HEX Transcript 06/09/2016 June 9,2016 HEX Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
June 9,2016
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 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION at 2800
North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN
ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Eric Johnson,Principal Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 6
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,JUNE 9,2016 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING®ULATION BUILDING,2800 N.
HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING
PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT,
PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING
EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A
COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS,
AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO
RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Note: This item is withdrawn and will be heard at a later date.
A. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20160000263 — SD San Marino, LLC requests an insubstantial change to
Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, the San Marino Planned Unit Development, to add a traffic
development commitment relating to relocation of an existing multi-use pathway in Parcel B, to amend
a traffic development commitment to reflect the correct access point location for Parcel B, to amend a
deviation to require sidewalks on both sides of the main entry road of Parcel B,to amend a deviation to
allow for a 12-foot tall fence, wall or berm along the shared boundary with Willow Run PUD to the
south, and to amend the Master Plan for Parcel B to reflect the correct access point and reconfigured
roadways, lakes and residential areas, for the property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard,
approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County,Florida,consisting of 235±acres. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,Principal Planner]
B. PETITION NO. BD-PL20140002462 — Paul and Lois Georgeadis requests a 40-foot boat dock
extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a
total protrusion of 60 feet, to accommodate a new boat dock facility and boat house for the benefit of
Lot 75, Isles of Capri Unit No. 1 subdivision, also described as 27 Pelican Street West, in Section 5,
Township 52 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. [Companion to BD-PL20150000467]
[Coordinator: Eric Johnson,Principal Planner]
C. PETITION NO. BD-PL20150000467 — Paul and Lois Georgeadis request approval of a boathouse
pursuant to Section 5.03.06 F. of the Land Development Code, for a new boathouse located on Lot 75,
Isles of Capri Unit No. 1 subdivision, also described as 27 Pelican Street West, in Section 5, Township
52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Companion to BD-PL20140002462] [Coordinator:
Eric Johnson,Principal Planner]
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
June 9,2016 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
BD-PL20140002462BD-PL20150000467
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
* * * * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everybody. Welcome to the Thursday,June
9th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Housekeeping matters. Individual speakers will be limited to
five minutes unless otherwise waived.
Decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners,and a decision will be
rendered within 30 days. Usually we can get it out a little bit quicker than that.
Review of the agenda. There is--as you see on the overhead,there's been two--three items
scheduled for today. One of them,9--or 4A,San Marino PDI,has been withdrawn. It's being readvertised,
and it's been rescheduled,I believe,for the 23rd,first up in the morning on the 23rd.
And that takes us to the approval of prior minutes. There's been none submitted,so we're not going
to--we'll dispense with that,and we'll move directly into the remaining advertised public hearings.
***The first--actually,we're going to hear both. The two that are left are 4B and 4A(sic).4B is
Petition No.BD-PL20140002462. It's the Paul and Lois--I can't--Georgeadis request for a 42-foot boat
dock extension;and Petition No.BD-PL20150000467,the same individuals but for a boathouse within that
same dock.
Because these are similar,we're going to hear both petitions at the same time,and I'll even be issuing a
decision--one decision that will incorporate both of them.
So with that,all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. The Exhibit A will be the staff report;Exhibit B will be
the legal ad.
For disclosures on my part,I've reviewed the files,and I may have had a passing comment with some
members of staff,but we really haven't gotten any detail on it that I recall.
I do have some questions. And there's no members of the-- is there any members of the public here
wishing to testify on this item?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none and seeing none,Kris,if you--we won't need a
formal presentation,but if you want to state your name for the record,I do have some questions from the
application.
MR.THOEMPKE: My name is Kris Thoempke. I'm representing the agents,Paul and Lois
Georgeadis.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.THOEMPKE: And I can take your questions.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I've got a series of slides,and I'll move through them. When I
get to my questions, I'll simply ask them.
And the location of the property is in Isles of Capri,Pelican Street. There's your locational maps.
This fits in with the other docks in the area. You have a dock next door that's almost at the same length,and
you've got several around the neighborhood that are even longer going out past sand shoals and other activity
Page 2 of 6
June 9,2016 HEX Meeting
there.
The dock--this is an overhead of the dock showing where the existing dock is. It's being removed
and a new dock and a longer extension is being added with a--what do they call that at the end? A terminal
platform.
MR.THOEMPKE: Terminal platform,yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: As well as your lift and boathouse.
MR.THOEMPKE: Yep.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: This is another interesting--I'm going to be asking questions
about the contour in a minute because the four--negative four mean low water contour is different than the
indication of where the four on the elevation occurs on the bottom.
One thing I did want to note is on this particular cross-section that came from the application,there's a
12'9"indicated for the height of the overall boathouse,and that's something that has to be addressed in
relationship to the seawall,which this does. But why does this one have a different height on the bottom
than--and also shown on the top,but yet there's a red note there? This was in the packet. Can you explain
that?
MR.THOEMPKE: Yeah. That's the elevation from the dock,and there's a 9-inch difference
because we had to elevate the dock to get it to plus five feet to meet a DEP requirement. So there's a 9-inch
difference between the elevation of the dock and the elevation measured from the seawall.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And so the requirement is the measurement from the
seawall.And you're still--you're not exceeding--your 12'9" is where you're at from the seawall?
MR.THOEMPKE: Yes,uh-huh.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So this one is--I don't know--
MR.THOEMPKE: That one's to the dock elevation there,and that's why it says 12 feet.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Yeah.
MR.THOEMPKE: And then the note is just to note that it's 12'9"above the seawall.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. On this particular plan it's not too clear. The bottom
one is,I believe,from a snapshot from one of the site plans,and the top one is from the application to the ERP.
And the ERP language calls out 38 feet walkway,and a 5-foot terminal width-wise,yet your application's for
40. Are you going to be redoing your DEP--
MR.THOEMPKE: DEP's going to have to get a permit mod to go out the two additional feet. And
we've been in touch with DEP about that. We wanted to get this one approved first,then we'll go to DEP and
get that done. That shouldn't be a problem.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Did you have any problem with the staff
recommendations?
MR.THOEMPKE: No.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: This particular issue came from the specialist,I believe,at DEP.
I needed some explanation on what she was getting at. It involves that contour line I showed earlier on the
graphic. I'm sure it involves that.
It's talking about a negative 4-foot mean low water contour line,but I notice you--then it says in the
third line,the dock can't be allowed past the negative 4-foot contour,yet on these maps here you have a 4-foot
mean low water contour line in the orange color.
MR.THOEMPKE: Right. That's--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Then you have a 4-foot contour line apparently based on
standard topographical review. What's the difference,or why is there a difference?
MR.THOEMPKE: The 4-foot mean low water contour line,the one that's kind of the orangish color,
that's measured in mean low water. The other data that you see there is referenced to NAVD.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.THOEMPKE: And that's the difference. The correction's up there in the upper right-hand
corner. So those aren't--those aren't mean low water values. Those are--they are NAVD,which is the
standard that we use.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: So when you read--or that paragraph that talks about that issue,
Page 3 of 6
June 9,2016 HEX Meeting
why did you see that as a need to differentiate between a mean low water measurement and an NAVD? What
dictates that?
MR.THOEMPKE: Well,they're not the same number. We did the mean low water because that's
what the county wants to see,and also DEP uses that as well. And we--we did not get the DEP permit for the
client. He came to us with that.So we had that there to begin with.
But we put--we put the minus four mean low water numbers on there so that everybody can see that
we are meeting that DEP criteria and also the county's.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: One of the things in that paragraph I notice,it says that the dock
can't be allowed past the negative 4-foot contour.Now,let's assume,then,that all these references are to the
mean low water contour,the one in orange.
MR.THOEMPKE: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: When you get to this map here,you do have the terminal
platform past the 4-foot contour.
MR.THOEMPKE: Right.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: How is that--is that why the DEP said 38 feet and this one says
40?Because it looks like it's a couple feet into that contour.
MR.THOEMPKE: I can't tell you for sure,but that certainly is a logical explanation. We did speak
to DEP about this and also on another one that's nearby that will be coming up in the future.They are not
rigidly held to that minus 4-foot line in terms of exceeding it. They do allow some exceedance of it if it meets
the other criteria that they're dealing with. So we don't anticipate that this will be an issue.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I guess I'll have to find out what staffs situation is in relationship
to that DEP permitting.
MR.THOEMPKE: Yeah. Patricia Clune is the DEP staff person. I've had numerous
conversations with her about this. And,you know,she said what we have to do is stake it out,and they'll go
out and check it.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: When you drew this plan up,were you not aware of the
paragraph that we just spoke about that she had written previously about intruding in that negative four?
MR.THOEMPKE: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And has DEP seen this plan?
MR.THOEMPKE: Yes;oh,yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Because the plan that I found attached to the DEP permit was
this one on the upper left,and I didn't know--
MR.THOEMPKE: Right. That was done much earlier. Like I said,that--the client came to us
with this. And in order to meet the county's criteria,we had to move it out a couple of feet.And we've been
talking to DEP about this. If,you know,for some reason they don't approve it,then the client will have to
work out another solution and come back here,I guess,if we have to change it,but I don't anticipate we will.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I think the change would be necessary if you were to be more
intense than what you're asking for. You're asking for 40 feet,so if you drop back to 38,I'm not sure that
staffs going to see that as necessarily something that has to be reapplied for,but I'll ask staff that,so...
MR.THOEMPKE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that's the extent,I believe,of the questions. Let me
double-check real quick here,Kris.
MR.THOEMPKE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I think that's everything. Yes,that's all the questions I have,so
thank you very much for your time.
MR.THOEMPKE: All right,thanks.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Staff report from,I guess, Eric,this is yours.
MR.JOHNSON: Yep,that's correct.
For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner,zoning.
Staff reviewed both applications and notes that there's three conditions of approval associated with the
boat dock extension--I'm sorry. Two conditions of approval associated with the boat dock extension and
Page 4 of 6
June 9,2016 HEX Meeting
three that are associated with the boathouse. Obviously,if the boat dock extension isn't approved,then the
boathouse wouldn't be approved.
When I went out to the site,I did not verify if there are any markers out there,but based on the--I don't
believe that there are any markers based on the photograph that I provided inside the packet. It wouldn't have
mattered anyway. Well,I shouldn't say that.
The boat dock extension meets five of five of the primary criteria and,actually,five of six of the
secondary criteria,so...
But--so staff is recommending approval of that. I just wanted to,you know,say that I didn't see
any--I wasn't looking for the markers when I went out there,so--but based on the photograph that I have in
the packet,I don't believe that there are any markers,and that's related to Criterion No.3 of the primary criteria.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Would the applicant--if the DEP insists on the 38 feet,does that
have any bearing on your report?
MR.JOHNSON: Well,I don't think it will have a bearing;however,I would really have to have a
conversation with Summer,who also reviewed this,making sure that,you know,the facility doesn't intrude
into the seagrass area.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: But already,by this diagram here,it appears to intrude into the
seagrass area. And I'm not sure why these mikes aren't work,but--sorry,Terri. That's going to be hard for
you to pick up.
That document--that photograph right there,or that overhead,shows the seagrass area in the green
line. It looks like the left-hand side of the terminal platform already intrudes on the seagrass area. So that's
not a problem,apparently?
MR.JOHNSON: Apparently it's not a problem.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. If it goes back two more feet,it will be a little bit further
in that to avoid that negative 4-foot contour line.Does the county have any issue in regards--in the utilization
of that line by DEP? I don't know where the county's criteria enters into that reference line. I didn't see any.
Do you know of any?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.
I don't recall any bearing on that either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm just trying to make sure in the exchange that the applicant
may have to coordinate these points on the two permits,ours and DEP's,if that line comes into play with DEP,
it doesn't necessarily mean a change for Collier County.
MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And the next thing I have to ask is--and I notice you're
having trouble,too,with these mikes. I don't know what's wrong. They've been difficult lately.
Why did we have two applications for the same issue? I mean,why--we have a boat dock and a
boathouse. In the past they've come through as one application. Why are they two on this one?
MR.BELLOWS: Again,Ray Bellows.
My understanding is there may have been some inconsistencies in applying the boathouse application
when in conjunction with the boat dock extension. That was my call that it should become(sic)under two
based on some past practices. But I see we have been inconsistent. And we discussed it with our director,
and in the future they'll all come in as one application.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: All right. I think that's a better way to proceed--
MR.BELLOWS: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --in the future.
Okay. That's all the questions I have of staff.
Have you got anything else,Eric?
MR.JOHNSON: I have nothing else,thanks.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. I don't see any members of the public here. Does
anybody else have anything else they'd like to say,since quite a few staff are here?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close this public hearing,and I will
Page 5 of 6
.................................... .. .... ......
June 9,2016 HEX Meeting
render a decision most likely,Kris,within a week to 10 days. We have up to 30 days,but it shouldn't take that
long.
MR.TI IOEMPKE: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And that takes us to the end of today's business. There are no
public--members here for public comment,so this meeting's adjourned. Thank you-all.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:15 a.m.
COLLI. R COliNTYITE IN EXAMINER
MA K STRAIN, HEARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on l Li - ,as presented
or as corrected V
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.,
BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 6 of 6