Loading...
HEX Minutes 10/14/2021October 14, 2021 Page 1 of 39 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER NAPLES, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 2021 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 S ESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Andrew Youngblood, Operation Analyst Zoning Division John Kelly, Principal Planner Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Michael Bosi, Zoning Director October 14, 2021 Page 2 of 39 THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right, good morning everyone. It's a little bit after 9:00. Thank you very much. I'm sure the court reporter would have caught that one. Today is October 14th, 2021, a little after 9:00. Can everybody hear me? I will project my voice as loud as I possibly can until you tell me to stop. Okay, so we're here today's the hearing examiner meeting of October 14th, 2021. It's a little after 9:00 a.m. We have an agenda produced and we have it looks like three items on it, A, B, C -- or two items? MR. BELLOWS: There's three items. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Great any changes to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: No changes to the agenda, all right. So we're going to go right to the pledge of allegiance. If you would just stand up, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was said.) THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Great. Thank you everyone. A little bit of information here. As I said, I am the hearing examiner. I'm an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar. I have been practicing for over 20 years in the area of local government, primarily in zoning and land use. I am not an employee of the County. I was retained by the county commission to be an impartial hearing examiner to hear petitions that are in the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner's office. As such, I do everything that I can to remain impartial and part of that is I do not do any of my own research ahead of time in terms of visiting the site. I don't talk to staff and get their point of view. I don't talk to the applicant and get their point of view. I come here, I look at the materials that are available to everyone in the public, and we listen to -- I listen to the testimony and the evidence and I apply that to the criteria that's published in the code. And once that's done, once the hearing's finished, we have -- due to the COVID-19 the County has set up a process to have a hybrid meeting. Folks are here obviously in person, but we also have folks that will be joining us electronically and Mr. Youngblood over there is the supervisor of all that, including our court reporter I believe is remote as well; is that right? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir, the court reporter is on Zoom. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I'd like to hear the court reporter. I just want to make sure that you're there. THE COURT REPORTER: Good morning. I'm here. THE HEARING EXAMINER: About the court reporter, the court reporter is going to stop the meeting when anyone talks too fast or she can't hear you or you're gesturing yes, no, thumbs up, thumbs down. I don't know how court reporters capture that, so she at any time can tell me stop and we will stop. The reason for that is I want to have a very clean record for this hearing and capture everything that needs to be said. Anyone who is going to testify here today, meaning speak to me, provide me with information, needs to be sworn in and you will be sworn in saying you will be telling me the truth. So at this time I would like all individuals that are going to stand up and testify and provide me with information, either as a public speaker or an expert, please stand and the court reporter will administer the oath. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (All parties were sworn as a whole and answered in the affirmative.) THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. Another piece of housekeeping items, speakers that are here, we have slips for speaker slips; that's also a good practice for the record so that if someone doesn't capture the name, spelling correctly or address, then that's there as well. Mr. Youngblood will be handling telling me who's here to speak and who's not October 14, 2021 Page 3 of 39 here to speak, or at least he usually does or maybe he's got someone to do something different. When you come up, what we're going to do, as you can see, we have two podiums. The podium in the middle, which is the gray podium, we'll use for the County and for the public. The big brown podium over here is for the Applicant and/or Applicant's representative; that way I can get a feel for that. Obviously we have a screen. Generally applicants come with a -- with a Power Point and we see that and it helps a lot. Anything else, Mr. Bellows? M R. BELLOWS: I think you covered it. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, just -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: One -- wait, wait, one other thing, I'm getting another positive thing. If you have cell phones or any other electronic device that's going to be making noise, please silence those. And as well is if you want to have a conversation with somebody, please step outside in the hallway for the courtesy of everyone else so -- including myself, so that we can make sure the hearing runs efficiently. Anything else? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, just a point of clarity on the speaker slips, if folks are here to testify on the matter representing the Applicant or as an agent of such, they don't need to fill out a speaker slip, just members of the public who are wishing to voice their support or opposition for it. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That's a good point, so let me point this out: There are two parties to this hearing. There are -- there's the Applicant and then there's the County. Everyone else are members of the public. Some members of the public may feel as though they are more affected either positively or negatively than others. Personally, I am not going to make a decision about quote, unquote, standing or who's affected more. I believe that's -- one, that's an issue if it goes up on appeal, that's someone else's decision to make. Secondly, if I were to have to do that, then I would be going beyond what I think my jurisdiction is and I think that would lead me in a less than partial position. So when you come up, do put in -- give me your address and if I can identify where you are on some of the graphics, I will want to do that, because it's important for me to find out where you are. I'm not going to make a ruling about who has standing and who doesn't, but I do also want to hear from everyone. This is a very informal process. Some people like myself get nervous when I have to stand up and speak. Bob obviously loves to speak, so he's there already, but just take your time. I know that the standard limit is five minutes. If we -- if you can try to make it a little shorter than that and get right to the point and give me the salient information you can. Under state law, you're allowed to come to public meetings and say whatever you want to say, so I'm not going to cut you off unless up become discourteous, so -- but it would help me greatly if you would address the points when you come up. So with that, I'm going to ask the County to introduce the first item, which is item 3A. So, Ray, are you going to handle that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'll be presenting this item. It was -- I have reviewed it with Lauren Desire, our contract planner, and it is for parking exemption with the petition number PL-20210000596 for property located at 2831 Becca Avenue. This is a parking exemption application to address a condition of approval with the original parking exemption that was approved by the HEX in 2019 in the determination number 2019-38. Condition number six of that approval limited the amount of days the parking lot could be used, so it has a condition that it be closed on October 14, 2021 Page 4 of 39 Mondays. This parking exemption will allow seven day operation of the parking lot which is off-site parking to the principal establishment of the food truck park, Celebration Park. The public notice was, as noted in your staff report, we have listed that is we filled the required notice newspaper ad and the -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Signs on the property? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Was there a NIM held or no? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there was a NIM. THE HEARING EXAMINER: There was, okay. And your recommendation is? MR. BELLOWS: Staff is recommending approval of this petition with the adjustments to the conditions of approval. And if you look at those, we -- condition number six, we're revising the hours of operation to eliminate where it says no more than six days a week and will remain closed on Mondays. And we had a slight modification to the 15th condition where the underlined language is and to direct patrons of the food truck park to use the designated parking spaces and boat tie ups and not to park vehicles or boats on the neighboring properties or right-of-way. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, so there's actually two modifications -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- that are being requested. Okay, so let me put this on the record right now. I do -- I have all of that. I have read the 2019-38 Hearing Examiner decision. I requested a copy of the transcripts from that hearing. That hearing decision was made by my predecessor, so I felt like it was important for me to familiarize myself to what happened at that point and what decisions were made and who said what to become familiar with why those conditions were put into place. I do have a procedural question. So I know that I have had PDIs were insubstantial changes to existing planned developments. As far as a condition of a Hearing Examiner decision regarding -- this was strictly about an off-premise parking; was that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: It did not approve the Celebration food truck park? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. There are separate issues. The other one is permitted by right and this is an off-site parking which requires a public hearing to allow as long as it meets the criteria of the Land Development Code to have an off-site parking in a noncommercial property to serve a commercial use. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So as far as I can recall, this is the first time I've been asked to modify a Hearing Examiner decision, so my question is this, and anyone in your office can answer it, but does this need to go through the same -- in order to modify it, does it need to go through the same process of the original approval? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. We don't have an amendment to an existing parking exemption, so we're basically repealing the old parking exemption and dropping the new one with the revised conditions. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So there was a new application for off-premise parking, you guys went through the same analysis as a whole, not just whether or not Monday, Monday, not Monday, things like that? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct am we looked at it as a brand new parking exemption. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you very much. All right. Well, let's get started with the Applicant. For the record also -- why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself first. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) October 14, 2021 Page 5 of 39 THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear him. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible). Is it on now? THE COURT REPORTER: No. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello, now it's on. THE COURT REPORTER: There you go. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. I can remember my old days in drama school, you know. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Bob, before you get started, I just want the public to know that you did provide me with documents this morning. Is this simply your presentation that you're about to make? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Of course, for the record, it will be available to the public. So for the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here on behalf of the Applicant and with me this morning Gary, who is the manager of Celebration Park. Whether or not Gary actually has to speak as part of my presentation remains to be seen. There may be operational matters and so on and so forth, so -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Are you the one with the bowtie? Okay. MR. MULHERE: Gary Rudd, sorry. So next slide, please. So I'll get right into my presentation. I also represented the Applicant on the original off-site parking petition before Mark Strain, the former hearing examiner. And not that probably anybody here needs to know this because they probably already know, but just in case here's Becca A venue, here's Celebration Park, Bayshore, and this is the off-site lot. Next slide, please. So our request is limited to amendment of one of the conditions of approval, condition number six, which limited the hours of operation of the off-site lot between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. no more than six days a week and will remain closed on Mondays. Although we have reviewed the Staff's additional condition, Mr. Dickman, we have no objection to that. So, you know, I wanted to -- with respect to this, I wanted to provide a little bit of background. During the hearing in 2019, Hearing Examiner Strain asked this question: Mr. Mulhere, do you have any days in which the parking lot does not operate or the parking or Celebration Park does not operate, and my response was Mondays. And Mr. Strain proceeded to say, okay, that's what I needed to hear. And with that -- excuse me, he says then, then you wouldn't need to operate the parking lot on Mondays, would you, and I said correct. As you know, he didn't render an immediate opinion, he rendered an opinion after the hearing, and after the hearing this stipulation was in the final approval. So we didn't say -- the point I'm making is we didn't say we would never be open on Monday and a business decision has been made to be open on Monday and that's why we're before you now. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Let me stop you. Are you suggesting that this was just merely a conversation between -- he asked you a question -- MR. MULHERE: He asked me a question, I responded. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- and you said it's not open on Monday and meaning since this is off-premise parking lot that serves the principal use, that you're saying that's how that condition traveled into it. Was that a Staff recommendation as well? MR. MULHERE: No. No. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: And I understand. You know, he said you're not open on Mondays, then you don't need to use the lot on Mondays and it became a condition. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Makes sense. October 14, 2021 Page 6 of 39 MR. MULHERE: Times change. I think already talked about that one, so let's move to the next slide. So the lot has been in operation for some time now providing my client with a full understanding of the operational aspects of the off-site lot, as well as the operational aspects of Celebration Park which the lot serves. And based on market demand, the business owner now wishes to operate on Mondays which necessitates the use of the parking lot. And let me just explain that it I could. That off-site parking lot was approved by the Hearing Examiner, but also the site development plan was amended for Celebration Park to incorporate that off-site lot, so that's an administrative process. The point I'm making is that that off-site lot, the parking in that off-site lot is required to meet the required parking for Celebration Park. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you for bringing that up. I wanted to ask that. This was approved -- Celebration Park was approved administratively, correct? And -- is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. So I'm not going rehash Tuesday's six-hour hearing, but I will tell you that there was a comparable use determination. I'll defer to Mike. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Well, before we get to that, because I know there was an item on the agenda yesterday before the commission acting as the planning and zoning board. I did catch about five minutes total of that because I was busy doing other things, but I do know what the outcome was. However, just in general terms I want to know this: So the items in front of Mr. Strain was a companion items -- well, it was necessary, in other words, because any use, the principal use would require parking, right? MR. MULHERE: It's a bit of a long story, but let me try to summarize it. THE HEARING EXAMINER: You really want to tell your story. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Well, I want to summarize it for you, but there was a comparable use determination approved for Celebration Park prior to the off-site parking lot. After Celebration Park got the comparable use determination favorable to the food truck park, submitted a site development plan, received approval of a site development, constructed a plan, constructed Celebration Park, there were limited spaces actually constructed on the principal site. What happened? There were parking problems in the neighborhood. Staff revisited the issue and said that they were, let's say, in error in approving it without additional parking because the CRA overlay does not require parking for outdoor seating, cafe outdoor seating, so both from a business perspective, if you don't have parking, it's hard to run a successful business, so both from a business perspective and as a result of having discussions, the staff, my client acquired the six contiguous arm of six lots which are designated as appropriate for off-site parking under the CRA because they're along Bayshore and proceeded to go through the off-site parking process, received approval, constructed the lot. So at this point -- and then incorporated those into the SBP for Celebration Park. So at this point, Celebration Park -- and the Staff approved that amendment -- is compliant with the required because it has one extra space above the code requirement, so they're compliant now between the on-site and off-site parking. THE HEARING EXAMINER: At what point was the hours of operation established and the days -- MR. MULHERE: Relative to the off-site parking, it happened during the off-site parking petition before the Hearing Examiner in 2019. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That wasn't discussed at the administrative level with the site development plan? MR. MULHERE: No. No. There's no -- there really is no restriction on hours of operation for a restaurant or a food truck park. However, there are restrictions and I'll get into this in greater detail on amplified music, which, you know, I'll get into a little bit greater detail because I know it's going to come up, but our position it has absolutely nothing to do, there's a separate regulation to that and I'll get into that in just October 14, 2021 Page 7 of 39 a minute, so next slide, please. So, Mr. Dickman, I just wanted to show you this, this is a colorized site plan of the off-site lot with a sidewalk going back out to Bayshore. This is the access. It's, you know, basically a right turn in and then you can come back out and leave and you can see the parking spaces. There was a substantial eight-foot masonry wall constructed adjacent to the residential zoning. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Where's your north arrow on that one? MR. Mulhere: Good question. Let's see, west, north is -- MR. BELLOWS: North is to the top. MR. MULHERE: Straight up, yeah. And then there were significant additional requirements and I'm going to go over those in greater detail in just a minute for landscaping, for lighting, for operation of this off-site lot and I will go over that momentarily. Next slide. Thank you. This is just a black and white. Grade Minor did the cite plan. Next slide, please. Next side. Sorry, I know you can't reach it. I just wanted to point out what we had discussed, there's actually 13 spaces on site, 62 spaces off site, that's 75 spaces and 74 are required. We had this discussion, but -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: On this one, show me where Becca Avenue is. MR. Mulhere: Becca is right here. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. And that joins up with Bayshore? MR. MULHERE: Correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. MR. MULHERE: So access to the food truck park and then access to the off- site parking lot right here. Next slide, please. So we already discussed this, but this has some of the conditions that were included in the approval of the off-site parking to ensure compatibility with adjacent nearby residential parcels. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with other aspirational aspects of Celebration Park. So the hours were limited from 9:30 to 10:30 p.m. and controls are required to limit access to the parking lot outside of those permitted hours of use. He required -- or the Hearing Examiner required low-level bollard-type Dark Sky Compliant lighting except where the access abuts the right of way for safety purposes; a finished eight-foot tall masonry wall a minimum of ten feet from the property line and that offset was important because that allowed us to place enhanced buffering in that ten foot adjacent to those residential parcels and the next item addresses that. No dumpsters in the off- site parking lot, so we weren't going to be able to nor did we have the desire to handle significant waste operations, waste removal the off-site lot. Next slide, please. So the basis for the restrictions on using the off-site lot on Mondays was the fact that at the time of the time hearing Celebration Park was closed on Mondays. We did not know that would be a condition, Mr. Strain asked the question and then later rendered his opinion, but we were closed at the time on Mondays. O bviously it's not related to compatibility since the off-site lot was approved allowing the use with a number of conditions, excuse me, that should say intended, specifically intended to ensure compatibility. So as I said earlier, now the business owner wishes to be able to utilize the off- site lot which has a significant portion of the required parking. If they wish to be open on Monday, they need to use the off-site lot to do that. Next slide, please. So this is a verbatim list of those conditions, which I'm sure you saw when you looked at his finding. There was some other conditions that I didn't mention previously, but it's only for the use of customers and employees of Celebration Park, or vendor employees, you know, going to speak to the operators with regard to some October 14, 2021 Page 8 of 39 product or something like that, or a food truck vendor. No vendor operations or special events are allowed in the parking lot area. Next slide, please. It talks about the Type E, the wall, no dumpsters loading or unloading, controlled access, regular patrolling of the parking exemption area no less than hourly and he required some design changes to the retention area and high striping for pedestrian safety. Next slide, please. So just before I conclude, I wanted to just discuss for a moment since I know it's going to come up, the issue of maximum permissible sound levels and the application requirement for an amplified sound permit. Again, my position is it has nothing to do with this request. THE HEARING EXAMINER: (Inaudible) THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Hearing Examiner, I can't hear you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: If this went through -- if this went through the same approval process as a new off-premise parking, am I to only look at the at the request for the modification or all the conditions? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. You're looking at the all the conditions because like I said earlier, they don't have an amendment process to an existing parking exemption, so we are, in fact, adopting a new parking exemption and Staff reviewed it just like it was a brand new request. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Would one of those be that I could deny the entire request? MR. BELLOWS: If this petition is denied, then the existing provision parking exemption remains in effect. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I'm only asking these questions because -- I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm trying -- this is a new animal for me, and I recognize that it's already in existence and that it was purchased and that it was inserted as part of the operation to meet the parking requirements, but I still -- again, you know, you told me that this was put through as a whole new application which puts the Applicant in an odd situation because if I for some reason decide that an off-premise parking, that's a pretty Draconian decision, I'm not saying that -- I'll not trying to telegraph where I'm going with all this, but, you know, if I'm only looking at -- well, I guess now we have two provisions, if I only narrowed my jurisdiction to that, that's very different than all of what Mr. Strain did prior to me, so I just wanted to put that out there. If you have any arguments to the contrary, I want you to do that MR. MULHERE: I do. I do, yeah. Respectfully I would disagree. You know, our position was that it was limited to the request we made. There was an additional condition placed on that -- I mean, because it went through the entire public hearing process, was approved. We narrowly asked for one thing, to be able to use the parking lot on Mondays. Now, I don't know that we can resolve that issue here. The Staff has opinion, I have an opinion, my opinion is different -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Did the attorney's office -- you have an attorney assigned to this, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, we do have -- we've been working with the attorney's office. I don't know if we asked this specific question, but historically like a PUD amendment, there's a process that says you can amend a PUD zoning district. We don't have an application that says you can amend a parking exemption. THE HEARING EXAMINER: It has been my experience as an attorney working in land use that you -- for example, a conditional use permit, it's approved in the same process in which -- if you come in for an amendment, it's approved in the same process in which the original approval was given, so I think that's what's happening here for lack of specificity in the code -- October 14, 2021 Page 9 of 39 MR. MULHERE: I just have a couple of additional questions THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah, go ahead. MR. MULHERE: To me there are -- I'm not suggesting that you don't have the opportunity to place any kind of condition or restriction that you think is appropriate on our request. We believe that was limited to the aspects of the off-site parking, certainly not Celebration Park. The previous Hearing Examiner didn't place any conditions that related to Celebration Park. He did limit the use of the lot on Mondays because Celebration Park was closed, there was no reason to use it. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I'm not suggesting that, that's not on my -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. THE HEARING EXAMINER: But I also recognize that without this off -- the off-site premise parking lot, then you have a substandard parking. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. Absolutely. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So they are -- MR. MULHERE: No, they're tied, the STP. THE HEARING EXAMINER: They are tied together. MR. MULHERE: And constructed. So the other comment I would make is in the example of a conditional use, I think you handle an amendment to a conditional use where that conditional use has been constructed and is operating differently than a situation where you're amending a condition of a conditional use where nothing has occurred. There's a difference there, a significant material difference. This is constructed, it's operational, it's required as you indicated in support of Celebration Park, so -- and I think that even though there's no process to amend the hearing, there's also an identified process to identify whether it's a minor amendment or a substantial amendment. And by the way, that's in the eye of the beholder, I understand. There are probably many people here who would say this is a substantial change to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner, so I understand that. But, you know, I'm not sure it's fair -- I just want to put on the record, I don't believe it's fair to the business owner and operator to open up the entire discussion and therefore we disagree with Staff's position that this -- this request which was limited to that issue opens up all the other aspects of it. MR. BELLOWS: Just a point of clarification. Staff is supporting the requested with no other changes to the approved conditions. We are requesting or supporting the application, but I don't see any legal reason you couldn't offer additional changes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So as far as I know I'm the only attorney in the room, do you have an attorney with you? MR. MULHERE: I do. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Oh, you do. Excellent. MR. MULHERE: Michael Moore, who is the attorney for the Applicant. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Maybe at some point Michael wants to make an argument to this point. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure he's a land use attorney, but -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Oh, okay, but as an attorney I know that if -- one argument against that would be equitable estoppel. It's kind of like an easy term that lawyers throw around. However, let me think about this, because at some point I may request that the County attorney's office and whichever attorney you want to find, if it's your capable counsel over there, submit a legal memo on jurisdiction because this is a new animal and I also recognize the result of what would happen if I totally flipped my predecessor's decision. And, again, I want everyone to know, I am not saying what my decision is here today. I'm just trying to identify procedurally what my jurisdiction is and I think that's necessary for me to do that. October 14, 2021 Page 10 of 39 MR. MULHERE: And I guess my point would be I do understand that it's within your authority reviewing this to put any restrictions that you feel are appropriate on that off-site lot and my opinion is that it relates to our change here. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Your opinion is well noted. MR. MULHERE: I did want to say one last thing. I know you have a lot of folks here and I try to keep my presentation as brief as possible, but -- and, again, I understand that you understand that we're talking about the off-site lot and not Celebration, but I think you're going to hear a lot of comments and maybe I want to be a little bit preemptive with respect to, for example, the noise, the maximum permissible sound levels. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah, let me do this for you, because obviously you know I'm going to give you time for rebuttal and it's not lost on me that this is an important item. I've heard about -- I've never been to Celebration Park, no offense to your client, sorry, it's probably for the best in this context. It did come up, I think I've heard something about this I believe when you were here on a different application across the street and some folks were talking about it, so it's not lost on me that this is a situation where there's a lot of people on both sides concerned -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- because there is a residential area there, but why don't -- instead of try to preempt and scare people in the audience who may want to speak -- MR. MULHERE: No problem. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- you'll have plenty of time for rebuttal -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Yep. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- but I do have some questions. MR. MULHERE: Sure. No problem. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So you explained to me, and I do have the transcripts, you explained to me the -- more or less a conversation between like this between you and Mr. Strain about hours of operation and it was determined six days a week and therefore what's the use of having that parking lot open when the food trucks open, but did that -- was there any further discussion after perhaps public comment about the need for that condition or did -- was that it and Mr. Strain -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that occurred towards the end of the hearing and I think he went almost right into wrapping up the hearing and saying he'd render his decision. Again, we didn't know that that was going to be a condition. Although, you know, we certainly could have assumed it based on his question and probably did. And that's fine and we didn't really have an issue at the time because we were closed on Mondays. But, you know, a couple years of operation, the owner has done some significant charitable events at that location on Mondays and wishes then now to operate on Mondays. And no other -- we're unaware of any other business that has a similar restrictions even under the same circumstances, so -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: That was my next question for you. So what has -- what has precipitated the need to have this restriction lifted? Have the hours of the food truck park changed? MR. MULHERE: No. The desire, though, there was a charitable event held on a Monday when we were in theory closed and didn't have the off-site parking lot to support it. However, it was approved initially through a temporary use permit by Staff. And then staff realized I think -- I'm not sure if it was before or after the fact, but they realized, wait a minute, you're not supposed to operate on Monday and we're going to apply that even to a special event, so we're going to revoke that temporary use permit, so not to get into the issue of that because they were -- you know, it went to the code enforcement board as well. But the -- at that point, there was a business decision made, hey, we'd like to October 14, 2021 Page 11 of 39 operate on Mondays. We believe we can do some good, we want to have some charitable events, but I'm not suggesting they want to restrict it to that. THE HEARING EXAMINER: This is not the Celebration food truck park? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Yeah, they held a charitable event on a Monday at Celebration Food Truck Park and so at that point the decision was made, you know, a business decision was made that we'd like to be open on Mondays. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I want to be clear about this because you're not really -- okay, so I'm going to call it a special event -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it was a business -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: There was one, it could be charitable or whatever. MR. MULHERE: There was one, yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So the food truck park decides on a Monday we want to have a special event -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- therefore we need the parking -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, exactly. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- and they're tied together? MR. MULHERE: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So are you telling me that sometimes the food truck park is open on Mondays for special events? MR. MULHERE: No. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Or at this point in time, it is closed on Mondays? MR. MULHERE: It is closed. It was clear after that special event that that was not going to be -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: So there was one special event? MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That didn't -- okay. MR. MULHERE: But at that point a business decision was made; that business decision was we want to be open on Mondays. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Why? MR. MULHERE: Because business is good and that would allow them to not only have charitable events, but regular business on Mondays as well. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So to give them -- all right, are they planning to operate on Mondays depending on the outcome of this? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: No, no, I wasn't suggesting now you're open -- MR. MULHERE: No. No. No. But yes -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- but the plan is contemplating -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And what kind of approval would that take? MR. MULHERE: No other approval. That's a -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Just a business decision? MR. MULHERE: That's a business decision. It's just we can't operate without the off-site parking, so -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. So what I was getting at is this -- give me one second. What I was getting at is I wanted to make sure that the point of having this open on Monday would not turn into parking being available for some other -- MR. MULHERE: No. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- operation that would have either overflow parking or a -- MR. MULHERE: Right. October 14, 2021 Page 12 of 39 THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- cross parking agreement -- MR. MULHERE: No. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- similar to what churches do or house -- MR. MULHERE: No, it's a great question. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I want to make sure that that's not the reason -- MR. MULHERE: That is not. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- you just want to have of the opportunity -- your client wants to have the opportunity to go Mondays and they can't do it without changing that condition. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And that's a great question because I could see where, you know, that would come to your mind based on what I said. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Don't go anywhere. I have some more questions. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, that was a simply a business -- or it has been a business decision and we will not use that parking lot -- we're restricted from using that parking lot for any special events or anything like that that wouldn't be related to Celebration Park. THE HEARING EXAMINER: For example -- MR. MULHERE: A bazaar or -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: No, no, across the street on Bayshore whatever that was? MR. MULHERE: A wine venue. No, they'll have all the required parking on site. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. They're on site? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Mike, did you have something? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director. I just wanted to add that the original comparable use determination for the Celebration food truck, there was no restrictions in terms of days of operation. The restrictions on days of operations are directly tied r elated to the parking lot. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That helps a lot. MR. BOSI: Okay. THE HEARING EXAMINER: You understood my line of questioning, right? MR. BOSI: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, let's talk about code enforcement because it's pretty well documented in the Staff report. So it appears as though there has been code enforcement either coming -- initiated from either the food truck park or the parking lot, but they're both one in the same more or less, so talk to me about that because that is documented in the Staff report. MR. MULHERE: Yep. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And just so you know, I'm aware of verified ones where they actually become code enforcement actions and goes to the -- right, you don't have a code enforcement board hearing, do you? MR. MULHERE: We've had them, but we don't have any currently going on. THE HEARING EXAMINER: No, no, who decides code enforcement for the County? MR. MULHERE: That I don't know. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Hearing examiner, right, hearing officer? MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, there's a special magistrate, yes. I'm sorry. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That's the magistrate, all right. So my point being is that my experience with code enforcement or code compliance, especially related to noise -- and I see the hours of operation are at 10:30 and I've dealt with noise a lot. And so there is a genre of verified code enforcement actions that actually make October 14, 2021 Page 13 of 39 it all the way, you know, that's verified by the officer and it gets sent up and it's either, you know, either appealed or not appealed and then there are those that are just call-ins and they're not verified, but partially because by the time the officer gets there, the noise has gone down and they couldn't do their readings or something like that. So talk to me a little bit about code enforcement. MR. MULHERE: Well, so -- I mean, obviously I'm not directly involved in responding; that's not part of what I do for the Applicant thank God, but as far as code enforcement goes, the issue is compliance with the conditions that are attached to the amplified -- with respect to sound that are attached to the amplified sound permit and to the ordinance which establishes those maximum decibels as well as the latest hour that amplified sound, you know, can be utilized which is 10:00 p.m. and there are decibels in that ordinance and they differ for commercial use, residential use, and then they establish -- and it's fairly complicated and I do see there's a code enforcement individual in the back who may be able to speak to this better than I can, but there are specific decibel levels that can't be exceeded. If a code enforcement complaint is registered and they are able to get there while the sound is still emanating, they do testings. I know that has occurred on several occasions and I believe this ordinance says -- I don't believe, I know this ordinance says that if you receive two violations in any 12-month period you have an automatic revocation for one year of your amplified sound permit. And that was the point I wanted to make earlier is that this -- we're talking about off-site parking. This document regulates amplified sound for every business in Collier County who has amplified sound. You have to get the permit, you have to live with those conditions. We fully understand that. We will live with those conditions. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So Attachment D lists out all the cases; 2018, a total of 24 cases are entered, 18 associated with the food truck part, six cases associated with Becca Avenue parking lot, just a whole bunch of different ones. I understand the decibel levels and how that works. And I understand we're talking about the parking lot, and I'm not talking about the Celebration food truck park, that's not on my table, but, you know, cars make noise, people going to cars make noise, car alarms make noise, create lights, people play music -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. THE HEARING EXAMINER: You know the whole litany. It's a list of horribles. MR. MULHERE: I live directly behind a county park, yes, I do understand. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, the -- I don't know the nature of any of those complaints, those six complaints that relate. I suspect that they may have been earlier. There are very stringent conditions on hours for utilization. I mean, could you get a situation where somebody's parked there and, you know, they leave their car there, yeah, that probably would happen. Theoretically they'd be locked in, but if somebody is still there to let them out, you know -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Let's just hope -- they serve alcohol at the food park, right, so let's hope somebody took an Uber and didn't drive. MR. MULHERE: Decides not to drive, yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right, now we have a lawyer. How are you, sir? MR. MOORE: Hi, how are you? Michael Moore on behalf of the owner. Not to extend the petitioner's initial comments, but we do have Gary Rudd, who's the manager of the park, and I as the attorney represented the owner in several of the code violation cases. If you do have specific questions, we can answer those or we can save them for rebuttal. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I would save them for rebuttal, but I wanted to October 14, 2021 Page 14 of 39 put them out there because I wanted the County and the public to know sort of where -- some of the things I'm thinking about because I read all the material, what happened with my predecessor, I wanted to do that, so, you know, I get it, you've got your team here and we'll give you plenty of time for rebuttal. I suspect that some of the public will be raising various issues of different things, but I wanted to get your up front information on that, so I appreciate it. MR. MOORE: To piggyback on Bob's comments, there are two separate types of code violations if you exclude the specialty. There is a series of code violations -- violations, I'm sorry -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: The violations -- MR. MOORE: Sorry. There were a series of complaints on Celebration Park related to the amplified sound. And to piggyback on Bob, it is a separate issue we believe in the parking lot. There are six complaints that you mention on the parking lot. If you look at the record, there's only one actual violation that was adjudicated; that's in particular to the use of the parking lot on a Monday for that special event. All of the other ones were solved or dismissed and so that's why we're here today actually, as Bob says. The County took the position that the -- a special or temporary use permit did not trump a HEX order, so we're forced here instead of going the special permit route which we're allowed to do for -- I don't know the exact number of the weeks or special events, we are attempting to revise that order. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I appreciate all the information. And, again, if a ny of these sound like direct or even harsh questions, they're not intended to telegraph my decision. I just know that, you know, I want to hear everything that I could possibly hear. It will be the only time that I can ask these questions, okay, so why don't we -- if -- Ray, do you have anything else to add before we go to public comment? MR. BELLOWS: Just a couple things. One is anyone who's uncomfortable with the closeness of everyone in here and wants it view this from another conference room, we have it televised, so don't feel like you need to be in here if you don't -- if you feel uncomfortable due to COVID protocols. We do have other conference rooms with TVs available. The other is, I have discussed this issue with our county attorney, Derek Perry -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: When you disappeared? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, when I disappeared. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. And? And? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the idea is that we did advertise a more specific interpretation of modifying condition number six, so I think the scope of the Hearing Examiner could be based on that solely. Even though staff reviewed the whole parking exemption criteria from, like, a new application and our response is we recommend that the previous conditions be retained subject to these two tweaks that we talked about. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you've consulted with one of the County's attorneys about the width of what I can look at, you process the application at a new for the -- specifically to eliminate one condition, but then on your own volition unilaterally you added another condition. MR. BELLOWS: A clarification. THE HEARING EXAMINER: A clarification, okay. Okay. All right. So it's the County Attorney's position that I'm limited to look at just this request for -- MR. BELLOWS: And he's here to go into more detail, but you are really looking at the conditions being altered, but -- and I think maybe we need to have them say how far a stray from that -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't we circle back to that later on. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Just as far as like a legal position, and the only reason I'm mentioning that, again, this is the last time I'm going to be able to -- I don't October 14, 2021 Page 15 of 39 do any discussions with anybody after this hearing. I strictly collect everything I can here today and make a decision on that. I don't call the County for more information, I don't call the Applicant for more information, but I just want to make that clear, that item clear because it occurred to me that if it was approved as a new application, procedurally I'd like to know that, but we can get back to that later. You want to hear the public? Are you done? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Don't sneak off like that. You scare me. You're so quiet. All right, so we're going to open up to the public for public comment. Why don't we go ahead and start reading the names. Come on up one at a time as you're called. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, we have nine people in person with us. We also have three speakers online. I did see some folks come in after we covered the housekeeping items about speaking, so if any members of the public have not registered to speak, we have speaker slips to my right here. Please complete one of those and we'll get you up here. Our first speaker is Christian Petrov followed by John Smith. THE HEARING EXAMINER: While we do it, is it possible to put up the first aerial that the Applicant had on, so I can get a geographic reference of where some of these folks live? MR. PETROV: My name is Christian. As you can here, my accent, originally I'm from Europe. I lived the last five years on Bayshore. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Your address, please? MR. PETROV: It's 2881 Abaco Bay 281 -- 2811 Abaco Bay Apartment A4. So we all know, the last four years looking to this parking exactly this lot has been changed a lot. Myself as a neighbor, as an employer to Celebration Park, and is six months ago owner of the Celebration Park 360 Market, I rent a jet ski company. Looking at this parking lot it's been changed a lot really steadily. Only four years ago it was people who has problem with alcohol, drugs. It's really bad to see the pictures of the neighbor, but right now I really feel, like, I am at home at this street. I really feel happy to be employed at Celebration Park and to have my own business along this area. We all know that know that Florida is growing up in general, Collier County is growing up, Bayshore is growing. As a neighbor, as an owner and as an employee, I really want and need this parking lot to be open seven days a week for better economy, for better traffic consideration, better for everybody. Thank you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So you're an employee of Celebration Park and a resident in the area? MR. PETROV: Yes. And Celebration Park, 360 Market. I run my own business from there. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. Okay. So you're a proponent of this application? MR. PETROV: I'm familiar with this area, yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. MR. PETROV: And Mr. Andrew, you said you've never been to Celebration? Did you been three, four years ago on this area? THE HEARING EXAMINER: I know the area very, very well. MR. PETROV: It's changed a lot better for everybody. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yes. Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is John Smith followed by Robert Messner. Mr. Smith, you will have five minutes, sir. MR. SMITH: Good morning, sir. I reside at 2779 Becca Avenue, which is exactly two lots to the west of the parking lot in question. Same side, same side of the October 14, 2021 Page 16 of 39 street. No, north side of Becca. No, to the left, right up there. Yeah, a little to the right. I lived there before the park was established, so I'm familiar with the neighborhood prior to it's development and I just want to voice my opposition to the parking lot. I think the parking lot and Celebration Park have had an adverse affect on our neighborhood significantly. There's been a litany of complaints and issues that have arisen since the park was established, which is I think very well documented. And in prior hearings, in informational hearings that have been held, most of the speakers that - - I think almost all the speakers that are proponents of Celebration are either employees or someone receiving financial compensation or, you know, they have an interest in it, they're an employee, et cetera, et cetera. I'm speaking on behalf of the residents of our neighborhood and you'll hear several today I believe, and you will find that we have no special interest other than our neighborhood. And our homes are our castles as the old saying goes and it should be respected and it has not been respected by Celebration Park and we have been seriously adversely affected by that. So, again, I am -- we are getting, by the way, no support from our county commissioner, Commissioner Taylor. We have repeatedly e-mailed her our opposition and our complaints. She doesn't even respond. We've voiced concerns to the manager and he says he will try to take care of it and doesn't, so we're kind of left in the lurch here and we're the ones who suffer the most. The employees at Celebration Park, you know, they come, they earn a living and they go home and hopefully their homes are quieter than ours, we don't get that privilege. And so I besiege you to deny this request on that basis. Thank you very much for your time. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Robert Messner, followed by Troy Cammerowski. THE HEARING EXAMINER: While Mr. Messner comes up, I do want to disclose that I have a packet of public correspondence received as of October 6th, 2021. If there were any other ones, you can provide those to me. I don't know if Mr. MULHERE has copies of those or not. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We did receive some late yesterday and I have a packet for you are and Mr. Mulhere. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. How are you, sir? MR. MESSNER: I'm fine. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you four taking your time to be here. MR. MESSNER: Thank you for your service to the County. You have big shoes to fill with mark Strain and I'm sure you're going to do that and thank you for that. It came as a surprise to me, a pleasant surprise that if I understand it, that the County has given you the opportunity to look a at Mr. Strain's -- all Mr. Strain's conditions besides the Monday night -- I apologize, I want to back up. My address is 2978 Orange Street, Naples, and more importantly I live and own for the past 24 years approximately 700 feet directly west of Celebration Park, directly west. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Where my little thing is? MR. MESSNER: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So are you in this area? MR. MESSNER: I'm on the west side of Orange Street. There's a house on the corner, an empty of a torn down house, and the next one is mine. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Great. Thank you. October 14, 2021 Page 17 of 39 MR. MESSNER: The issue that I and most, if not all of my neighbors have is not the Monday night parking lot, it is the window shattering, teeth clattering, eardrum rupturing noise. And this is not much exaggeration, noise created by Celebration Park. It started off three years ago on weekends only, now it is nearly six days a week. And if the parking lot opens, she is so successful at that operation, it will be seven days a week. Monday night we enjoy peace and quiet since it's been opened, one night a week. I would like to respectfully suggest since I think you have -- you can do this, is make one of your conditions allowing Monday night to park, but demand that Celebration adhere strictly to the existing County noise control and require somehow that code enforcement study this, go there, listen to it, and accurately report to the proper authorities, whether that is the County manager, the five commissioners, or whomever, of the correct decibel levels that are repeatedly being exceeded. I was a complainant to the County over the noise and hence a code inspector with his sound equipment was in my front yard for about an hour and a half listening to this. This occurred maybe 10, 12 months ago. His report was it did not exceed the sound level, yet I was in my house with the windows shattering and my teeth clattering and my ear drum thumping. I've concluded my comments. Is there any questions, Mr. Examiner? THE HEARING EXAMINER: No. I appreciate that, that commentary. I think the question about what my scope of authority is, is still an open question, but that's fine. I appreciate you taking that -- you know, making whatever comments you're allowed to make. Under state law you can do that, so -- but I will -- I will get to the bottom of specifically what my scope is at some point. MR. MESSNER: I appreciate it. May I add one thing? I, for one, and I'll bet you all of my neighbors would strike a bargain with Rebecca and that bargain would be, Rebecca, respect the existing noise ordinance and you can open that parking lot all the time you wish. Thank you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thanks for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Troy Cammerowski (ph) followed by Alan Crumb. Mr. Cammerowski, you have five minutes, sir. MR. CAMMEROWSKI: You already know my name, so I'll just tell I live at 2695 Becca Avenue, which is the same side of the parking lot. No, same side as the parking lot. Go left, left, that first house right there where the A is. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Right in here? MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Where the A is. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. What is this area, just a big residential area? MR. CAMMEROWSKI: That is actually -- there's two lots there and then the gentleman, Mr. Smith, that came to talk to you with the red roof. That's his house. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you. (Inaudible) MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Okay, no problem. Okay. Let me answer the question a little bit with the noise permit, amplified noise permit, are you familiar with it at all? THE HEARING EXAMINER: So here's what happens here: You don't ask me questions. I can't answer your questions. I'm here to take whatever public comments you want to make. I'm taking down notes and I will ask the Applicant when the Applicant comes back up any of those notes that I believe are directly related to the criteria that I have to have, so he really -- I'm familiar with code enforcement. Trust me, I've been in local government my entire career in some capacity. MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Was it submitted, can I ask that? THE HEARING EXAMINER: What's that? MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Was it submitted with any of the documents that you October 14, 2021 Page 18 of 39 got in the packet? THE HEARING EXAMINER: Code enforcement? MR. CAMMEROWSKI: No, no, the amplified noise permit. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, that's not part of this application, so it wasn't included. This is just the parking exemption, not the operation of Celebration Park. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So what we'll do is I'll ask for what the decibel numbers are at some point, okay? Like, as far as like what the code criteria allows, okay? MR. CAMMEROWSKI: So I've been living at that address for 36 years, the same location. It's within 650 feet of Celebration Park and actually not 650 feet from the park itself, 650 feet from the stage or the production of the noise. I and my neighbors are already adversely affected by the operation of this business each Tuesday through Sunday. We're directly impacted by the elevated noise levels produced by outdoor amplified music. Remember, this is a permit that was approved for a place with only a roof, no walls whatsoever. If this is approved, a request to extend the parking lot would increase the residents' exposure of even more life and the public's risk of life/safety. You have been provided with code history and fire safety violations by e-mail. The commissioners were also supplied with that as well. And I'm talking about fire code violations, that's what I mean by life/safety. The parking lot and food truck park are two individual properties that are dependent or coexistent to one another, so the parking lot would not be needed if there's no business associated with it and the food truck would not be able to be open for business without this parking lot to support customer vehicles, so this statement is backed up by letters submitted in support for use on Monday by food truck operators. They're saying leaving parking lot on Monday to be open. Issues that are present at the food truck park are directly related to the use of the parking lot property. There are multiple examples which have been provided regarding life/safety on the food truck site as well as pedestrian safety while crossing Becca Avenue. If you look, you can't see it on this picture here, but the entrance to the parking lot is at the lower left of the parking lot where the entrance to Celebration Park is in the middle, so there's like an 80-foot distance or 75 where they have to cross the street. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah, the Applicant did show -- I remember seeing that. Thank you. MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Okay. And that only occurs during operational hours which you are considering increasing. So all I have to say here is if your decision will be based on the financial needs of a business, then there will be an approval for use on Mondays. If, on the other hand, your decision is based on code enforcement case history and a concern for life/safety for the public you should deny the use on Mondays. Are you aware of any fire code -- there's a fire code violation document that is currently open for Celebration Park at this time. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I'll ask about that. MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Yeah, I don't believe they have the AHJ or fire marshal approval of that yet. So, all I was going to say was the sound permit, when it was approved, I know Mr. MULHERE was talking about ordinances, county ordinances in regards to sound, I don't know how we could even go there when the sound permit was approved according to the County ordinances deficient in Section D and Section E, so I don't even know why we're here about amplified noise because we shouldn't be. There should be no amplified noise permit for this establishment, okay? THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you for being here. Thank you. MR. CAMMEROWSKI: Thank you. October 14, 2021 Page 19 of 39 MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Alan Crumb followed by Susan Crumb. Mr. Crumb, you have five minutes, sir. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So I'm going to give the Applicant plenty of time to rebut anything that you said after the public hearing, so you'll be fine. How are you, sir? MR. CRUMB: Good morning. I reside at 2663 Becca Ave. full time. By living in such close proximity to the property in question for the past 30 years, I consider myself an expert on the subject of the negative impact this property and business has had on our neighborhood. Therefore, I must agree with the original condition the Hearing Examiner put forth on 9/4/19, specifically number six, stating the property will remain closed on Mondays. In my view, nothing has changed for the better in two years. In fact, just the opposite. The irresponsible business practices that the management and the owners display on a regular basis are borderline, to my knowledge, criminal. The fire and life safety violations alone on record since January, most of which have gone unresolved, would have red-tagged any other business overnight. The CRAB meeting I attended on Tuesday concerning a similar business on Isle of Capri confirms that there is so much confusion within the County as to what this establishment on Bayshore actually is, it warrants a full review of all the permits that were approved. The verbiage, food truck park, does not even exist in any form in any Collier County code book. They had no clue what they were approving in 2016. With the help of our district court commissioner who said at that meeting, and I quote, I was intimately involved with the planning of Celebration Park. It was approved. I never realized that was part of the job description of a county commissioner. To me it almost sounds like a conflict of interest, but I'm just an untrained observer. Then came the approval of the outdoor bar and amplified sound, which I don't care about decibel levels, we hear the band inside our homes and that should not happen anywhere. Our daily lives are negatively affected. Those permits were really where most of the complaints come from. Food trucks by definition are intended to move. What Celebration Park has in a residential neighborhood is eight tiny permanent restaurants on wheels that don't spin, each with enough propane hanging off the bumpers to level the whole lot jammed in a 5,000 square foot area. This should be shut down all together until the County and planners can figure out what it actually is because it's not what they said it was going to be and it changes continually. The original SDP does not allow the delivery truck to even make it up into their parking lot because of the steep incline, so they must double park in the bike path and on Bayshore and on Becca. Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Next speaker is Susan Crumb by Ned Feliciano. Ms. Crumb, you will have five minutes, ma'am. MS. CRUMB: Hi. I'm Susan Crumb. I live on Becca and it's by the first C in Becca. . THE HEARING EXAMINER: First C, right there? MS. CRUMB: Yeah, right there. Good morning. Please let me preface my statement by saying I wouldn't be here today if the owner of the Celebration Park had the qualities to determine what is right and wrong and would act accordingly. I believe we are at a loss with our District 4 County Commissioner when relaying our concerns as she stated at the November 12th, 2001 Collier County Board of Commissioners Community Redevelopment Board, that she was, quote, intimately involved with of the planning of Celebration Park, unquote. It was mentioned at the CRAB meeting by another county commissioner that we aren't really discussing food truck parks, we are discussing the problem with open-air bars broadcasting live or satellite radio-based amplified sound. A moratorium was October 14, 2021 Page 20 of 39 entertained by the commissioners for approving any additional food truck parks until a clearer picture of what they actually entailed could be constructed. When the planning of Celebration Park started in 2016, our neighborhood was excited by the prospect of eight food trucks in our neighborhood. The three-quarter acre lot was approved with 15 parking spaces, eight food trucks, and no amplified sound. The residential lot was later purchased and a permit for the house to be torn down. Immediately gravel was brought in and it was used as a parking lot. Celebration Park was allowed to use the parking lot while permits, i.e., the proper channels, were gone through. It was permitted for six days a week closed on Mondays. In 2016, when Celebration Park was in the planning stages with the County, this was the first proposed food truck park. Now five years later with much more information, the County will be looking at how food truck parks are handled. Now Celebration Park wants yet one more day. Our neighborhood desperately needs a day of reprieve and the music turned down the other six days a week. I realized with the new wine venue having the capacity of 250 to 300 people as stated in the groundbreaking, which I attended, and I believe 30 parking spots, only more chaos is to come. Another issue between 360 Market and Celebration Park, amount least eight pontoon boats and six jet skis were being rented out. A code case was created and they were ordered to immediately cease and desist, but very soon after, with the swipe of a pen, from an intimate higher-up source, the name was changed from 360 Market to 360 Market and Marina, therefore allowing boat rentals. At 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 4th, 2021, I observed the parking lot being utilized with the chain down allowing cars in and out. The parking lot was still being utilized at 1:45 and I called and spoke with a code enforcement officer. He stated he would go by the lot in about 1.5 hours. The next day via e-mail I asked what transpired and he replied, quote, hi, Susan, after we talked, I called Celebration Park and talked to the manager Gary Rudd. He confirmed there were cars in the parking lot and he took immediate action to remedy that. My point is, Celebration Park does whatever they desire knowing there will not be any repercussions with their illegal actions. It's been said many times our neighborhood is trying to get an accurate sound study, but when code enforcement calls the manager of Celebration Park informing them that there will be, say, 7:00 p.m. a code reading on a Saturday night, they do the recording, the manager is intelligent enough to turn down the volume for a few minutes. The Collier County nonemergency line, the sheriff's office, admits they are inundated with disturbing the peace noise nuisance calls, but it's a code enforcement issue, but they are closed. Our Collier County Sheriff's Office has the finest, most professional team and I personally applaud their efforts always. This is a waste of taxpayers' money. Code enforcement's hands are tied because our county commissioner is intimate with Celebration Park and anything they try to enforce gets overruled. I want to state our code enforcement team is amazing. They follow up on any issues reported and our neighborhood has excellent rapport with them. They are doing their jobs but getting underminded with Celebration Park having intimate connections with an elected official in a more powerful, higher ranked position. We look forward to Collier County addressing the issues with the food truck park, amplified music, and traffic and including Celebration Park in the future decisions. I want to thank you for allowing me to express the concerns for our neighborhood, many who wanted to be here, but had employment/childcare commitments. Thank you so much. October 14, 2021 Page 21 of 39 THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thanks for being here. I appreciate it. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Net Feliciano followed by Kevin Dolan. Mr. Feliciano, you have five minutes. MR. FELICIANO: Good morning. My name is Netali Feliciano. I am the CEO of Cancer Alliance of Naples. We are One of the benefactors of the event that was held last year under I guess special permitting. We are a benefactor of the event that happened last year. I can't speak as a resident of the area. I do want to highlight some of the good that does come out of Celebration Park. I know that the event we held there last year actually helped us raise enough money to be able to help over 100 children and adults that are battling cancer here locally in Collier County and in Lee County, so despite the fact that there are valid concerns for maybe sound infractions, or, you know, code enforcement, I do believe that the Celebration Park operation does offer the potential for many other nonprofits to benefit. And the only reason why the Cancer Alliance of Naples exists is to help our neighbors. You could consider us neighbors helping neighbors with cancer and I'm sure there are a lot of other nonprofit organizations that would love the opportunity to work with local successful businesses to help their constituents as we do provide a safety net for those with socioeconomic risk going through a horrible disease, so I appreciate the time to speak this morning and thank you very much. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thanks for being here. Thank you for the work you're doing. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is Kevin Dolan followed by John Wolinski. Mr. Dolan, you'll have five minutes, sir. MR. DOLAN: Thank you everyone for being here. It's certainly an honor to speak in front of everyone. I appreciate the time. I truly believe this is what makes America great, we can get up and talk and say what we have -- THE COURT: Sir, the court reporter is going to stop you and say you're not speaking loud enough, so don't feel bad. MR. DOLAN: Can you hear me now? THE COURT REPORTER: I can hear you. Thank you. MR. DOLAN: Thank you very much for the time. I certainty appreciate the time to speak here. I've lived in Collier County for 32 years. I'm the former CEO of the Cancer Alliance of the Naples as well as past board president and I've been active with CAM for 17 years. We've been in existence for coming up on 20 years. And, you know, with Covid, what we had to deal with was having fund raising opportunities and we were closed out of most venues, including we had a few past in the Ritz Carlton, that they just couldn't do it, it was indoors, so Celebration Park stepped up and enabled us to have an outdoor event. We had over 200 people and we were able to raise significant funds as indicated. So, again, working with Gary, they bent over backwards to try and help us and help neighbors, so we certainly benefited from that. And as I say we, I mean the entire community because we were able to raise significant funds. They kept the doors open last year and, you know, in COVID, in this COVID time that we're all facing, all nonprofits (inaudible) first to be able to have an opportunity to raise funds and be more looking forward to having the chance to go out and participate in things like this, so I do want to thank Celebration Park for what they have done. Thank you very much. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thanks for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is John Paul Wolinski (ph) followed by Robin Forbes. Mr. Wolinski, you'll have five minutes, sir. MR. WOLINSKI: Good morning. My name is John Paul Wolinski and I'm in favor of the parking lot. I have two reasons why. First of all, I'm the owner/operator of Cruise Tikis and I have about ten captains that I employ on that business alone and October 14, 2021 Page 22 of 39 with that parking lot being open, my business is like a visual business to get my customers on a boat, to keep my business running, people like to see my business -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Just so I'm clear, is your business at Celebration Park? MR. WOLINSKI: I rent a dock slip and I'm in the water right there, so I turn around and with that park being open, that helps with my visual and people see my business and want to have more interest on it. Also, I do have a food truck at the park and I employ, like, five employees there. And with the parking lot being open on Mondays, the economy has gotten so rough for my employees and the cost of everything, that they need that extra day to make ends meet to survive with what the economy has seen so expensive and everything going up in price, so I would definitely like to see the parking lot be opened for all those reasons. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you for being here. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Last in-person speaker is going to be Robin Forbes and then we will move to our online speakers. Ms. Forbes, you will have five minutes. MS. FORBES: Good morning. How are you? My name is Robin Forbes and I live at 2654 Shoreview Drive which is two streets over from Celebration Park. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, Two streets over? MS. FORBES: Just to the south on the map. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I have a map right here, so I think I've got it. MS. FORBES: You want me to show you? THE HEARING EXAMINER: No, no, no, I get it. Tell me the name of the street. MS. FORBES: Shoreview, Shoreview Drive and I live right down at the very end, keep going, now go down the street right on the end of the cul-de-sac. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All the way down? MS. FORBES: No, no, actually right there, right where you are. So I'm right there. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, on the water. MS. FORBES: I am on the water. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Congratulations. I didn't mean that sarcastically. I just love being on the water, right? That's why you're in Florida. MS. FORBES: It's great being on the water, it's great being on Bayshore. So I'm here for two reasons; one, because I am a resident and, two, because I happen to own a food truck in Celebration Park. But the real reason that -- what I want to talk about is that I have five full-time employees, two of which are single mothers with three children. We need the hours for our employees to make a living. I do support the parking lot being open for that reason. It's just very important to keep our employees working. You know, during the summer months especially, business is very slow in Bayshore and in Naples as well, especially for restaurants, and we keep our employees working because we have to and that's the only reason that I want to support the parking lot is how important it is for our employees to have the hours. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Let me ask you -- are you finished? MS. FORBES: I'm sorry? THE HEARING EXAMINER: Are you done? MS. FORBES: Yeah. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Because I want to ask you a quick question. So your employees park where? MS. FORBES: My employees all live in Bayshore, most of them walk to work. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Oh, good for them. MS. FORBES: We have one employee that parks in the parking lot not the Bayshore -- I mean, I'm sorry, not the Becca parking lot, the one at Celebration Park. THE HEARING EXAMINER: The one on (inaudible)? October 14, 2021 Page 23 of 39 MS. FORBES: Correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And as far as Monday, being open on Monday, is that -- do you believe that that's a really important day to be open? MS. FORBES: I do. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And why is that as a business owner? MS. FORBES: A couple different reasons. Monday is a particularly a slow day for us and it gives us the opportunity to develop, like, events like the Cancer Society and things like that, where we utilize the parking lot and that brings us the business to keep our employees working because the park itself is slow. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you. MS. FORBES: You're welcome. Thank you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Are we (inaudible)? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, we are, Mr. Hearing Examiner. Our first registered speaker online is going to be Meredith Gavin. And Ms. Gavin, I have sent you are invitation to unmute yourself. You have five minutes. MS. GAVIN: Yes. I just wanted to first say thank you very much for listening to the case today. And I'm a resident at 2872 Weeks Avenue and I've been living there for the past few years through the entire elevation of Celebration Park and the parking lot. The house that I reside in currently where I am a renter, we actually are almost one-third of the houses directly impacted by the parking lot. And I say that because my entire backyard does have the mason wall that was discussed earlier. And I do have to say, we do appreciate that the wall was built because for a substantial amount of time, over a year, we had a chainlink fence and I had people looking into my home through the glass doors in the back of my home and waving at me while I'm sitting at my couch enjoying watching my television. And the wall has -- it did reduce the visibility of my backyard to the public. However, it has not stopped the noise. And also, have a 17-month old daughter and so we are very aware of noise and what is generated from that parking lot. There are engines that are blasting in the middle of the evening, and even though the parking lot does state that it closes at 10:00, when Celebration Park closes its doors at 10:00, that does not many that people are leaving the parking lot at 10:00. The traffic remains, the people remain yelling at each other. It is a bar situation, you never know what people are going to be coming from, so we do have intoxicated people that are screaming at each other at the top of their lungs in the parking lot which then echoes into my home and this happens on a regular basis. The six days a week during the holiday season around the Fourth of July, I couldn't tell you how many times I heard fireworks being released in that parking lot as well and so the noise is definitely a huge concern for myself and my family because Monday is the one day of respite that we do receive from that noise. I would ask if we could pull the records for when the permit for the sub lot of Celebration Park, the one on Becca Avenue we're speaking about was filed because I do believe that all of Celebration Park was initially being permitted with those 13 spots. If it was fine with the 13 spots and made it through our code enforcement and through all of the County planners' policies, I would ask that then that be maintained that they only needed those 13 spots, so why is it so crucial now to have these extra 60 spaces? Now, I am aware that they have a huge business over at Celebration and I am -- I am not against that business. I do want to say that clearly for the record that this has nothing to do against what they're wanting to do. I'm clearly wanting some privacy and some control of what's happening in my own personal residence. And because of that, it does involve Celebration Park's sub parking lot and so I would like to have those pulled to see at what point in time did that parking lot officially come into necessity for Celebration Park because I knew it operated as a dirt lot for more than a year on illegal and temporary permits. October 14, 2021 Page 24 of 39 So those just are questions that I do pose that we could look into further when making this decision about extending the use of that lot. And with that, I just wanted to again say thank you very much and I hope that you can consider all of what's being stated today. Thank you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Our next speaker is going to be Janet Gavin followed by John Rogers. Bear with me just one moment here. All right, Janet, I just sent you a prompt to unmute yourself. Are you with us? MS. GAVIN: Hello? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Ms. Gavin, five minutes, ma'am. MS. GAVIN: Hello. My name is Janet Gavin, I'm the property owner at 2872 Weeks Avenue where the previous speaker just was addressing the everyday concerns. I have submitted documentation about e-mails that I have sent to Ms. Penny Taylor that have fallen on deaf ears. I have been through the entire process of the creation of the parking lot in contact with Mr. John Johnson who had been really sympathetic to the ongoings, but really couldn't do anything about anything. And I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'm not going to go over the things that the previous speakers have talked about. However, I do want to address the concept that we're hearing about how it does so much good for the community for nonprofits, which if it really were that important to the owners and to the operators of the trucks that are within the park, they could have events Tuesday through Sunday. There is no reason that it has to occur on a Monday, so the argument that the lot needs to be open on Monday because of the good it does for the community is kind of a of a moot point because the events could operate the other six days of the week. Also, I'd like to point out that it has been the pattern of the people that are associated with Celebration Park to always ask for forgiveness for their actions. They don't always necessarily follow the proper events -- or proper channels to get permission. They just ask for forgiveness and they just sometimes get a slap on the hand through the zoning commission with a small fine, but it doesn't necessarily -- it doesn't hinder that because it is a large successful business. And I do want them to succeed, however, I don't want them to succeed at the expense of the community that they reside in. We have tried to be good neighbors, but they have not been good neighbors in return. Also, the CRC has created a public parking lot down on Bayshore for this particular reason for having parking for businesses that are in the Bayshore area. Why does that annex lot that is so critical in our backyard for noise and nuisance problems be utilized? Why can't the patrons use the new lot that the CRC created down on Bayshore that is over by -- oh, what is that over there, by the Real Macaw. So that was supposed to be used for parking for businesses that do not have enough parking on their premises. Also, I'd like to point out it was discussed that the lot is to be secured at night. Most of the time the lot, I would say 99 percent of the time the lot is not chained at night. Also, the lot is used for offloading for beer trucks because they can't pull up that deep ramp that is in front of Celebration Park; that was created at the time of inception. And also, as the previous speakers ahead said, we have dealt with that lot being with the demolition of the house that was behind it. We have dealt with them removing trees. We actually had to sit on our property line while they were pulling down a chainlink fence to prevent them from causing damage. We even had the sheriff called out because the people that were creating or removing the chainlink fence were throwing metal objects into our yard that we had to call the sheriff and the sheriff sat, sat and watched them throw the thing. And they also pulled -- we had our property October 14, 2021 Page 25 of 39 surveyed and they pulled one of the pins on one of our corners and we went over to that time -- that manager was not current and he guaranteed our property would be re- surveyed and our pin restored. To this date, the pin has not been restored to its proper place. As I said, they give lip service. They tell you what you want you want to hear to your face and then they do whatever they want behind your back. And like another speaker said, with the swipe of a pen things have changed because after these initial meetings are held, they can do whatever they want by the laws that are currently in place. So it's really unfair that this is the only time we have to speak and I hope, I pray that you really do listen to us on our behalf and act with the best interest of the community, not just the best interest of a business. And also, I wanted to -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you for that -- MS. GAVIN: Also, I wanted to -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- ma'am. Ma'am -- MS. GAVIN: The truck -- I'm over my five minutes? THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah. Can you give me, like, a quick conclusion? MS. GAVIN: Yes, I will. When all these businesses entered into that park, they knew that they were closed on Monday. So now to try to say that Monday is imperative, then they should have realized that when they signed their contracts with taking time -- or taking of space there. So I just want to say thank you very much for my time to speak. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you for participating. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, that was our final speaker for this item. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. All right. Great. So we're going to close the public hearing at this point. Wow, I took a lot of notes, which is good. We're going to work through all this. And perhaps the Applicant, perhaps the County can answer this, we'll see. Bob, I'm going to let you go ahead and get started because I saw you taking notes as well and maybe your answers will answer my questions. MR. MULHERE: Probably not, but I'll try my best with you to raise those. You know -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't we take a short recess, everybody stretch their legs, come back here at maybe ten minutes; is that good enough? All right, so five 'til. Thanks everyone. (Recess was had from 10:45 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right, ladies and gentlemen, why don't we get back started. Everyone, if I could have your attention, please. Okay. We're rolling, we're live. W e're back in order here. The Hearing Examiner meeting is back in order. Mr. MULHERE, it's your -- MR. MULHERE: I don't have a lot of rebuttal, but I would like to ask Gary to come up because he's really more into some of the details and then I'll have a couple comments for you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah. Okay. MR. RUDD: Gary Rudd with Celebration Park. I've been sworn in. Thank you, Mr. Dickman. And this is Preston Rudd, my son. I kept him out of school, so if anybody is watching, he's here with me. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Well, this is a civics lesson bar none, so I'm sure he'll get credit for it in the end. MR. RUDD: So, you know, first of all, thank you for hearing this. As far as the parking lot goes, you know, I just like to say firmly that it's not special events. I mean, the elephant in the room is that we've grown in our business, we've been October 14, 2021 Page 26 of 39 successful. A lot of people have spoke on the folks that got laid off and can't get help, those Mondays, for our staff, we employ 50 people; the trucks included and the umbrellas, it's into the hundreds. And so for those workers specifically, you know, you can't open up a business and then not know what's going to happen. We've gotten busier and so -- yes, we've done the cancer benefit and we've done all these things, but we want to do more. I mean, we want to be open more. You know, Rebecca used the example, it would be like owning our house and on every Monday you couldn't go into the garage or you couldn't use your own house. You know, we own and operate that lot. We just want to be able to use our lot for the customers. You know, I did want -- and I know you may have some questions, but, you know, I did want to do some rebuttal to some of the comments made by some of the folks in the room, just a couple specifically. And I won't get into details, but I have had the privilege to speaking to Mr. Troy Cammerowski. He called me on my cell phone and told me he was going to make it his personal mission to shut Celebration Park down. He said, and I quote, I will make it my personal mission to shut Celebration Park down. And so I've worked with a lot of these people. I know them by first name, by last name. You know, the Gavins, they were in the park. Their son was in the park. They were asked to leave the park. Mrs. Gavin has, you know, continued to slam us on social media and there's some relationship, so I won't get into all the negatives, but I will say that, you know, we've got -- as it related to fire, you know, the buzz word of health -- of safety and explosion and Troy's 19 different e-mails, we -- as of right now, we finished all of the fire problems or issues. We rearranged our trucks. We've moved the tent. And if you go into that parking lot right now, you could eat off of the floor right now it is so clean and Rebecca Maddox meticulous with her details. I monitor it every day. I won't get into the sound, but I take readings every single day, every single night. You know, we just want to be open longer. I mean, I've got my son here -- I mean, sure my check comes from Celebration Park and I have vested interest and I am, you know, a person of interest. And so that's pretty much all I'd like to say. Oh, one more thing that we have the ability of you know -- there's a lot of lots involved, but anyway -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Stick around. MR. RUDD: Sure. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And let me just sort of cover some of the questions and whoever is best to answer it jump up to the mic, okay? So I want to know about your employees, are they using this parking lot for parking? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, the required parking calculation for Collier County includes parking for employees, yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So are they -- MR. MULHERE: They can park on or off, in the off-site lot or in Celebration Park. It's all incorporated the formula of developing the required number of spaces. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So the lot -- is the lot secured at 10:30 when you close. MR. RUDD: I secure the lot and chain it. I'm the one that's responsible for changing it each night. So as it relates to just the Mondays or is it chained off and closed? THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. So what I'm getting at is I assume that employees stick around after you close for the public, but if their cars are in the lot, then how does -- how does that function from a managerial point of view? MR. RUDD: By the time we -- you know, by the time -- and Ms. Gavin spoke it, but by the time everybody leaves and counting money and doing our procedures and October 14, 2021 Page 27 of 39 things and stuff, it might get into the hours of 12:00 or so. The employees, there's other spots that they can park as well. They can park at the 360 Market. We have two other lots that we have leases with, so they can park in those lots as well. We've actually got six parking lots. MR. MULHERE: So I think in response to your comment, I think the Hearing Examiner's condition was 10:30 p.m. and obviously there may be a few minutes here or there for somebody who is on the lot as you suggested, but we will adhere to the restrictions that are already contained in the -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. So logically sometimes, especially if you're in the restaurant business, you're a night owl and employees might be over there parking and sort of chit-chatting about the day and making some noise, things like that, that's kind of what I was getting to. MR. MULHERE: And I heard that comment and Gary heard that comment and to whatever degree we need to more vigorously enforce activity on that lot, we're committed to doing that. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That was my other -- great, we're moving right along here. So as far as like do you have someone that patrols? I mean, this is an off- premise parking lot, so it's not on premise, so it's a little more difficult of an animal in terms of management, so do you have someone that is there are during the times that it's open to patrol it so, you know, boot anybody out that's being raucous and noisy or perhaps using that parking lot for some other business and taking up your spots? MR. MULHERE: And that's another condition of the Hearing Examiner, that it be monitored on an hourly basis, so I'll defer to you, but I'm assuming -- MR. RUDD: We have an attendant. Like I said, I did pictures a lot and I don't think I can upload or whatever them, but not only is it clean, the garbage cans are taken out, all the trash is picked up and Rebecca Maddox drives through every morning when she goes there at 7:00 in the morning and if it's not, there's some trash or whatever, she'll call, but there is an attendant that goes and works with it. MR. MULHERE: So if there's any issues, we want to be able to deal with them right away. We don't want to have conflicts with the neighbors, so -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Nobody does, but it happens unfortunately. So as far as -- I didn't quite understand what the fire code violation, the existing fire code violation is, something about fireworks or somebody tell me about that. What is that? MR. RUDD: The fireworks we don't control and have never, but neighbors shoot them over. When she says the fireworks are shooting from the parking lot, that's -- there's some rowdy drunk neighbors that's got nothing to do with -- I can assure you if somebody is lighting a firework upon our property, they would be dismissed. No, the -- what was the other question? THE HEARING EXAMINER: There's a fire/safety issue? MR. RUDD: It's closed. And the only reason they came -- Troy's got background in fire and, you know, he had called and e-mailed and I've got every one of his public e-mails and they're very long, you know, safety, safety, safety. Our trucks are moved apart, all the tanks are properly secured. We moved our tent, so -- one more thing Ms. Gavin was talking about, there were a few people there on October 4th, only because it was closed, we had an all staff meeting addressing all this stuff and we physically moved the tent because the Fire thought it was -- and I know the Captain in the room, actually I was in a meeting with him, I don't want to point him out -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: You did point him out. MR. RUDD: I did point him, I won't say his name though. But we've moved that. We've complied with everything, with Mr. John Johnson with the code, you know, each item that -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: I understand. It just came up, so I wanted it October 14, 2021 Page 28 of 39 answered. MR. MULHERE: So I would summarize and say that everything was reviewed, inspected, and permitted. However, I don't know if it was after the fact or perhaps not sufficiently inspected to start with, there are some fire code concerns that were raised, those have all been corrected, so you know, that's -- that's what that referenced. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Understood. So as far as -- I understand what an off-premise parking lot is, so it seems like it's a little more difficult to control, for example, folks that are visiting Celebration Park, but then, hey, let's go across Bayshore to the new venue that's going to go up. It's a little harder to do that with an off- premise parking lot when you -- as opposed to off-street parking at the principal site. MR. MULHERE: I agree. It is hard to control. I mean, how are you going to stop somebody from parking in the off-site parking lot, going into Celebration Park and walking across the street to a future wine venue; that only leaves more parking across the street for somebody else to use. The wine venue I do know either has been approved or is very close to getting approved through a site development plan and has all of the required parking on site, there's no off-site parking for them. I think the best that we can do is to adhere to those significant restrictions that are already in place. Hours of operation, noise, cleanliness, all of those things, and gating it when the 10:30 comes around. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I think you understand my point of view, because sometimes an off-premise parking lot can tend to turn into a general public parking. MR. MULHERE: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- where people -- I mean, this is sort of an activity center -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. THE COURT: -- for entertainment. MR. MULHERE: Now, I do want to also add that the -- and I don't know what - - what -- where this is in the process, but I do know that the CRA is presently going through the permitting process to construct public parking down the street from this, surface parking, and there has been discussions, though I don't think anything's been approved about some structural parking, public parking, so we do anticipate additional public parking throughout this portion of the CRA which is deemed to be an entertainment district. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So the good folks from the Cancer Alliance were here, still here, and I really do appreciate their mission. So tell me -- is the -- maybe this is your client’s better person to answer this, so is part of the Monday, wanting to open Monday, is that part to facilitate more special events? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, I think that we see that that was very successful. Monday being a slow business day typically, otherwise as compared to Friday or Saturday, so on and so forth, it's a good day to have a special event. And, yeah, there is a desire to do more of those. That's what drove -- when we got a special event permit for the Cancer Alliance event and ultimately the shakedown from that was, no, you don't trump the Hearing Examiner. It's conditioned, you can't use the lot. If you can't use the lot, you can't be opened; that's why we're here. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I understand that. MR. MULHERE: So, yes, and I just want to say, look, I said it on the record before, I want to say it again, I've been doing this a long time, we fully understand and I'm glad it was clarified, the scope was clarified and maybe further clarified with respect to the minor requests they were asking for -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: I don't think the scope has been clarified yet, but I'm getting good information. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So anyway, we understand that you not only have the right, but I would assume the responsibility to put appropriate restrictions that in your, October 14, 2021 Page 29 of 39 you know, legal judgment are appropriate, so we understand that. We would like the ability to use the off-site lot on Mondays. And sometimes these special events do include amplified music. We are already restricted, so -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah, okay. So maybe this is for Ray, tell me about how special events are permitted. The reason I'm asking is because I'm almost positive that there are safeguards associated with -- stop, Bob. I'd rather hear that from the County. Ray, can you answer that question? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I can. For the record, Ray Bellows. Our business center in the front lobby has a front counter planning desk and there are temporary use permits up there, so any store owner or business owner wants to hold a special event or a sales event or community event, they come in and they fill out the application. There's a -- the Land Development Code has a section that deals with temporary permits, how often they can be held. They contain regulations on what kind of temporary signage for those events and I believe it references the noise ordinance as well. And the issue of that permit there, it's logged in the computer so we know how many times a property owner files for a temporary permit. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So there's a limitation as to how many times you can do it -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: -- per calendar year or something like that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And would you also -- one second, Bob. Would it also include an affirmation that they will have security on site and that kind of thing? MR. BELLOWS: In many cases, depending on the time of event, there might be some issues with parking and they may require some assistance with directing people in and out of the site, so that can be a condition placed on the temporary use permit. THE HEARING EXAMINER: What would be the penalty if someone were to let's say be a bad actor in their special events, do they lose their rights or what happens there? MR. BELLOWS: Well, typically what would happen is if a temporary use permit has been issued and a complaint comes in, if the complaint comes in while the event is being held and we can get somebody from code enforcement down there to look at it, generally speaking by the time we get somebody down there the event is over. But if it's a multiple day event, we can be there for the next day. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, because what I was getting at is -- yeah, you're eluding to code enforcement. So, you know, as of right, someone has -- I'm just going to throw out a number, you can do five special events on this site per year, but do you lose that -- do you lose that right if you abuse that right? MR. BELLOWS: You don't lose your right to hold events, but we did cancel out one temporary use permit because they didn't have parking for the day they asked for. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Got it. Bob, now you can -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify it's limited to 28, a total of 28 calendar days per year. And, you know, in conjunction with what I suggested, which is we understand your ability to regulate or put conditions on this request, we understand that might include limiting -- so what I want -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: I want to understand -- part of this for the public's sake because things came up, it's a public meeting. In my opinion, I want to know about it, but I also feel like it's an opportunity for the public to get questions answered. MR. MULHERE: I forgot. What I wanted to clarify, and thank you, is you don't need a special event to do something that's already allowed in the typical course of your business. So a restaurant can go and get an amplified music permit, can have outdoor seating, and has to live with the restriction in that permit. For them to do an October 14, 2021 Page 30 of 39 event for Cancer Alliance or any other charitable cause or community cause you don't need a special event. The only reason we went the special event route on that one occasion was because we wanted to do it on a Monday. It became very clear very quickly that, no, you can't do that through the special event process, hence we're here for this. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you for answering -- both of you did a great job answering my questions on that one. Okay. So this was originally done with a site development plan, right? How was this put together as far as, like, spaces needed and where the food trucks are going to be located? MR. MULHERE: Well, again, I'm not going -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: The quick summary. MR. MULHERE: I'm not going to get back into somebody mentioned, yeah, why don't you just operate with the 13 spaces you have. Well, that ship has sailed. We know that's not in compliance with the code provision based on the Staff's revisit of the issue when there were parking problems and we don't disagree. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Food truck parks are a new animal, I get it. You know, learn as you go. All right. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So what happened was it became very clear that we needed additional parking, that in the Staff's revisited opinion there was not sufficient parking on the site, Rebecca purchased the lots. Yes, there was a period where it was used prior to being completed and getting through the process on a temporary basis because there were parking issues in the neighborhood and that somewhat eliminated those. It was a temporary condition. We went through simultaneous to the original off-site parking, I think you-all call it some other APZ or whatever the terminology is, but when we went to market in 2019, March and June 2019, we were at the same time had prepared and submitted a site development plan for that off-site plot. Celebration Park was already built operating. I think that was your question. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I'm getting to a word that will probably tell you what I'm after. MR. MULHERE: Okay. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Revocation, okay? So let's say whatever administrative approvals were set up and then also any public approvals that were set up, you know, there's a lot of questions about violations. Whether they're valid or not, I'm not -- that's, you know -- but, you know, there are some. So is there any trigger that says, okay, you know, you guys are -- I mean, or is it just simply cost of doing business we're going to -- the fines are minimal, so what, we're making so much money, we don't care about the fines, but is there another process here where the County calls you back in and says you guys have abused your rights, you possibly are open for revocation. MR. MULHERE: Well, the biggest complaint that you heard relates to the creation of amplified sound and noise intrusion; that's by far the biggest complaint. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Oh, sure. MR. MULHERE: That is -- there is an automatic revocation of that amplified sound permit if you have two violations within a year. Now, I understand, I understand that it may be at times difficult for code enforcement to get out there to take the test at the same time, but they have been out there, I don't know how many times, nine and measured? MR. RUDD: We work with them. MR. MULHERE: No, I get that, but they've been out there. My point is, there was only one occasion when the decibels exceeded the limitations in the ordinance. Look, if the decibels in the ordinance, the cap on decibels is so high that folks still have issues with that, that's a separate matter; that's a matter for the County to look October 14, 2021 Page 31 of 39 at the decibel levels and restrict everybody the same way. But we are committed, 100 percent committed to take our own readings, like I said, 9:59, so that -- or, you know, that's when that amplified music has to stop. I guess there has been occasion where it's been alleged it went beyond that point. It cannot do that. We understand that. Two violations of any -- not just the sound, but going beyond the 10:00 p.m. -- THE HEARING EXAMINER: Reports, but valid, like, where it goes the distance and your lawyers -- MR. MULHERE: Adjudicated violations. THE HEARING EXAMINER: You go through the process, okay, I understand. MR. MULHERE: One other thing, I forgot to answer your question directly, what else could be done. Look, that's probably a better question for the County. I don't know what the powers of the Special Magistrate are, but I assume they're pretty substantial and there could be pretty significant penalties or restrictions placed on us. I don't know about, Mr. Dickman, whether they could close the business, but there should be and they're probably more financial than otherwise, so I don't know. THE HEARING EXAMINER: One quick question about deliveries, is this parking lot being used for deliveries at all? MR. RUDD: Absolutely not. And it doesn't even make logical sense to park over there, then come through the road and up the -- we actually -- we've got a blessing to be able to be on Bayshore to unload a couple -- and the beer trucks are like seven minutes and then they're gone. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Got it. Got it. Okay. Yeah, can we hear a little bit about code enforcement? I mean, obviously it's a big topic here and noise is the big topic, so tell us about how that works. And by the way, I do know that the law has changed recently where now it's not an anonymous call, right? It's got to be -- state law I believe has changed where, you know, you can't -- you can't just be an anonymous caller. I don't know if you know about that or if -- you probably do. I mean, you're the expert in it, but you know, tell me a little bit about your experience with this situation. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Getting back to your last statement, the noise ordinance always needed a confirmed caller because we have to take the readings from that particular property. So we get a call, we verify the complainant, we set up a time to go up and take a reading. Like it's been noted here, we don't really have the opportunity to go out there when the actual noise is occurring. We try to anticipate when the noise is going to occur. So if we know there's going to be a band on Thursday or whatever and the complainant says, yeah, come on out Thursday, we'll go out on that site and take the readings. I just want to clarify a couple things that Mr. Mulhere said. You weren't too far off. You need -- the first time we go out there and we find a violation, we give them a warning. We give them a notice of violation, don't do it again, otherwise you're going to go to the Special Magistrate. The second time you do it, obviously we bring you before the Special Magistrate to get an adjudication. There has to be two adjudications in a calendar year before they can pull the amplified sound permit for a year. So there has been two violations already; there was one in December and there was one in March and that's when we took it before the Special Magistrate. The order was issued in April, so for the calendar starting in April, if they have another violation, we would take them before the Special Magistrate and ask for the permit to be revoked at that point. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So are you saying that when you know that there is going to be an event you do some preemptive, you're ready to go out there if called or you just wait until you're called? MR. LETOURNEAU: We do it all the time. If we have a complainant and we October 14, 2021 Page 32 of 39 know there's going to be an event at this particular venue, then we'll be out there taking a reading. THE HEARING EXAMINER: A complainant ahead of time. MR. LETOURNEAU: Ahead of time. They'll say, hey Jeff, I notice they're going to have a special event on a Monday here, can you guys please come out there and take some readings and we would do that from that particular property. THE HEARING EXAMINER: From that property? MR. LETOURNEA: Yes, the sound-affected site. THE HEARING EXAMINER: So it's by decibels. And it's funny, I know your iPhones actually, you could -- you know, there's some apps now that you could do it, but I don't know how accurate they are. So it's not -- the code isn't if it can be heard off site, it's a violation. It's got to be -- you know, it's more of from the complainant's property, if it's above a -- what level decibels? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, it depends on the time of day. Before 10:00 it's got to be 72 decibels on the C-scale, so after 10:00 it drops down to 68 and that's residential property. It's different for agricultural and commercial. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. LETOURNEAU: No problem. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thanks for being here. I hope they didn't make you come from a whole different building. MR. LETORNEAU: No, I work two doors down. Thank you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Bob, you got corrected. MR. MULHERE: That's all right. THE HEARING EXAMINER: You don't seem to mind. MR. MULHERE: (Inaudible.) THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. It's crazy how much I've dealt with this in my career, so it's -- let me see if I had any final questions here. Okay. Maybe the County is the best for this and maybe not, but did the prior -- the 2019-38 HEX determination decision, these decisions don't retain jurisdiction I don't imagine. Have you guys had any conversations about that? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'm trying to understand what do you mean by jurisdiction? THE HEARING EXAMINER: You know, when someone -- when an order, like, say, for example, you're in court and a judge approves something and they retain jurisdiction to hear it if something -- something happens with regard to that particular issue, or, what I suspect, that these decisions, my decisions and the prior, Mr. Strain, that once they're decided, they're in a different -- they're gone and they don't come back unless somebody does a motion for a rehearing or motion for clarification. MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. That's what I thought. All right. Okie- dokie. Anything? You had a long day yesterday, does this change anything? I just want to say that -- let me just wrap up with this is that I'm -- I really appreciate everyone coming here and all sides, County, Applicant, your young son there that you nicely took out of school, what a nice guy, and the public and the people that joined in online. These are tricky things. These are tricky uses and, you know, some things are easy to fit in and approve and other things are tricky and this is a new and different type of use. And this is a hearing that's during the middle of the day, a lot of people are working, but the people that did, you know, appear, I feel like 90 percent of it was on point in terms of what I needed to hear and I really, really appreciate that, everyone that came and was here for that. So any final words at all from anybody? All right, so we are going to close that item. As you know, I have 30 days, calendar days, but if it falls on a Saturday, don't expect it on a Saturday. Good luck to you. October 14, 2021 Page 33 of 39 You want to stay in here for the rest of the meeting? All right, so why don't we let them clear the room and we'll get set up. Ladies and gentlemen who have been waiting, I probably should have taken you first, I apologize, but however, you may have been entertained by that, so -- why don't we -- we've got the next item which is 3B and we have Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: John Kelly, senior planner. Before you is your item 3B. Its PDI PL-20210000868, the Tree Farm MPUD. The Applicant is requesting that you approve an insubstantial change to the tree farm mixed use planned unit development Ordinance 07-54 as amended by requesting deviations from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.A which limits off-premise directional signs to 12 square feet in area to instead allow an off-premise directional sign with up to 50 square feet of sign area. And from Section 5.06.04.G.2.C and 5.06.04.G.3, which requires off-premise directional signs (inaudible) and a minimum of 50 feet to the adjacent residential respectfully to instead allow an off-premise directional sign to have a zero foot setback to the residential tract through the north and for the benefit of the Tree Farm apartments. Notice and hearing requirements for a PDI are in LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The NIM was held, duly advertised, conducted by the petitioner on August 5, 2021 at the St. Monica's Episcopal church at 5:30 p.m. As far as notices of the public hearing, the property owner notification letter an a newspaper ad were run by the County on or about September 24, 2021. And the public hearing signs were posted by the Applicant. Review of this petition was based upon the criteria within LDC section 10.02.13.E.1.N.2. It was found to be consistent with the GMP and the LDC. Staff recommends that you approve the petition with the understanding that the contents of Attachment A be included as part of the final decision. That concludes Staff's presentation THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Do we have the Applicant here? How are you, sir? MR. SCOTT: I'm doing well. Thank you. THE HEARING EXAMINER: (Inaudible.) MR. SCOTT: Not a problem. For the record, my name is Chris Scott. I'm a planner with Peninsula Engineering. As noted, this is an insubstantial change request for the Tree Farm Mixed-use Planned Development. The Tree Farm PUD is located at the northwest intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. And if you'll switch screens, this map shows the property. Immokalee Road is on the south side of that, north is to the top of the screen. Collier Boulevard is running at the right side of the PUD. This request is simply to add a deviation to allow an off-premise sign for the Tree Farm apartments. The Tree Farm apartments are located on tract B, which is the area in yellow shown on the plan. The sign will be located within an access -- existing access and sign easement immediately to the south of this parcel. It's within that boxed-in hatched area which I'll zoom in on here in a little bit. Next slide, please. Okay, we're cutting off the bottom of my screen here a little bit which kind of -- the image on the left is the original approved site development plan for the Tree Farm Apartments. The red boundary are their tract lines. Access is primarily provided from the south as most people are coming from Immokalee Road; that access is through an existing access easement which is actually on the property to the south, Tract C. So the original approval had that straight driveway connection on to Collier Boulevard. Subsequent to approval of the SDP, an application came in for the government center on the east side of Collier Boulevard and Heritage Bay. Their driveway didn't quite line up with the one here for Tree Farm. County staff asked to reconsider the October 14, 2021 Page 34 of 39 alignment and provide a traffic circle for better directional movement. They engaged Peninsula Engineering, who is the engineer of record for the apartments, to design that traffic circle. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And we're talking about the property south? MR. SCOTT: We are talking about the driveway onto Collier Boulevard, where that arrow is, is where the government center will be and there will be offices and fire station, EMS over there. So the County and Peninsula Engineering, the developer entered into a developer's agreement where Peninsula designs and would construct the traffic circle. In doing so, it shifted our driveway, as you can see on the right-hand side as the revised where the driveway shifts a little bit further away. So what's happened is the apartments would like their signage to be located close to that intersection. Generally you would have a ten-foot setback from your property line. In this case because our access is further to the south and we want to be close to that intersection, we're looking to put our sign off site on Tract C within that existing easement. If you'll go to the next slide. What this does, this kind of shows in a little bit closer the sign location circled in the yellow cloud; that dashed line that's kind of faint south of the red line is the existing access and sign easement. Because it is no longer on the subject property or the apartment's property, it's now considered an off-premise sign which has different standards than what an on-premise residential sign. So in order to have signage consistent with what would normally be required, we're looking for some -- we need to request some deviations. Next slide, please. Essentially those deviations, this is the language in your packet, which I'm sure you've seen, I'm not going to read that, but it breaks down into three separate things that are needed. One, deviation to 5.06.04.G.2.A which would limit a directional sign to more than 12 square feet of sign area. We're looking to increase that to 50 square feet which technically is less than what an on-premise residential sign could have which would be 60 feet. Additionally, there's some setback requirements for off-premise signs and they can't be located any closer to ten feet from an adjacent property line or 50 feet from an adjacent residential zoning district. Intended to serve the adjacent parcel, which is a residential zoning district, we would like to eliminate that setback requirement so that the sign could go up to the apartment property. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Andrew, would you scroll back to the next, the prior slide real quick? So the sign we're talking about is here, right, is it a monument sign; is that what you would call that? MR. SCOTT: It would be a monument sign, yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: (Inaudible.) MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I'm not sure if that was the actual name of the complex or if that was something that the sign company put in, I'm sorry. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I'm not regulating content just so you know. MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir, we have first amendment rights. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I got it. Thank you for that. Sorry to take over your presentation. M R . SCOTT: Not a problem. So generally this is the request. If you'll go to the next slide. The request, you know, meets the criteria for an insubstantial change to a PUD. The reasoning is it's due to some change in conditions where the alignment of the driveway, the developer is seeking to have their sign close to the entrance, so due to those changing conditions is the reason for this request. And I will note that the deviations to allow a larger sign area and to eliminate the setbacks are consistent with -- would allow a sign which is consistent with what would be allowed for an on-premise residential sign, and that table there references those. October 14, 2021 Page 35 of 39 The on-premise sign, it would be no taller than eight foot. An on-premise residential sign is allowed to be 64 square feet, we'll limit this one to 50. And we'll still maintain the 10-foot set back to the Collier Boulevard right-of-way line as well as to the access rode driveway to the south. And with that, we respectfully request that, you know, you consider approving our insubstantial change request. And if there's anyone from the public or if you have any questions, I'll stick around and be happy to answer those. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Mr. Youngblood, do we have anybody to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, I do not have any registered speakers for this item. THE HEARING EXAMINER: I don't have anybody to answer to, but -- anybody from the County? John, you want to change your recommendation? MR. KELLY: No. Just for the record, I've received no responses from the public. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. There were folks at the NIM, right, it looks like? MR. KELLY: I believe there was one couple that attended the NIM. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. Well, I really -- this is very straightforward. I understand the reason for it and I will take everything -- I think you did a great presentation. Thank you very much. You represented your client we will and I will have 30 days to render a decision on this one. MR. SCOTT: Thank you very much. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Thanks. Okay, last but not least. MR. KELLY: Okay. This is going to be agenda item 3C. It's PCUD PL- 20210000661, White Lake Corporate Park PUD. This is for 3481 and 3485 Shearwater Street. The Applicant's requesting that there be a determination at that the proposed use of a fire station and ancillary administrative office, training facility with tower, warehousing and fleet storage is comparable in nature with the permitted uses in Section 3.2.A of the White Lake Corporate Park planned unit development Ordinance 01-59 as amended within Tract I of the White Lake Corporate Park PUD that would be the industrial component. Notice and hearing requirements for a PCUD are in LDC Section 10.03.060. Required -- the required newspaper ad was run by the County on or about September 24, 2021. There is no requirement for a NIM, agent letter, property owner notification letter, or sign for this type of petition. The petition was reviewed by staff using the criteria contained with LDC Section 10.02.06.K. The project was found to be consistent with both the GMP and the Land Development Code. Staff recommends that you determine the proposed use of a regional fire rescue training facility inclusive of the training tour and classroom space with an accessory fire station, warehousing, and fleet storage is comparable and compatible with the industrial Tract I of the PUD, Section 3.02 -- I'm sorry, 3.2.A subject to the following conditions of approval: The concept plan that was submitted with this application contained a helicopter pad, so we are requesting, one, the helicopter pad depicted in the conceptual site plan shall not be used in such a manner as it becomes a heliport or a helistop as described within LDC Section 5.05.13, which would require a conditional use authorization as provided for in Section 10.08.00 of the LDC. And secondly, with exception to bonafide emergency operations, any use of the helicopter pad shall be limited to daylight hours. With that, we recommend approval and that concludes Staff's presentation. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Very good. I guess this explains why we've got all the uniforms here. How are you today? MS. KLUTTZ: Can you hear me okay? October 14, 2021 Page 36 of 39 THE HEARING EXAMINER: I can. MS. KLUTTZ: Wonderful. So good morning. My name is Jessica Kluttz. I'm a planner at Davidson Engineering and I'm here to present the Greater Naples Fire District; s request for a comparable use determination. Slide. The intent of this request is to obtain a formal determination that essential services, specifically fire protection and an accessory fire station service is comparable with the list of existing permitted uses within the White Lake Corporate Park PUD in the Industrial Development area, Section I. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, ma'am, you're going to have to slow down for me, please. MS. KLUTTZ: Okay. Sorry. THE COURT REPORTER: That's okay. It happens when you read I think, it'll -- thanks. MS. KLUTTZ: So our land use attorney, Craig D. Varn has presented analysis and signed on as an applicant for the comparable use determination and the principal use of this development will be as a regional fire rescue facility for training with that accessory fire station, warehousing, and fleet storage. The training of firefighters is essential to promote and protect public health, safety, and welfare per the Land Development Code, Section 2.1.3.C. And the accessory fire station will provide emergency services which are deemed an essential service and the training facility will not interfere with the delivery of these emergency services. So this regional emergency training facility logistical warehousing of apparatus, management office space, vehicle maintenance, and repair facilities are needed for Greater Naples Fire District to deliver fire rescue services at their high level of service. Slide. So the subject site cite is located within the White Lake Corporate Park PUD Tract I, which is that industrial development area. The site is approximately 10.02 acres in size and this was acquired by Greater Naples Fire District on April 22nd, 2021. And this site has a close proximity to I-75 and other major roads which makes it a good site for fire rescue and emergency services, as well as having the ability to make the State Regional facility. Slide. So some adjacent uses to the property are to the -- are the East Naples sports complex up to the north, which is the top of the slide, vacant natural preserve land to the east, industrial heavy storage to the south, and then manufacturing to the west, and we have notified Collier County Parks and Recreation of the project. Slide. So in accordance with Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.2.6.K.2, the comparable use determination permit requirements, I'm offering that the proposed use possesses similar characteristics to other permitted uses in the zoning district overlay or PUD, including and not limited to the following: That the proposed uses are compatible and consistent with other permitted uses in the zoning district, so essential services, educational services specifically vocational schools, motor freight, transportation, warehousing, automotive repair and parking and construction and heavy construction are directly compatible to fire protection, fire rescue training, utilization of rescue vehicles, fleet maintenance and storage and safety training exercises. Slide. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Take your time. You've got plenty of time. Relax. MS. KLUTTZ: So next we have the operating hours which there are no operating hour restrictions for any use within the White Lake Industrial Corporate Park PUD and the training element will operate from 7:30 to 5:00 where the emergency fire rescue is a 24-hour operation. And within an industrial district, uses can range from 8 to 24 hours of operation. Slide. So approximately 50 people will utilize the site at any given time just for the October 14, 2021 Page 37 of 39 training element and there will be a smaller staff on site for the warehousing, management, and fire rescue elements. In looking at the Institute of Transportation Engineers 10th edition regarding traffic, the proposed use will result in significantly less peak hour trips than what are the already permitted uses within a same-sized building. Here in this graphic, we calculated it at 100,000 square feet and this would be considered a net benefit to the surrounding roadway network capacity with those peak hours trips being less than five percent of the trips generated by the permitted use of a United States Post Office. Slide. And then looking at the type of vehicles associated with the use, we can expect fire trucks, fire engines, and regular transportation vehicles to be utilized in the proposed development. And the average length of one of the larger Greater Naples Fire District fire engines is about 35 feet, which is a lot smaller than a 73-foot foot long semi trailer, which is the kind of use associated with the industrial district, so it's a comparable vehicle usage. Slide please. So moving on to the number and type of parking spaces. The development's going to follow the Collier County code requirements for parking associated with the uses on the property. There's also going to be spaces avail both out and indoors to accommodate the fleet storage and parking of fire engines and approximately five trucks will be housed in indoor bay facilities and other vehicles and equipment can be stored in both indoor warehouse facilities and out doors with code compliance screening and buffering. And the number and type of required parking spaces are similar in comparison to permitted in existing uses within the development area of the PUD such as automotive repair and motor freight transportation and warehousing. Slide. So the affect the proposed use would have on neighboring facilities in relation to the noise, glare, and odor effects should be no greater than that of other permitted and existing uses and state guidelines are going to be followed and all training exercises so there's no generation of heavy black smoke to interfere with the neighbors. And buffers will be erected as required by the Land Development Code and the GNFD development will be less intensive compared to many of the industrial land uses permitted in White Lake PUD generating a lot less noise, traffic, and waste than some permitted uses such as heavy construction and transportation. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you have to slow down. MS. KLUTTZ: Slide? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you have to slow down for me, please. MS. KLUTTZ: Sorry. So this is our conceptual site plan. It's not a final layout, but it's showing the proposed uses for the GNFD development, so this is inclusive of a 50-foot tall training tower, a vehicle training area, fleet bays and vehicle maintenance area, a logistical warehouse and then academic and office buildings as well as a helicopter pad, parking area, and water management area. And primary access to this site is on Shearwater Street, which is on the east sight where north is on the top of this slide. And we also share a boundary of the north with the East Naples Sports Complex, so there's a potential interconnect for public safety purposes that has also been presented to Parks and Recreation. Slide. So this proposed use is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, meaning that the applicable future land use designation does not specifically prohibit this proposed use. And where the future land use designation contains a specific list of allowable uses, this use is not omitted from that, so the future land use designation here i s the industrial district which allows for essential services and this use is comprised of both essential services and then uses comparable to permitted uses in the PUD. Slide. As Mr. Kelly presented, staff is recommending this project, the comparable use determination subject to the conditions that first the helicopter pad is not a heliport or a October 14, 2021 Page 38 of 39 helistop. And second, the helicopter pad, the use is limited to daylight hours outside of emergency services and these conditions will be followed in site development moving forward by the Greater Naples Fire District. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And do you agree with all the conditions Staff has recommended? MS. KLUTTZ: Yes. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yes, okay. Let me ask you a couple questions. MS. KLUTTZ: Sure. THE HEARING EXAMINER: And the reason being is that this is a quasi- judicial hearing and you're offering me competent, substantial evidence and I want to establish you as an expert. You're with Davidson Engineering, I know that. I have your letter. Your official title is planner? MS. KLUTTZ: I graduated from FAU in planning as well as two years experience working with Broward County and Lauderdale by the Sea. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Great. So you're an expert, congratulations. Just -- and I'm new here, first time you've been in front of me, what would be helpful is if you would just attach your CV or your resume with this so that I can qualify you as an expert, okay? But I'm deeming you an expert. Congratulations. All right. Anything else? Anybody to speak from the public? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Dickman, I have no registered speakers for this item. THE HEARING EXAMINER: That means yawl did a great job. John? MR. KELLY: John Kelly for the record. I just wanted to add that analysis was contributed by Craig D. Varn, a land use attorney as well, that being a requirement of the PCUD ordinance. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. Yes. Thank you for that. I'm going to -- I want to make something clear. So I'm looking at Chapter 9, and this is of the County's administrative code for land development and this is under Chapter 9, Hearing examiner, and it appears as though -- so it lists out 19 different things that fall under my jurisdiction and one of them is a zoning verification letter PUD comparable use determination, so this is one of the myriad of things that I'm supposed to be doing in that not everything is contemplated when permitted and not permitted and conditional uses are listed in a zoning area, so the idea is to try to find out some justification for a use that wasn't contemplated because it would be an exhaustive list if they had to continue to do that, so that's what this process is about. I just wanted to make that clear for the record that the County has deemed the Hearing Examiner as the proper jurisdiction to make that determination, all right? Clear? And that's why the County has put it on my agenda. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, that is correct. THE HEARING EXAMINER: All right. Okay. Anything else? That was a great presentation other than the fact that the court reporter is going to require you to put $2 in the oops jar. It happens. Trust me, I've been caught more than you have. MS. KLUTTZ: It's very tempting to go quicker so I can say everything more. THE HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah, when you read something, you're focused on reading it. You did a great job and you did a great job for your client. Does your client want to speak at all? No? It's a good observation when things look like they're going well, don't jump in. Okay, this is pretty straightforward for me. I understand everything, thank you for that, and I will get a decision to you as soon as possible within 30 days. All right, thanks for being here. Do we have anything else on the agenda? Any new business or anything? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing. October 14, 2021 Page 39 of 39 THE HEARING EXAMINER: Nothing else? Okay, great. Then we will adjourn the meeting. And somebody kill the microphones, please. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 11:57 a.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 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY SHARON DUTTON, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE 4