HEX Final Decision #2025-47Page 1 of 7
HEARING EXAMINER
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
STRONS INC. and RONALD FOWLE, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; and
EAST TRAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Appellees.
______________________________________/
IN RE:
Appeal of Administrative Approval of
Site Development Plan PL20230001721.
2323 Pine Street, Naples, Florida.
HEX NO. 2025-47
PETITION NO. PL20250008001-ADA
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Collier County Hearing Examiner on the appeal filed by
Strons, Inc. challenging the administrative approval of Site Development Plan (“SDP”)
PL20230001721 for the Pine Street Car Wash located at 2323 Pine Street, Naples, Florida. This
case came before the Hearing Examiner on November 13, 2025, and the Hearing Examiner, having
reviewed the record, considered the testimony and evidence presented at the duly noticed public
hearing, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact
and enters this Final Decision addressing the issues of timeliness, standing, and the alleged
violations of the Collier County Land Development Code (“LDC”).
FACTS
This matter concerns an appeal filed by Strons, Inc. challenging the administrative approval
of SDP PL20230001721 for the proposed Pine Street Car Wash located at 2323 Pine Street, at the
southeast corner of Pine Street and Tamiami Trail East.
The County issued its SDP approval on May 21, 2025, authorizing construction of the car
wash facilities, vacuum areas, and related improvements (see Final SDP Approval Letter, 5/21/25,
noting approval and conditions). Subsequent to approval, the Owner submitted limited landscape-
plan revisions, finalized June 16, 2025, at the request of county staff.
The appellant owns and operates a competing car wash across Tamiami Trail and less than
300 feet from the subject property. The appeal asserts that the SDP violates multiple provisions of
the Collier County LDC, including frontage orientation, façade design, yard requirements,
setbacks, and bicycle-parking requirements (see Appellant Exhibits). The Owner denies all alleged
violations and asserts that the appeal is untimely.
A duly noticed public hearing was held. The County, represented by Zoning Director
Michael Bosi, presented first. The Owner, East Trail Management, LLC, appeared through
Page 2 of 7
counsel. The Appellant was represented by separate counsel and presented its arguments. Public
comment was taken. All parties were afforded opportunities for rebuttal.
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction pursuant to LDC § 8.10.00 and Ordinance 2013-
25, as amended. The Hearing Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals
has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Sec. 250-58 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The core issues before the Hearing Examiner are:
(1) whether the appeal was timely;
(2) whether the appellant has standing under the governing ordinance; and
(3) whether the approved SDP complies with the applicable LDC design requirements
raised in the appeal.
The applicable interpretive standard under Florida law requires application of the plain
meaning of municipal ordinances and permits deference to staff only where the ordinance is
ambiguous, not where it is clear on its face. City of Miami v. Gabela, 390 So.3d 65, 68 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2023); Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of N. Miami, 286 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1973); Las Olas
Tower Co. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 742 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). A reviewing body may
not rewrite ordinances or insert words not chosen by the legislative body.
With these principles in mind, the Hearing Examiner now turns to each disputed issue.
TIMELINESS
The County approved the SDP on May 21, 2025. On June 16, 2025, the Owner submitted
and the County accepted revisions to the landscape plans. These revisions were reviewed and
incorporated into the approved plans.
The ordinance governing appeals provides: “Appeals… may be taken by any person
aggrieved… within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying
the grounds thereof.” Collier County Code § 250-58 (Appeal Application Form, p.1).
The Owner argues the appeal period expired June 20, 2025. The Owner further argues that
the June 16 changes were insubstantial and did not extend the appeal period. The County, although
arguing the appeal is untimely, nonetheless acknowledged that the June 16 revision constituted an
administrative modification.
Under the plain language of § 250-58, the triggering event is the “administrative decision.”
The ordinance does not distinguish between initial and amended approvals, nor does it limit the
scope of an appeal to only the revised portions. There is no textual basis to graft such limitations
into the ordinance, and courts applying Florida interpretive rules cannot insert words that the
Page 3 of 7
legislative body omitted. Rinker, 286 So.2d at 553–54; Powell v. City of Delray Beach, 711 So.2d
1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
The June 16, 2025 revision constituted a new administrative decision. The 30-day appeal
window reopened on that date. Thirty days from June 16, 2025 is July 16, 2025. The appeal was
filed July 14, 2025 and is therefore timely.
Because the ordinance contains no limitation restricting appeals to a “narrow portion” of
the administrative decision, the appellant may pursue a full appeal.
STANDING
The Collier County Code defines an “affected property owner” as one owning property
within 300 feet of the subject site and defines an “aggrieved” party as one who suffers an adverse
effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Growth Management Plan, LDC, or Building
Code. (Appeal Application Form, p.1–2).
Appellant owns and operates a competing car wash less than 300 feet from the site. The
LDC provisions at issue concern pedestrian orientation, façade design, circulation, and access, all
interests relating to corridor functionality, traffic, and site compatibility. Competitors may assert
standing where their business interests relate to protected interests in the ordinance.
The undersigned concludes that Appellant satisfies both “affected” and “aggrieved” status
under § 250-58 and therefore has standing.
LDC ARGUMENTS
A. Frontage Orientation (LDC 4.02.16.D.3.b)
1. The Ordinance
“The primary entrance for any building must be oriented to the street. Orientation is
achieved by the provision of a front façade including an entry door that faces the street or
square.”
2. Appellant’s Position
The appellant asserts that the building’s primary customer and vehicle access points face
south and are not oriented toward Pine Street or US-41. Appellant contends that the front
façade along Pine Street consists primarily of windowed walls without a door, and that the
entry doors are located on narrow north and south elevations that do not face a street.
Page 4 of 7
3. Owner/County Position
The Owner argues that the primary entrance faces Tamiami Trail East (US-41), consisting
of double glass entry doors oriented toward the right-of-way. Staff and the Owner’s
engineer confirmed compliance.
4. Finding
The record shows that both the US-41 façade and Pine Street façade are designed with
doors and glazing treatments facing the respective rights-of-way. “Orientation” under the
ordinance is achieved by a front façade including an entry door facing the street; it does
not require that the customer’s most-used functional door be the one facing the street.
Both facades incorporate façade elements and doorways consistent with the ordinance. The
requirement is satisfied.
B. Setback Argument (LDC 4.02.16.D.8.c.i)
1. The Ordinance
“The first floor building façade shall be located between the minimum and maximum front
setback line (if provided)… for a minimum of 50 percent of lot width.”
2. Appellant’s Position
The appellant relies on BGTCRA Figure 17, asserting the parcel has two front yards with
a minimum 6.5-foot and maximum 56-foot setback, and that the west façade exceeds the
alleged maximum setback at 68.31 feet.
3. Owner/County Position
Owner asserts that the maximum setback requirement applies only within the “Mini-
Triangle Area” of the GTZO-MXD subdistrict and that this property is not located in that
area. Staff confirmed no maximum setback applies to this site.
4. Finding
LDC § 4.02.16.A.1.a.ii imposes a maximum front setback only for the Mini-Triangle Area.
The subject property is not within that geography. Therefore, no maximum applies, and the
only requirement here is that 50% of the first-floor façade fall within the applicable setback
range. Staff confirmed that requirement is met. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is
rejected.
C. Primary Yard Requirement (LDC 4.02.16.D.8.b)
1. The Ordinance
Page 5 of 7
“The commercial building has a primary yard located to the rear of the structure with the
potential for a small front plaza or courtyard.”
2. Appellant’s Position
Appellant calculates yard areas and argues that the largest yard lies along the west frontage,
rendering it the “primary yard,” which appellant contends violates the ordinance by
situating the primary yard at the front rather than the rear.
3. Owner/County Position
The term “primary yard” is undefined. Staff determined that, for a car wash, the functional
rear of the building is where stacking and entry occur, and is not suitable for a courtyard.
Staff therefore interpreted the code to allow flexibility based on site function.
4. Finding
Because “primary yard” is not defined and the ordinance provides no dimensional criteria,
this is an instance in which staff interpretation is entitled to deference unless unreasonable.
Henry v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 509 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Las Olas Tower,
742 So.2d at 312.
Given the operational demands of a car wash and the absence of any contrary language,
staff’s determination is reasonable. The design does not violate § 4.02.16.D.8.b.
D. Bicycle Rack Clearance (LDC 4.05.08.C.2)
1. The Ordinance
Each bicycle parking space must provide three feet of clearance on all sides of the rack.
2. Appellant’s Position
The appellant asserts only two feet of clearance exist for both spaces combined.
3. County/Owner Position
The County concedes that, at the time of appeal, the rack required adjustment and that
revised plans incorporate the needed correction. The Owner does not contest the staff-
requested correction.
4. Finding
Because the County required compliance and no party disputes the correction, the issue is
moot. The SDP, as corrected, meets the clearance requirement.
Page 6 of 7
E. Bicycle Rack Distance / Obstruction (LDC 4.02.16.F.5.b.ii)
1. The Ordinance
Bicycle parking “shall be located on site within 50 feet of main building entrances” and
“shall not obstruct walkways.”
2. Appellant’s Position
Appellant argues the rack is approximately 80 feet from the main entrance and obstructs
the walkway.
3. Owner/County Position
Staff and Owner maintain the rack is within 50 feet of the primary entrance fronting US-
41 and does not obstruct access.
4. Finding
Upon review of the architectural renderings, the bike rack is located adjacent to the
sidewalk leading directly to the US-41 frontage door and within the required 50 feet. The
walkway remains unobstructed. The ordinance is satisfied.
F. Planter Width (LDC 4.06.05.C)
1. The Ordinance
For buildings under 10,000 square feet, planting beds must be at least five feet wide.
2. Appellant’s Position
Appellant contends the west-side foundation beds do not meet the five-foot minimum.
3. Owner/County Position
Staff and the Owner’s engineer confirmed all planting beds meet or exceed the required
width.
4. Finding
The record contains no evidence contradicting the staff verification. The planter-width
requirement is satisfied.
Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner finds that:
A. The appeal is timely.
B. The appellant has standing under § 250-58.
C. The challenged SDP complies with the applicable provisions of the LDC.
D. Where minor corrections were required (bicycle rack clearance), the Owner agreed to
staff’s directive and compliance is reflected in the revised plans.
Accordingly, the Appeal is DENIED, and the administrative approval of SDP
PL20230001721 is AFFIRMED.
DISCLAIMER
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does
not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or
federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit
if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or
federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall
be done in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
December 12, 2025
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner