Loading...
HEX Minutes 10/28/2021October 28, 2021 Page 1 of 33 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida October 28, 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 SESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Senior Planner Timothy Finn, Principal Planner Mike Bosi, Zoning Director Alexandra Casanova, Development Review Gabriella Castro, Principal Planner October 28, 2021 Page 2 of 33 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we are going to get started. This is the hearing examiner meeting of October 28th, 2021. I've got a few housekeeping items. First, I want to start with the pledge of allegiance. Please rise. (The pledge of allegiance was taken.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. So my name is Andrew Dickman. I am the hearing examiner for Collier County. I was hired by Collier County as a private contractor. I'm a licensed Florida attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar. I've been practicing for over 20 years in the area of local government, land use and zoning. Again, I'm not an employee of the county. I'm here to impartially hear all the applications and process them and render a decision within 30 days. Right now I need everyone to silence their phones, including myself, so we don't disrupt anybody. If you need to speak with your colleagues that you're sitting with or somebody, please step out in the hallway. Believe it or not, you know, some of the sounds echo in here and might distract somebody during their thoughts and presentation. This is a hybrid meeting. The county has generously set up a hybrid meeting where you can come in person or you can join the meeting from wherever you are on the planet via the Internet and so we will be accommodating both. The process that we're going to follow, and I know the agenda kind of says it differently, but I prefer to have the county go first and then the applicant come up, put on their full presentation and then we'll open it up for public comments and then I'll allow the applicant for rebuttal. I'll frequently interject and ask questions. The way that we're going to do this is that the county will use the gray podium here in the middle and then the applicant will be here in the brown podium and the public can speak in the middle podium here in the gray area. Ask everyone to still try to be cognizant of some of the CDC guidelines, if you will, but at the same time, we have staff here that are going to help keep everything clean and tidy. One of the things that I want to mention, which is probably one of the most important things, is that we need to document this entire meeting. We have a court reporter, who is logged in on the Internet and will be taking down every single word that is said here to the extent that it can be said. So in other words, if you mumble, like I was lectured as a child by my mom to stop mumbling, so try to speak as clearly and project your voice so that it can be captured. We'll not talk over each other, that can't be captured. You know, yes, no, head nods, things like that or nonverbal can't be captured. And I promise you that we will hear from our court reporter if -- if you can't be heard. I promise you that happens every meeting and I get caught, everybody gets caught and I think probably our naughty jar is probably around $2.4 million at this point. We're going to donate it to a good cause. MR. BELLOWS: Most of that is from me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Exactly. So another part of this is that I want to mention -- again, as I mentioned here today, I'm here as an attorney, but as a hearing examiner, similar to a judge. This is a quasi judicial hearing and my job is to listen to the parties. Okay? So I want to emphasize that the parties to these applications are the applicant and the county, those are the parties. Now, in the middle of all that is the public. Now, within the public, there may or may not be folks that are more interested, quote, unquote, that's a legal terminology, who may be adversely affected and want to get some of their comments on the record. I personally am not going to make a determination on the record about who has standing and who doesn't have standing and who's more interested than someone else, that's not my job. If I did that, then I would have to do a deeper dive and get off of my track of listening to the relevant evidence as it applies to the criteria for the particular application. Now, having heard that, if there is a organization or an entity -- (Background talking.) HEARING EXAMINATION DICKMAN: Excuse me. Let's silence, everybody, until -- on the -- on the world out there, if we can. October 28, 2021 Page 3 of 33 So if somebody -- to that extent, though, however, I will recognize that if somebody has gone through the trouble of retaining a professional and wants to speak, usually the time limit here is, what, five minutes, are we allowing people five minutes now? Five minutes to speak, general public, five minutes to speak. If somebody has retained a professional, needs to put something on the record, that's fine, but that is not going to grant more time or equal time to the parties, let's just put it that way. But as a professional courtesy and understanding that some people may retain professionals, I'll accommodate that to the best that I can. I don't want this to turn into a full-blown cross-examination, et cetera. It is a quasi judicial hearing and it is a public hearing, so under state law, anyone who is here who wants to speak can speak on anything that they want; however, I would strongly encourage everyone who is going to speak on a particular item to provide me with information that I need, which is, you know, facts that relate to the criteria, okay, the criteria as to whatever type of application it is. I can't tell you what to say. Obviously, you know, we're going to have decorum here, but I would really encourage you because I do listen to these and I take notes and I want to hear from you. I will from time to time if you're speaking and you're in the area of the particular site, I'll try to identify for my own purposes exactly where you are in geographic relation to that site. I'll ask some questions. This is a very informal process. If you haven't spoken in public or you're nervous about speaking in public, let's just relax. Okay. Everybody relax. I really want to hear from you. Okay. You have your time to speak here. Don't get nervous. This is all a process for me to take in information from the parties and the public so that I can render the best decision that I can. Once I leave this room, I can't collect any more information. The information that I have is the information that the public has that's been published on the agenda that was prepared with the application and everything else. I personally do not do my own pre investigation. I don't go off and talk to staff about these things unilaterally. I don't talk to applicants unilaterally. I try to consider this, again, a quasi judicial hearing, which is like a court, so you wouldn't want your judge to go talking to one party or the other. I try to keep this as fair and impartial as possible, so what I -- I don't have any disclosures on any of the items that are here. I haven't ex parte communication whatsoever, so this is the time and place to get the record together because after this is over with, then I have 30 days to render a decision, so I'm going to be asking questions and be fairly methodical about this and go through it and document to that extent. I already mentioned the court -- the -- oh, yeah, so if you are going to testify here today, we're going to need to swear you in, and I'll have the court reporter do that, administer the oath. If you are going to speak here today, Mr. Youngblood over there is the recipient of the speaker cards, so if you haven't filled out a speaker card, go ahead and do that, they're somewhere in the room or outside, somewhere like that. So hand those in to him so he can -- at least we can have at least documentation and pair you up with the items for -- for the record going forward. I think that's about it. Why don't we go ahead and have anyone that is going to testify here today on an applicant to stand up, raise your right hand and we'll have the court reporter administer the oath, please. (The court reporter swore in all speakers.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So I am going to ask my friend here, Ray Bellows, to tell me if I missed anything. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, you got everything and we're ready for the first two items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Is there any changes to the agenda, please? MR. BELLOWS: There are no changes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There are no changes. So we have A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Okay. Great. So we're going to take them in that order. Mr. Youngblood, we ready to go? Thumbs up. Yeah. All right. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gentleman over here? Trusty fellow. Okay. All right. We're all good to go. Sounds like we've got it locked and loaded here. Why don't we get started October 28, 2021 Page 4 of 33 then with 3A. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the planning and zoning section manager. I'm presenting both petitions A and B for contract planner Laura DeJohn, who I coordinated with the review on both of these items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So let me just stop you right there. So A and B are companion items, then; correct? MR. BELLOWS: In the -- in effect that's the same property. They're dealing with different issues, but they are basically companion items. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What I'm going to do is even though they're going to be two different decisions on these -- on particular applications, if it all can be presented at the same time, that's fine, you know, so folks who want to speak to both items can speak to both items, I'm going to have that companion presentation, but then at the end of the day, they'll be -- it'll be two different decisions because they're two separate items. Okay? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. MR. BELLOWS: So the first item is the variance. It has the petition number VA-PL-20-0000998 and it's requesting four variances from the land development code. The other item is the site plan with deviations and it has petition DR-PL-2018-0002114 and they are requesting a total of eight deviations from the land development code as outlined in the staff report. Would you like me to run through each requested? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, why don't you go ahead and do that on both A and B and I assume what you're saying is that both are the same applicant; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So why don't you go ahead and do the first one and then the second one together. MR. BELLOWS: All right. For the variance, the first variance is from section -- is from the required building separation of 40 feet between the existing ship store building and the boat storage building number two to allow separation of 15 feet. The other variance being requested is from the required separation of 59 feet between the existing boat storage building number two and the existing boat storage building number three to allow a separation of 34 feet. The third requested variance is from the separation of 59 feet from the existing boat storage building and -- number three, and the proposed reconstruction of boat storage building number four to allow a separation of 50 feet. And the last variance is from the required side yard setback of 25 feet to allow a side yard setback of six feet for the proposed reconstruction of the boat storage building number four. The -- this petition was advertised pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code and meets all the requirements for public notice. The site plan with deviations request, which is a companion, and a site plan -- if I -- just a little background. Site plan for deviations is a process designed to apply to older sites that are in the process of redeveloping. The redevelopment of older sites is sometimes constrained to meeting the current land development code requirements and is sometimes a disincentive to redeveloping these older sites. The site plan with deviations process is designed to allow a site to utilize the design standards at the time project was first developed; so in the staff report for the site plan deviations, we note the older code sections that applied. In this case mostly they're dealing with landscape requirements and we are utilizing those standards at the time of the original approval. And they are as follows -- let me just pull this up here. There are eight deviations. The first one is from Section 4.06.02.C1., to remove the ten-foot wide type A buffer along the western property line to -- due to the existing riprap and docks. The -- there are three deviations from Section 4.06.02.C.2 to reduce the 15-foot type B buffer and reduce the number of plantings along the eastern property line and to reduce plantings along the northern property line. October 28, 2021 Page 5 of 33 There are also deviations from LDC Section 4.06.03.B to allow trees to be more than 50 feet from the parking stall to allow trees required in the parking islands to be located elsewhere on site and to allow no terminal landscape islands at the ends of some of the parking rows. And one deviation from LDC 4.06.05.C.1 to reduce the foundations plantings for building one to one -- and limited to one facade for redevelopment of the Walker's Coon Key Marina. This also was advertised pursuant to the county land development code and those -- proof of that advertising is in your staff report. And I'll be happy to answer questions or let the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Why don't we just go ahead and bring the applicant up and do you have any -- go ahead and come on up and introduce yourself. MR. CARL: Thank you. James Carl of the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sorry, yeah, this is the court reporter -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're about to have -- you're about to have to put money into the jar. Let me just help you out here. First, let me ask, do you have any objection to doing this as a companion item so you don't have to do two presentations at one time? MR. CARL: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. MR. CARL: Thank you. I just want to speak very briefly initially, I may come back after the PowerPoint presentation, but I wanted to make clear that on the A petition, which we say is three variances -- four variances and it was -- the presentation is correct on its face, but I just wanted to make sure that the examiner is aware that with -- it's really essentially substantively, we're really just talking about variance number four because, I mean, although technically, yes, we're asking that all variances be granted, but with regard to variance one and two, these are existing buildings that have already been permitted and built and so the variance is more of a, I guess, technicality or what have you, you know, and they were built under -- and then with regard to the third one, in the process, as we have over the last many months with the county, we've been working and revising and working up until really just a couple days ago when we finally resolved out the variance regarding the third variance and actually resolved it, so we really -- that one we probably don't even need a ruling on, but I'll leave that to the county to decide whether we need a ruling on it. But the redesign that was submitted, I think just yesterday, provides for a 59-foot separation as required under current code. So the variance that we were asking for to reduce it from 59 feet to 50 feet is no longer -- is moot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me -- let me stop you there and just clarify if we're going to be talking about all variances. Ray, counsel has indicated that some of the variances aren't needed, is that accurate or not? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The situation arose where the county approved a site development plan and it may have been approved with setbacks that aren't consistent with the current zoning district requirements and it may have been because it was deemed to be a preexisting condition that they were rebuilding to. It's the zoning department's position that these are taller buildings and different and the code requires that they meet current setbacks, so that site plan should have been accompanied by a variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in other words these are -- I mean, these would have been legal nonconforming uses. It seems like you're referring to post-hurricane construction, standards have changed, so therefore, you have to bring it up to standards, current standards? MR. BELLOWS: It may have qualified under a past board approval from one of the earlier hurricanes, that they could rebuild to the prior nonconforming status. I didn't see any record of that in the file, but that could have been the one reason it got approved, but to be safe, we thought we'd cover everything. MR. CARL: And I understand and that's why I said technically we probably need rulings on those first two. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, let's do that. MR. CARL: The second one, though -- the third one, I don't even think we need a ruling on, I think October 28, 2021 Page 6 of 33 we're pretty much -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well -- MR. CARL: But then again, we can do that one as well, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, well, let me just be safe. MR. CARL: All right. Be safe. HEARING EXAMINATION DICKMAN: County's already opined that, you know, these need to be on here and be heard, they have been advertised as such, so my advice to you would be to go ahead and cover those, not -- they've not advised me to take them off the table, so. MR. CARL: Yeah, I'm not advising that. I just want to make the examiner aware that, you know, these buildings are built and that the separation setback as required under current load is complied with and see -- and then with regard to four, we believe that that one obviously has reached the criteria for variances in each one of the subparts and when we initially met with the county about this, we went through those criteria, we said this was ideally handled -- to be handled in that way. So I think without any further ado, let me allow Gina, the engineer, to come in and do the PowerPoint so we can get some pictures with the words. MS. GREEN: Good morning, Gina Green, project engineer. If we could have the PowerPoint back up. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you're with? MS. GREEN: I'm my own company. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, okay. MS. GREEN: -- Property under Gina R. Green, P.A. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Okay. MS. GREEN: To start with on the variance, I want to give you some background history on this project. This site -- if we can go to the next slide, please. You know, here's the summary of the variances that are being requested. You know, the first two are with existing buildings that are already reconstructed on the site. The actual ship shore was reconstructed after Irma back in the middle 2000s with an SDP and the other two storage buildings that are of those separations are existing. The third one that Jim Carl was mentioning about, I did send a revised plan over to the county just yesterday that -- what he was trying to say was of the 59 feet to allow for 50 feet, we were able to -- on these buildings, because they're open storage buildings, separation is measured from structure column to structure column, we were able to adjust the columns in the building where the 59 feet was not being met to the 59 feet; that was what he was trying to explain to you is that we no longer have a separation of 50 feet column to column between those two buildings. It does meet 59 feet. And then, of course, the reduction of the setback on the side, which was the existing. If you could go to the next slide, please. So the existing development standards for this site back in '82, when it was designed, it was construction under SDP-89-159, which there's a picture of in the packet, side setbacks were zero or five feet with an unobstructed passage from front to back. It's a marina, so the waterfront is zero. They can go to a maximum of 75 feet, which we are under with 59 feet, and separation of structures in the '82 ordinance had no other calculation other than they had to be a minimum of 15 feet separation, did not -- was not dependent on height. Today's standards, as you can see below, they have side setbacks from residential, which we do have a condo on the one side, where that six-foot now exists is now 25 feet. The waterfront is still zero, the height is still 75, it's separation of structures, which is what has triggered this variance, is 50 percent of the sum of the buildings or 15 feet, whichever is greater. So that is what generated the after the facts of separation of existing buildings. Can you please go to the next slide, please. This is the existing 89-159 SDP. Building number one is the ship store. Building number two is storage building. Building number three is storage building and building number four is the one that is the one still needs to be constructed and what brought on this variance. October 28, 2021 Page 7 of 33 All these were built back in 1990. In Hurricane Wilma, the end building of four that's towards the parking was destroyed and at that time, it was not economically, you know, prudent to rebuild it at that time for just the one building, so he has left it -- he had left it unbuilt for all these years. When Irma came through, the ship store did not receive damage because it was built to new hurricane codes back in the middle 2000s, so it withstood the hurricane with just minor damage that could be repaired. Buildings two and buildings three and the rest of building four were taken down by Irma and largely because they were designed to hurricane codes back then, which I think was only 110-mile-an-hour winds, which today have to be rebuilt to 170-mile-an-hour winds. So of course, Irma, they took a direct hit, they came down. If you go to the next slide, please. This is the -- this is the drawing I sent over the other day and if you see the big circle there in the middle showing separations there between the column of building three and building four, that now meets the 59 feet of where we adjusted the columns. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have a pointer? MS. GREEN: No, I do not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This might help you with just -- MS. GREEN: Yeah, yeah, I can show you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Don't poke somebody in the eye with it. That way you can help me out, so I can -- MS. GREEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If we don't have one, that's okay. MS. GREEN: If not, I can walk up there and I point myself. I'll just walk up there. If you look right up there in that -- see the big circle? That's the second part of the column on building three, which is this building right here and then 59 feet over we've moved the columns in on that building, so that the structure to structure separation there is now 59 feet. As far as the rest of the site, the existing parking, everything else that's there is remaining as it was -- yeah, actually, this is getting put back to exactly how it was when it was approved back in 1990. And I want to make -- oh, the other big thing I want to make very clear on this too is with -- with these buildings, the original buildings stored 130 boats in the marketplace of 19 -- in the 19 -- early 199Os, which were smaller boats on an average of about 22 feet. They all had fold-down bimini tops so they were very compact, so they didn't require a lot of height to store them. Everybody put their biminis down, you tucked them in a little hole and you went on your way. Today's boats, the average boat being stored today is 33 feet. They all have fixed T-tops. They all have radar arches that don't fold down, so they take a much more increased height to store them in the same space that the old boats -- you probably could have put three boats in the place where you can put one of these boats. And so with this redevelopment, he's actually reducing the density on the site from storing 130 boats previously down to 122 boats. So with this reconstruction, as we have it at the 59, we are lessening the density of the boats stored on this site. If we go to the next slide, please. The benefits to the public on this is that, you know, right now marina space in Collier County is deficient. There's a waiting list. There's more people that need to store their boats. We keep having more people move here. The boats keep getting bigger and bigger that have to be stored rather than people trailering them from their house. They want to be able to have the convenience of going to a marina, having it put in the water, they hop in it, they do it, they come back, they don't have to clean it, nothing, the marina takes care of it. The public safety on all of this is that the new storage buildings are constructed to the current hurricane codes of 170 mile-an-hour, so unless -- you know, Irma would not have taken down those structures had they been rebuilt and rebuilt to what they are now unlike the others because they were constructed to hurricane codes that were 110 miles an hour, so these are safer buildings for the community. There's a very small chance -- we'd have to have a hurricane such as what Dorian that October 28, 2021 Page 8 of 33 hit Abaco in the Bahamas to take down these buildings with 180-plus-mile-an-hour winds and with the safety factors, they would probably still stand. And the public benefit, with this reconstruction, we'll be putting in new landscaping, enhancing the site, so it will -- you know, the whole site on a whole will look better for the community than it does right now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm looking away, don't take it personally. MS. GREEN: Oh, I'm not taking -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm listening and taking notes. MS. GREEN: Oh, I know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is there one more slide or no? MS. GREEN: Yes, one more slide. So the summary findings on this, you know, the site was approved under an original SDP plan; we're not deviating from that original plan or footprint for these buildings. You know, Hurricane Wilma and Irma destroyed these buildings beyond repair. Reconstruction is the only way to rehab this site. You know, the increased height is due to the change in the market and the design of the boats that are stored, you know, with the average of 33 feet, the fixed tops and radar arches, you know -- you know, we're -- we're providing back a benefit to the community the best we can and we've -- you know, we've reduced the overall density on the site from 130 boats to 122 boats. The side yard setback of the six feet, the preexisting condition. That was where the building was built before and we're, you know -- we've increased the height from the 35 to the 59, but we're still below the maximum, 75 feet, that would have been allowed even back in 1980 -- 19 -- in the '82 ordinance. And building number four cannot be redesigned or reconstructed to meet the 25-foot setback and maintain the maneuverability of the forklifts that move these boats. Right now they're at the minimum that they could be built. They were built that way back in 1990 to have that maneuverability between those two buildings that face each other, so trying to pull that building any farther in, it would make the site unusable as far as for storing on that or having this two-sided storage. And -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. That's the one that you guys are recommending denial on, the -- MR. BELLOWS: That was the variance C. MS. GREEN: Variance C, which we've now pushed to the 59 feet, so we've got the separation there that was required. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have information about they've submitted and have -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, for the record, we did receive a copy late yesterday, was it? MS. GREEN: Yesterday or the day before. No, I think it was the day before, end of day Tuesday. MR. BELLOWS: I was a little busy, I guess. MS. GREEN: Yeah, we all are. I understand. MR. BELLOWS: Yesterday. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have you evaluated that? Are you comfortable with their position? MR. BELLOWS: Well, their position is that, I guess measured from the structural column? MS. GREEN: Correct, the column. MR. BELLOWS: Since this is an open-faced building on that side, the column is the most point where we would measure the setback. I haven't verified the distance, but you're saying it's -- meets the setback now? MS. GREEN: Meets the separation, so we're talking about the separation, yes, it meets separation of 59 feet column to column. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let me just procedurally like ask a question here. I mean, that's a late submittal, okay, in my mind because I don't even know if I have it in my packet, October 28, 2021 Page 9 of 33 but are you comfortable -- have you processed this? I mean, is this a ripe -- MR. BELLOWS: I have not processed it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this application ripe for even evaluation at this point? MR. BELLOWS: Well, she's showing that she may not need the deviation or need the variance. My personal opinion, I haven't had a chance to fully check it out. We'll have to make sure it's consistent. I would recommend that we just proceed with hearing the variance and if you -- if it does turn out it is correct, then it doesn't matter if the variance is not used, you are meeting it. Yeah. MS. GREEN: So we did -- prior to me submitting that plan to them this late date, we did have a conference meeting with Laura and Ray discussing that -- that -- this particular part of the variance, the 59 down to 50, of trying to resolve what we could do to make it palatable for the county to support it, rather than to not -- you know, rather than not being able to support it and that was one of the things we came up with and that's why I sent the plan over like I did. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I understand that, I'm just trying to -- obviously, as I said, I'm not attending those meetings -- MS. GREEN: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- I can't do that, but if -- if you're making -- you know, I get it, you're trying to resolve issues so that, you know -- you know, the fewer issues that have to be decided, I get it. That's my only concern is that a day or two ago something was submitted, I'm not sure the county has fully evaluated that because that is a -- you know, that's a pretty fast turnaround; however, let's just go through this and if you could to the best of your ability address what you've submitted most recently so that all of us can understand and if there's something the county wants to understand better and then we can take that off the table or -- as you say, then we can do that. Well, come -- sir, come on up. This is your team, this is your case. Let's hear from you. MR. CARL: I just -- I think -- look, this has been, like I said, it's been a fluid process with the county where we've been taking their recommendations -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They all are. MR. CARL: Yeah, they all are. So the point here is that we had -- when we had the meeting a couple days ago and we said that's your concern, but if we now have it -- we can do this, what do you think, they said great. And the county under -- that was the county's -- you know, we -- we both agreed, so we did it and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Time out. Let's not put words into the county's mouth. I mean, you just said the county agreed. Let's just let the county say that they agreed. MR. CARL: Okay. Right, I think -- okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is informal. We're just -- MR. CARL: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- having a conversation. MR. CARL: All I'm trying to say is that really whether we withdraw the variance request number C, we could withdraw the third one, number three -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you going to do that? MR. CARL: -- we could withdraw that and that would end this discussion. I don't know how the county feels on that, but to me, I would think that's all we need to do, right, because we're in compliance the way it is, we don't need it. We're just going to resubmit -- well, we have submitted -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're going to have some county -- MR. CARL: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Yeah, Mike Bosi, zoning director. If they don't need the deviation, it doesn't matter if we recommend denial or they withdraw, either way it's the same. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you want to withdraw that? MR. CARL: If it'd make it easier, I think, for -- for -- for you -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't want -- I mean, if everybody's comfortable and you October 28, 2021 Page 10 of 33 want to take it off -- you're the applicant. MS. GREEN: It doesn't matter. MR. CARL: Yeah, we withdraw. We don't need it. MS. GREEN: Well, from what Ray -- this is what I was understanding Ray saying is is that if -- if he was to deny that 50 and we show it at 59, we're complying with the site standards anyway and it's a -- becomes a moot point anyway; correct? MR. BELLOWS: Right. MS. GREEN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That's what Mike just said too. MS. GREEN: Yeah, so yeah, it's not a matter of whether we keep in it or out, if we show 59, then we're meeting the requirement. MR. CARL: Okay. Thank you. MS. GREEN: And then that covers the very last item of repositioning the structural columns and that building gets the 59-foot of separation and so that closes my -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What about the other application? MS. GREEN: Okay. That closes that one. I have a different PowerPoint for the other one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Perfect. Let's see that one. MS. GREEN: You can go on to the next slide, please. These are all deviation requests that all have to do with landscaping. There was eight of them is what Ray had summarized in his presentation to you. The biggest thing on this one is that the site as it's designed was what was approved with the ship store reconstruction in '05 and back then, the county approved it because of it being a redevelopment, they didn't have the site plans with deviation process, so they approved it as such with the parking the way that it is, with the terminal islands not having landscaping in them. And the biggest reason why the terminal islands at the end of -- you know what? Can you go to those -- the next slide, I think I have a plan? That's the old plan, as you can see that was the old plan that I used on the other one also. Go to the next slide, please. This here is the landscape plan that is now going in with this deviation and with the SDP. The main terminal islands, if you look there in the middle of the site where you come in, there's a hatched area there, those would normally have to have trees in them. They were allowed back in '05 to not to be paved and striped because it provided maneuverability for boats and access into the storage area; by putting terminal islands, it would have made it very hard to maneuver because you only have one way in and out of this site, it's a very limited site for access. And so we are only just carrying on and enhancing the site and bringing the landscaping up to as close to code as we can get with the constraints of the site. You know, with not -- with only putting the facade on -- you know, the building foundation planning was on one facade, that's because the six feet behind the buildings and there's a little water retention area, there's not room to put any more plantings. There is a buffer down that property line between the condo and these buildings. On the waterfront side, you know, it's all paved for access with riprap, there's not a place to put plantings there, so they clustered all the plantings as much as they can in the areas where they can to bring it up to today's codes. Is there another slide? Yes. This is also part of the landscape plan from Dan Isaacson, which he's here if you have any questions to answer. And is there one more? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Dan -- MS. GREEN: Dan Isaacson. HEARING EXAMINATION DICKMAN: Okay. MS. GREEN: Yes, he's a -- With -- with the site plans with deviation, again, you know, we've reduced the density down. The site is consistent with the growth management plan with what we're proposing with these deviations. These deviations will not change the permitted land uses, you know, and it's beneficial for the surrounding communities with the landscaping that's going to be put in, that it will enhance the site and the view of it. October 28, 2021 Page 11 of 33 You know, the deviations do acknowledge the prior approved uses and continue them as such as they were approved back in the middle two -- middle 2000s. And, you know, it will improve the visual characteristics of the project to the community. And with this, the owner will continue its maintenance of the site and keep everything in good order on the site. And that closes my -- if you have any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Not at this moment. I mean, see that we've got a few objections here. You-all are going to have plenty time of rebuttal. Sir, why don't you bring your whole team up here and introduce them all for the record because I think you're going to need the record. Just introduce everybody on your team. MR. WALKER: I'm Jim Walker, the property owner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WALKER: Dan Isaacson, our landscape architect. MR. ISAACSON: Landscape architect, Isaacson Landscape Architecture Group. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And we've got -- MR. CARL: James Carl. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So what else did you want to say? MR. WALKER: I just wanted to point out a few things just as a public interest in this project. I've been in the boat business in Collier and Lee County for 38 years. We provided or do provide about 60 percent of the storage market from Lee County to Collier County. I can tell you factually that from Charlotte County at least south there is a significant waiting list in every single marina that's on the coast, every one of them. Our Naples marina had over 100 people on the waiting list. We have an average of about three to five a day come into this facility, which is now at capacity for what has been built. And I think that it's an important point to understand that when I started in the boat business in the early 1980s, which is when this marina was originally constructed, the average size boat in Collier County factually was between 20 and 22 feet; that's what these facilities were built for. Obviously with the growth and the evolution of boating and the evolution of the outboard powered boats, frankly, the size today averages between 30 and 33 feet and frankly higher. They're building, believe it or not, outboard powered boats that are 60 feet long, which is almost incredible in itself, but the market today, because of the cost of building these facilities, they're very expensive to build because the engineering requirements by the county and the building code and the 170-mile-an-hour winds, you could never economically sustain the facility for 20-foot boats, it wouldn't happen. It wouldn't be worth building, frankly. It'd be a failed operation. So we have put in boat lifts around the facility to accommodate the smaller boats, which is a much lesser investment and makes economic sense to do so, but it's -- it's a significant public interest issue in all of these counties, particularly Collier County. I mean, I don't think -- I think we all know there's -- I don't know how many hundred families a day flooding into the state of Florida. Our growth in the last five to ten years has been substantial. Everywhere you go, there's a new condo project, a new housing project, a new development of some sort. We live in a coastal community, that's why people come here, the waters and the beaches and the fishing and the things that are available to them, so. And I have seen since the early '80s a number of marinas that have gone away, they've been turned into condos. They're no longer marinas. That's not a sustainable thing for the community in my opinion. I mean, we have to have these facilities. If you go to a public boat ramp in Collier County on a Saturday or Sunday -- and these boat ramps, frankly, the county has significantly increased the size of these boat ramp facilities -- they are jammed packed. You can't get a single additional boat and trailer or car in those parking lots on a weekend and they're parked up and down the roadway, so I just -- and I know there's a lot of technicalities here. This facility was hit originally by Wilma. It was rebuilt under the hurricane relief act, that's when the ship store was rebuilt; and, frankly, had the engineer noted, which was at the time building four, if he had just noted that, if he'd written that on his application, we wouldn't have this discussion. It never would have happened. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a question. This is very helpful. Thank October 28, 2021 Page 12 of 33 you for getting up. So you're the current owner, you've now bought this facility and are going to -- I mean, you operate marinas in other areas, so -- and you've stated that you're very familiar with the working waterfront situation in Southwest Florida, I appreciate that because I do know a little bit about waterfront conversion from working waterfronts to residential and the loss of that and as you stated, population rise, not everybody has the luxury of living on the water, but yet they still have to, you know, you're in Florida, that's what we're here for, get in the water, go to the beaches, things like that more or less. So I think what I'm hearing you say is that you've now acquired this property. You're in the business, a professional business of operating marinas that includes the storage of boats, whether it's dry storage or not dry storage and that since the '80s when this was built, the trend has been towards different types of boats, bigger boats, different conditions, different building codes, et cetera, et cetera, that's why we're here; correct? In a nutshell? MR. WALKER: In a nutshell. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In a nutshell? Okay. MR. WALKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're trying to get this boat facility online? MR. WALKER: Yeah, and I think it's important to note, I've owned this since the '90s. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, you have. MR. WALKER: This isn't a new acquisition for me. It was the first marina I owned -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm sorry. MR. WALKER: -- in Collier County and, again, I've been in business for over 38 years, so. And I think it's also important to note that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It says WR Real Estate, LLC. MR. WALKER: It's one of my real estate holdings that owns the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got you. MR. WALKER: -- property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Your other business operates the -- MR. WALKER: Correct, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WALKER: So this facility was a direct hit. It's where it hit Collier County. It was -- it was the point of landfall, direct hit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I was here during Irma, I know. MR. WALKER: Right. And the county and sheriffs and the planners at the time flew over it, it was the first property they looked at it. It was a disaster of epic proportions. I mean, it just levelled the place. So when we permitted, which we did right away, we went through the process of this permitting, and my attorney alluded to months, this isn't months, this is four years. This is a four-year process that we're talking about here, which is a little disturbing in itself, frankly, but we permitted both building one, which is the ship store, and that was from Wilma hurricane relief, built in the same exact footprint per the code in the laws on the books in Collier County. Building two, which is one of these new buildings, same thing, there's a 15-foot separation, frankly, between the ship store and that building. Building three, which is again permitted CO'd, then inspected and up and running for a couple years now, it has less than 30 feet, I believe between building two and building three. And we get to the point of building four. Well, frankly, again, had the engineer back when Wilma hit just put a note on his application that that building was destroyed, we wouldn't even be talking about this because it would have qualified under the hurricane relief plan, which is to build it in the exact same footprint that it was in, which is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in other words you're saying then there would have been a vested right and you would have stayed under the old, you know, the old LDC codes, et cetera, et cetera? I get -- I get that. MR. WALKER: Yeah, the majority -- if you look at the plan, the majority of building three -- I'm October 28, 2021 Page 13 of 33 sorry, four, is -- doesn't have to have the separation because it was there during Hurricane Wilma. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get all that. Excuse me for interrupting, but we have a long agenda. I don't have a time machine, does anybody else. Unfortunately, we can't go back in time. I certainly would change a lot of things in my life if I could. MR. WALKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You know, we are here, we're -- MR. WALKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- dealing with what we're dealing with -- MR. WALKER: I get it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you know, so. MR. WALKER: Just as a suggestion from the county, the solution to this, to get the 59-foot separation, which they could support had we been able to achieve that, the engineers went back and shortened that building up, the first section of it, so it actually stores smaller boats than the first bay, which achieves that 59-foot separation between the two buildings, so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So great. All right. Thank you. That was very good information. I appreciate it. Thanks, thanks for that. Why don't you -- if you're done, plenty of time for rebuttal. We're going to go ahead and open it up for the public, just stick around, take notes, I'm going to take notes and then I'll have you address some of those things. I -- I believe there were some letters or emails of objection here? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, for the record, Ray Bellows, we did receive some additional letters of objection and information that came after the packets were prepared and I believe we did forward some of those to you and we have additional copies if you'd like as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do any of these folks have any counsel here today or anybody like that, any professionals here that need to speak on behalf of opposition, raise your hand? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do that one first and then let the rest of the public -- middle podium, please, sir. Yeah, just so I'm not confused. State your name for the record, please. MR. LOMBARDO: Zach Lombardo here on behalf of the Coon Key Fishing Village condominium association. We also have a planner on Zoom. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're an attorney? MR. LOMBARDO: I'm an attorney, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Welcome, welcome here. MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Why don't you -- obviously you're not going to -- how much time do you need to get through your presentation and do what you need to do? MR. LOMBARDO: What I'd like to do if I can is if I could just have one or two minutes and I'll let the planner present for five to ten minutes or less and then I'll do a brief closing so it's not a huge amount of time, certainly less than the applicant, which is what you said in the beginning. And then procedurally, I understand based on your earlier statement that your ruling will likely be denied, but could -- I submitted a request to be -- for the association to be acknowledged as a party to this proceeding, could you at least deny that for the record if you're going to deny it? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I'm not. What I would do is for your purposes just state for the record that in your opinion, I'm an interested party and why and go ahead and put that on the record. I personally cannot -- I'm not going to entertain any -- any motions of that kind or whatsoever, but I realize you got to make your record, so this is an accommodation because I know you're a professional, you've got a planner, but let's keep it, if we can, to ten minutes, if possible. MR. LOMBARDO: I'll do my best. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I'll time you and do that, but that's really -- yeah, so I'm not going -- go ahead and put your objection on the record that you believe -- or whatever you think you want to do for the fact of getting standing. MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much. October 28, 2021 Page 14 of 33 The Coon Key Association is located on the eastern property line, shares the property line with the marina, and we believe that we would meet the special damages criteria in the state of Florida under the Renaud case for being able to have standing in a court and so we think we should have standing here. We understand the hearing examiner is not going to rule on that, and we're objecting to that for the record purposes. What I wanted to put on the very front end here, because I think this is important for the consideration of all this, the condo association, despite being a residential use next to a commercial use has zero objection to being next to a marina, thinks the marina has been a good neighbor. We have one specific objection -- I take it that C has been withdrawn, so we're not going to address that, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just so you know -- whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Time out. Come on. Let's keep decorum here. We're going to give you plenty of time -- no, no points. This is not a court of law. I'm stopping my clock right now because I want to get this straight, you're going -- I'm speaking to the applicant. Please refrain from interrupting counsel. You'll have time -- MR. CARL: I understand that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no, no. Stop. Stop. Time out. As I said, there is a court reporter, if you're yelling from -- counsel, lawyer, right? MR. CARL: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You wouldn't do that in a courtroom, would you? Maybe. MR. CARL: I'm clarifying -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no, no. Stop. There's clarification on rebuttal. You're -- this is a distraction. He understood everything -- he heard everything you said. He has a right to say what he wants to say, but just -- you can rebut that. I'm taking notes. You take notes, but don't take up his time, please, by interrupting him or me, please. Okay? MR. CARL: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: And sorry, Mr. Dickman, this is Terri, the court reporter. Just so everyone knows, I cannot hear what you are saying unless you are at the microphone, so just so you know, it will not -- it won't be on my record if I can't hear you, if that helps. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, he's going to put some money, big money into the jar. Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: Nice. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry for the interruption. MR. LOMBARDO: No, no problem. If it's not been withdrawn, then we object to variances C and D because these are the variances that impact the eastern property line here. It was said many times in the presentation that this is what we had, we're building back what we had, and if that were true, we would not be here. The -- but what they had was a 35-foot tall building next -- six feet from a property line, Coon Key is also six feet from the property line sitting a little bit less than 35 feet. So if that's what we were talking about rebuilding after a storm, we have no problem. But the easiest way to think about why this variance cannot be granted is because if you denied it, they actually could still build exactly this thing by following the code. The planner's going to show on their dimensional specs if you slid the whole thing over to the west, they can do a 25-foot setback, which is what's required at this 59-foot height, and still have four 59-foot tall buildings -- or I guess it's really three and two of them are one large building, building four and building four addition, in honor of the setback. And then another way to look at this is they've moved the columns in building 4A to make sure there's no separation issue and they have testified they need 50 operational feet to move the forklifts. They could slide building four west, move the columns in in the same way and instead of giving the full setback, they could do 12 feet of setback beyond the six, that's 18 feet, and that would not be a -- you know, this is -- certainly you still need your variance, but now we're talking about what are October 28, 2021 Page 15 of 33 the elements, minimum required elements. So it's pretty clear that they have not met any of these facts and I'm going to go through them one by one after the planner shows his thing and I will be quick, but when we consider them together, they're asking for more height, effectively. I understand this is not a height variance, it's a setback variance, but the practical effect is height. And then they're asking for reduced landscaping. So these are two things that usually don't go together. Usually if we're going to cram two uses next to each other, we try an intensified landscaping border. So what I'd like to do, Glenn Chalder is on the screen here, he's a certified planner. He's been retained by the association to analyze the application. If he could just come on the screen here or if we could start his PowerPoint? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, and if he could start by just real quickly put on his credentials for me. MR. LOMBARDO: Yes. Glenn, could you please provide your credentials? MR. CHALDER: Certainly. My name's Glenn Chalder. I'm a professional planner, AICP. I've been a professional planner for more than 40 years. I think my resume is in the materials submitted by Attorney Lombardo, so they're there for the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask another question: Have you-all seen this latest submittal? MR. LOMBARDO: No, we have not. And I want to object to it being submitted. The reason -- but what was -- what we were told was I thought they were withdrawing it. Apparently I'm confused on what happened over here. We could clarify this on rebuttal. If they're not withdrawing that, we're objecting to the late submission of the SDP because we've not seen it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The presentation that you've prepared is based on what was provided in the packet for this hearing? MR. LOMBARDO: What was publicly noticed for this hearing, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. All right. Let's go forward. Thank you. MR. CHALDER: Mr. Chairman, I think Andrew I believe has my PowerPoint. I can bring it up separately or, Andrew, if you'd like to work through it, whatever works best for you? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's the master, so. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Standby, let me see what I have here. MR. LOMBARDO: We would submit Glenn as an expert witness, whether or not you feel comfortable ruling on that, we're going to put it on the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We'll rule on that, he is an expert. MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you. MR. CHALDER: So, Andrew, I took the screen just to be able to show this in the next part of my presentation. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. Go ahead. MR. CHALDER: Good morning. What I've prepared here for your review is a 3-D model to illustrate the impact in the proposed applications by Walker's Marina. With the application, dimensions and numbers all sound great, but it's really not until you visualize and see the impact, that it's fully understood. This 3-D model was prepared by me on behalf of the Coon Key Fishing Village Association. Illustrations were prepared with Sketch Up, which is a commercially available software program used by millions of people around the world. The county does not have this software in their system, so as a result, I will be able to share that screen in a moment to help with the hearing issues. So first of all, what we're going to do is here is visualize the proposed application in how it affects particular properties. This is the aerial photograph from the county, which was referenced to its location in the real world and that's important because the issue of shadow will come up and you need to know that this has been geo referenced to Google in Florida. Sketch Up allows these photos to be placed on the real world surface and so this is an oblique aerial which now shows that that has taken place. Have the site plan submitted by Gina Green. This is October 28, 2021 Page 16 of 33 not the most recent iteration. I don't believe -- she has changed the roof locations of the buildings, but there may be some column relocation. I'll talk about that a little bit later. But this plan as submitted provided detailed dimensions of the property, so we can put that on the real world as well and then from that information, we can actually create the buildings on the site plan and tie them to the real world. I think it's important for the record to note that this orange area here, this fence I guess I'll call it, is the property line and that's important because it's that property line which provides the connection between Coon Key Pass and Walker Marine. So we were able to model the Coon Key Pass Fishing Villas, this is what they look like in three dimensions. At this point I will be switching software to the 3-D model. And so we have here, again, just review the slides, this is now in an interactive format, this is an aerial photograph from the county. This is the information which was submitted by the applicant. This is what it looks like when it's been tied to the real world. This is what it looks like with the buildings created and the fence, which again is the property line and their relationship between both properties. When we take the aerial photo backdrop, we put Coon Key Pass Fishing Village on it, we can actually go back in town to 2004. So as was testified by Mr. Walker, this is the facility as it existed based on historic surveys and site plan information. Prior to -- I may not have the hurricane names right, but I think it was Wilma, back in 2004 and what we're talking about here today, this is building four and this is what we're referring to as building 4A, which is the addition. Subsequent to that hurricane, the addition came back and as a result for many years between 2005 or '6 and 2017, this was the way that the complex was configured. In 2018, or after the hurricane came through, as Mr. Walker indicated, the buildings were removed and building one remained because it had been built to hurricane standards. Here now in 2021, we find ourself in the situation that building one remains, buildings two and three have been built to 59 feet and the proposal -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second, sir. MR. CHALDER: Certainly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Counsel, what part of this are you all objecting to; is it the building that is -- MR. LOMBARDO: We're objecting to the side setback variance for building four and 4A. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So let's -- let's focus on four and 4A, if we can. MR. CHALDER: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because we're running out of time, and I think that that's going to zero in on what you guys -- MR. LOMBARDO: The proposal -- MR. CHALDER: Your timing was excellent. This is now the proposal by Walker Marine and the proposed building four in its configuration. And, again, 59 feet is just a number until we get a chance to look at what this means. So from the driveway, this is the way building four existed prior to the most recent hurricane, this is what it looks like today with a larger building in the background, but this is what it would look like with their proposed building number four and 4A proposed by the applicant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How do you refer to your building that's closest? I see three of them. Do you have a reference number like one, two, three or... MR. LOMBARDO: Call it building one for record purposes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Number one. Okay. Because I'm going to call it closest; right? MR. CHALDER: I think technically, Mr. Examiner, the building -- let's call it building three, let's go plot wise as Attorney Lombardo indicated. Building one is the closest to the entry from the cul-de-sac. Building two is to the left of this, and this building over here is building three, we'll say for the record, and building three is physically up closest to the property line. October 28, 2021 Page 17 of 33 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How close is that? MR. CHALDER: The -- MR. LOMBARDO: Building number three is six feet from the property line. MR. CHALDER: Actually, if I can correct you on that. The survey that Coon Key Pass has indicates -- if you bear with me just for a -- backing up here. Distance between this column and the property line is 11 feet, according to the survey of Coon Key Pass. When the condominiums were built -- apologize for this, again, let me go back. When the condominiums were built, this back porch of the building, the condominiums were 24 feet deep and there was an eight-foot porch on the back. Those porches have been enclosed, so on the survey those are actually closer to the property line than the -- MR. LOMBARDO: Just to interrupt you really quick. Could you please show the alternative designs that could have been used to meet the requirements for -- MR. CHALDER: Yeah, just -- yeah, thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just so you know, I am getting -- I'm pretty quick with conceptualizing what your objections are and -- MR. CHALDER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- you know, as far as the adverse effects, why don't you get to those. MR. CHALDER: Absolutely. MR. LOMBARDO: Can you show the shadows? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I saw the shadows, I know the shadows are going to be there. MR. LOMBARDO: Just skip to the -- the -- the rebuild, the two rebuilds that wouldn't have created the problem. MR. CHALDER: Yeah. I think there's a couple of situations here, for the record. This green area here on this property line is in fact a 25-foot setback. Had Mr. Walker maintained the proposed separating distances between the two buildings, but located them all further to the west, we would have a complying 25-foot setback and landscaped buffer in this area. At the present time, most of the vegetation which comprises any buffer out there is actually on the property of Coon Key Pass, so had there been some preliminary planning originally, buildings could have been rebuilt without the need for the variances which are being requested and are of concern to the association. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. One minute. Counselor -- all right. If -- assuming that they have redone this building and are meeting the setbacks and, you know, it's -- it's -- is that still -- would that satisfy -- hypothetically if that's happening, if this particular situation is happening, does that satisfy your client's objections? MR. LOMBARDO: Absolutely. If they meet the 25-foot setback, we have no problem with them -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We don't have the landscape deviations and we don't have the -- MR. LOMBARDO: No. The code provides sufficient protection for the association -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'm just narrowing in on what the issue is. MR. LOMBARDO: Yeah, that's the issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I hope you understand. MR. LOMBARDO: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Anything else? MR. CHALDER: There's some additional clarification. There's also a scenario where the applicants have indicated on page 39 of the agenda packet that all they need between the storage buildings is 50 feet. Page 39, paragraph five, line four indicates that 50 feet between the storage buildings is a minimum for maneuverability of the forklift to launch the boats into the water; had in fact that 50-foot separation distance from the forklift been provided from existing building three, as October 28, 2021 Page 18 of 33 Zack indicated -- as Attorney Lombardo indicated earlier, it would not be the 25-foot buffer, but could provide estimated 19 feet buffer and provide an additional separation distance and provide -- MR. LOMBARDO: Go to the next one, please. MR. CHALDERS: The other option is that you'll notice from the structural drawings located in the packet that the boats are staggered or on a diagonal in the storage bins and had the buildings built -- been built on a diagonal basis with the bays, there would actually be plenty of backup distance for the forklift to be able to move boats in and out and the buffer could also be provided. I think it's the association's position that in building building four to the height that it existed before is a nonconforming right that they're entitled to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. LOMBARDO: All right. Thank you, Glenn. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, Glenn, you did a great job. Thank you for doing that. If -- Mr. Counselor, if you want to -- MR. LOMBARDO: One minute? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If that, sure. MR. LOMBARDO: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One minute and then call it a day and then we'll go to the public hearing and then let the applicant rebut some of that stuff, but thank you. That crystalizes for me your objection, totally understand. Do what you got to do to put on the record. MR. LOMBARDO: The -- in the Collier County Code in the Florida case law, variances cannot be granted if it's a self-created hardship. I think we've clearly shown with the drawings, it was absolutely self-created in multiple directions had they -- and they had a unique opportunity here; in 2017, the whole site was blank. They could have come back to the county and said here's what we want to do, instead they just built buildings two and three and sort of forced everyone's hand into this variance hearing. They -- alternatively, though, they could also do a diagonal building and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I heard that part. MR. LOMBARDO: Okay. So they had self-created. Second thing, in the applications packet, the only real reason given here was financial hardship; that's not -- that is specifically not a consideration in the -- the county's code in Florida case law, there's a lot on the ability -- there's the Ponce Inlet saga where basically they couldn't build what they wanted to build and at the end of the day after ten years of litigation, it was concluded that's correct, you can't build -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand all the law and variances, trust me. MR. LOMBARDO: So in which case, for the record, it's our position that we provided evidence that for every single element on the variance, they have not met the minimum standards; and therefore, this variance should be denied. And to the extent that it is granted, it should be narrowed because as we've shown, it could actually scoot over and not get up on -- the one thing Glenn did not say but is shown from their site plan is they do have the ability, in case they say this on rebuttal, to move the piers because they have preapproved piers that they haven't built yet further west. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is your expert's presentation in the record? MR. LOMBARDO: Our PowerPoint is. The planometrics spinning thing is not, so I don't know if we can get that exported. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's all right. So I'll ask if you guys could give me that copy of whatever you have, I think I can figure out -- but yeah. Thank you. MR. LOMBARDO: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good presentation. All right. Who else do we have to speak today? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Examiner, we have two speakers present with us. First one is Patrick Woods, followed by Jennifer Vandermark. MR. WOODS: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Woods. I've been a resident of Collier October 28, 2021 Page 19 of 33 County for 45 years and recently retired after 30 years of professional service to this community as assistant superintendent of district operations for Collier County public schools. During that time I had the opportunity to oversee many large scale planning construction projects and a critical component during the conceptual design, planning and implementation states of each of these projects was the impact to the neighbors and the community as a whole. We actively engaged with and included them in the process -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you live here at the -- MR. WOODS: Yes, sir, I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. WOODS: Sorry, I should have stated that earlier. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wanted to make sure. All right. MR. WOODS: I continue to serve this community as a member of the Rotary Club of Naples and as a Rotarian for over 25 years, I continue to endeavor to live by the four-way test of the things I think, say or do and expect no less of others: Is it the truth; is it fair to all concerned; will it build goodwill and better friendships; and will it be beneficial to all concerned. So as I just stated, I'm also a unit owner in Coon Key Pass Fishing Village which is immediately adjacent to Mr. Walker's Coon Key Marina. I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Which building are you in? MR. WOODS: I am in the building that was just discussed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Number three. MR. WOODS: Number three. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We're going to call it number three. MR. WOODS: Okay. We'll go with three. I don't believe the applicant's variance and deviation request gave consideration to its neighbors or the committee of Goodland; nor do I think it's fair to all concerned would build goodwill or be beneficial to all concerned. Some additional concerns for your consideration are as follows: The increased height would be inconsistent with the fishing village character of the community. And in case you are not aware, Goodland's motto is quietly resisting change since 1949. The risk to personal property and safety is a concern given the proximity of the proposed building. The 35-foot building that was previously located where the 59-foot building is being proposed fell onto our property and dumped boats into the courtyard during the hurricane that was referenced earlier. A taller building without an increase in the setback could crush the building that my unit is in and granting this request will also have a negative impact on my property values. Optimally, the new building, regardless of the height, would be less conspicuous. One way to achieve this is with the appropriate landscape buffering for which they're requesting a deviation. I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns this morning pertaining to Mr. Walker's Coon Key Marina variance and deviation request. Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's great. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Hearing Examiner, our last speaker is going to be Jennifer Vandermark. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All yours. Welcome. MS. VANDERMARK: Thank you very much. I'm going to make this super short. I appreciate all the time you gave to the planner because we spent a lot of time on that. I'm Jennifer Vandermark. I live in unit number 38 in building number three, and our main concern here is the safety. I heard two comments today that everything else has already been covered. One of their presenters said that the buildings would be safe up to the same hurricane size that hit, Dorian, that was a little concerning. I know that those buildings have fallen onto our property twice, one during ilma (sic) -- one during Wilma and one during Irma; and then we heard Mr. Walker say that the site was a disaster of epic proportions after Irma. Our concern is the safety of the buildings and we enjoy having the marina next door. We support October 28, 2021 Page 20 of 33 the marina and we would like them to have slips and increase their business and have a profitable business; we just want to make sure that the design is done with the safety of the building on the adjacent east side. That's it. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anybody else? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: That concludes our registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. Counselor, you're going to have your time now. Come on up and I have a couple quick questions. So I am going to -- I am going to approach this as if the variant -- the variance is as advertised, that's the only fair to way to do this. I mean, the public -- I get it, you're trying to solve problems at the last minute. Solving problems is what it's all about. I'm happy about that, that problem has been solved. Wonderful. But I'm going to go forward with what I know and what the public knows because in fairness, you understand due process whatnot, but I think everything has been pretty much crystalized. What I heard and perhaps you could address so we don't have a lot of redundancy is, you know, the separation between, and I'm going to call it building number three for my purposes, which I guess lines up with your building number four; is that right? Is that so we're like four, three, four, three? And then the landscape separation, angle of your boats is -- I don't even know if that's feasible or not, the distance between the two buildings, whether that's operational or not and I think it's pretty easy to answer this question, but it's a legitimate question that everything's going to be built to standards because, you know, chances are hurricanes are going to hit again at some point, God forbid, and, you know, the new standards are the new standards and they're for the public health and safety, so can you address those, sir? And, Counselor, you want to -- you were speaking in the audience, so I want give you a chance to -- to say what you were saying in the audience on the record. MR. CARL: We agree as submitted and so to keep it simple. I was just trying to clarify that when he said that we had withdrawn, no, I think I agree with what the examiner just said, that we -- we -- it's submitted as it's submitted. Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. CARL: We would like to address your question, although, could you rephrase it just one more time? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sure. Whoever's best to answer this -- well, I'm just going to tell you what I heard and it's my version of cross-examination, so that this is easier and counselor for your neighbors did a great job, but I heard concerns obviously about what you are saying has been resolved, but I think you need to address it and state for the record how you have now addressed the separation issue between their building number three and property line which has triggered the need for the deviation on the landscaping and you may even want to address the angle -- you know, storing boats angley -- as an angle, I think maybe the owner can address that. But please just address for the record for the benefit of your neighbors about where this application stands right now. MR. WALKER: Well, first of all, there's a section of the building that -- the new building proposed that is angled, that's the only way you can get the bigger boats in; mainly because -- and once again, I think it's important to point out here, as far as setbacks and neighbors are concerned. When we put this application in which was for all the buildings at once, this was -- this plan was submitted four years ago for all the buildings. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. I understand that. MR. WALKER: Okay. But they -- they were in the -- per the county, they were -- for the hurricane relief, they were in the exact same footprint of the previous buildings. So to move those, if we move those, the whole site would have been rendered done and we'd have to start -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Talking about building number four. I'm going to cut you off, and it's not to be impolite, we've got a big agenda here, but I'm really trying to focus in on -- this is rebuttal, so I don't want you to rehash anything you've already said, but I want to address, for my purposes to, because I need to like understand this. So have you -- have you -- how have you met October 28, 2021 Page 21 of 33 that requirement of the separation that causes this variance to no longer be necessary and the deviations associated no longer be necessary? Does your expert want to address that? MR. WALKER: I mean, we reengineered the building and we moved the columns from 50 to 59 feet to gain the separation that the county requires for those buildings. MR. CARL: Let Gina -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, Gina, you want -- you want to like talk to whatever you supplied to the county and how you solved that problem for the neighbors? MS. GREEN: Well, I think the first thing that everybody needs to understand here is let's take the land -- let's take them one at a time. So let's address the landscape buffer and the east property line. This site has existed with the old buildings at 35 feet high, which is still taller than the condo building next door with a -- I think there's an areca hedge, and I would have to ask -- there's an areca hedge existing there that has remained there and that has been the landscape buffer between these two projects since the beginning. So that is not going away, that's being maintained. The only reason there's a deviation is is that because this is a six-foot setback, you know, there wasn't a landscape buffer required there before back in the -- back when it was originally built, now there is; we're just levering the existing buffer between these two properties that has existed forever. We're not taking this away, we're leaving it exactly as it was; and the only reason we had to ask for a deviation is because now today's codes require 15 feet, so we asked the reduction, but we're still leaving the plantings there just as they were and enhancing them to what needs to be to brought them up, so that they're healthy, they're going to grow like they need to and provide the buffer between the two just as they have all along. So that's how I'm going to address the requiring of the deviation of the buffer between the two. We're not taking away -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you guys going to be 25 feet away from the property line? MS. GREEN: No, we cannot -- no, to put the building back to where it was for hurricane relief, it's -- six foot was the setback, we're maintaining our six feet. And the six feet there, when they talk about trying to shift that building -- let's address the next issue then of them trying to shift the buildings in and telling us we can move them closer to buildings three and two, that creates site constraints that cannot be achieved. For one, it affects the maneuverability of the forklifts because not all the boats in there are angled, so, you know, this forklift has to be able to operate both on a 90-degree and on the angle. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's the separation from the two buildings? MS. GREEN: The closest between right now between the larger part of four and that other maintains a 50-foot -- right now it's 50 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: To operate forklifts -- MS. GREEN: To operate -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- put boats in, take them out? MS. GREEN: Yes, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- 50 feet? MS. GREEN: Yes, 50 feet what's there -- what was there previous was 50 feet and what we want to maintain is -- because we can't go less than that, so trying to shift that building over, it also creates other problems with this site. When you start pulling that building in, it messes with the parking lot and the access into this whole area for bringing boats in and we can't shift that any closer to the ship store because we have a septic system there, so we have site constraints that don't allow us to just move and replace things that have been there forever. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You didn't talk about septic systems. MS. GREEN: Well, but I'm just saying where they're -- that's only coming up because where they're talking of pulling that building in to meet the 25-foot setback -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I guess I'm totally confused here and this is frankly your fault from submitting things at the last minute because -- whoa, whoa. Don't interrupt me. Because I want to really state this for the record. That it's difficult for me, because I'm trying to October 28, 2021 Page 22 of 33 remain a neutral decision-maker. I don't -- you know, I don't have an office here in this building. I don't sit in on your meetings. I do that on purpose because it's only fair for me to sit here as a decision-maker and I'm not privy to the discussions you've had in the last six hours, 24 hours -- stop, you know. And so I'm understanding from what your lawyer is saying is that the last variance is not needed anymore -- that's not what you said? MS. GREEN: No. No. MR. CARL: Number three. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The third -- the third -- okay. Hold on. MR. CARL: The second to last. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The proposed reconstruction of boat storage number four to allow 50 feet. Okay. MR. CARL: The only one that was denied -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you have 50 feet between the buildings, but you -- on the east side, you're not -- you still need that variance, which is -- MS. GREEN: We still need setback variance from the fishing village, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Which is what they're objecting to, you understand that? MS. GREEN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm just saying, that's what I understood your neighbors are objecting to. MR. CARL: Yeah, I could clarify one point. So they're saying -- and now that I've seen it very clearly in their presentation, what they're saying is look, just take that building and move it 25 feet instead of six, so that's 19 feet closer, squeezed against -- reducing the buffer, which is currently 50 feet by 19 feet, which would make that buffer 40 -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: To be compliant -- it would be compliant with the new code. MR. CARL: Right. Well -- no, it would not be compliant. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait, wait, wait. MR. CARL: No, no, no, it wouldn't be because -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is why everything needs to be submitted in a timely manner. MS. GREEN: Can I -- can I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We can continue this. MS. GREEN: No, no, no, no. I want to make one thing because I think that the opposing counsel has confused the situation. The plan that you're seeing -- well, that's -- I wanted to explain. You're making it sound like I submitted in a plan last minute that changed everything and I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Was there -- when was the submittal? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The plan that was resubmitted was a redesign of the one building where the column was moved. MS. GREEN: The col -- it was an interior column that did not change the footprint of the building. The footprint of the building has never changed. All we did was shift a structural column within the building to make the 59-foot setback. We did not change anything about the roof line, the placement or anything, so them trying to say that we submitted something in last minute, it did not change the footprints of anything on the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I said that. MS. GREEN: Right. And that was just merely from a conversation that we had. You know, I can make the same objection here with opposing counsel that we just got their objection two days ago with the -- with the objections from the other people, we just got them, so you know, they're saying we submit things last minute, we just got them two days ago, so we're having to address those items. MR. CARL: And to -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm going to cut to the chase here because I understand and October 28, 2021 Page 23 of 33 just relax, let's everybody relax, take a deep breath here. All right? We're all -- I'm just trying to get to the -- without upsetting the court reporter because I'm terrified of that because I don't want to lose the money, I want to hear from your client, the operator, right, the owner because you seem to know how all this stuff works. So the separation from the building, 50 -- the two buildings where you have dry storage, right, so you absolutely need that -- that's the minimum you need to operate your dry storage? I need you to put that on the record that you can -- you cannot reduce that at all and operate your storage; is that a correct statement or not? MR. WALKER: That is a correct statement and it's consistent with how the property was developed from the beginning. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, that's not my point. MR. WALKER: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just want to know like operationally, safely, you can't reduce that and -- MR. WALKER: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- accommodate to get that other variance off the books? MR. WALKER: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. WALKER: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for answering my questions so directly and so concisely and not interrupting me, appreciate that. MR. CARL: Just to make the point that we have always, throughout this four-year process, we have been trying to accommodate everybody that we can and any reasonable accommodation and looked at all kinds of different possibilities and this is the best way to do it and this is the minimum that we'll need as far as the variances are concerned. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just out of curiosity, have you met with your neighbors privately and talked to them about their issues and what they -- so you knew -- MR. CARL: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- coming in here, you -- it's not an ambush, you knew what they -- MR. CARL: A little bit because when we met with them -- and believe me, it wasn't -- it was -- we did meet with them, as the first -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: From lawyer to lawyer, we're all -- MR. CARL: Yeah, the first thing we did -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We're all colleagues -- MR. CARL: We have a good relationship, I think. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN -- here. MR. CARL: We met, we went over everything and made several attempts to -- and much of what they had presented at that time we actually brought into the -- and -- and -- and made every accommodation we could, but -- but they -- they -- we really -- each time that we tried, you know, what ended up happening is we just got opposition, they just didn't want to talk about anything at the end of it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. All right. Time out. I just wanted to know for my own purposes because I like it when neighbors try to get together. I think it's good to have lawyers because lawyers understand what needs to be changed, what doesn't. No offense to you. I understand as an engineer you know what's going on as well, but this cuts to the chase. I always just like to hear that there was an effort. I understand that people are, at the end of the day, may not agree on everything, so here we go. Let's wrap it up. MR. WALKER: Just as a point of interest in terms of meeting with the neighbors, we had some extensive meetings with them regarding this plan, so it's a not cloak and dagger situation. And frankly, I offered to, you know, change facades, dress it up, doll it up, increase landscaping, help repave their entry road and do some other things on their property to assist them to try to make this October 28, 2021 Page 24 of 33 all work for everybody in the neighborhood and I don't disagree with the folks that live there. We have to be neighborly. You know, there was a couple of misstatements regarding the hurricane, not a single boat was on their property. And the one building in question was only leaning at 45 degrees, so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's kind of irrelevant. I know what they're talking about -- MR. WALKER: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- so it's fine. Okay. I think we're fine here. I have lots of information, that's great. I'm just going to ask the county a couple questions. So I think what we're saying is that it was just a column change that was submitted which -- which has eliminated the necessity for the variance listed here as C on the 59 feet; right? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. The -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Or that's what they're saying and you said you still need to look at it, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, so in my opinion is that we should address the variance as requested and if it turns out that variance is denied, they can use that plan to meet the county requirements anyways. MS. GREEN: The SDP process. MR. BELLOWS: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Everybody did a wonderful job. Thank you for being here. Don't take offense if I interrupt you, I'm trying to get to the point and you guys all did a great job. I understand everything you're saying. I understand working waterfronts. I understand all of that stuff and I have both applications in front of me. There will be separate decisions on those because I have to do it that way. I understand the interplay between the two of them and that -- these will be rendered within 30 days. Okay? Appreciate it. Maybe you'll continue to work with your neighbors a little bit more and satisfy some of their concerns. Thank you. Do we need to take a break at all? Anybody? Court reporter? We just knocked out two of them. THE COURT REPORTER: If we could just take a quick bathroom break, like a minute, I'll be quick. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're going to take a minute and that will take us to maybe like five minutes 'til 11. (Pause in proceedings.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This hearing examiner meeting is now reconvened. We are on Item Number 3C. Let's get started. Hi. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. This is for petition number DR TL20210001068. Petitioner Yaima and Roylan Reyes request approval of the site plan with deviations pursuant to LDC section 4.02.26.E, seek two deviations. One deviation from LDC section 4.02.26b.16.a, which requires parking lots to be located to the sides or rear of the buildings to allow for an extension of the current parking lot to the front of the building and playground to the back. One deviation from LDC section 4.02.26b.8.a, which requires a minimum five-foot-wide planting strip with shrubs and trees to provided along the perimeter of any lot line for a nonresidential use adjacent to lands outside the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District, GGPOD, and zoned for single family residential dwellings to allow for no planting strip along a portion of the northern property line where an existing fence and playground area have been permitted and constructed for redevelopment of a child care, daycare center consisting of 0.76 acres. The project is compliant with the G and P and LDC, therefore staff recommends approval. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out on October 8th. The hearing advertisements, property signage were constructed at the property by county staff on October 13th, which is included in attachment E of back of materials. October 28, 2021 Page 25 of 33 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. Quick question here. I mean, these are -- I get it, two deviations, parking and planting. I'm reviewing the deviations, I'm not approving the site plan; correct? Or no? MR. FINN: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Correct, that's what I thought. Okay. Because -- I mean, I'm just saying the staff report sort of reads as though -- I mean, this is rhetorical a little bit, but the site plan reads a little bit like -- and the last one did too, approval of the site plan with deviations, so the site plan is administrative; right? MR. FINN: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so in order to get the site plan approved, you need these deviations, so the only reason I'm here is for the deviations. Making that clear for everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Nice presentation. How are you, sir? MR. BONAS: Very good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nice to see. MR. BONAS: If I may get started, my name is Patrick Bonas. I'm a certified planner with RW Engineering. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the Here We Grow petition. It's a request for deviations from the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District. Touching upon the site plan approval, I think staff is referring to the site plan with deviation process. This is a new process because of this overlay and they've adopted pretty much the same process as the site plan with deviations. So next slide, please. Joining me here today, I've got the applicants Yaima and Roylan Reyes, who are sitting in the audience over there; they're the applicants, they're the property owners, they're the daycare operators and owners also. Next slide, please. Property is located at 5269 and 5275 Golden Gate Parkway; and as you can see from this property, it is comprised of two parcels. The eastern parcel is where the existing daycare is. To the front of the daycare we have parking. To the rear we have an existing playground that is fenced in and that was legally approved and constructed per county permits. What the applicant would like to do when they started this process in 2019 is to prove -- improve their site to extend the existing parking lot to get more parking and extend the playground in the rear and also make some storm water improvements to improve drainage conditions. And I'll give you a little context and I'll try to make it quick. They started in 2019 and when they first came in for their SDP preapplication they were told that with the existing overlay, your use, which is a daycare use, requires a conditional use application and approval. That's when they called us and we came in to help them. We met with staff, talked with staff. Staff has been extremely helpful throughout this entire process. What they informed us is we are in the process of updating the overlay and as part of those updates, that use will be a use by right, permitted use. So as you know, conditional uses take a lot of time, they're expensive. Our client decided to wait for the overlay to be approved, that takes a while. Language has to be drafted, vetted, goes to public hearing. So once that was done, when the draft came out, what staff was trying to do was activate the public realm, create storefronts close to the street and also push the buildings up front and as a result the requirement was to put your parking to the rear of the buildings or to the side and for all intents and purposes, that was a major problem for us because it just doesn't make sense for us to extend parking but put it towards the rear on the other parcel and put the playground to the front; it wouldn't be functional, wouldn't be logical, it also wouldn't be a safe condition for children to be placed closer to a busy roadway. So if you could go to the next slide. As mentioned by staff, subject property, 76 acres, current zoning, RMS12 and the overlay and we're really asking for two deviations from that overlay. Next slide, please. Deviation -- the first deviation is requesting to allow the parking to be built in a contiguous configuration to the front of the property and to allow for the extended playground to remain in the rear. And then the second deviation is associated with new language in the overlay October 28, 2021 Page 26 of 33 and there's a requirement now for a five-foot buffer to the rear of the property. If we can move forward to the site plan. So there's an existing fence around that playground, which is to the right of this image, and it goes to the property boundary. There's no space for that buffer as mentioned. That fence was legally approved and built and it's an existing condition. One of the things that we discussed with staff is to take those plantings that would have been in that segment and just plant them elsewhere on the property and then enhance the remainder of the property through more plantings. So that pretty much summarizes our request. We've been in process since 2019 for something relatively simple, but we understand that rules and regulations were changing. We thank staff for working with us, for addressing the ability to ask for a deviation to this new overlay and I think we've met the criteria for our deviation request and that we are consistent with the LDC and comp plan and would respectfully respect -- request approval for our deviations. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do we have any public speakers here today? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir, not for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not for this item. Okay. County, anything else to add to this? MR. FINN: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So this is an expansion of a business. I saw you had an unapproved lot that apparently, you know, there was some parking on it and then you're expanding to that direction, you got to improve the lot, got to put the playground in the back, obviously you don't want kids -- little kids playing in the front, that's understandable. I'm sure you have some other state codes that you have to meet with child care facilities and whatnot, so I understand this. This is very straightforward. I'll take a look at it and I appreciate your time and working with staff. They try to do their best to, you know, do this type of thing and get these things through as rapidly as possible, bring them to me, that way I can see them. You did a great job presenting this. Nice to meet you. And I don't really have any questions. I understand this 100 percent and I'll get a decision out as quickly as possible. MR. BONAS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Cool. Thanks. All right. We're going to Item 3-D on the agenda. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I will be presenting the PDI petition that's insubstantial change to the PUD zoning district and the petition number is PL2020 or 2000 -- 2000002125. It's the Germain Toyota planned unit development. It's currently operating under ordinance number 08-60 and they are asking for a deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4 and that is to increase the number of on-premise signs from one sign to two signs with the additional sign not to exceed 150 feet in square feet. The subject property's approximately 13 acres and is located at 13327 and 13315 Tamiami Trail North and staff is recommending approval of these sign deviations. And just to note, that we have met all the advertising and notice requirements. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Appreciate you putting that on the record. Thank you. How are you, sir, the applicant? MR. KRAMER: Well, thanks for asking. My name is Brian Kramer, and I'm representing Germain Toyota of Naples. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In what capacity? MR. KRAMER: General manager. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Manager, great. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Hearing Examiner, he has not been sworn in yet, can we have the court reporter swear him in? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Swear this -- raise your right hand. Somebody from the world out there is going to swear you in. October 28, 2021 Page 27 of 33 (Mr. Kramer was sworn.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the correct answer, yes. Good. MR. KRAMER: So we had a -- it used to say, the big lot or big lot on the exterior of the building; during Irma, there was -- we sustained some damage to that, it looked unsightly, so when we were painting the building, we removed that sign and wish to replace it with a more favorable, better aesthetic sign that's aligned, you know, with Toyota's communication brand guidelines. And that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. See when you get lawyers and other people involved, it creates a mess. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Hearing Examiner, we do have a visual here. Just bear with me a moment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thanks. Love to make those jokes. MR. KRAMER: And just for clarification, I -- we have not received any opposition to this petition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir, no public speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Okay. So let me just take a look at these real quick. One of the interesting things about these franchise, I guess, franchises where you're kind of tied to Toyota standards just like any other -- I understand that, so they kind of say, here's how your sign has to look and if doesn't meet code, you have to come in and work with whoever the local locality is to get it approved. I understand. MR. KRAMER: Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This looks pretty straightforward too, honestly. I don't have any further questions for you. If you have any -- you have anything else you want to say? MR. KRAMER: Very concise. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for sticking around and I will make a decision within 30 days. MR. KRAMER: Thank you. I appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, good luck to you. MR. KRAMER: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: With your business. Okay. We're going to 3E on the agenda. MR. KELLY: Morning, Mr. Dickman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How are you, sir? MR. KELLY: Not bad. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. KELLY: For the record, John Kelly, senior planner. Before you are going to be two companion items, it's 3E and 3F. The first being a variance and the second being a BDE. Again, these are companion items, so I believe the applicant's agent will be speaking of them together. I'm going to go over the criteria individually since you will be needing to provide individual decisions. With respect to the variance, it's VAPL20210000098. The petitioner's requesting a variance from Section 5.03.06.E.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required side repairing and setback for dock facilities on lots with water frontage of 60 feet or greater from 15 feet to five feet for a lot with 113 plus or minus feet of water frontage for the property located at 219 Malibu Cove within the South Port on the Bay Unit One subdivision. Notice and hearing requirements are contained in LDC section 10.03.06.F2. The required agent letter was sent out by the applicant on July 13, 2021. The public hearing sign was posted by me on October 11 and the property owner notice for this hearing in the newspaper ad for both items ran on October 13th, 2021. That may actually be October 18th, it was within your required guideline. The required criteria for review are contained in LDC Section 9.04.03 A through H and the county found the application to be consistent with the LDC and the growth management plan. So with respect to again to the variance, staff recommends that you approve petition October 28, 2021 Page 28 of 33 VA202010000098 to reduce the minimum east side yard repairing and setback from 15 feet to five feet thereby allowing for the construction of the dock facility, which is described further in attachment A. And with that, we'll go on to the subject dock facility. The notice and hearing requirements for a boat dock extension are contained in 10.03.06 H and the property -- as I said, the property owner notification letter and the newspaper ad, it is October 18th that they ran. And the public hearing sign was again posted by me on October 11th. The boat dock extension review criteria are within Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, the applicant satisfied five of five; and of the secondary criteria, the petition satisfies five of six, with the sixth criteria being the Manatee protection plan, which is not applicable for single family dock facilities. I have only received one contact from the public in regards to this petition. It was an email that was received Monday. And if you don't mind, I'll read it into the record quickly. And it states: John, thanks for sending me the information, it was very helpful. As you may recall, we own the lot immediately west of this lot. After reviewing the drawings, we have no objections to the petitioner's request for a variance. It appears to us that they have a very thoughtful design for their dock; particularly given the unique constraints posed by the contours of the shoreline. And that's signed Pat and Sue Caulley. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do I have that email? MR. KELLY: I just received it, like I said, on Monday. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. If you can provide me a copy of that. MS. KELLER: Okay. And lastly, there is a unique situation here. The lot has been raised. There is a building permit for a three-story residence that is under review. It's PRBD2021-1048005; and for that reason we do have conditions of approval and those conditions are that, one, you must approve the variance petition for this boat dock extension to be valid. Two, the -- I guess there's a restoration planning agreement with the county that must be satisfied prior to issue -- issuance of its certificate of completion for the boat dock facility. Also, three, that the building permit for the residence must be issued for the subject property prior to issuance for a permit for a dock. And finally, that a certificate of occupancy must be issued for the principal structure prior to issuance of the CO for the boat dock facility. The applicant does have the property owners here to speak to what transpired bringing us to that situation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's address that for, you know, the elephant in the room here. So we know that -- you know, so in other words, you're saying the property's been raised, meaning that there's no structures on it; correct? MS. KELLER: Correct. At the time the application came forward -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There was. MS. KELLER: -- there was. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. So the point of all of that is that the -- these dock applications or extensions and so forth, they're meant to be -- they're really boat driven; I mean, in other words, like I have a boat, I need this in order for my boat, et cetera, so it's not to have someone to buy vacant property, improve it with a dock in order to market it as a, you know, a -- you know, they could do that probably, I don't know if they can or can't, if they meet the -- if they're not asking for a variance, but the point being is that, you know, coming here and asking to go above and beyond what the code says requires someone to live there and say, hey, my situation's different than everybody else, so I need this variance. So that's the general concept. How do we get around that, you know, I -- as a lawyer, I like the law, I like to follow the law; however, I understand what you're saying is that this isn't one of those situations, it's really a situation of timing where -- and I'll get into this, I guess, with the applicant, but it sounds as though the county is testifying that they have received application for the upland structure to be built and that seems to be moving in that direction, it's not stalled or anything like that; correct? October 28, 2021 Page 29 of 33 MR. KELLY: You're right on target, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, there you go. And also I just -- going forward, and I appreciate you doing that, reading someone's email, but why don't you just provide me the email because I don't want the county to have to be put in a position to having to read everybody's emails that are sent in because you have -- we have virtual, we have in person and if they submit emails and you want to give them to me, I'll read them, but it's their obligation to be here in one fashion or another. That's just extra work that you have to do, but I appreciate you doing it, but going forward, I don't want -- you know, someone could send you a five-page email and then, you know, that -- that gets a little tricky after a while, so -- but thanks. I'm sure they appreciate you doing that, but you don't have to do it in the future. Nice presentation. Thank you for all that. MS. KELLER: You're welcome, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Okay. We got the applicant here. Thanks, John. MR. ROGERS: Morning. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How are you? MR. ROGERS: Doing well, thank you. For the record, Jeff Rogers with Terrell, Hall & Associates, here representing the applicant. So we are here to discuss the proposed boat dock extension as well as the companion variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So we're dealing -- we're going to do one presentation, but we're dealing with two separate applications. Okay? MR. ROGERS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good. MR. ROGERS: Basically, what's the elephant in the room has been brought up, I would like to maybe address that first and foremost. The applicant is here. He does currently own a home in this subdivision, part of the subdivision. It's a -- there's communities within this division, so he owns a home right now in there. It's not on the water. He does own a boat slip elsewhere where he keeps the boat currently. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me -- let's deal -- let's deal with that issue right off the bat. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can we bring the owner up and just have the owner -- we've got the county saying they've got the application, but I would just like to have for my purposes have the owner state on the record -- go on up, sir. And just state that I intend to -- I have a boat. I intend to build a house; if that's true, you go ahead and say it. Have you been sworn in? Okay. Yeah, you think so? You raised your right hand, you said yes? Okay. Well, we need to swear him in, Court Reporter. (The applicant was sworn in.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. So you understand the issue here? Okay. HOMEOWNER: -- own a home there in Barefoot Beach, my boat's at a different place. I bought this property about a year ago. The idea was to move into this property, so I homesteaded it. Well, of course it needed more than paint and everything, it needed an excavator and a wrecking ball, so down it came. So we have a plan, we have a permit in process and it's gone through three phrases, I guess. It's gone through the application fee, the zoning's approved, the theme is approved and there's two comments on the residential approval. One is -- one thing is labeled as impact glass, one isn't, it's just very minor things. So it's our full intention to live there and bring our boat there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you are -- okay. So you've homesteaded this already? HOMEOWNER: Yes, yes, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you expect -- I mean, obviously you need county approval, but assuming you get county approval, how quickly do you think you're going to get October 28, 2021 Page 30 of 33 started building your residence there? HOMEOWNER: As soon as they have the approval, they drive pilings. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good enough. HOMEOWNER: In the next week or two. MR. DICKMAN: Good enough for me. I just wanted to get that on the record. HOMEOWNER: No, I appreciate that and like I said, I have the boat, that's where the dock fits. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What size boat do you have? HOMEOWNER: 40 foot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 40-foot boat. Okay. Great. HOMEOWNER: And I'm -- we're -- the neighbors, we're all collaborative on this. The fellow next to me, the encroachment on the variance, he's right next to me. We're all fine. We've all worked this out, so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, the email came in, so that's great. HOMEOWNER: I apologize for the snafu with the building thing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, that's why I'm taking care of it right now so -- HOMEOWNER: Anything else you require? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. Let's hear from Jeff. He's going to knock this one out of the park; right, Jeff? MR. ROGERS: Basically, yes, so we've gone through the process, worked with staff. The request in front of you today is to encroach on the required side yard setback of 15 feet to allow for a five-foot setback on the southeast side of the proposed docking facility. If you go to the next slide, I can show you the proposed dock real quickly. No problem. Might be -- anywho, so the proposed dock is accommodation for a 43-foot boat. The vessel is a 40-foot as advertised, but LOA, it's 43, which is why we show a 43-foot boat on all of our exhibits as well as what was put into the application. There is an existing dock there and just real quickly, there is conservation easement along the shoreline which limits what we can do in regards to accesses and size of access walkway. One of the things we did here was utilize the existing walkway that's through the mangrove fringe currently to reduce impacts to that conservation easement reducing plantings and things like that moving forward. Go to the next slide, please. This is the proposed dock on the subject waterway with the repairing lines shown to the center of the waterway, which everybody has equal rights to. We do encroach on the, like I said, the southeast side with that neighbor and he is on board and has signed letters of no objection. Real quickly the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that an email or do you have a letter? MR. ROGERS: Should have a letter in your package. It was part of my submittal. The state and federal government, just real quickly, requires 25-foot setbacks here. It is state land, so in order to get my state and federal permits, I did have to provide the same setback waivers and those permits have been issued at this time. The next slide shows a little bit more of a detailed breakdown of the dock. We are 63 feet out from the mean high water line, which is the most restrictive point in this case and we're asking for a boat dock extension of 43 feet over the allowed 20 and also the encroachment down on your bottom left -- bottom right-hand corner of the dock is five foot, which is ten foot less than the required setback; however, the dock that's being built on, I believe it's 226 Malibu Cove, the property just to our southeast, is further down the shoreline, he has a lot more shoreline to work, so he's allowed to push his dock to the south to accommodate -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If I could stop you for a minute. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the platform boat lift, that's kayaks and things like that so it lifts up and down? MR. ROGERS: -- vessels proposed there. So yeah. So this is straightforward. Dock's been minimized. There is a little bit of a deck area in front of the platform lift to provide, you know, October 28, 2021 Page 31 of 33 storage, kayaks, paddle boards, fish cleaning table, whatever the applicant would propose that obviously meets county code. Next slide. This is a cross-section view showing the overall protrusion, 63 from the mean high water line. The vessel, that is not a reflection of the existing vessel that's owned. Let's go to the next slide. So yeah, 63 feet out, subject waterway, there's other docks in the area that extend out, you know, close to what we are, we are the furthest out; however, if you look, you know, to our west, there is a vessel that extends out past the docks and he's pretty close to what we are. We're not interfering with access to anybody's existing facility, nor future facilities and he's, you know, on board here in front of you presenting all of this, so if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So one thing I do appreciate is, you know, one of the criteria for me to evaluate is, you know, the minimal necessary -- I think you've got -- for the main vessel -- for the vessel, small finger pier -- what's the technical word for the -- finger piers to get on and off the vessel and to work on it and things like that, so that seems to be appropriate. I understand that these decking -- I mean these go up and down; right? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That seems to be the new thing now, which I think is good because I don't know about putting your kayak in the water and just diving in and trying to get on the kayak is the safest thing in the world to do, so I guess that's the new way to do it without killing yourself. And then it does, you know, there's some decking in front of that, but I do understand the need for that and I also understand the need for the conservation easement, et cetera, so -- and it appears to be a fairly large vessel that the applicant has testified he has already and waiting for the dock and the house and everything like that to get it all in and it appears that there's no objections from -- wait. Do we have any speakers here today at all? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any -- I don't have any registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And do we have any objections at all, John? MS. KELLER: If I may just add, I don't believe that they referenced a letter of no objection was in the applicant's backup. I will check the record and have it to you when I forward the email to you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Yeah, just send it through the county and then that way I have it. Those are important. I always encourage -- that's the whole point of notices and then always encourage people to go talk to their neighbors about these things as we don't want boats crashing into each other out there and whatnot. So this is another one that I fully understand. You did a great job presenting as usual and I will render a decision as quickly as possible. John, you're up there, do you have anything else you want to say? MS. KELLER: No, sir, thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Any good jokes or anything, like, you know, any predictions on the World Series? MS. KELLER: Not today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not today. Okay. All right. Great. Thanks for being here. All right. So we're going to go to the last one, I believe, is 3G. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm presenting agenda item G, which is the VA-PL20190001162. It's a request for an after-the-fact variance to allow a pool encroachment of 4.35 feet and a spa that encroaches 1.45 feet into the required 30-foot side yard setback and this would be on the west side of the structure and to allow for an accessory garage that encroaches 22.4 feet into the required 75-foot rear yard setback and to allow the carport encroaching 6.45 feet into the required 30-foot eastern side yard setback and to allow the home encroaching 0.1-foot into the required 30-foot western side yard setback. These are all part of the land develop requirements for setbacks in the Estates zoning district. The subject property's located at 2035 Golden Gate Boulevard West and this item was properly advertised meeting current notice requirements and I October 28, 2021 Page 32 of 33 have not received any letters of objection. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Who wants to speak? Come on up. Going to need a translator for him? Okay. Great. Hi, how are you. Welcome for being here. Sorry you had to wait so long. MS. CASTRO: Gabriella Castro, principal planner, will be translating for the gentleman. MS. CASANOVA: Alexander Casanova, also will be a translator as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Very good. Go ahead, sir. So here's -- here's the thing: I understand what's being -- let me just help you out here. I understand what's being requested, so this is -- you're trying to improve your property. The house is existing; correct? Okay. Yeah. Okay. And so the point is that it looks to me like it's an extremely long lot and very narrow; is that correct? HOMEOWNER: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you and it appears as though the new improvements because of the config -- very long driveway, because of the configuration of the lot, it's making it difficult to make these improvements; is that correct? Yes, he's saying yes. Great. I completely understand what this is all about. Let me just ask if there's anyone here signed up to speak for this? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I have no registered speakers for this item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Any -- have we received any letters of no objection or objection or anything like that? MR. BELLOWS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not. Okay. Great. Again, this is very straightforward and I understand what you're requesting. Okay. And I will be making a decision within 30 days. Does -- do you have anything else you would like to say? MS. CASTRO: He understands and you have 30 days. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the applicant is saying no, he has nothing else to say and that he understands that I have 30 days to render a decision. I appreciate you being here, thank you, sir. Again, thanks for waiting around. We appreciate it and have a very nice day. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Dickman, I'm sorry, this is the court reporter. Could the planner or whoever -- the two people that were with him just repeat their names in the microphone? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, so both of you announce yourselves, please. MS. CASANOVA: Alexandra Casanova with development review. MS. CASTRO: Gabriella Castro. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We're good to go. Are you okay, Court Reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, I'm good. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Got all that. All right. Thank you. Have a nice day, sir. Thanks for being here. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you, Translators. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Wanted to thank Gabby and Alexandra for doing an exceptional job for us. They're not professional translators. Do we have anything else on the agenda, any additional new business, anything you want to talk about? MR. BELLOWS: I have nothing unless Mr. Bosi does. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Bosi, anything? MR. BOSI: Nothing other than appreciation for the additional or for the meeting -- the make-up meeting because of the two holidays, we do have I think five petitions scheduled for you on the 12th, so. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. Excellent. You guys are all doing a wonderful job. The public is doing a great job. These hearings seem to be nice, everybody's cordial and I really appreciate it. So everyone have a nice day. Thanks for all your help. Have a nice day. We're done. We're adjourned. October 28, 2021 Page 33 of 33 (The HEX hearing concluded at 11:25 a.m.) * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 11:25 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ___________________________________________ ANDREW W.J. 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 TERRI L. FERREIRA, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 4