Loading...
HEX Minutes 09/11/2025September 11, 2025 pg. 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida September 11, 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 Timothy Finn, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I September 11, 2025 pg. 2 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the Hearing Examiner for Collier County. It's September 11th, 2025, 1 p.m., and I call the meeting to order. Our first item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me for that. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Once again, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney for over 20 years working in local government, zoning, land use, environmental law. I am not a county employee I was contracted by the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill the obligations and duties that are prescribed in the Code of Ordinances. My job as a Hearing Examiner is to be a neutral decision-maker. How do I do that? I conduct these meetings, which are called quasi-judicial meetings. I review all of the backup material, the applications, the staff reports, everything before I come to these meetings. Then I conduct these meetings, I listen to the applicant, I listen to the County, I listen to the public, I close the meeting, and then I look for information as it relates to the criteria for whatever particular petition is in front of us. I will not make a decision today. My job is to take all of that information in the record. The record will end today after the -- when the hearing is closed, and I will render a written decision within 30 days. Typically, my office and I are able to put out those decisions quicker. We strive to put September 11, 2025 pg. 3 them out quicker, and I believe we can do that. This is a -- while this is a quasi-judicial hearing and -- it's to basically establish the record for this -- these petitions, it's also informal in the sense that we're not in the chambers at the County Commission. I want -- you know, a lot of people don't like speaking publicly. I'm the same way. So I want everyone just to relax, take your time. I'm more interested in the information you have to provide to me than I am your style or anything like that. So the important thing is just to relax. I may ask some questions. If I look down at anything, I'm looking at the file that I have in front of me. Don't be offended if I look away or anything like that. I might be taking some notes, things of that nature. The way that we conduct these hearings, I prefer to have it where -- the particular county planner that is involved in each petition, they'll start first with the podium in the middle, give me a summary of the petition. Of course, I know what it is, but it's also about putting it on the record, because we have a court reporter here. It's also being broadcasted via Zoom. So I want to get these things on the record. So the county planner will present the item, talk about what the request is, any recommendations, any conditions. We may have a little dialogue there, but it's pretty brief. Then we'll go to the applicant or the applicant's representative over here at the other podium. You'll notice that they have red lights on. We have new technology here, so you'll have to press the button down at the base, and when it turns green, you know your microphone is on, just FYI. September 11, 2025 pg. 4 So then after the applicant or the applicant's representative puts on their case in chief, we'll go to the public. Anyone in the public here in person who wants to speak, please fill out a speaker's card and provide it to our organizer over here. She's right at the desk. This is a hybrid meeting. The County has set up a very nice feature for individuals who want to attend these meetings via zoom. So we'll see if there's anybody out there someplace else. Collier County's a huge area, so getting here at 1 o'clock in the afternoon isn't always that easy, so we can -- the County has continued the practice of allowing these to be hybrid meetings. Once I close the public part of the meeting, it will be closed. Then I will give the applicant or the applicant's representative a little time for rebuttal or really just to address any issues that come up. That's the way I like to handle that. And then we'll have some back and forth. And so anyone that is going to testify here today must do so under oath. We have a court reporter here who's taking verbatim transcripts of everything that's being said. So if you notice, I'm trying to speak clearly and slowly so that she can get everything down. It's important that we don't talk over one another or use hand gestures to answer questions. Those things don't tend to turn out well in transcripts. So if for some reason she can't get something down, she'll stop, she'll raise her hand. She has full authority to do that, to stop the meeting so that we get an accurate transcript. So with that, anyone who's going to speak to me today at this hearing on any of the items that are on the agenda, September 11, 2025 pg. 5 please stand, raise your right hand, and she will administer the oath. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. I spoke about impartiality, and that's one thing that's really important for me. It's important that you trust that I'm here as a neutral decision-maker. So just by way of disclosures, I have not spoken with anyone at the County about any of the applications. I haven't spoke to any of the applicants or applicant's representative about any of the -- I have not had any conversations outside of this forum about anything that's on this agenda. I've read all the material. I've got the knowledge and skills to understand what it's all about. So I just want you to understand that that kind of thing does not happen. If it does -- if I do happen to have something, I'll disclose it on the record. So with that, I think that's enough. If we would get started with the first item, 3A. This is Calida. MR. FINN: Yes. For the record -- for the record, I'm Timothy Finn, Planner III. ***This is for Petition No. DR-PL20240009817, Calida Ventures, LLC, request for approval of a site plan with deviations pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.03.F and seeks three deviations. The first deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1.a.ii to instead allow for a maximum front setback of 53 feet September 11, 2025 pg. 6 along U.S. 41/Tamiami Trail East. The second deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1.a.ii to instead allow for a maximum front setback of 70 feet point 1 along Bayshore Drive. The third deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4 to instead allow for a gradual reduction in width of a portion of the perimeter landscape buffer from 20 feet to 18.9 feet as shown on the site plan with deviations consisting of 1.92 acres and located at 2934 Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. The application has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out on August the 22nd. The hearing advertisement property signage were constructed at the property by the applicant per the affidavit -- affidavit of posting notice included in Attachment E of the backup materials. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thanks a lot, Tim. I appreciate that. The applicant or applicant's representative, come on up. Name -- please, start with your name. MR. DuBOIS: Yeah. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Richard DuBois. I'm here on behalf RDA Consulting Engineers. MR. GRIMM: Good afternoon. Chad Grimm. I'm with Calida Ventures. I'm one of the partners in the Huey Magoo's franchise for this territory. And I'd also like to point out, since this is quasi-judicial, in the partnership, my September 11, 2025 pg. 7 role is design and development of our franchises for over 35 years. I've been a land planner, licensed landscape architect, and doing architectural design as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fantastic. You got right ahead of me, because I was going to ask Richard to do the same thing. MR. DuBOIS: Yeah. I'm a senior project manager, professional engineer, certified floodplain manager here with RDA Consulting Engineers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fantastic. All right. Let's get started. MR. DuBOIS: So we've put together a very brief presentation to summarize the details that we're here today to request. Next slide, please. Just a brief summary of the property. This property is located on the southeast corner of U.S. 41 and Bayshore Drive. Historically, there has been a convenience store/gas station on this property. There are two businesses that operate on the property. There was the convenience store/gas station and then on the south side there is an auto shop. This project will be split at a midway point and does not include the southern half of the parcel. The tire shop will continue and operate as is, and we are looking to improve the north side of that property. Go ahead. Next slide, please. So just a brief summary. There's the parcel that we are discussing here today. Where the driveway entrance comes in off Bayshore Drive, that north side is the split in the project boundary for this property that we're here to talk September 11, 2025 pg. 8 about today. This property is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Overlay. And with that, there come minimum and maximum setbacks. So part of the relief we're here to ask for today, the first two deviations, is to allow for this existing building to remain, be remodeled, and slightly added onto while not demolishing it and maintaining to the maximum setbacks that are required for new construction. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I love parcels like this, because you don't really get a lot of this in Florida. MR. DuBOIS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Usually you have a lot of east/west roads, so you don't really have opportunities that -- where you could do some interesting design work with a parcel like this. MR. DuBOIS: This is a unique property, and with the proposed project of a Huey Magoo's restaurant, that also comes with the unique challenges of fitting the required stacking on site for a drive-through restaurant, which with our proposed site plan and maintaining the existing building, we are able to accommodate that stacking. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. DuBOIS: Next slide, please. Just some extra brief background. Here's the current view of this property from Google street view. It's an old convenience store with older landscaping, some mature oaks, some mature palms. With this project, we would be improving, substantially, the landscaping as well to include the full buffers as required by code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. This is September 11, 2025 pg. 9 literally the gateway to the gateway. MR. DuBOIS: It is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I mean, it really is, when you think about it. MR. DuBOIS: It is. And the current corner -- unfortunately, it's a redeveloping area. It's getting much nicer every day, but the current corner to drive into, it's not necessarily the nicest. So that's part the goal of this project is to help improve the entrance to the redeveloping gateway at the Bayshore area. Next slide, please. So just a brief summary, again. The green hatch there, that area is essentially remaining as is with our proposed improvements. We're not looking to add any additional impervious area in those areas. We're not looking to change what's there. We're more adding to it. So we'll be adding landscaping, adding some stormwater improvements. The red is the area that will be modified, and we'll be remodeling that building, adding some additional parking and adding the required drive aisle widths for the drive-through. And a lot of asphalt on site, our client's looking to resurface and re-stripe -- re-seal or re-stripe. We're not looking to come in and bulldoze the site and kind of start from scratch. We're looking to use some of the good bones that are here on this site to help save some costs on the project as well. Next slide, please. So briefly, here's our proposed site plan for the project. It includes the parking improvements as required by code, the stacking improvements as required by code. Just to note, September 11, 2025 pg. 10 we are going through an SDPA concurrently with Collier County for this project, and we're doing a DOT access and drainage permit due to the connection off of U.S. 41. Next slide, please. So here's a couple conceptual renders of what a Huey Magoo's looks like, what they look like in other areas, and the one on the top, I believe that the conceptual for this site here at the corner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this something new coming to Florida? Because I haven't seen one of these before. MR. DuBOIS: That's a great question. I'll let Chad elaborate. He's much more familiar with it than I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't want to disrupt your presentation, but I'm kind of curious. MR. DuBOIS: Not at all. MR. GRIMM: Yeah. So not new to Florida but new to this part of Florida -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GRIMM: -- the franchise. We opened our first store in Cape Coral. That was opened in February. So if you want to trek about an hour north, you can try some -- the filet mignon of chicken. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, nice. MR. GRIMM: But, yeah, we have the franchise territory of Lee and Collier County. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fantastic. MR. GRIMM: And with a minimum of eight locations, but we anticipate 12 or more locations in the two-county area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. September 11, 2025 pg. 11 Fantastic. Okay. Great. Thanks for the -- for that. MR. DuBOIS: Next slide, please. To elaborate on landscaping a little bit, we are working with Brian McFall at Juniper Landscaping, who's doing our code- minimum landscape design for this project. Part of the improvements that we're making, as I mentioned, is bringing all the buffers up to code, which they currently are not, and then part of the -- one of the third -- the third deviation that we are requesting is on the northeast side of this site. The existing asphalt narrows from 20 feet down to, I believe, 18.9 feet. I'll check that when we get to that slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This area? MR. DuBOIS: Nope. Keep going east. It's actually right before that exit onto 41. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Down here? MR. DuBOIS: Northeast side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, okay. Right here. MR. DuBOIS: Yeah. So on the easternmost side of that, that's where it kind of pinches down. And because we are looking to utilize the existing asphalt, it required us to pursue a deviation for that reduced landscape buffer width. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GRIMM: You're correct, 18.9 feet. MR. DuBOIS: So it's that 18.9. With that being said, because we are requesting a deviation, we did commit to planting an additional four palms in that -- clusters of palms in that area to help better shield and buffer the business with that reduced width. Next slide, please. September 11, 2025 pg. 12 So just to summarize the deviations that we're here requesting today, the first deviation is the setback along Tamiami Trail. The current maximum setback is 20 feet. With utilizing the existing building, we would be at 53 feet. We don't anticipate any adverse impacts due to this. We're trying to come in and utilize an existing building. That's the main purposes we're here today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This was a gas station? MR. DuBOIS: Previously it was a gas station convenience store, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did you already pull out all the tanks, the gas tanks? MR. DuBOIS: I believe all -- that mitigation has already been completed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That already has happened? Okay. MR. DuBOIS: Yeah. Yeah. Another reason just to support the deviations that we're requesting here today is to provide the stacking on site. We did look at multiple different site plans with pulling the building all the way up, and if they were to construct a new building within that minimum five feet, maximum 20 feet setback, providing the stacking on site was quite challenging, and it didn't really fit to meet the minimum required by the county. So next slide, please. The second deviation is the setback along Bayshore Drive. On this side, we are looking on -- at adding onto the building. So the building's currently more than 70.1 feet away; however, with the proposed building addition, we September 11, 2025 pg. 13 would be at that 70.1 feet, which is greater than the maximum setback currently allowed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DuBOIS: Next slide, please. And then the third deviation that we're here today to discuss is the landscape buffer width reduction along that northeast corner. And in order to help support our case for allowing that 1.1-foot reduction, we would be planting an additional four triple plantings of the Pygmy Date Palms to help buffer the property from the adjacent properties with that reduced width. All the standard plantings we would -- that are typically required with the landscape buffer, we would be able to fit them within that 18.9 feet anyway, but we're providing a little bit extra material as well. Next slide, please. So just in summary, that's the project that we're here to discuss today. We've made great progress through the SDPA process and through that process as well with Tim and the rest of county staff. So if there -- I'll let Chad go ahead and say anything he has to add, but thank you for your time today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're welcome. Yes. MR. GRIMM: Is it possible to go back to Slide 7, perhaps? I'm not sure who's controlling it. Yes, thank you. I just want to have that up while I say a few words, because as Richard presented, you know, we have the three requests, and it's based on existing conditions. And he's correct, that top image is the actual building that September 11, 2025 pg. 14 would -- represents how it would be modified with it. And so, you know, just more high-level conceptually, as we look at -- and, you know, the architectural designer in me coming out, if you go back to lead design principles, if you go to the Green Building Council, the most environmentally friendly, the most carbon-neutral approach to modifying or implementing a building when you have existing facilities in place is to modify and use what you have already rather than tearing it down, sending all that to the landfill. Now you're -- you know, between all new concrete, which we wouldn't have as much of -- you know, we will reuse the steel of the structure. So all the structural form of this building will remain with the proposal and what you see on that top there, but it will change in -- visually considerably because we will completely re-skin it. So footings stay. It's post and beams. Steel posts with beams in there, that all stays. We replace the skin so we can have a brand-new location. The patio on the upper left side that you see, the outdoor patio, the space is a little smaller than when we would prototypically require for Huey Magoo's, but we can have substantial outdoor seating. This being lovely Naples, Florida, with fans in there, that accommodates the use nicely as well. And so, of course, a look like that will improve the corner. Essentially, it will be a new building even though it is a reuse of the existing structure. New landscaping, as Richard identified. Totally refreshed landscaping, and more green space within the sight. We actually had a slide that didn't make it in there. But islands will be cut in the parking lot as well. September 11, 2025 pg. 15 As Richard identified, we are sharing with another -- this is a multiuse location. So right now in, being formerly a gas station with auto repair, as you might imagine, it's a sea of asphalt. So we will be carving in, cutting in, and replacing some of that pavement with landscaping internal to the drive as well. And, you know, Counselor Dickman, as you asked, too, we're adding a new diversity of the food options to the area. I know that doesn't do anything for the board -- the board here, but, you know, it is -- for the community it's -- as we're making improvements, it is nice to get something fresh coming in; fresh options. Also, technically it doesn't probably weigh into your decision, but we are adding -- every store we add is approximately 50 more jobs. That includes a store manager, shift managers, leads, and then -- that's about 20 percent of our workforce, and then the rest of it is hourly support staff with that. And we have our multi-store manager with us here today, also that came in, and that actually lives not very far from here -- with us. So as you know -- I'm not telling you anything you don't know. As often is the case when retrofitting an existing facility, not all the development criteria easily complies with the new ordinances -- newer ordinances that are put into place, but we've been able to creatively work with what we have to reduce it down to just these three requests. And short of, you know, having to pick up a building or pick up the pavement, you know, we really don't have options -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. September 11, 2025 pg. 16 MR. GRIMM: -- really. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you have a unique -- definitely a unique lot, I mean, for sure. There's some challenges there right away. And the -- a couple questions. So you're definitely maintaining all of the pedestrian -- I mean, because I know there's a lot of walkability in there, there's a lot of bicycle riders and things like that. So all that's staying in place, right, like the sidewalks and so forth? MR. GRIMM: That is correct. All that's external to our property line, and the walk, particularly along Bayshore, is a new walk within the last year, year and a half. Yeah, we're not -- we'll not impact that at all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And out of curiosity, just how much of the building space is dining versus operations? What's the split usually? MR. GRIMM: So -- yeah. Normally it's kind of one-fourth dining -- one-fourth to one-third dining to three-fourths to two-thirds kitchen, front of house/kitchen space. In this case, it's going to be a small one-fourth to dining because for a drive-through, we really want to have 2,200 to 2,400, square feet, and this is 1,950 square feet. So by moving a significant amount of our dining outside, that's where we get the additional dining space. So inside, we are -- we're going to be a little heavier on the front of house and the kitchen side of it with some interior dining, but -- you know, normally we like to have kind of a third of our dining out and two-thirds in. Well, we're reversed on this one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I think it's just something that happened during COVID. I mean -- and September 11, 2025 pg. 17 it may have been Chick-fil-A that perfected it first, but everyone is big on the driver-throughs now and really doubling down on drive-through -- MR. GRIMM: Well, the newer drive-throughs, their dining rooms are shrinking, and they're -- even with Chick-fil- A's. They're -- well, many of them, not all, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GRIMM: -- they're much smaller. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GRIMM: And, yes, it's a trend. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. And so as far as, like, the number of parking spaces here, I guess, that was just a straight-up calculation based on your square footage? It just seems like that's a lot of -- I wonder if that's not an overabundance of parking. MR. GRIMM: It's -- well, the ordinance is -- it's either your square footage or your number of dining seats -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GRIMM: -- whichever is most restrictive, and because of our outdoor dining -- which we did confirm with the county, that, yes, if you have outdoor dining, it still counts towards. So it's based on the number of seats we have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And actually I like -- from what I'm looking at -- because I've looked at a number of these retrofits of -- this is not fast food, but I don't know how you qualify it. It's, like, probably good fast food or something like that. MR. GRIMM: Yeah. This is considered a quick-serve restaurant, so it's kind of right in the middle between fast food and sit-down dine-in. September 11, 2025 pg. 18 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GRIMM: So the orders are coming out in five minutes or less; three and a half to five minutes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. So I mean -- what I'm looking -- obviously, because I understand the drive-through portion about this, but I'm happy to see that you guys have worked out whatever conflicts there might be, because there's -- you know, there's always that stacking of cars, and it looks like they're wrapped almost all the time way around the building. MR. GRIMM: It does. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We’ve had to deal with a couple of other projects that are -- not this, but, you know, where there's a double lane in it, and then you've got people that are trying to park, and you've got people who can't get out. And so this looks really pretty clean to me, so thank you. MR. GRIMM: It -- well, no, thank you for recognizing that, because it took several iterations to get to this -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. GRIMM: -- and it's compounded. Because of the auto shop being a multi-tenant -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. GRIMM: -- we had restrictions of how we can change the site. We were limited to a smaller parcel as a result. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And I think probably the pros here at the County, the pro planning people probably asked you some tough questions, and they look at all these details pretty significantly. MR. GRIMM: Well, as Richard said, we're through the September 11, 2025 pg. 19 SDP as far as answering all those questions, and yeah, it wasn't an easy process, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But you're here. MR. GRIMM: And I use the term, we creatively got us down to these three that we just -- unless we move anything, we -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Couldn't get through without coming here. MR. GRIMM: We couldn't get through the balance without coming here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, you're here. Fine. Let's see if there's anybody here from the public. Anybody online or here? Anybody? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers. Okay, great. Any -- I guess there's nothing to rebut, but any last words or anything else that I may have cut you off from saying? No. MR. DuBOIS: No. Just thank you for your time today. Do you have any questions for us? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. It looks pretty straightforward. I'm -- honestly really, really impressed with this Bayshore area. I know it's been a long time coming, but it finally seems to be getting a lot of traction, and it looks really, really nice down there. I mean -- MR. GRIMM: Well -- and that was going to be my closing remark. You know, Bayshore's been working on and improving. You know, when we first sublet this September 11, 2025 pg. 20 location, we had homeless people there and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, I know. MR. GRIMM: -- you know, we'd see the remnants of drug use there. And so this is a gateway, and it's a prominent location. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. GRIMM: We just think, you know, with what we're doing, it's a prime spot to really help the whole area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I'm just glad it's not a food truck park right now. MR. DuBOIS: Thank you very much for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Inside joke. Thank you, guys. Have a great day. All right. Great. Thanks, Tim. Nice job. Is he doing another one? MR. BOSI: No, we are on to the John Kelly performance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John Kelly Show. All right. Welcome, John. 3B. MR. KELLY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. Thank you. Thanks for the introduction. ***Before you is Agenda Item 3B. It's a boat dock petition, PL20240009955. The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner approve a 13-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by 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 facility protruding a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 122 feet wide pursuant to LDC September 11, 2025 pg. 21 Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 1609 Gordon River Lane, also known as Lot 16, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 39 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Property ID No. 63770001127. It's located within Tract M1, a residential component of the River Reach Planned Unit Development established by Ordinance 85-71, as amended. The subject property comprises 0.22 acres with 75 feet of water frontage located at the northern end of the Gordon River which is also located within a drainage easement that allows for docks that do not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway. As part of this project, the seawall is to be replaced, which causes the property line to become the most restrictive point for measurement of protrusion. The subject waterway measures 122 feet, and the dock is proposed to protrude 30 feet, which equates to 24.59 percent of the waterway. The dock facility has been designed with a single slip to accommodate a 30-foot vessel. The required 15-foot side riparian setbacks will be respected on both sides. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the County on August 22, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by myself on August 26th, 2025. This petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies four of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies five of six, with the sixth being September 11, 2025 pg. 22 not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be accident with the GMP and LDC. No calls or correspondence were produced in response to advertising for the project. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachments A and B. That concludes staff presentation. And we hand it off to Jeff with Turrell Hall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, one second. One second, John. Like, you're the gatekeeper for him to get here, so -- and I've been waiting for years for this. Don't let him in here until I see pictures of him in the water actually doing it, because I believe that he's taking an intern or somebody out there and forcing them to go out and take pictures. So I want real pictures of him in the water. MR. KELLY: Would that be snorkel or scuba? MR. ROGERS: Scuba Steve. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He doesn't get in the building until we see pictures of him in the water, all right? MR. KELLY: Okay. Jeff Rogers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Jeff, hi. MR. ROGERS: Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates. As John just thoroughly went through and always does for me -- I appreciate it, John -- I'm here representing the applicants Eric and Heather Krukow, who do reside at 1609 Gordon River Lane, which is basically across the street from us -- or right north of us, basically; not across the street. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I feel September 11, 2025 pg. 23 like you've done this whole neighborhood. MR. ROGERS: We did Bear's Paw neighborhood a lot. This neighborhood is -- I've got two others -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. MR. ROGERS: -- coming in shortly here for you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So this neighbor's now transitioning as well with docks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: They got my -- they found my name and my number somehow. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Somehow. MR. ROGERS: Somehow. So here I am. This is a -- kind of a unique neighborhood. I just will touch on that real quick. It's a gated community that's back in River Reach. That is on the north end of the Gordon River, which is technically a drainage ditch. The Gordon River was altered back in the day and turned into a drainage canal for this -- the Estates and everything else. So it is a no wake zone, too. I want to stress that as part of the presentation. So moving forward, if you would. This is the existing dock. So you've kind of seen the pictures in this one and a couple others in the future. There is an existing dock, and it does not comply fully with the code today. It doesn't meet setbacks. It is kind of just outside of the 20 feet, so it was -- it's an older dock, and it was built, you know, in the past with, I believe, a county building permit, but it does not have a BDE to be out as far as it does, which I've learned that there are a few of those in this neighborhood. Just things were built differently. September 11, 2025 pg. 24 So it took on a lot of damage during the surge and has not been rebuilt since Ian, originally. And they've been using it, but it has not been redone because -- just getting contractors up this far as well as they wanted to reconfigure the design to accommodate their use a little bit more. So -- the canopy is permitted, though. So moving forward, if you would. I want to stress -- you can see an overall -- the top right, you know, that the existing deck and the waterway across is mangroves which is -- Nature Pointe development's property extends across the waterway and goes basically to the mean high- water line on the other side, approximately. And then landward of that point is Collier County land, which is associated with the Greenway. So there will not be any docks developed on that shoreline immediately across from us now or into the future because it is part of a conservation easement as well. So bottom right corner is -- you'll see in one of my slides moving ahead that water depths are really restrictive here significantly. And that is a large caprock that lies immediately underneath this couple's boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What is it called? MR. ROGERS: It's a caprock. It's limestone. It's caprock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, a caprock. MR. ROGERS: It is just -- it's a chunk of limestone bottom that is there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I see. MR. ROGERS: And the guy's had contractors. He's had people try to hammer it. And it's just -- I don't know if September 11, 2025 pg. 25 you recall the 41 bridges when they redid those bridges back in the '90s, they had a heck of a time with the pilings. The caprock in this area of Collier County is very dense, and getting it out of there is virtually impossible for them. So that was one of the factors taken into consideration with this BDE. So basically, we worked with them on a dock design, as we always do, with existing conditions. If you'll go forward on the slides. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is the one that I think is fascinating. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Where's the river? MR. ROGERS: The river was teeny tiny. You see it right here? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Look at this. They totally channelized it. Wow. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So the riparian lines are on this side now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So it's slightly different. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That is amazing. Yeah, slightly. MR. ROGERS: Slightly. So -- but you can see the floodplain. You can see the dark area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, for sure. MR. ROGERS: You can see, you know, this is upland. This is all upland, you know, gopher tortoise city. And that's part of the Greenway now. You know, they have gopher tortoises in there and all that. So it's amazing. September 11, 2025 pg. 26 It's -- and then this breaks off to the Conservancy. If you know the waterway, the Conservancy's in this area, and the zoo is also there, and they have water on their eastern property line as well. So very crazy to see this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: When you do this, do you -- I'm just fascinated with these old pictures. But have you gone forward to find out when they actually did the -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. We have -- '52 is the oldest that we have that is good, that is visibly a good -- you know, there's '48 and forty -- I think they did it every four years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But going to, like -- MR. ROGERS: Going forward. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: When did they do the dredge and fill? MR. ROGERS: Oh, that, off the top of my head -- so Port Royal was done in the '50s, so I would say they worked their way north. So it was, yeah, somewhere between the late '50s and mid '60s. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. Wild. Crazy. Port Royal and, like, Royal Harbor and Aqualane, and that change is just -- Marco Island, you should see that, you know. So it's wild. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Cape Coral. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, all of it. Moving forward, if you would. So here's the existing dock, existing waterway. The big thing here on this petition is the actual width of waterway September 11, 2025 pg. 27 and the natural shoreline on the opposite side. The mean high- water line goes significantly into the mangrove fringe, and that side of the waterway is not maintained in regards to width of waterway and providing full navigation of the -- of the actual drainage ditch itself. It's part of their CE. I'm not pointing fingers here. It's just -- it's just overgrowth into the waterway. So that's the biggest pinching factor on this waterway outside of the other bridges that they've built associated with the Greenway and the 41 bridges working your way southward. It is a no wake zone. So we designed this dock to be within the 25 percent width of the actual waterway but not the navigable waterway. That's where I got into a little bit of a gray area with the Army Corps permitting process with them. I had to -- we worked through it. I got state and federal on this already, but it was -- the no wake zone factor played heavy on that one just because, you know, safe navigation is a huge part of all these, you know, approvals. So moving forward, if you would. So here's the proposed dock. And they do have currently an existing riprap shoreline that is going to -- we're going to put a seawall in, which is the blue bold line that you see right here. So they're going to put a seawall -- a new seawall in along the mean high-water line. The mean high-water line falls slightly waterward of the platted property line, but -- on the north end, but as you work your way south, they become one, which is typical for the plats throughout. They're just always off slightly. So as proposed, the dock will protrude from the property line, being the most restrictive point on the north side, approximately 33 feet out into the waterway. September 11, 2025 pg. 28 But from the mean high-water line, it is 30 -- it's 29.5 feet, just under the allowed 35. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: These are the same conditions, right, in Bear's Paw, right -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- where they have this big easement area, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Same -- same thing, but however Bear's Paw, their vegetation on the south side of the waterway is more maintained. So the actual width of waterway is 122 feet navigable, basically. It increases as you go north. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So that is one big difference here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And they're going to give up their canopy and -- MR. ROGERS: No. I'll probably come back in and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Retrofit it? MR. ROGERS: -- do another canopy. We're not going to get a deviation for that, so it's a straightforward process with Collier County staff on that one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So as proposed, the fixed dock will be on the landward side in brown, and then there's existing stairs down to the dock, and then they'll have a fix the platform, but we're also going to have a new floating dock structure here, which this u-shaped dock -- I call this a U shape. It's more of a, you know, two-dock system, but it's just called a U shape -- is common for this shoreline and area. And why is that? Because the water depths are so shallow on the inner parts that tying up to the outside for September 11, 2025 pg. 29 short term is a common practice here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what will happen if -- okay. So this is a fixed dock, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this one's going to go up and down with the tide. Like, how does that work necessarily? I mean, I guess -- okay, the gangway. MR. ROGERS: The gangway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How big of a difference is there? Like two feet, something like that? MR. ROGERS: At least during the winter I would say two feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: But right now when you're getting a lot of water coming, you know, through -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: -- there, freshwater runoff, too -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. ROGERS: -- it's probably, you know, three, a three-and-a-half-foot drop. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I think we've talked about this before that these sections come in standard sizes, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's why it's five feet. MR. ROGERS: Correct, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: So the float will be 4-foot wide, and then they put six inches of wooden walers on each side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this cement September 11, 2025 pg. 30 or -- MR. ROGERS: This one will be concrete, yeah, for stability. And they have -- his mom comes over and gets on the boat a lot, which is why he wanted to go with the fixed dock. I didn't necessarily, you know, foresee him going with the floating dock, but that's what he wanted to do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's just one boat, but they will be able to temporarily moor out here? MR. ROGERS: And that's going back to the water-depth issue. At the low tide, that lift is just not functional. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's no way. MR. ROGERS: There's no way. So if you go forward one more slide, please, if you would. I think I had water depths on one of these. There you go. You can literally see -- and these are referenced to mean low water. So right here he's got negative 0.7 feet. That's where the rock is, right? So -- and he's got 1.2 feet -- 2.2, but then it drops off to six feet within, like, three foot. So it's a huge drop-off. It's a rock that just, literally, drops right off. And at a high tide, he's probably got about, you know, four foot at most underneath that lift where that rock is, just enough to float the boat over the lift. The boat drafts about two, two and a half feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if they dredged, this, they must have hit that rock and just decided to move on. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. It was too hard to remove. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They were just, "We're moving on." It's pretty historic. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, correct. September 11, 2025 pg. 31 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: You know, it's kind of like the Keys' canals, if you're familiar with the Keys. It could cut straight out of, like, coral. You know, so that's just dynamite and some kind of diamond-plate drill to get through it all, and it drives costs through the roof. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they won't let you take dynamite out there now? MR. ROGERS: I told him, I was like, "Just go out there at nighttime on 4th of July or something and just get it done." It didn't work. So get back onto the criteria real quick. I'll kind of go through it. Those are the hardships, the rock, 33-foot protrusion overall. So a 13-foot boat dock extension, we're requesting. It is a single-family dock, and it is in compliance with what is allowed, appropriate; two boat slips. We're proposing just one, so we do fall -- meet that criteria. Number 2 is water depths; we touched on that. There is enough water at high tide, but at low tide, it's just not enough. So this provides a secondary temporary mooring slip. If you'll go forward, actually, I've got a slide showing the vessels on the waterway. There's the cross-section of the rock. Keep going forward, if you would. There's the waterway. Go one more, I guess it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: There you go. So that gives you a perspective on what waterway's available for navigation of a typical sized boat up the river, which I believe we're showing a 30-foot vessel with approximately a 10-foot, September 11, 2025 pg. 32 10-and-a-half-foot beam. It's very common, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's the west side like? I mean, if you're -- if you're cruising along the mangroves? Is it pretty deep in there? MR. ROGERS: It is. It is. It is very deep. Per our submittal in the package online, there's water depths on the survey. But there is significant water. It does get shallow as you get into the trees, but obviously, we're not navigating that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And everybody's going super slow in there, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You pretty much have to. MR. ROGERS: You have to, yeah. So water depths are restrictive, which is what's driving the overall petition request. Number 3, adverse impacts to navigation, as you can see here. And go to the previous slide, if you would, for me, please. It shows, you know, we are kind of common with what's going on in there, a 25-foot to 30-foot. Some are less, of course, but we are by -- not by far, by just a little going out the maximum amount here because, in his defense, the caprock is a pinch point for him. So... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I'm trying to think, like, going down, as you get into Naples Bay, you get to Bay Point, right, and you have to go under that bridge? MR. ROGERS: Yes. So you've got Bayfront and then Tin City, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so you September 11, 2025 pg. 33 have no other way to get into the bay, right -- MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- unless you go under that bridge, which is why all these boats are so small, right? MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ha. MR. ROGERS: Plus the Greenway bridge has maintained the same height as the 41 bridges. So those are newer, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: So they kept -- I think it's a 10-foot clearance, if I recall, 10, 10 and a half. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a very low bridge, yeah. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So not a tall bridge by any means. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that's what's keeping all the boat this size. MR. ROGERS: Correct. So we're not getting the quad engine, you know, big boys up here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Near and dear to my heart. Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Just make 41 a drawbridge, and we'll be good. Number 4 of the primary criteria, whether or not the proposed dock would protrude past the 25 percent, and that -- as we discussed, we're right at it. But the way staff -- the way the County is taking the measurement from the property line, we actually don't meet this criteria because we are actually technically 33 feet. September 11, 2025 pg. 34 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So we missed that one, unfortunately. So No. 5, whether the proposed location and design is -- you know, would not interfere with neighboring docks. If you'll go back one, you can see there's neighboring docks on each side. Go back a couple of them. I'm not sure which one, I'm sorry. Go one more. The existing. There you go. You can see where -- I think this says 14 and that's 11, so we're improving upon that by four feet on the north. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this a canopy? What it this? MR. ROGERS: I believe it's a boathouse. No, that's a dock, excuse me. That's just a big dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Shaped like that? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, interesting. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, and his slip is right here. Do you see that little slip right there? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So it's just a big deck that's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one's facing the other way. MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: Yep. That one was recently modified, and they ended up going out past 25 feet. I had to do a BDE with you, I believe, after the fact on that one a few years back. So the contractor put that in a little too far out. So back to this, neighboring docks, we don't interfere. September 11, 2025 pg. 35 We're actually improving upon the existing setback conditions. So that one we meet as well. So secondary, real quick, we'll go through this. Any other special conditions? In this case, you know, it's really the riprap shoreline as well as the -- you know, the large caprock is the special condition here. Honestly, that's -- it is what it is. Number 2, the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable safe access, and yes, the floating dock is, you know, the safest way to get on and off a boat, level it all to tide levels. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, that's kind of the gold standard, right? MR. ROGERS: It is, yes, sir. Yep. It is the easiest to do. And we're -- you know, our square footage I think, is only 800 square feet which, for single-families, typically are about a thousand square feet, so we're under that as well. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear footage. In this case we have a 30-foot vessel, 75 feet of shoreline. Fifty percent will remain open, so we meet that as well. Number 4, impacts to the waterway in regards to view. It's -- it's a boating neighborhood. There's an existing dock. No real changes in regards to that. So No. 5 is seagrasses. There's more freshwater up here and freshwater grasses than there are seagrasses, so no seagrasses. And 6 is the manatee. So that's really it. So really, we're basically asking for September 11, 2025 pg. 36 a 13-foot boat dock extension over the allowed 20, for a total of 33 feet out into the waterway. We meet the setbacks. We're improving our current setback situation. And the neighborhood, just so you know, is an HOA, and they did sign off on this. They all reviewed it, which is probably why no one objected to it. They all got it and provided us a letter of support for staff, which should be in the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It is. MR. ROGERS: Okay. Happy to answer any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anybody signed up to speak? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Didn't think so. All right. Great job. I understand what you're doing. I'll get a decision out as soon as possible. MR. ROGERS: Thank you guys very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Always good to see you. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Last but not least, 3C. MR. KELLY: ***Again, for the record, John Kelly, Planner III. Before you is Agenda Item 3C. It's a variance petition, PL20240009438. It's a request to have the Hearing Examiner approve a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 27.83 feet to 12 feet and to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 27.07 feet for a single-family residential dwelling pursuant to Sections September 11, 2025 pg. 37 10.5.B and 10.5.F of the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit Development, Ordinance 77-48, as amended, to allow for the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The subject property is located at 239 Bayfront Drive and is further described as Lot 12 and a portion of Lot 13, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 52 East, Collier County, Florida. Property ID No. 23095001208. Again, it's located within Tract I, a residential component of the aforementioned Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. Public notice requirements are effected pursuant to LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about August 27, 2025, as per notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the County on August 22, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by myself on August 26th, 2025. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03 and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code with the findings documented within the staff report. Advertising generated a single telephone inquiry. The caller was provided with the requested information and requested to please let me know if he had any concerns, and no further contact was made. Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve Petition PL20240001811 to reduce the required front and rear yards to allow for the construction of the new single-family residence with a building height of 55.65 feet as depicted within Attachment B. September 11, 2025 pg. 38 And that concludes staff's presentation. We have Zach Liebetreu of Roetzel & Andress. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. It's a little fun fact about this, you know, because we were talking about how straight the Gordon River seems to be in that area, the Lely conser -- the Lely versus Conservancy lawsuit, I think in the '80s, was a massive lawsuit which had preserved a lot of the mangroves, and then -- so you have a lot of the natural shorelines still left in there versus, you know, a straight line. I'm sure you read that whole lawsuit. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. That's going to be something I'm going to touch on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Welcome. MR. KELLY: If I could just interrupt. I forgot to let Zach know, when you want to advance a slide, just please ask to advance or go back or forward. MR. LIEBETREAU: Okay. All right. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Hearing Examiner. My name is Zachary Liebetreu. I'm an attorney with Roetzel & Andress. And we're here today requesting two setback variances for 239 Bayfront, LLC, the owners of 239 Bayfront Drive. If you could advance. So we're requesting two setback variances. One is a 15.83-foot variance for the front of the property and the front setback. And something I want to say is we have a correction, or a scrivener's error, which is in the staff report, Exhibit A. It's the first page. It's the site plan on the very top of the packet I gave you. September 11, 2025 pg. 39 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, this is what you gave me? MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. That's what Exhibit A -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. LIEBETREAU: -- of the staff report is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Gotcha. MR. LIEBETREAU: And it should say "front setback" on that simplified site plan -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LIEBETREAU: -- where the cross-out is. And we'll email Mr. Kelly a corrected version of that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Don't make any more arguments, though, with him. Just say, "Here it is." MR. LIEBETREAU: Okay. Okay. So that's the front setback, and then the rear setback, a 2.93-foot variance for the rear of the property. Again, staff has recommended approval and agrees that the variance requests are within the code requirements and necessary due to two main hardships. Go ahead and advance. THE HEARING EXAMINER:: Oh, my God. This neighborhood -- these neighborhoods have so many weird lots. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We've looked at a bunch of these. MR. LIEBETREAU: And it's -- like you were saying, it's curved. The mangroves are very deep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. They preserved the shoreline so they had to, like, plat the lots September 11, 2025 pg. 40 accordingly. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. So this lot shape was created by, you know, the person who originally platted this area. It's a curved trapezoid. You know, not your typical rectangle or square, which, you know, are common. And as you can see on the site plan on the right, that shows the ground floor of the building, which is outlined in bold. And I tried to angle that to show how it lines up with the lot there. And it shows you how we tapered down the size of the building, you know, doing everything that we could to, you know, taper this with the lot to try to make it fit. And you can see, you know, with the tapering, this home is not very wide, not very deep, I guess. You know, oftentimes just as deep as a vehicle. And another issue with the irregular lot is just the general size. You know, as you see the picture on the left, the neighboring property to the north is deeper than the deepest portion of our lot, and then also to the south, the neighboring property is not as narrow as our lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this a vacant lot, or was there a house there before? MR. LIEBETREAU: There was a house there as of, I believe, 2019. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LIEBETREAU: And then it was demoed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. LIEBETREAU: If you could advance. So the next hardship, as we've, you know, already touched on, are the environmental concerns. There's mangroves in the rear of the property, which is why we have September 11, 2025 pg. 41 to encroach in that front setback so much more than the rear setback, because we cannot push the house back much further. Go ahead and advance. And something else I want to talk about is height and how this height plays in. You know, we're a 55-foot home, and obviously, nowadays, people not only want to build higher because of repetitive hurricanes and flooding, but you're also required to under increased base flood elevation requirements. And our setbacks here are tied to height. So as we build higher, we have to increase those setbacks. And that's in, you know, Section 10.5.4.B. The front setback is 10 feet or half the building height, whichever is greater, leaving us with a front setback of 27 feet. And we're zoned in a PUD, as we've discussed. That PUD was updated in 2017 to permit three habitable stories versus two habitable stories. And, yeah, if this was a normal lot, you know, normal size, normal shape, there would probably be ways to engineer the home to still be viable and fit within the code, but with this lot shape and environmental concerns, it creates a whole different beast, and we're trying to build the home in light of these hardships. If you could advance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Out of curiosity, I would imagine they have some design standards in the HOA docs -- MR. LIEBETREAU: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- that have to -- that require it to be similar types of structures, and you can't do something unusual because of the lot. You know, a glass house or something. September 11, 2025 pg. 42 MR. LIEBETREAU: So I'm not sure on the approval of just the general, you know, home and every detail on it, but these variances have already been approved by the -- by the board for the HOA, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I imagine that. But it's just another layer of complexity. But it does turn out to be a -- I only say that because it's a beautiful neighborhood, so -- I've been in there a couple times. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. And so speaking of the neighborhood, you know, comparables in the community, 191 Bayfront Drive is three stories over flood. Across the canal, it's also three stories over flood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that the only house that was -- MR. LIEBETREAU: Yes. And then there's the old house which also was three stories over flood. You can advance. And then variances are not uncommon for this street for the area. 195 Bayfront Drive has a front setback reduction and also a rear setback reduction. In terms of the public feedback, we did have the neighbor to the south reach out to us, and they didn't say they were opposed, just had some simple questions, and I think they just wanted pictures of what it would look like, and so we sent them those renderings. And then, like I said, the HOA has also approved these variances. Go ahead and advance. And as you know, as I discussed, when we build up to the allowable height, the necessary height of three stories, you can see how far that front setback comes in, which September 11, 2025 pg. 43 would cut our buildable space nearly in half. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a much more modern-looking structure. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yes. It has -- there's a -- there's a colored version somewhere in here as well. But it really does look nice in the neighborhood, I think, and I think it matches nicely as well, and it will have a second-story pool, which -- or I guess not second story -- first-floor pool, which is really nice, and that's going to keep -- you know, I think that helps with the environmental considerations as well, keeping the pool away from, you know, any floodwaters and anything like that. Just a much more resilient structure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LIEBETREAU: And even -- you know, with the height, again, I did some quick math, and even if we took off that third floor to try to, you know, help with setbacks or anything like that and make it a two-bedroom home, which I would argue is not really viable for this area anyways, it would still only reduce our front setback to 21 feet. So we would still be encroaching by several feet into that front setback even if we took off that top story to try to help out. So the front setback, I think it's clearly necessary due to the shallow depth of the lot. And if you recall the original code provision for the front setback, it's 10 feet or half the building height, whichever is greater. So we're still going to meet that 10- foot minimum that's contemplated in the code, so I think that's -- you know, that's a very nice quality here. And the rear setback -- I haven't talked about it much because I think it's pretty straightforward -- we're only requesting that setback to accommodate for the balconies that will be on the rear of the property. September 11, 2025 pg. 44 And there's another code provision, 4.02.1.D.7, which provides exceptions for balconies on rear setbacks, but that only applies to base zoning districts. Since we're in a PUD, it's kind of -- kind of a gray area, so we're just requesting that rear setback variance today. Go ahead and advance. So again, finally, you know, just our request here, front setback reduction of 27.83 feet to 12 feet and a rear setback reduction of 30 feet to 27.07 feet. That's all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's it? MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you just give me a little bit of background on your credentials? I know you're a lawyer. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. I'm a land-use attorney. I've been an attorney for a little more than three years now. We've done -- or I've done a bunch of variances on Fort Myers Beach, assisted with some of those. We represent some governmental agencies, Greater Pine Island Water Association, Port LaBelle CDD. So we've done several variances, a lot of code hearings, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What did you do before you went to law school? MR. LIEBETREAU: Student. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? MR. LIEBETREAU: Yes. So I went to UCF, Stetson. And I'm from Fort Myers, born and raised. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LIEBETREAU: So I'm one of the few that can say that. September 11, 2025 pg. 45 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Born and raised in Tampa. Quick question about, then, your opinion about lawyers giving expert testimony? What is that? MR. LIEBETREAU: Well, I have been accepted as an expert in Fort Myers Beach -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hmm. MR. LIEBETREAU: -- on a variance proceeding, so that was -- that was nice. But I know typically lawyer testimony does not constitute competent substantial evidence, but I think in this case we can rely on staff. Staff recommended approval, concurred with all of our narrative findings. So I think -- I think that gets us the necessary competent substantial evidence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That was the answer I was looking for. So you'll adopt staff's testimony -- MR. LIEBETREAU: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and staff report into your arguments? MR. LIEBETREAU: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I only ask because I had another attorney in here, who won't be named, but he swears that there's case law that says that an attorney can give competent substantial evidence in a land-use matter. I happen to have an AICP planning background, and I was told at the City of Miami once that I have to pick. Do you want to be an expert, or do you want to be a lawyer? One or the other. But I'm still trying to find that case because I think I can still do both. MR. LIEBETREAU: Yeah. I had that come up in the September 11, 2025 pg. 46 recent South Seas proceedings. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I think you made some great legal arguments. I think those are important, and you have adopted staff's recommendation, which is clearly competent substantial evidence, and they're recommending approval. Why don't we see if anybody's here from the public to speak. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. You missed out. You could have had some rebuttal or something. MR. LIEBETREAU: Cross-examination. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. We could have gone really -- gone deep into it. Good job. It was nice to see you here, nice to meet you. I don't think we've personally met before. But if you come across a case that says you could do both, I'd really love to see it. MR. LIEBETREAU: All right. Me, too. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thanks a lot. I'll get a decision out as quickly as possible. All right. Do you guys have anything else you want to talk about today? MR. BOSI: Nothing else further, but I do not remember in the boat dock extension seeing any photos of Mr. Rogers in the water, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's officially barred unless -- MR. BOSI: I thought there was -- I thought there was a bar that we had set, but I guess we'll let it slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not going to September 11, 2025 pg. 47 ask again. Yes. MR. BOSI: Nothing further from staff other than those cookies may still be warm. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Thank you, once again. I have to really express my appreciation to the County for putting the new technology in here. It's really running nicely. Staff that puts on these hearings does a wonderful job. Thank you very much. And I appreciate you continue doing the hybrid which allows the community, if they choose, to participate without having to come all the way down here. MR. BOSI: And I did remember that we do want announce that the 9/25 Hearing Examiner hearing has been canceled. All those petitions that were scheduled for that are being heard at the first meeting in October. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. BOSI: Which is 9th, October 9th. MS. PADRON: October 9th. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: October 9th. All right, great. Well, thanks, everyone. Enjoy the rest of September, and we'll see you back here in October. Meeting adjourned. September 11, 2025 pg. 48 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:14 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.