HEX Final Decision #2026-06 HEX NO. 2026-06
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
INSTR 6795015 OR 6561 PG 2714
February 13,2026 RECORDED 3/10/2026 10:41 AM PAGES 7
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
PETITION. REC$61.00
Petition No. PDI-PL20250008448 - 3295 Pine Ridge Rd - Request for an insubstantial change to
Ordinance No. 15-43, the Germain Honda Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), by
revising Exhibit F, to allow gasoline storage and/or fuel tanks for dealership use only. The parcel,
approximately 10.44 acres, is located at 3295 Pine Ridge Rd in Section 12, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests an insubstantial change(PDI)to Ordinance No. 15-43,the Germain Honda
Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD) to allow for a gasoline storage and/or fuel tanks
for dealership use only.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier
County Code of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was advertised and held on November 11,
2025, at Hawthorn Extended Stay by Wyndham located at 3557 Pine Ridge Road,Naples, FL
34109. There were not any members of the public present at the NIM.
5. The public hearing was conducted in the following manner: the County Staff presented the
Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative,public comment and then
rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no public speakers.
Page 1 of 5
6. The Hearing Examiner disclosed reviewing the record for this petition and having no ex parte
communications.
7. The County's Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1. and 10.02.13.E.2 lists the
criteria for an insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance. The Hearing Examiner
acting in the capacity of the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the original
application with the criteria in Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1. and
10.02.13.E.2.'
LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria:
1. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no
proposed change in the boundary of the PUD.
2. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use
or height of buildings within the development?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no
proposed increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of
buildings within the development.
3. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas
within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously
designated as such, or five (5) acres in area?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no
proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within
the development as designated on the approved Master Plan.
4. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include
institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation,
or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there would be no
increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of non-
residential uses.
5. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but
are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts
on other public facilities?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no
substantial increases in the impacts of the development, which may include, but are not
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
limited to, increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on
other public facilities. Rather it is expected that fueling petitioner's cars onsite will
decrease traffic.
6. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic
based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the requested
changes do not result in land use activities that generate a high level of vehicular traffic.
Rather it is expected that fueling petitioner's cars onsite will decrease traffic.
7. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise
increase stormwater discharge?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater
discharge.
8. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be
incompatible with an adjacent land use?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there will be no
incompatible relationships with abutting land uses.
9. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a
PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements
of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of
intensity of the permitted land uses?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that County
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document
would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and transportation
planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed
that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or the Transportation Element of the
GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the permitted
land uses.
10. The proposed change is to a PUD district designated as a development of regional impact
(DRI)and approved pursuant to F.S. §380.06,where such change requires a determination
and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to F.S. §380.06(19).Any change that meets
the criterion of F.S. §380.06(19)(e)2, and any changes to a DRI/PUD master plan that
clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier
County under this LDC section 10.02.13.
Page 3 of 5
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the PUD is not
designated as a development of regional impact (DRI).
11. Any modification in the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD
ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as
described under this LDC section 10.02.13.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed
change is not deemed to be substantial per LDC section 10.02.13.
LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion:
Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change includes any change that is
not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD
ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that no changes are
requested for permitted land uses, intensities, or design standards, nor are there any
changes to the original PUD findings.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is not seeking any deviations.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public,the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections
10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. PDI-PL2023008448, filed by Margaret
Emblidge,AICP of LJA Engineering, Inc.,representing the applicant JAZ Automotive Properties,
LLC, with respect to the subject property located at 3295 Pine Ridge Rd, Naples, FL 34109 in
Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• An insubstantial change(PDI)to Ordinance No. 15-43 by revising Operational Restrictions
to allow on-site fueling exclusively for vehicles within the dealership's inventory.
Said changes are fully described in the PUD Language Changes attached as Exhibit "A" and are
subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—PUD Language Changes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The property is approximately 10.44 acres identified as Parcel No. 00256360507, located in
Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
• All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
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. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
3/4/2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
Germain Honda
Ordinance No. 15-43
Amend the PUD as Follows:
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
EXHIBIT "F" LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS:
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
6. Gasoline
storage and/or fuel tanks shall only be used for dealership use."
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *Sr* ***
Page 1 of 1
PL20250008448 Germain Honda PDI Revised 9/25/2025