Loading...
HEX Minutes 04/09/2026 DraftApril 9, 2026 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida, April 9, 2026 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 Nancy Gundlach, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I April 9, 2026 Page 2 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name's Andrew Dickman. It's 1 o'clock, 1 p.m., April 9th, 2026. All rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Quick introductions here. I covered a few items. Again, my name's Andrew Dickman. I'm the Hearing Examiner for Collier County. I was retained by the Board of County Commissioners. I'm not an employee of the County. I'm a Florida Bar attorney with over 20 years of experience in local government, land use, zoning, all the things that are germane to the types of things that the Hearing Examiner has to do under the ordinance that Collier County passed. My job is to hold this hearing after reviewing all the materials and to render a decision on the various petitions within 30 days. I do not make a decision here today. I have 30 -- up to 30 days to render that decision. We're striving very hard to get those things out as quickly as possible to everyone. I do not speak with the applicants. I do not speak with County staff; over here to my right, the planners, I do not speak with them. I do not have meetings outside of this forum because I want everyone to understand that the Hearing Examiner is an impartial neutral decision-maker. And my job is to review the record that's published and available to the public and hold this quasi-judicial hearing so that I can hear from the professional County planners, I can hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative and also hear from the public. This is a hybrid meeting which means that you may hear from some folks virtually over Zoom or folks that are here in person. If you're going to speak here in person, please fill out a form and hand April 9, 2026 Page 3 to Ali over here to my right. And the process that we'll follow is that I'll ask the County planner that is in charge of the petition to get up and give me a summary of their staff report, their findings, any conditions, things like that germane -- give me a chance to ask questions, and over at the podium over on the other side of the room will be the applicant or the applicant's representative, and then I'll open it up for public comment, if there is any. Then I'll give opportunity for -- the applicant or the applicant's representative an opportunity for rebuttal if necessary. The entire meeting is going to be transcribed -- is being transcribed, excuse me, by our court reporter over here. And I'm doing my best to talk as -- clearly and project my voice as much as possible so that she can hear very easily. And so let's not talk over one another. Try to make sure when you get to the microphone, state your name and address and affiliation, and make sure you speak clearly into the microphone so that everything can be captured. It's really important. I think -- this is not a service that most local governments have in terms of having a verbatim transcript. I personally like to have them when I'm going back and reviewing the hearing when I'm drafting the -- drafting the decision. So I thank the County for having that. So she will stop the meeting if she can't understand someone or she needs to capture something that was said. She has full authority to do that. Now, anyone speaking here today will have to do so under oath. Then in a minute I'll ask everyone to stand up, for all items, and the court reporter will administer the oath of office. I have -- again, just disclosures. I have not spoken to anyone outside of this hearing about any substantive matter regarding any of these items. I have read the entire record that's made -- that is April 9, 2026 Page 4 available for everyone online and is attached to the agenda. And as I said, this is a -- while it's quasi-judicial and I'm a quasi-judge, it's fairly informal, and I want everyone to just relax. The most important thing for me is that I get the information that I need -- competent substantial evidence that I need in order to render a decision based on the criteria. So with that, why don't we go ahead and swear in all the witnesses. Anyone who's going to present here today, please stand and raise your right hand. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, everyone. I appreciate that. With regard to the agenda, are there any changes to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No changes to the agenda, and clarify that Item B has been continued to April 23rd. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: B, okay. That's going to the next meeting, okay. MR. BELLOWS: And that's listed on the agenda. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, it is. I saw that. Great. Thank you for that. So then we have three items total, and we will go ahead and jump in with the first item, 3A. Green for go. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Mr. Hearing Examiner. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner No. III for the Zoning -- in the Zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3A, Town of Big Cypress SRA deviations. And this is a request for deviations from the sign code April 9, 2026 Page 5 from the maximum wall height, to remove required landscape buffers between single-family and multifamily residential developments, to update the master plan with deviations, and to add a commitment to provide street trees in the Neighborhood General context zone. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC Section 4.08.07.F.4.b and c. Staff finds this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the Land Development Code as well as with the Growth Management Plan. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied -- compiled [sic] with per LDC Section 10.03.06. The property owner notification letter and newspaper were published by Collier County on Friday, March 20th, and the public hearing signs were posted a day before on the 19th. The NIM was held on March 2nd, and we had one person in attendance. And staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner make a determination of approval of Petition SRA 2025...7481, the Town of Big Cypress deviations. And this concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Nancy, I have a question for you, if you don't -- I have a question for you if you don't mind. This -- and you've addressed this in your staff report on, it looks like, Page 6, and this is really jurisdictional. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it goes to the idea of do I have jurisdiction. So there's a distinction between substantial and insubstantial modifications, right, changes; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: (Nods head.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I see that you went through that entire analysis of what is -- what is and is not. So in your professional opinion -- I just want to get this on the record -- this April 9, 2026 Page 6 is properly before me as an insubstantial modification, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Let's go to the -- thank you very much. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The applicant, please. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Alexis Crespo. I'm a planner with RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture. I have appeared before you previously and been deemed an expert in the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for covering that. I do recall you being here before, and I recognize you as an expert. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Joining me today on Zoom is Charles McDonald who is representing Forestar, who's the applicant for this petition. In the audience with me is Laura Walker, who is a registered landscape architect who assisted on the application, as well as Noah Whitt, who is a professional engineer with -- actually an engineer with Atwell. He's also assisted on the application -- are available if you have any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: I'll just walk you through the request. It was working earlier. It's got stage fright maybe. I can do next -- I guess next slide. Next slide. MS. PADRON: Okay. MS. CRESPO: And I want to thank Nancy Gundlach. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. I think -- MS. CRESPO: While she may be Planner III, she's Planner I in my book. Thank you. All right. A little filler. April 9, 2026 Page 7 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you want to use mine? MS. CRESPO: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just don't point it at me. MS. CRESPO: So to lay a little groundwork for these deviations we're seeking for Town of Big Cypress, this is a Stewardship Receiving Area. It's outlined in yellow on this aerial location map. It is 1,545 acres plus or minus. You can see it's located to the east of DeSoto Boulevard and predominantly south of Oil Well Road, but there is a portion of the SRA that extends north of Oil Well Road. And this approval goes back to 2021 when it was initially approved and then it was subsequently amended a few times. I think it's this -- I think it's the podium, maybe. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I didn't give you the whole thing. MS. CRESPO: Oh, okay. Maybe that. I'm just doing the "up" arrow. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think it's the bottom button. I see the button. I see the red light going off. MS. CRESPO: Okay. Next slide, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MS. CRESPO: We can make it a short Hearing Examiner day or a long one if we want. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You planned for these contingencies, right? MS. CRESPO: Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let's go forward. MS. CRESPO: So as Nancy outlined in her summary, we are seeking a total of eight deviations, and they relate to project signage, internal landscape buffering, and wall height. Next slide. April 9, 2026 Page 8 This is the currently adopted SRA master plan, just to lay some context. You can see, again, it's a large master planned community. It's going to contain multiple residential neighborhoods that are generally in that yellow color, as well as civic space, park space. There's going to be business park and commercial nodes within this project. So there's a lot of different land uses occurring in an effort to be a self-contained master planned community, and that really is the reason for the deviations we're going to be discussing today for way-finding purposes, helping future residents, patrons of the commercial navigate throughout the community, and also allow for this to be cohesively designed in terms of the internal neighbors. Next slide. So it's a total of eight requested deviations. Four of them relate to signage. There are three related to internal buffering standards. You heard these buffer deviations as part of the Town of Ave Maria SRA amendment. Back in January was that hearing, and that was HEX Decision 2026-03. So these are entirely duplicating those types of deviations for this SRA area that we'll walk you through, and then the height deviation is for the wall. It's is relatively straightforward. Next slide. So jumping into the first signage deviation, this is for the monument sign or that key entry sign to the community along Oil Well Road. Your Land Development Code has a standard maximum square footage for these entry monument signs of 64 square feet. We are seeking additional square footage up to 91 square feet, again, for way-finding purposes to allow people traveling on Oil Well Road to easily locate the community and navigate into that entry point. Next slide. This is a depiction that we included in our application materials of how that sign will look. So it's, again, just the logo of the community, the name of the community to help residents/guests find April 9, 2026 Page 9 their way into the site. The travel speeds, as noted in our application materials, are 50 miles per hour. It's a relatively large roadway that moves a lot of traffic. So the additional signage -- sign area is appropriate, considering that context, and this has been typically approved in a lot of master planned communities, including Esplanade on Naples Gulf and Country Club and others throughout the county. Next slide. This next slide is going to be the location of that sign with the big green star, and that's just going to be just east of the main boulevard entry into the project. That will serve, again, multiple residential neighborhoods as well as the commercial uses within the site. Next slide. The next deviation is for a boundary marker sign. The code does have allowance for boundary marker signage, again, to denote where communities begin and end in terms of their boundaries. We are asking for a larger sign face area, up to 79.5 square feet, and we want to locate that boundary marker on a wall that is 15 foot in height. So that requires both additional sign face area as well as height, because those are limited typically to 24 square feet and then eight feet in height. Next slide. This will be a depiction of that boundary marker sign. It is the symbology of the community. The Star Farms is a brand that they have throughout the state and country, and so this will just allow for the continuation of the logo and branding that ties into that entry monument sign you just saw with the first deviation. Next slide. This will be on the far eastern corner of the site. It's got extensive frontage along Oil Well Road, so this will help travelers, April 9, 2026 Page 10 whether they're going east or west, understand that they are entering or leaving the area in which the community will have entryways onto -- onto Oil Well. And all of these signs are meeting -- fully meeting the setbacks from the right-of-way and in compliance with code. Next slide. This is our third signage. This is actually for nonresidential uses within the project. There is going to be a commercial node right on Oil Well Road. So folks will be entering the project. They'll be either navigating towards their homes in Star Farms or to the commercial area at the main entry. So this will allow for a directory sign to be located at that commercial tract entrance, whereas the LDC, the letter of the law on that requires the sign to be located at the project entry. So the next slide will help the Hearing Examiner see that more clearly. This is actually a depiction of the sign itself, 200 square foot and 20 feet in height. We are not seeking any additional height or sign face area for this. It's really just the sign location. Next slide. So we will have the project -- the entry sign is -- the southernmost green star is where we'll have the commercial directory sign. So that will not be at the actual project entrance, which will be at Oil Well Road, and this will actually be internal to the project and requires the deviation. Next slide. This is the fourth and final sign deviation. This is to allow for a residential directional sign up to 75 square feet in area and 15 feet in height. Again, those are limited to 24 square feet and eight feet in height. This will allow that to be placed upon a proposed project wall. And those are also required internal to the subdivision only, and we'll show you on a further slide where it will be located that April 9, 2026 Page 11 requires this deviation. So go to the next slide. So this is what that sign would look like. It's going to have directional arrows, the community branded star logo, and then let people know where different internal residential neighborhoods are within the overall project. So with something of this size, it's typical to have different named internal communities within an overall project. So this would allow those different neighborhoods to be listed and, again, with way-finding, help people find where they're going. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Alex, I have a question. So the decorative wall, is that the actual decorative wall, or is that just -- is there a wall going further out? Or is it just to give, like, relief almost, like a three-dimensional relief? MS. CRESPO: This would be on a wall. So you're not seeing the wall in this drawing that would extend -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: -- on either side of it. But this would demonstrate the actual sign area affixed to the wall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So that wasn't clear because it's -- 15-feet high is the size of the wall, but the wall is actually larger -- MS. CRESPO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- in length? MS. CRESPO: The rectangle behind the actual sign is where you're seeing the wall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, okay. MS. CRESPO: Next slide. So those are the four signage deviations, and that -- this is the location of the residential directional sign, which would be to the west of the entryway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. April 9, 2026 Page 12 MS. CRESPO: Next slide. So now getting into the buffer deviations. There's three buffer deviations. This -- these relate to where we have a mix of multifamily and single-family within the same neighborhood, and so these, again, were approved in the Town of Ave Maria and just allow for the flexibility to integrate very similar size and scale dwelling types within the same common neighborhood to avoid unnecessary segregation between, again, similarly scaled dwelling types. So we're looking to omit the 15-foot-wide Type B buffer between multifamily and single-family. And this is intended to be for where you have a two-story multifamily, like a coach home type multifamily. It's not technically platted or single-family in nature, but it's not the monolithic apartment building type multifamily that you see. It's where you're integrating kind of town home appearing multifamily into a neighborhood with single-family detached. And so the conditions in place here would ensure that if there is an apartment-style development multiple stories higher than the single-family, we would have to install the 15-foot Type B buffer. Also, if there was a parking lot associated with the multifamily, that would trigger the buffering as well. The intended multifamily, again, would be a coach home where there's a garage. There wouldn't be any kind of surface parking areas associated with that type of dwelling. If you're -- are you thinking on that, or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no. I do recall the discussion out at Ave Maria, and I'm just thinking to myself about -- I think -- I guess this is language that was used when the County Commission approved it, and nobody really thought that maybe the product that you're putting on the ground -- and so this is what's happening, right? Like, some -- MS. CRESPO: Right. The -- April 9, 2026 Page 13 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: These are little details that came out later after you started thinking about the internal design and the mix of housing types, right? MS. CRESPO: Correct. The code is written for really the worst-case scenario. So the worst-case scenario, when you have a multifamily and single-family, is that they're separate projects; you've got a single-family community, and then you have an apartment. I'm using that word here. But you have a multifamily developer coming in on a separate project next door. You've got single and two-story single-family, and then someone's coming in with three, four, five stories. Completely different protect. So in that case, that's where you need the 15-foot width, the screening, the buffering. This is for a common community where you have all these dwelling types interfacing with each other within the same subdivision. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I get it. MS. CRESPO: Okay. Thank you. The next -- the next deviation is related to the Type A buffer. And the code technically requires a double buffer where the multifamily has to give you the B, and then the single-family tract has to provide a 10-foot Type A. And so it's a double buffer. And we're looking to omit the single-family having to do any buffering on their property line since they are the lower intensity dwelling type. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: Next slide. And then lastly is where there is a lake that is between the dwelling types. So again, within a common subdivision, you've got multifamily on one side, single-family on the other, and what staff worked with the applicant on is an alternative buffering treatment where they still are requiring a buffer, but it can be clustered. It can allow both dwellings to enjoy the lake view without complete April 9, 2026 Page 14 obstruction by some sort of wall or hedgerow. So it's allowing clustered shrubs as well as the trees within that space to soften views but not obstruct lake views. Next slide. This is a -- if you -- there's some animation here if you keep clicking. This is a tract where they're platted single-family across from -- if you click again you can see there's existing multifamily across a fairly expansive lake, and then, if you click again, there were -- this is where the alternative Type B buffer would be provided to, again, soften views from the single-family perspective. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Explain what a Type B buffer is for the record. MS. CRESPO: A Type B buffer is -- per the code it's 15 feet in width. It requires either a hedge, wall, or berm/hedge wall combination up to six feet in height as well as trees within that expanse. I believe it's five trees per 100 linear feet or 20 feet on center. I can get -- MS. GUNDLACH: Twenty-five feet on center. MS. CRESPO: Sorry? MS. GUNDLACH: Twenty-five feet on center. MS. CRESPO: Twenty-five feet on center, thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I guess the reason I'm asking is I can't imagine what would grow along a waterline like that to that -- to that extent. It would have to be completely ready for that type of environment. So it makes sense. MS. CRESPO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I guess -- I guess what I'm thinking about is I guess at some point when these PUDs go through the BCC, that you guys will pick some of this stuff up. I don't mind cleaning up some of these things, but, you know, I get it, like, the general buffer issues as they relate to multifamily are April 9, 2026 Page 15 good -- are well intended for good purposes, but when you have these larger developments and they have mixes of uses of housing and it's not big apartment complexes, that I guess they're just, unfortunately, getting caught up in that type of code. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And as the applicant has stated, this is -- the LDC is set up for really anticipating a multifamily project developed by one developer, single-family on the other, and because of that, they want to provide protections. When you've got these large master-planned communities where you have subdivision tracts across the lakes that are single-family in nature, multifamily in nature but similar profiles, we still require that extreme buffering -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. BOSI: -- and it takes away from the overall environment, especially about the lake views. And so allowing the clustering -- and I think what we're going to see is, as we move forward with these SRAs, these large master plans -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Large ones. MR. BOSI: -- these deviations are going to be what becomes -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Built into that. MR. BOSI: -- built into the design and the request. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Again, I don't mind being the guy cleaning these things up a little bit, but I get it. Like, when you start going for your SDP and the site plan, you start realizing, like, "Oh, gosh. You know, we've got a code that's not going to really fit this type of development." So here we are. So I get it. MS. CRESPO: And, fortunately, in the case of the subject property, there's nobody living there yet. They're very early in the site development stage -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. April 9, 2026 Page 16 MS. CRESPO: -- and so there's no existing residents that are grappling with a new deviation dealing with their property. So we did learn from Ave Maria and are getting in front of this, fortunately, and hopefully at the initial zoning where you don't have to deal with the tediousness of these. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Again, the reason I asked about the Type B, because, I mean, I don't want to get too bad -- I don't want to get too deep in the weeds on this, but I just don't know what kind of vegetation would grow -- I guess cattails and cypress trees or something like that, along the water -- water shoreline or something. It wouldn't make sense. I got it. MS. CRESPO: Correct. Thank you. Next slide. I think this -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you've got one more, right? MS. CRESPO: One more. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One more deviation. Let's go. MS. CRESPO: So this is just depicting that no buffer would be provided on the single-family. Okay. One more deviation, the most straightforward, I would submit. It's to allow a 15-foot-tall wall along the Oil Well Road frontage, whereas the LDC limits it to six feet. Next slide. And this is just to provide for noise, visual -- you know, noise attenuation and blocking some visual impacts of the roadway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's the entire -- so is it on top of a berm as well or -- MS. CRESPO: Yes. We will have a perimeter berm. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it will be a berm and a wall. So it will be total privacy. April 9, 2026 Page 17 MS. CRESPO: And it will be a total of 15 feet. The way your code reads, it's the height has to include the assumed berm. So it will be 15 feet including the berm. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that will be landscaping, and it will look attractive along the roadway? MS. CRESPO: Correct. Our landscaping has to be on the exterior public-facing side of the wall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I understand. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. The last item, it's not technically a deviation, and I don't have a slide for it, but it is to memorialize the street tree planning treatment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. CRESPO: This is -- through implementation at different SRAs, we've learned that there needs to be clarity on how the street trees are planted, where they can go within the right-of-ways. So that simply memorializes and maintains street trees, because they're important, but allows them to be located and spaced in a manner appropriate for the community. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So let's talk about street trees. We recently heard an item where we deleted the street tree requirement because the street tree -- the type of street trees that were being planted were breaking up the sidewalks. They had put the trees in between the right-of-way and the sidewalks, and they were -- somehow the type of species were creating big roots and breaking the sidewalks. Slip and falls are a liability, and so on -- so forth and so on. So have you taken that into consideration? MS. CRESPO: Yeah. That's actually -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Don't want to have to come back here and eliminate it just because you've got people tripping and falling and code enforcement problems. MS. CRESPO: Yes. And so what we're memorializing here is April 9, 2026 Page 18 the ability to space them farther apart so you don't have their root systems running into each other and choking each other. And then on Page 5 of 5, it also allows for them to be 15 feet and then up to even 20 feet from the edge of the road for non-loaded roadways, and that's to allow a mature canopy tree to have the root system not interact with the travel lanes or sidewalk. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So that would be up into someone's private -- private lot, right, or no? MS. CRESPO: It could be, or it could be just on a -- on an open-space tract within the community. Sometimes the spine roads are not -- not loaded with homes, so it would -- may just be open-space tracts. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because if I recall, that was the solution that we came up with was that there was, like, a one for one. If you take out the street tree, as long as it's planted somewhere -- and I think -- am I remembering this right? MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: God, I still have a memory. Thank you. Yeah. So the idea was that at least the overall canopy percentage of the site was still maintained, but in certain aspects the trees would be on the outer side of the sidewalk instead of on the inside next to the right-of-way in order to avoid all this, you know, breakage. And oddly enough, that was a Code Enforcement problem. That's what happened. They started cutting trees down to protect people from slipping and falling, and Code Enforcement got involved, and lo and behold, you know, we had to take care of that in the PUD language. So I think that's what you're trying to do here is to make sure that while you still have trees and canopies on the street, they're not going to break up the sidewalk as they get bigger, correct? April 9, 2026 Page 19 MS. CRESPO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: And to do that before we planted them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I can't believe I still remember that. It was only last week, right? MR. BOSI: A few months ago. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A few months ago. All right. Anything else? MS. CRESPO: I'll just touch on the review criteria. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, yes. MS. CRESPO: Staff has already noted that we are eligible and meet the criteria for an insubstantial change. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MS. CRESPO: We are in agreement with staff and their analysis as well as the analysis contained in our materials. We're not changing the SRA boundary. We are not changing land-use densities or intensities -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Traffic's not changing. MS. CRESPO: -- height of buildings, no decrease in open-space areas, no increase in areas used for nonresidential uses, no external impacts. As you noted, no traffic increases based upon this request. Next slide. There will similarly be no change in the land-use activities. We'll not change the requirements for stormwater management or increase any discharge of stormwater. There'll be no change to the relationship to the abutting land uses. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's touch on that for a minute. So I just want to -- I just want to really circle back a little bit. Like, changing these buffers are -- do not conflict with this No. 8 criteria because it only applies in certain instances, not in these big, giant multifamily, you know, against single-family. So I wanted to April 9, 2026 Page 20 make that clear. MS. CRESPO: Yes, based on staff conditions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the one that I would be looking -- looking at, but I think you're -- MS. CRESPO: I think wholesale, without the conditions, there could be a concern, but because of staff's conditions, which we're in full agreement with, compatibility has been addressed because there are limitations on application of the deviation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the FLUE and GMP are fine, right? MS. CRESPO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: And then no modification to the plan. Deemed substantial per your code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for going through that. So in your professional opinion, I have jurisdiction to hear this -- MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- correct? Okay, great. I heard it from two people. I'm happy. MS. CRESPO: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MS. CRESPO: No, not unless you have other questions. We're -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go to public comment. I'm sure there's lots of people here for that. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Darn. Do we have a speaker? Going once? MS. CRESPO: Parker. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, he left. Oh, okay. April 9, 2026 Page 21 No public speakers. We're closing the public -- public hearing. Do you want to rebut any of that -- MS. CRESPO: No, sir. Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- anything you said? Thank you. I understand this one because I remember the Ave one. I remember exactly what's going on, so thank you very much, and have a nice day. Nice job, both Nancy and Alex, I appreciate it. So we're going to 3C because 3B is being continued. So we're on 3C. We're going to docks now. So let me guess. That must be John, the dockmaster. MR. KELLY: Ooh, I like that. Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. Before you is Agenda Item 3C. It's a boat dock petition, PL20250006004. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III. I distributed before the meeting a correct Attachment A. This -- the wrong Attachment A was included with the distribution of this hearing package. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: So with that, this -- the petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner consider a 5-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 25 feet into a waterway that is 345 feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 733 Palm Point Drive, also known as Lot 1, Goodland Shores, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. It's Property ID No. 46473000028. It's located within a village residential "VR" zoning district and the Goodland Zoning Overlay, the GZO. The subject property April 9, 2026 Page 22 comprises 0.53 acres with 154 feet of water frontage located on a natural waterway known as Blue Hill Creek which is part of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve on the southwest side of Goodland. The previously unimproved property presently has a single-family residence being constructed per Building Permit No. PRFH20250418174 approved on August 8, 2025. The shoreline consists of a newly refurbished riprap bank. The previously existing mangroves have been completely removed. Proposed is a 4-foot-wide access or gangway leading to a 4- to 6-foot-wide shore parallel dock with a single slip including a 14-foot by 14-foot boat lift for a 40-foot vessel. The 15-foot side riparian setbacks will be respected on both sides of the facility. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and the Clerk's posting were effected by the County on March 20, 2026, and the public hearing sign was posted by myself on March 25, 2026. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies five of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan. And it has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. No phone calls or correspondence have been received in response to advertising for this project, and, therefore, staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within the corrected Attachment A, which, again, was distributed at this meeting. With that, this concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for questions. April 9, 2026 Page 23 And Jeff Rogers with Turrell Hall is here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. Hello. MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon. MR. ROGERS: For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates representing the applicant, Julie Schulte, on this boat-dock extension request. The subject property is located in Goodland on the south end of, I guess, Collier County. And currently the applicant -- full story here, the lot was a single lot and was -- they went through a lot split and, basically, are building two new single-family homes on it; however, it's brother and sister, just so you know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the 733 and 737? MR. ROGERS: Seven, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The two items that are on here. So that was one lot, and they're splitting it. MR. ROGERS: Yep. They split it and went through that process, which was a process with the County due to it being in Goodland. Just it's -- nothing was really straightforward down there -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. ROGERS: -- so they had a lot of cleaning up to do, to say the least, in regard to property descriptions and things like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And we're happy that it's not normal down there. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, exactly. Goodland's changing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Some places need to stay the same. MR. ROGERS: Yes, they do. Stan's is still there, though. Moving forward on the slides, if you would, please. April 9, 2026 Page 24 This is a picture -- a quick picture of what the shoreline was originally. And if you go forward on the next slide, there's additional photos here. So -- yep. So this is basically -- top left kind of shows you the mangrove growth and the top right shows you the existing current conditions. I don't want to say "current" because the single-family homes are under construction now. However, prior to that starting, we addressed the shoreline refurbishment. And the mangrove removal and the riprap that you see, the fresh riprap in white, was all permitted with state and federal agencies, and the mangrove removal was also part of that permitting process, and mitigation was completed and paid for by the applicants as well. So everything was done per the books in regards to the work completed. And no one complained during that process or got -- objected to it, you know, in regards to the change down there. It's one of those, you know, changing islands, old Florida, old Naples, basically. So moving forward, if you would. So here's a quick little historical aerial overlay for everybody. I like to have these as part of it. It shows you Goodland as it was back in 1952. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Incredible. MR. ROGERS: And you can see the dredge-and-fill activities kind of had started. And this area also shows you that this was a natural -- is a natural waterway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: So it is -- it's also part of Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. So the State has jurisdiction over -- the State has jurisdiction over most if not all docks. But they're more restrictive in this case than Collier County is for the rules for docks for single-families, in particular. Moving forward. April 9, 2026 Page 25 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So wait, wait. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're saying that that's the dredge and fill up on the top right-hand -- MR. ROGERS: It started some of it, yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, they're actually starting to do land -- they're doing land clearing. MR. ROGERS: They're clearing, yeah, to start, you know, developing. I could have zoomed out and shown the overlay like we have -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I was just wondering what you are referring to, the dredging. That's all. MR. ROGERS: So that kind of started in the Deltona Settlement, you know, was part of all that, if you're familiar with Marco Island, but... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's get this screen cleared up here. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. I don't need a 15-foot-high wall deviation, but... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me know if you need to take a break. MS. PADRON: Yes, it was connecting to the network, so I may have to. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Why don't we take about a five-minute recess and then let IT get their things reconnected. All right. Five minutes. (A recess was had from 1:45 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm told they're reconnected. So we're going to reconvene the meeting and give it back to Jeff. April 9, 2026 Page 26 MR. ROGERS: Real quick, just to refresh, we're here on 733 Palm Point Drive down in Goodland. The applicant, Julie Schulte, and we are in front of you asking for a 5-foot boat-dock extension from the allowed 20-foot protrusion with the County. And in this case, you know, again, it's on natural waterway, so we are restricted from a -- from the State in regards to a more restrictive point in regards to not the width of waterway but water depths in this case. So that is the driving -- the limiting factor. I would like to ultimately push these docks out further, which is what also drove me to doing mangrove removal, because the 4-foot contour line in this case on the survey -- so on the aerial you see -- this -- the yellow is what was approved, and the green part was actually retained on site in regards to the mangroves. So the dock -- if you go to the next slide, please. Here's the dock. As you can see, it's overlaid on the -- historically on the old aerial. It should reflect the mangroves that were there. And there was no way, really, to do this without directly impacting the mangroves per the state criteria. For the County, however, we could have requested a greater extension due to the waterway width would technically allow us to make that request; however, the 4-foot contour line is the -- it's hard to see, and I don't have my laser pointer, but it's that orange dashed line that basically runs the length of the property, and the boat lift piles basically kiss those -- that line. That, per the State, is the furthest point out I can go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The orange line? MR. ROGERS: That's it. That's it. So with that, we're basically at 25 feet as measured from the April 9, 2026 Page 27 mean high-water line which is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I believe you're talking about from here to here? MR. ROGERS: The dark -- yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And from here to here? MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: So -- yeah. So basically, 5-foot extension to get out to 25 feet for one vessel, which we would be technically allowed two vessels; however, with aquatic preserve rules, we couldn't squeeze in a secondary lift even for personal watercrafts just because of the overwater structure limitations that the State, again, only allows you to have per aquatic preserve rules. I can run you through that. The -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just real quickly. MR. ROGERS: Go ahead. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why start here and have this long catwalk, and then you -- I know you expand it here, but why wouldn't it come out here? You just don't want to impact mangroves? Is that what it is? MR. ROGERS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's a long walkway here, starting here. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So we did have a boat lift on the north side of that walkway out originally -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I gotcha. MR. ROGERS: -- when I submitted it to the State, and they, after a long permitting process, we lost that battle, let's say, and had to drop that. So they just issued a permit for that. But that would be an option; however, once we got through the state process, the site plan had been completed for the upland residents. April 9, 2026 Page 28 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hmm. MR. ROGERS: And the walkway out from the house/pool deck and everything was aligned with what you have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MR. ROGERS: So it was a domino effect. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's all lined up with the -- what's going upland. I got it. MR. ROGERS: Correct, at this point. So changing that -- because we did look to change it and reduce -- ultimately reduce costs for the construction of this for the client. It just didn't work in that regard. So it was easier to just keep it the way it was and just move forward as is. So it literally took me 18 months to get in front of you today with permitting, state- and federal-wise, for this particular dock. So it was a lengthy process, and the applicant is ready to construct, to say the least. So real quick, I'll run through the primary and secondary just to get it on the record. And, again, a lot of this is going to be repeated in the next one because the docks are exactly the same in regards to dimensions and overall size. Primary 1, you know, basically, it touches on are you allowed two vessels or not and -- due to the single-family, and the answer to that is yes; however, we're only proposing one. So we meet that criteria. Criteria 2 is the water-depth question, if it's too shallow. In this case it is within 20 feet too shallow as well as the slope of the shoreline. With riprap it just gets really impossible to do anything without asking for a boat docks extension. Number 3, whether the proposed dock facility have inverse impacts on navigation. Answer to that is no. If you go forward on the slides, I've got a zoomed-out slide I can show you -- a little bit April 9, 2026 Page 29 more of a view for you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Next one. MR. ROGERS: There you go. So you can see the waterway. I might have one more. It might be too far, but there's -- yeah, so there you go. There's the waterway width, so there's -- and there's no marked channel in here. It's basically shoreline to shoreline, pretty deep. As you can see, the 4-foot contour's tight on our sideline, which is why we can't go out further per the State. So it's an open waterway. So no impacts to navigation are expected with the proposed design. Number 4 pertains to the 25 percent width, and we are approximately about 8 percent of protrusion out into the waterway, so we meet that criteria as well. And No. 5 of the primary, the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such the dock would not interfere with neighboring docks. In this exhibit you can see the proposed dock on the other property, actually. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ROGERS: And the required setbacks per the State is 25 feet, and we -- and the County is 15. We exceed the State's. So we're well within the requirements of that as well as providing significant room for navigation, in my opinion, on that. So that's met as well. Moving to secondary criteria, No. 1, special conditions not involving the water depths. Basically, in this case, you know, it could be a mixture of things here, but the biggest one was the -- well, in my opinion the aquatic preserve as well as, you know, limits us -- in the legal description, reading staff's, you know, description here, the elevation of the bank, you know, pushes us out and things. So there's a lot of special conditions on this one. Selecting one was difficult, to say the least. April 9, 2026 Page 30 Two, whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable safe access to the vessel and routine maintenance. Yes. You know, we have a six -- 6-foot -- the dock is 4-foot wide through the -- out to the main dock, and the dock does expand out to 6-foot wide where the vessel is, so there's sufficient area for maintenance and access to the boat. The State does also limit you to 160 feet of terminal platform, which is why -- going back a couple slides, if you would, the terminal platform does widen out to six foot, but it's only a certain distance because it has to equate to 160. What is terminal platform? Terminal platform is the area where you board and -- get on and off the vessel per the state rules, so you're limited to 160 in that regard. Number 3 of the secondary, for single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel or vessels, in combination, exceed 50 percent of the subject linear footage, and the answer to that is, you know, no. This 40-foot vessel does not exceed 50 percent, as we have 154 linear feet of shoreline. Number 4 of secondary pertains to impacts on view. And no, on this one, for multiple reasons, we actually opened up the view for the neighboring properties with the mangroves now being gone and the whole shoreline being clear, so no impacts to the neighbors will result in this. Number 5 is seagrasses. We dove this -- we, being my staff, dove this. So there was -- multiple times we had to because of the permitting process, and no seagrasses were observed. And then No. 6 is the -- pertains to the Manatee Protection Plan, which single-families are excluded from. So all in all, we meet the criteria. We're asking for a minimal 5-foot boat-dock extension into a waterway that is wide open for navigation. No impacts to view, minimal dock size. Typical boat size for today's, you know, fleet; however, the protrusion is limited, April 9, 2026 Page 31 basically, based on the state rules. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. MR. ROGERS: So happy to answer questions. And I could hold my presentation on the next one, as it's cookie cutter, to be honest with you. But I'll go through it with you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. We'll do -- let's just do one at a time, but we can go through it a little quicker. Let's see if -- any public speakers signed up for this? MS. PADRON: No speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We're going to close the public comment on this one. Okay. So I don't have any questions for you about this item. So why don't we jump right into 3D. And just for the record, this is a very -- the facts of this case are very, very similar because they're split -- they split the lot, family members, and the docks are going to be very similar, so -- but let's kind of speed through this one. MR. KELLY: If you don't mind, I'd still like to continue on 3C. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh. MR. KELLY: I want to correct one item on the record. This was actually more than a lot split. They actually platted the property into two lots. It's part of the official record of Collier County OR Book 76, Pages 77 and 78. So these two lots comprise what is now known as Goodland Shores. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So thanks for that, because that is different. Lot splitting is just going to the Property Appraiser and asking for two different folio numbers, whereas they actually went through legal descriptions and got them platted, right, John? Or are you going to correct me? MR. KELLY: Correct, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I'm always worried about -- you never know. John's an encyclopedia. April 9, 2026 Page 32 MR. KELLY: Thank you, again. Okay. For the record, John Kelly, Planner III. This item's No. 3D. It's a boat dock petition, PL20250006008. The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner consider a 5-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 25 feet into a waterway that is 345 feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 733 Palm Point Drive -- I'm sorry. Is this 737 or -- MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, 737. MR. KELLY: Okay. Hang on one second. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's okay. Our office was confused, too, don't worry, including me. MR. KELLY: Well, I had the rest of this correct. It's also known as Lot 2, Goodland Shores, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. It's Property ID No. 46473000044. It's located within a village residential "VR" zoning district in the Goodland Zoning Overlay, the GZO. The subject property comprises 0.39 acres with 133 feet of water frontage located on a natural waterway known as Blue Hill Creek, which is part of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve on the southwest side of Goodland. The previously unimproved property presently has a single-family residence being constructed per Building Permit No. PRFH20240730400 approved on July 9, 2025. The shoreline consists of a newly refurbished riprap bank. The previously existing mangroves have been fully removed. And the proposed is a 4-foot-wide access or gangway leading to a 4- to April 9, 2026 Page 33 6-foot-wide shore parallel dock with a single slip including a 12-foot by 12-foot boat lift for a 32-foot length overall vessel. The 15-foot side riparian setbacks will be respected on both sides of the dock facility. 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 March 20, 2026, and a public hearing sign was posted by myself on March 25, 2026. The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfied five of six, with the sixth being not applicable as it's the Manatee Protection Plan, and has been found to be consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Again, no phone calls or correspondence was received in response to the advertising for this project. And staff, again, recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment A. I remain available for questions and turn it over to Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. By the way. I'm looking at the aerial of this. Beautiful pieces of property, and they go right out to the Cape Romano. MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's a good spot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hmm. MR. ROGERS: So for the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell Hall representing the applicant, Steven Kapusta, brother to the previous applicant. So as John stated -- I don't need to run through all this, but in short, we're asking for a 5-foot boat-dock extension in this one as April 9, 2026 Page 34 well, located within, again, the aquatic preserve. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me -- let me just do this. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So how much of your prior testimony is exactly the same as this testimony? MR. ROGERS: All of it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I'm going to have the prior testimony be adopted into this testimony, and you're going to adopt John's staff report and recommendation. And as long as you're okay with that, I don't really need to go through it because the dock is exactly the same, unless there's some -- something unusually unique about this particular site, you know, the mangroves and the State involvement and the whole thing, right? MR. ROGERS: It's cookie cutter, same thing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Same situation, same rules, same design, meets setbacks, all of that, in regards to your concerns, county concerns. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. John, do you have a problem with me doing that? MR. KELLY: No, sir. I just wanted -- no, sir. I just wanted to note for the record this dock has a 12-by-12 boat lift, whereas the other dock was 14-by-14. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. KELLY: The other was for a 14 [sic]-foot length overall vessel. This one's for, I believe, 30 feet. MR. ROGERS: Thirty-two feet. MR. KELLY: Thirty-two feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Tell me again, the primary criteria. Was it five of five? MR. KELLY: Correct. They're both the same, five of five. April 9, 2026 Page 35 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Five of five, and then -- MR. KELLY: Five of six. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- five of six with -- putting an asterisk by the sixth criteria. And do we have any public speakers for this matter? MS. PADRON: None. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We have no public speakers for this, so I'm going to close the public hearing. Pretty straightforward. Thank you for the presentation. It sounds like a tricky location, but it is where it is. It's in a beautiful spot. MR. ROGERS: It is, yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And Goodland's a lovely, lovely place. MR. ROGERS: Definitely. Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. MR. ROGERS: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. No other items on this? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's just talk about -- a little bit about the agendas coming up. So we're moving 3B to next month, right? MR. BELLOWS: Second meeting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Second meeting, okay. MR. BOSI: April 23rd. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Let me just go to mine. So we have -- right. So we already have the -- we already have the agenda set up for the 23rd, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. April 9, 2026 Page 36 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I think I have a draft of that. One second. I just want to make sure we're all on the page. Yeah, the 23rd. So I'm looking at that, and there's the Dental Design, which is this one, will be No. A, and then we have another one. So we have a total of, it looks like, five. It goes to G; E, F, G, okay. So it will be a pretty full agenda next -- next meeting. MR. BOSI: Yes, I believe we have six. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Six items. Okay. All right. Great. That sounds lovely. Anything else that you want to talk about before we adjourn? MR. BOSI: Nothing on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. All right. Thank you, everyone, for your help, and appreciate you putting on this -- the meeting. I know it's a lot of work, and thanks again. Have a good day. We're adjourned. ***** April 9, 2026 Page 37 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:06 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 VERITEXT, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC