m. My name's Andrew Dickman. I'm the Hearing Examiner for Collier County. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting that has been noticed and posted. We're on the agenda, Item No. 1, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Just some quick preliminaries. Again, my name's Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney for over 20 years working in the area of land use, zoning, environmental law, local government. I am not a county employee. I was retained contractually by the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill the duties of the Hearing Examiner that are prescribed in the Code of Ordinances. My job is to be here as a neutral decision-maker, to listen to the County, to listen to the applicant, to listen to any public comment, and to take all that information, along with the information that's in the record, and make a decision within 30 days. I will not make a decision today. I will be rendering a decision within 30 days, so there will be a written decision within 30 days. Anyone who is going to speak here today will have to do so under oath. So in a minute I'm going to ask our court reporter to administer the oath. We have, to my right, the County. They will be going first. I will ask them to summarize the one item that we have on the agenda and give me a little background, tell me August 28,2025 pg. 3 some of their conclusions and recommendations. Then we'll hear the case in chief from the applicant or the applicant's representative. And then we'll check in to see if there's anyone from the public. We don't seem to have anyone here in person, but fortunately we are a hybrid meeting, which means that someone can attend via Zoom. And we will open it up for public comment via Zoom in that way. So why don't we go ahead and swear in all witnesses that are going to testify here today. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much, everyone. ***Okay. So we are going to -- we have one item on here, 3A, 10 Pelican Street East. John. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. It's a boat dock petition, PL20240013776. The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 12- foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by LDC Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width to allow a new boat docking August 28,2025 pg. 4 facility that will protrude a total of 32 feet into a waterway that is 840 plus/minus feet wide pursuit to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property comprises 0.22 acres located at 10 Pelican Street East, Folio No. 52340640000, also known as Lot 17 in the east 10 feet of Lot 16, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's located within a Residential Single-Family 4, RSF-4, zoning district. The public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were satisfied by the County on August 8, 2025, and a public notice sign was posted by myself on August 12, 2025, to the front of the residence. The review was based upon criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies four of the six, with the sixth being not applicable. It's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. Until this morning, no phone calls or emails or written correspondence had been received in response to this project; however, this morning I did receive a phone call -- a recorded message from Tony Migliazzo identifying himself as the owner of 14 Pelican Street who stated he has no objections on the proposed dock. Stated he was a neighbor. It's staff's recommendation -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, can you spell that name for me, please. August 28,2025 pg. 5 MR. KELLY: M-i-g-l-i-a-z-z-o, as per my caller ID. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What was the first name? MR. KELLY: Tony. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Tony. Thank you MR. KELLY: It's staff's recommendation that the Hearing Examiner approve the subject boat dock petition in accordance with the plans contained within Attachment A of the staff report subject to the following conditions of approval: That being a certificate of completion cannot be issued for the subject accessory dock facility until such time as a certificate of occupancy is issued for the principal single-family residence to be constructed on this site. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: That concludes staff's presentation. And we have Jeff Rogers of Turrell Hall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. Thank you Mr. Jeff. MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates, here today representing the applicant, who is Warbler, LLC, but it's also Jean and Victor Unruh is their name. They are the owners and currently building a single-family home on the residence. The aerial on the screen is not an accurate -- the house is basically fully constructed, just finishing the details of it. As I -- as we move forward in the slide -- go ahead -- you can see pictures. I didn't take one of me actually in the water, but that's me doing the submerged resource survey -- August 28,2025 pg. 6 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's never going to happen. MR. ROGERS: -- which is part of the application process with the State as well as the County in regards to doing a boat dock extension. So moving forward. A little history on the site, obviously, this is a '52 aerial. It's a natural waterway. That is the Big Marco River immediately to our south, and that is what Isles of Capri looked like back in the day before it was dredged and filled. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What do you think that is? Is this just an old dirt road that comes to a beach? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, or else it's just a turnaround, you know what I mean? But, yes, there was some sort of -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All mangroves, probably? MR. ROGERS: Oh, 100 percent, yes, sir. Yeah, definitely. I'm sure there's pockets of uplands, you know what I mean? But aerials back then are just black and white, so you can't really, fully, you know, see the differences. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: But the big thing with this area of Collier County, it's within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, and that's because it's basically a natural waterway that has been man altered. The land has, but the waterway basically remains as it did historically. So, therefore, with the State, the -- their criteria's more restrictive than the County in regards to designs for docks as -- especially new docks. There's a lot of grandfathered docks on Isles of Capri that were historically built prior to August 28,2025 pg. 7 1985, which is when the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve was established with the State. And 1990 is the grandfathered date for Collier County. So if it's grandfathered with the State out here, it's definitely grandfathered with the County at that point as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: The subject property did not have a dock on it, so it is a new dock for this particular property. Moving forward. The first thing we always do is get a survey of the existing property. And on here the big thing for us on this one was the location of the neighboring docks and the most restrictive or the most allowed protrusion point for the County or -- excuse me -- for the State is the 4-foot mean low-water contour line, which is shown right there in the blue dashed line, correct. The State allows us to go out to that point with docks and/or 25 feet, whichever is greater. In this case, the contour line allowed us to go out approximately 32 feet from the property line/mean high-water line on this one. So water depths are pretty shallow, you can see, up along the shoreline, and it would be nice to go out further. I wouldn't be in front of you today if the State allowed me to, go out and be consistent with the others, but in this case I cannot. Both docks next to us are grandfathered structures and can be rebuilt and replaced in the existing footprint that they are. Get into the weeds a little bit here. This property was two lots for one single-family home, torn down when it flooded. Developer bought it, split it, you know, and so forth. So that is why the dock immediately to our west is August 28,2025 pg. 8 right on the property line. It was one dock for the entire property when it was. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This? MR. ROGERS: To the west -- to the left. That right there, yep. So see how the lift piles are right on the shared riparian line? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, these, yes. Okay. I gotcha. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So that dock is grandfathered, and that dock technically could be rebuilt there, you know, over and over, technically, without being modified. So that was kind of a hardship for this property, let's say, the applicant, in regards to designing anything other than a finger dock, which is what's being proposed for you guys today. So move forward, if you would. As mentioned, we have a -- I believe it's a 5-foot-wide finger dock. Sorry for not knowing it off the top of my head. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It says 5 right here. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, 5-foot-wide finger dock, and the whole dock is basically classified as a terminal platform, and that doesn't really pertain to you guys, but it does the State. The State gives you 160 square feet of terminal platform, which the whole dock is considered a terminal in this case, and we're at 149 square feet, as designed in front of you, with two catwalks on either side for maintenance of the boat, wash down, and access to the outer parts of the vessels. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What is that material? August 28,2025 pg. 9 MR. ROGERS: That's the catwalk. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it going to be decking? MR. ROGERS: No. It's an aluminum walkway, basically, that attaches onto the beams of the lift. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So it's a -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's not really part of this. So that doesn't -- that's not part of the square footage calculation? MR. ROGERS: Correct. They allow the 2-foot catwalks for additional, let's call it. So as you see in front of you, we're going out 12 feet past the allowed 20 feet for an overall of 32 feet into the waterway. The waterway's extremely wide. It's approximately 840 feet wide. So we do stay within 25 percent -- well within the 25 percent. We're actually at 4 percent width of the waterway. Side-yard setbacks, in this case, are 25 feet per the State, 15 for the County. So as proposed, we exceed what the County requires; 22 feet on the west side and 25 on the east/southeast side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Quick question. So is the seawall from property line to property line even though there's partial riprap? MR. ROGERS: Yep. Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is -- MR. ROGERS: So the seawall -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- just a leftover from something else. MR. ROGERS: Correct. It's very minimal. The August 28,2025 pg. 10 survey called it out, but it's barely up to the mean high-water line. You can barely see it at high tide when you're on site. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So immediately to the -- further east of us you can see they have a seawall, but they have a significant more amount of riprap on the right-hand side on that shoreline. That's the gentleman that called, I believe, John this morning or yesterday. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 14 Pelican? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. That's his property. I'm working with him right now as well for some work on his dock. So he's supportive of it. I asked him to call. No, I didn't. All right. Get to the -- I'll just zip through the criteria, just so it's on the record. Whether or not the docking facility is appropriate in regards to number of slips, and you can see we are proposing two -- two 24-foot boats, which the linear footage of shoreline is 85 feet. And the -- we are over the 50 percent rule. So that is the one criteria -- jumping around the criterias on you. But that's Secondary Criteria No. 3, the one that we don't meet out of all of them, primary and secondary. So touching on views, this is a boating community. The dock is straight out. It is their -- there's their boat lifts. It is a new dock on a waterway on a property that wasn't there before. But in our opinion, there is no impacts to neighboring properties and the views. So no one complained either, so that's a good thing. Safe access, the dock is again, five feet wide. It provides plenty of space for them to maintain and gain access to the boat as well as the catwalks allow for August 28,2025 pg. 11 additional maintenance on the vessel as well. We touched on views. Seagrasses, there were no seagrasses in the general area within 200 feet when I dove. I wouldn't be surprised that there would be seagrasses within that 200 feet if I would have updated my survey. Which I dove it in early June, but I didn't update it since. But summertime when -- before the water quality goes a little bit south with the rain, it's likely this area would have seagrasses. But the dock has to be five feet above the mean high-water line. So it allows sunlight to go under it. So the State -- that's another State rule. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Quick question. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why wouldn't someone choose to do, like, a floating dock -- MR. ROGERS: Current. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- with the extreme tides? MR. ROGERS: Current here. The current. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, current. MR. ROGERS: The current in the river. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, the current. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, is very, very strong. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, gotcha. All right. MR. ROGERS: And the amount of pressure that that would put on the dock itself -- it would be great to do in -- but in this water body -- and this river, honestly, gets a significant fetch when we get storms that go by -- August 28,2025 pg. 12 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: -- because it just funnels right up that river. I mean, that river's 20 feet deep, and it's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it moves? MR. ROGERS: Oh, it moves. It moves quick. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It moves out. So the -- did you notice that the floating dock systems versus the stationary ones survive better through the storms, like, the storm surge? Do they? MR. ROGERS: Typically, yes. It all depends on the pile height, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROGERS: So that's a big thing that we have learned, let's say, over the years, but a lot of the concrete floating docks did worse than aluminum floating docks. Concrete floating docks are more stable. I call them the Cadillac of docks because they're really, you know, stable and robust. But that weight, when it starts moving and hitting the piles, it does damage. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. That's a lot of weight hitting piles. Yeah, gotcha. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So it's a Catch 22 with the concrete floating docks. A lot of the aluminum floating docks, especially up in Fort Myers, floated off their piles and ended up in the trees, but they were able to bring them back and fix them, where the concrete, it breaks, yeah. So it's -- it all depends -- we're learning a lot in regards to what's happened over the last 10 years with this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ROGERS: Moving forward. August 28,2025 pg. 13 I think I've touched on most of everything. So here's the width of waterway. Here's all the other boat docks in the area. Boat dock extensions are very common within this water body, and a lot of those that you see on the river actually are grandfathered structures. Most -- I'd probably say more than 50 percent of those are grandfathered. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this a marina over here across -- MR. ROGERS: It's a condo. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, it's a condo. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. It's a condo just west of the Snook Inn, basically, in that area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So, yeah. Manatee Protection Plan we're not subject to in this case. And, yeah, the driving factor in this -- I guess I should touch on this -- is the water depth. They are shallow near shore, as you saw, and we're only allowed to go out to negative four foot with the whole dock, and the vessels have to be inside of that contour line. So really, the State is restricting us significantly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is the special -- the overlay only halfway across the -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- waterway? MR. ROGERS: The special treatment, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. So it's only -- it's, like, somewhere through here? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm looking at the staff report. MR. ROGERS: Correct. So we'll need an ST permit August 28,2025 pg. 14 from the County. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Even though it's not in it? MR. ROGERS: No, we're in it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You are? MR. ROGERS: I believe we're in it. The Marco side it not, because we're on the natural side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I believe that's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't know. MR. ROGERS: Let me see. I've got the -- I think I've got the overlay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have a picture of it? MR. ROGERS: I might not. Oh, I do. Yeah, move forward. Yeah, I don't have it. I have it here in my set. You should have in your records. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: But we are definitely in the ST overlay. No, I don't have it in there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I was looking at this one. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I don't know what that is. That could be the boundary of the municipality of the City of Marco. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, okay. MR. ROGERS: That's what -- I think that's what that is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, gotcha. That's probably what that is. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. August 28,2025 pg. 15 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: So, yeah. The ST goes to that line, just so you know, in the middle of the waterway. So where the city starts is no longer ST. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: I think I touched on all of it. Happy to answer any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So the only one you don't need is just a mathematical formula -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- of the two vessels, total length versus the length of the -- MR. ROGERS: Shoreline. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the waterfront? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Fifty percent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, it's nice to see that it's not a 50-foot with triple 400s on both sides. MR. ROGERS: He wanted it. I couldn't make it happen for him. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry. Okay. MR. ROGERS: So that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, you look like you want to say something. MR. KELLY: Just to clarify, on Page 2 of the -- Page 2 of 8 of the staff report, the zoning map, they are in the A-ST overlay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So in the -- is that what that is, the municipality boundary on Page 3 of your staff report? August 28,2025 pg. 16 MR. KELLY: I believe so, the gray area -- gray -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. KELLY: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Marco. Okay. MR. ROGERS: Which I think mimics the ST line, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Any public comments? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We have no speakers. All right. This looks pretty straightforward. You can disregard that snarky remark about the large boats and everything like that. MR. ROGERS: It's on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It is on the record. Sorry about that. I saw a -- I saw a quadruple 425 the other day, and I was like, that's a lot of horsepower. MR. KELLY: Did you buy it? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Me? No. MR. ROGERS: It's only getting worse, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I can't even afford my flats boat. That's -- I've still got a few years for that one. MR. ROGERS: There's a thousand horsepower motor coming out, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anything else from the County? MR. BELLOWS: No, nothing from us. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Nice job, as usual. Appreciate it. I'll get a decision out as quick as I can. August 28,2025 pg. 17 MR. ROGERS: We appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Anything else you guys want to talk about today? MR. BELLOWS: Just the upcoming lookaheads. Are they -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Lookahead down the road. Okay. There is going to be a -- so in September -- the next meeting is going to be on the 11th, we know, right, the 11th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And there are three items on that agenda. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 9/11, okay. Great. Three items on that agenda. And then I -- we are going to have to cancel the 25th. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And we'll just roll everything over to the next meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. So we only have one meeting on the 11th, and we'll go from there. So I appreciate that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The next meeting after that will be the 9th, and we now have three items on that agenda. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you've got stuff in the pipeline for that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. MR. BELLOWS: As fast as John can crank out those staff reports. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Don't August 28,2025 pg. 18 slow down, John. MR. KELLY: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, everyone, for all your help today. I appreciate it. I know it's not easy putting this all together, but it was worth it. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you, Ailyn. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have a great day. We're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 1:26 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER _______________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ___, as presented ___or as corrected ___. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.