Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2026-20Page 1 of 7 HEARING EXAMINER COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM CURRY, FRANK PUGLIA, PATRICIA & STEVEN GROSSMAN, and KEN BACKER Appellant(s), v. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA and WINDING CYPRESS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. IN RE: Appeal of Administrative Approval of Site Development Plan SDPI-PL20250012801 7180 Winding Cypress Dr. Naples, FL 34114 HEX NO. 2026-20 PETITION NO. ADA-PL-20260000118 Appellee(s). / FINAL DECISION THIS MATTER comes before the Collier County Hearing Examiner on the appeal filed by Tom Curry, Frank Puglia, Patricia & Steven Grossman, and Ken Backer (Appellants) challenging the administrative approvals of Site Development Plan SDPI-PL20250012801 permitting for the conversion of a tennis court to pickleball courts within the Winding Cypress PUD amenity center, Naples, Florida. This case came before the Hearing Examiner on March 13, 2026, 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 facts and law, and enters this Final Decision addressing the issues raised by the parties on appeal. FACTS & LAW This matter concerns an appeal filed by Tom Curry, Frank Puglia, Patricia & Steven Grossman, and Ken Backer challenging the administrative approval of SDPI PL20250012801 for the conversion of one tennis court to four pickleball courts within the Winding Cypress PUD amenity center. The County issued its administrative approval of the subject Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change (SDPI) approval on December 8, 2025, authorizing - PL20250012801. The proposed tennis to pickleball conversion is within the Winding Cypress amenity center located on parcel #82679000145, 7180 Winding Cypress Drive, Naples FL, 34114. There are other tennis and pickleball courts at the community center as well as bocce ball courts, a pool, and a club house. In total, this is the community’s activity center. Parking is adequate for the facilities as originally approved. Because the community has events at the activity center from time to time, the testimony revealed that parking can reach capacity during these events. The Appellants are homeowners, whose homes are closest to the tennis and pickleball courts, and they are members of the Winding Cypress Community. The appeal asserts that the SDPI approval violates multiple provisions of the Collier County LDC. Page 2 of 5 A duly noticed public hearing was held. The Appellants presented first. Winding Cypress Homeowner, David Chanen spoke in favor of the Appellants. The HOA President, John Meridan, of the Winding Cypress Homeowner’s Association, Inc appeared for the Appellee(s) and presented its arguments. Public comments were made. All parties were afforded opportunities for rebuttal. The approval criteria for a SDPI is listed in the County’s LDC Section 10.02.03.G.2 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 While the Hearing Examiner’s jurisdiction is limited to SDPI criteria cited above, the Appellants in their filings raise multiple other issues, including: (1)Failure to address known drainage and erosion conditions. (2)Lack of required professional engineering review. (3)Noise Proximity – the proposed court conversion of tennis court #5 to 4 pickleball courts places noise considerations within 160 feet of residential homes on Wiregrass Court. All acoustical sound recommendations – from any source-recommend pickleball courts be no closer to a residence than at least 500 feet. We believe the amount of footage cited on this form is about at least 300 feet. (4)Inadequate storm water and downstream impact analysis. (5)Public safety deficiencies. (6)Failure to demonstrate compliance with American with Disabilities Act. ANALYSIS According to a 2025 report by the Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), pickleball was named the fastest-growing sport in the country for four consecutive years in a row. The report stated that in 2025, participation in pickleball increased from forty-six percent in two years and was up more than 300 percent since 2022. Unfortunately, because of the sharp popping sound when ball meets paddle, compatibility with nearby residential land use has also become a common controversy and has even produced lawsuits. Some local governments have adopted specific codes for approving pickleball courts. The subject activity center at 7180 Winding Cypress Drive is zoned under the Winding Cypress PUD (Ordinance #14-09). A pickleball court is permitted use #6 of the Recreational District within the Winding Cypress PUD, within Section 5.3.A.6 of the adopted PUD. Page 3 of 5 Therefore, the question becomes whether the County administration applied the correct criteria correctly when it administratively approved Winding Cypress’s application for the SDPI which converts tennis court #five (5) into four (4) pickleball courts in the community’s recreation center, which would result in a total of 8 pickleball courts and 4 tennis courts. The criteria (a through i) below are found at LDC Section 10.02.03.G.2.1 a. There is no South Florida Water Management District permit, or letter of modification, needed for the work and there is no major impact on water management as determined by the Engineering Services Director. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the County did evaluate and determine that there would be no major impact on water management. Essentially the same amount of impervious surface is covered by the new courts as the tennis court. Any drainage issues into nearby retention areas should be corrected by the community to stop runoff from flowing over the nearby sidewalk. It appears that drainage pipes are covered or blocked. b. There is no new access proposed from any public street, however minimal right-of-way work may be permitted as determined by the Transportation Planning Director. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the project does not involve a new public street access. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. c. There is no addition to existing buildings (air-conditioned space) proposed, however a maximum area of 300 square feet of non-air-conditioned space used for storage, or to house equipment will be permitted. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the project does not have any new buildings, under air or otherwise. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. d. There is no proposed change in building footprint or relocation of any building on site beyond that needed to accommodate storage areas as described in LDC section 10.02.03 G.2.c, above. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the project does not involve any new buildings. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. e. The change does not result in an impact on, or reconfiguration of, preserve areas as determined by the Natural Resource Director. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this 1 The Hearing Examiner’s analysis is in italics. Page 4 of 5 criterion was satisfied because the project does not impact any preserve areas. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. f. The change does not result in a need for additional environmental data regarding protected species as determined by the Natural Resources Director. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the County determined that no protected species will be impacted. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. There was no testimony that any endangered species would be impacted by the pickleball noise. g. The change does not include the addition of any accessory structure that generates additional traffic as determined by the Transportation Planning Director, impacts water management as determined by the Engineering Services Director, or contains air - conditioned space. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the project does not generate additional traffic, does not impact water management or contains air-conditioned space. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. That being said, should the community hold pickleball tournaments, compounded by other events, attracting outside guests and visitors, it is plausible that additional traffic would occur. h. There are no revisions to the existing landscape plan that would alter or impact the site development plan (as opposed to only the landscape plan) as determined by the landscape architect. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the project’s landscape plan does impact the site development plan. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. i. The change does not otherwise qualify for a Nominal Alteration Plan (NAP), identified in LDC section 10.02.03 G.3. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing supports the position that this criterion was satisfied because the Association’s application meets the SDPI criteria and not the NAP LDC Section. This is strictly a conversion of 1 tennis court to 4 pickleball courts at the activity center, where the PUD ordinance allows pickleball courts. In conclusion, the County correctly applied the criteria for the Association’s application to convert 1 of its tennis courts to 4 additional pickleball courts. The Hearing Examiner is sympathetic to those residents who live very close to the activity center and could be impacted by the pickleball sounds, but that “compatibility” issue should be addressed with the Association leadership and if necessary, with County code enforcement. While well documented as a potential nuisance, pickleball noise is not part of the review criteria above. This is located at a permitted activity center as opposed to a backyard court in a single family neighborhood. It is recommended that the Association do everything in its power to buffer Page 5 of 5 the Activity Center’s activities to preserve the quiet enjoyment of the handful of homeowners closest to the courts, and the Association should make the drainage repairs when they install the new pickleball courts to avoid runoff on sidewalks. Finally, the Association should be mindful of hosting too many events at the Activity Center that causes parking overflow, which can result in a code enforcement problem for the Association. Accordingly, the Appeal is DENIED, and the administrative approval of SDPI-PL20250012801 is AFFIRMED. 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. April 13, 2026 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner