Loading...
HEX Minutes 11/13/2025November 13, 2025 pg. 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida November 13, 2025 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hearing Examiner, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present: HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN ALSO PRESENT: Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager John Kelly, Planner III Maria Estrada, Planner II Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I November 13, 2025 pg. 2 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Today is November 13th, 2025. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting. On the agenda today, first item is join me with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, everyone. Welcome. Once again, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm an attorney here in Collier County. I've been practicing law over 20 years in the area of land use, zoning, environmental law. I'm very familiar with local government law. I am not a county employee. I was contracted by the Board of County Commissioners to conduct these hearings in accordance with the ordinances pertaining to the Hearing Examiner. So my job, in essence, is really just to conduct these hearings, listen to the applicant or the applicant's representative, listen to the county planners, any public speakers, look for any competent substantial evidence related to the criteria for whatever the petition is, and then render a decision within 30 days. I do not make decisions here today. I will -- this is really the last stop, if you will. You-all have put in applications. You've met with the County. There's all the backup documentation I've read and am familiar with. Then I will have this opportunity to hear from the parties and to ask questions, if I have any. I'll also hear from the public and then weigh that evidence against the criteria that's established and come up with a written decision. November 13, 2025 pg. 3 Typically I can provide those faster than 30 days, but I have up to 30 days to do that. This is a fairly informal process. I don't -- if anyone's nervous about speaking publicly, please don't. This is not that kind of environment. It's more important for me that I get whatever information it is you're trying to convey to me. I hear it, I get it on the record so that I can take notes and have that for the future while I prepare the decision. The process that I follow is I'll have the county planner present first in the podium here to the -- right in the center and present the staff report, overview of what it is, any recommendations, any conditions, and then we'll go to the applicant or the applicant's representative at the other podium. They will make their case-in- chief presentation usually here on the screen, and then we will go to public comment. I'll allow the applicant and applicant's representative to have time for rebuttal after we close the public comment period. This is a hybrid meeting, which means that the County has set up the opportunity for people to participate via Zoom virtually as well as be here in person. If you do want to speak here today, you have to do two things. One, you have to fill out a speaker's card and hand it to this lovely lady over here, and you will have to be sworn in. So in a minute I'm going to ask anyone who is going to speak on any of the items -- we have, it looks like, six items here today, that you're going to be -- to stand, raise your right hand, and will be sworn in. Once again, as far as disclosures, I have not had any conversations with county staff about any of the applications November 13, 2025 pg. 4 or petitions or issues that are on the agenda. I have not met with -- literally, I have not met with anyone about it. I come here as a neutral decision-maker. I try to make sure that you have that confidence that I'm here as a neutral decision-maker. This is quasi-judicial hearings so that I represent a quasi-judge. So just like you wouldn't want to speak with the judge without the other party knowing about it, same goes true here. So having said that -- also I see we have a number of people here today. If you would silence your phones or whatever you have that might make noise. The acoustics in this room have been improved greatly so I can literally hear what's going on anywhere, and I don't want -- anyone speaking, I don't want them to be interrupted or disturbed. So you can just step outside and have a conversation if you're going to have a conversation. So with that, we do have a court reporter, as you can see. She will be taking verbatim -- verbatim transcripts of everything that's stated here. So if you notice that I'm trying to speak very clearly and -- or as well as I can. That's because I want to make sure that the record is very, very clear in case anybody wants to go back and get a -- to look at that. I frequently do reflect back on some of the transcripts if I want to rehear something. So let's not talk over one another, please, at all. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and have the court reporter swear everyone in. Anyone who's going to testify here today, meaning speak to me, here publicly, then they need to stand, raise your right hand, and she will administer the oath. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm November 13, 2025 pg. 5 the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate that, again. So we're going to go right into the items. We have a full agenda today, interesting agenda, a couple different topics. ***So the first one is 3A. 3A. MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II, in the Zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3A, which seeks determination regarding the compatibility of the proposed hospice-type group care facility within the permitted uses in Tract C that are similar to physician offices and other permitted health facilities of the Tamiami Trail/Greenway Road Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development and zoning district. The subject property is a vacant commercial parcel with Folio No. 00739160004 located in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC Section 10.02.06.K.2, a through e, and staff believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with the GMP. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06.O. The newspaper advertisement was taken care of by the County on Friday, October 24th, 2025. I received no calls or any other communication from the public regarding this petition November 13, 2025 pg. 6 request. And there has been no public opposition pertaining to this position -- petition as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESTRADA: Therefore, staff recommends that you -- that you determine that the proposed use of this hospice-type group facility is comparable in nature to the other permitted uses in Tract C with one condition: Ensure the buffering per the Ordinance 25-06. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you, Maria. I appreciate that. MS. ESTRADA: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the applicant here? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates here, professional planner, representing the property owner. So Maria's staff report was very well done and very thorough. I have a short presentation to just give you a little bit more orientation to the site. And, Aylin, if you'd like to move through that. Can we go to the next slide, please. So the location of this property it's a vacant commercial tract within a mixed-use planned development. It was approved in 2025 just west of Greenway Road on the north side of Tamiami Trail. Next slide, please. The subject tract is about 6.4 acres, and we are asking you to determine that a group care facility, such as a hospice, is comparable to other uses that's permitted in that November 13, 2025 pg. 7 commercial tract. And we've gone through an analysis to look at that, but I'll show you a few more images. Aylin, if you could advance that, please. This is a copy of the adopted PUD master plan. And Tract C is highlighted in yellow at the lower portion there of the screen. So the hospice facility probably will not occupy the entirety of that tract but would occupy a portion of it, is the intent. Next slide, please. So in the permitted-use section, I've listed everything that's permitted under the commercial tract, and it's supposed to follow what was allowed in C-3. So there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment to establish a special district for this property. There was a companion Planned Unit Development zoning that established these set of permitted uses. Both of those ordinance titles -- if you advance, Aylin, please. One more slide. So this says commercial intermediate C-3 zoning is what these uses were going to be. If you look at the list, it includes almost every one of the C-3 uses that's in the PUD with the exception of the group housing type uses. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Is it possible to go back one? MR. ARNOLD: Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just wanted to see the ones you've highlighted. MR. ARNOLD: So the last use, No. 90, was any other comparable use which allows us to come through this process for you to establish that, but I also highlighted a November 13, 2025 pg. 8 couple of the other health uses that are permitted there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it. MR. ARNOLD: And I'm not sure how familiar you are with other parts of the Land Development Code, but every commercial district allows group care facilities by right, and obviously, we have many commercial properties adjacent to residential. And in this case, the residential that's permitted in the PUD is going to be adjacent to everything from fast food to convenience stores to food stores and everything else. So the hospice -- we also submitted a traffic analysis that demonstrated that it's such a low, low volume of trips. And hospice care -- I'm not sure how familiar you are with it, but I had worked on the original Avow Hospice on Whippoorwill, and there was a large component of at-home care that's associated. It's not all in- patient care. So they have outreach programs and can do that remotely. So there will be a combination of those type of uses. Can you advance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And if I'm correct, I believe there is a state law that also preempts local governments from excluding it, I believe. So maybe -- MR. ARNOLD: I'm not familiar with that statutory provision. I know there's one that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That may be why it's in all these -- MR. ARNOLD: -- for group homes. There are group homes that are permitted, and I think the County just recently is in the process of modifying or did modify, Mike, to allow group homes in certain districts. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. pg. 9 November 13, 2025 MR. BOSI: And Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. At the November 10th Board of County Commissioners, they did adopt a reasonable or -- a reasonable accommodations provision for group care facilities. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: So it was statutorily required. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you, sir. MR. ARNOLD: No problem. Can you advance to Slide 10, please. So Slide 10, this is from the C-3 zoning district. It is a permitted use for group care facilities, and it allows things like care units, which to me is what a hospice falls under, a care unit when you read the definition, but it's also similar to nursing home or assisted living in terms of the type of care that's -- that's allowed there. Next slide, please. So there are several criteria, and I -- I don't have to go through all of them, but I'll quickly go through the highlights and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let's just do this for the record. I mean, is there anything in the staff report that you disagree with? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you want to adopt that as part of yours? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if you want November 13, 2025 pg. 10 to go through this, I mean, you're welcome to. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I can go through these quickly. You know, the criteria starts with operating hours. Well, the operating hours for a hospice may include some 24-hour care, but there's no prohibition in the PUD that would prohibit any other use from operating 24 hours per day. Traffic volumes, there's a traffic impact comparison that's in there that looks at various uses that are permitted in the PUD and concludes that the hospice use is far less than most of those other uses would generate. Type of vehicles, obviously, some, you know, regular service vehicles that service linens and food deliveries and things like that, but otherwise, it's personal vehicles that will primarily be using it. But as we have, you know, anything from a shopping center to any other commercial use that's allowed, they would be getting larger delivery trucks, typically. The number of parking spaces, the County doesn't specifically have a standard for hospice, but they do have a group-care-facility type parking arrangement, and I think that, you know, when this comes through a site plan, it would be applied at that point in time. The business practices, again, they offer in-home outpatient and short-term in-patient care at a hospice, similar to what you'd find in any other doctor's office. You know, some of the -- some of the cosmetic physicians now are offering overnight care facilities as well just for some rehabilitation and recuperation. Next slide, please. Effect on neighboring properties, and we've concluded November 13, 2025 pg. 11 that we have no impact on neighboring properties with regard to noise, glare, odor because, again, this is largely an indoor quiet use. There may be an outdoor patio space or garden space that would be available, but again, it's certainly a low-intensity use. Consistency with the Growth Management Plan, again, the Growth Management Plan for this project allowed for commercial uses of the intensity of C-3 zoning. This project is a -- is consistent with what's allowed in the C-3 zoning, so we believe we're consistent with the MPUD and the Growth Management Plan subdistrict that was created for this property. Compatibility was one of the other criteria. Again, we think this is no more impact or certainly not incompatible with the other commercial uses and certainly compatible with the adjoining multifamily residential apartments that are going to be constructed. Next slide, please. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. And, again, you know, this is going to be a small parcel with an existing commercial tract separated from properties to the south by U.S. 41, which is six- lane. It's adjacent to another commercial convenience store to the east, which is zoned C-3, vacant -- vacant agricultural lands to the west, and then, again, an apartment complex that will be constructed to the north that's in for review at the County. There are some buffering requirements that are required for the commercial tract that we'll have to comply with when we go through the site plan process. And then any other relevant informational that the County Manager or, in this case, staff may ask us. November 13, 2025 pg. 12 But again, we think the determination is that we're very similar to the health-related uses that are permitted. The fact that the subdistrict and the zoning was established based on C-3 -- and this is a C-3 use -- that you can find that we are comparable and compatible, and we agree with staff and hope you can make a determination that we are so Avow can establish a south campus. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Quick question. Just to be clear, so this is a hospice care facility, not meaning hospice the organization, or -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It would be a hospice care facility. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it would be that -- MR. ARNOLD: They'll have offices there as well, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, right, right. It so it's not -- I just wanted to make sure I was clear about that. MR. ARNOLD: Would you like a hard copy of the presentation? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I'd love one. Yeah, sure. Anything you want to give me. MR. ARNOLD: Do you want one, too, Terri? THE COURT REPORTER: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks. Appreciate it. Got it. Okay. Is that it? MR. ARNOLD: That's all I have. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MR. ARNOLD: Unless you have some other questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go to November 13, 2025 pg. 13 public speakers, if we have any. MS. PADRON: We have Shalonda Washington. That's all, then. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: She's saying no, so... MS. WASHINGTON: No, I'm not. I didn't. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: She's declining to speak. Okay, great. Anybody else? MS. PADRON: That will be all. That's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No other speakers. Okay. So just for the public to understand, and Mr. Arnold or the County can correct me if I'm -- if I'm off base, but -- so what the County does frequently is these master plans, PUDs, Planned Unit Developments, and so they typically try to list out uses that are permitted as of right, but as we all know, uses are changing constantly. Things that exist today frequently didn't exist before. It's almost impossible to list everything. So the process is basically looking for comparable uses that fit the list that was in there and showing that this is a use that would work, and the SIC codes are the -- basically the land-use codes which have a lot of different meanings to them, but basically, the process here is that if you didn't get on the list during the initial adoption of that PUD, then the County has that very last line in there, the provision, which I see it on most of them, which says, "and other like uses." And so unfortunately, it has to come before a public hearing with due process and so forth in order to go about doing that. It cannot be done administratively in this case. November 13, 2025 pg. 14 Is that a fairly good professor discussion? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And I would agree with that. And really, it's a comparison in terms of the proposed use against existing uses. And traffic, noise, odor, glare, compatibility, those are the things that we try to evaluate. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And the way I see this is that it's also about due process, because if somebody had done their due diligence and looked at this, they never would have -- you know, they would have not seen specifically this type of use, and then all of a sudden they'd see it being built. This way there's signs on the property. There's notices that go out. And this is an opportunity for anybody that might be adversely affected to be able to discuss that, and we would take steps to deal with that. So I just wanted it -- for those that are here or watching, that's what this particular process is about. So great job, as usual. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you have anything left you want to say... MR. ARNOLD: All I would say is I know that you have a busy schedule, but the hospice is very anxious to close on this based on your determination. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Heard. MR. ARNOLD: So if that could happen before 30 days, that would be excellent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Noted. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Noted. All right. November 13, 2025 pg. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Take care. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, sir. All right. Great. Okay. ***So we're moving to 3B now. This is the John Kelly show now. MR. KELLY: Sorry. I forgot my theme music. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And smoke. MR. KELLY: For the record, John Kelly, Planner III, Zoning division. This is going to be Agenda Item 3B. It's a boat lift canopy deviation, PL20240004122. The petitioner requests approval for a boat lift canopy deviation for a second 27-foot-by-18.5-foot boat lift canopy in addition to the allowed 35-foot-by-21-foot boat lift canopy on a canal-front lot pursuit to Section 5.03.06.G.3 of the Land Development Code. The subject property, Folio No. 68300003008, is located at 155 Windward Cay, also known as Lot 50, Port of the Islands, the Cays, Phase 2, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The subject 0.27-acre property is located in a Residential Single-Family 4 (RSF-4) zoning district. Section 5.03.06.G.2 allows for one boat lift canopy on canal-front lots. Two are allowed on bay-front lots. The applicant desires to construct two boat lift canopies over a doc facility constructed in accordance with Building Permit No. 97-051752 for which a certificate of completion was issued on June 12, 1997. Said dock required a boat dock extension, BP97-9 to November 13, 2025 pg. 16 allow for a 38-foot protrusion. The boat dock extension was approved by the Collier County Planning Commission Resolution 97-19, which was adopted by majority vote on May 15, 1997. A second lift was added using Building Permit No. PRMAR20230834263, for which a certificate of completion was issued on July 1, 2025. The first canopy can be approved administratively; however, the second requires the subject deviation, as LDC Section 5.03.06.G.2 limits the number of canopies on lots with frontage on canals to one per site. Both canopies are otherwise code compliant with respect to length, width, height, and color. Public notice requirements were as per LCD Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the County on October 24, 2025. The public hearing sign was posted by myself on October 28th, 2025. While the LDC does not provide review evaluation criteria in the event of a deviation, from the boat lift canopy standard criteria, staff recognizes that both requested both lift canopies are compliant with the criteria existing within LDC section -- within the LDC, and staff, therefore, supports the requested deviation. No public comments were received in response to advertising for this project. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the canopy and site plan provided within Attachments A and B subject to the following conditions of approval: One the boat lift canopies are to be removed upon the issuance of a hurricane warning affecting the location of the November 13, 2025 pg. 17 canopies, and two, the building permit shall be obtained for the construction and/or placement of the subject boat lift canopies. The petitioner for this project is Sherry Gaston of Waterway Canopies, and I'm available for any questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, a question. I have an affidavit of authorization here from -- MR. KELLY: That will be for Item 3D. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 3D. Okay. All right. Thank you. I had it in the wrong one. Thank you. All right. The petitioner -- the applicant. Ms. Gaston, I presume. MS. GASTON: Yes, sir. I am with Waterway Canopies, and I'm representing Mr. Joe Mack's deviation. He is asking for the two canopies and, as Mr. Kelly stated, they're both within the ordinance as far as size, height, width, color, and all of those things. He just needs a second one to cover both of his investments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ms. Gaston, may I ask you to just put a little bit of your experience with boat lift canopies and this type of thing into the record for me? MS. GASTON: Sure. I've been with Marine Contractors for about seven years. I've been with Waterway Canopies for almost three. And I've been the only one doing the permitting, deviations, and variances and all of that good stuff for a long time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you believe that if -- you know, the information you're going to provide to me and questions that I might ask, you could answer in an expert capacity. November 13, 2025 pg. 18 MS. GASTON: Oh, yeah, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you. MS. GASTON: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. GASTON: We can go past the agenda. The next screen, please. Waterway Canopies, Incorporated, installs boat lift cover systems over existing boat lifts. We have two styles of systems that customers can choose from. One is the radius veranda beam and the other is the radius beam style. Our systems are built with marine-grade aluminum, vinyl, and bungees built to withstand the harshest elements of Florida. Mr. Mack has chosen the radius veranda style for both of his canopies. This is an example of the radius veranda style. Next, please. And the customer's request is to allow two removable boat lift canopies, a 35-by-21 and a 27-by-18.5 to properly protect his investments. Next screen, please. And the current ordinance of 05.03.06, Section G1, 2 3, no more than one boat canopy for each residential unit lawfully existing on a canal-front property, and two shall be permitted on bay-front properties. No canopy when measured at its highest point shall extend more than 12 feet above the seawall cap and if no seawall exists above the decking of the marine improvement. No boat canopy shall exceed 35 feet in length and no more than 27 inches of overhang. Next screen, please. November 13, 2025 pg. 19 This is the site plan for Mr. Mack's two canopies. They're both parallel with the property, leaving no navigational hazards or anything in the waterway. And setbacks are good, and protrusion is within the allowed. Next one, please. And this is just an aerial that I collected from the Collier County Property Appraiser showing the actual surroundings and his doc that he has existing now. And the next one. And the conclusion is Mr. Mack is asking for the approval of his 35-by-21 and 27-by-18.5 boat lift canopies to protect his investments from the Florida elements. Waterway Canopies, Incorporated, is asking for -- on behalf of Mr. Mack to have these devia -- to have this deviation approved. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the docks and the boat lifts are existing, correct? MS. GASTON: Correct, they are. All existing, CO'ed, and everything. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Okay. Any public speakers on this item? MS. PADRON: We have none. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No registered public speakers. Okay. So this is for two boat lift canopies, correct? MS. GASTON: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you're aware of the conditions that were presented by staff, the two conditions? MS. GASTON: Yes, sir. November 13, 2025 pg. 20 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Which are pretty typical for these types of canopies, I've seen. MS. GASTON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I assume your client is okay with these conditions, which means -- MS. GASTON: Oh, absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay. All right. So in the event of an official hurricane warning affecting the location, the boat lift -- has to be removed. MS. GASTON: Correct. The structures are, by law, building law -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. GASTON: -- they are stated on the structure they must be removed by 70 mile-an-hour winds. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. MS. GASTON: Without the canopies, the structures withstand 170 mile-an-hour winds. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? Okay. Well, that's double. More than double. MS. GASTON: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. All right. All right. Anything else from the County at all? Pretty straightforward. MR. KELLY: No, sir, that's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. Thank you very much for your presentation. It's nice to see you. MS. GASTON: You're welcome. Yep, you, too. November 13, 2025 pg. 21 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. ***Now 3C. Okay. MR. KELLY: It's not Groundhog Day. It's another boat lift canopy deviation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Different address. MR. KELLY: Agenda Item 3C, PL20250001596. The petitioner requests approval for a boat lift canopy deviation to increase the allowable length from 35 feet to 40 feet and height from 12 feet to 14 feet for a boat lift canopy measuring 40 feet long by 18 feet wide and 14 feet in height on a canal front lot pursuit to Section 5.03.06.G.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject property, Folio No. 48172800006, is located at 2620 Riverview Drive, also known as Lots 14 and 15, Block 4, Gulf Shore subdivision, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located in a Residential Single-Family 4 zoning district and the Bayshore Zoning Overlay Residential Subdistrict 4, abbreviated RSF-4-BZO-R4. The subject property comprises .38 acres on a canal -- let's see -- which is two canal-front lots that were combined for development. The existing dock facility was constructed per Building Permit No. PRMAR20220311248, for which a certificate of completion was issued on April 12th, 2023. The second lift was added to the northern end of the dock by means of Building Permit No. PRMAR20240309111, for which a certificate of completion was issued on June 25, 2025. November 13, 2025 pg. 22 The petitioner now desires to construct a boat lift canopy over the first lift, which is on the southern end of the dock, that will exceed the allowable length by five feet and the allowable height by two feet. There are no other covered structures depicted on the site plan, and required setbacks will be observed. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the County on October 24, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by myself on October 28th, 2025. Again, while the LDC does not provide review evaluation criteria in the event of a deviation from the boat lift canopy standard criteria, staff recognizes that the dock facility is situated in such a way as not to decrease the view corridors of surrounding properties and, therefore, supports the requested deviation. No public comment was received in response to advertising for this project, and it's staff's recommendation that Hearing Examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the canopy and site plan provided within Attachments A and B subject to the following conditions of approval: One, the boat lift canopies are to be removed upon the issuance of a hurricane warning affecting the location of the canopies, and two, a building permit shall be obtained for the construction and/or placement of the subject boat lift canopies. Again, I remain available for questions should you have any, and Sherry Gaston for Waterway Canopies is, again, presenting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, November 13, 2025 pg. 23 John. Appreciate it. And, Ms. Gaston, I've already recognized you as an expert, so thank you very much. MS. GASTON: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have a question for you. Do you have the state statute cite that you mentioned at the prior one that's on the canopies with regard -- MS. GASTON: I believe it's the same that is in this one as well HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MS. GASTON: I don't have it on me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I was just curious what the -- I can look it up. Don't worry. MS. GASTON: Okay. All righty. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. GASTON: You're welcome. This is the deviation for Kevin Jensen. We're going with size. I did the best I could to show the example of the boat that he has so you can understand the height needed as well. Next slide, please. And the next one. And Waterway Canopies installs boat lift cover systems over existing boat lifts. We have two style of canopies that customers can choose from, the radius veranda beam and the radius beam style. Our systems are built with marine-grade aluminum, vinyl and bungees, built to withstand the harshest elements in Florida. Mr. Jensen has chosen the radius veranda style. Next, please. pg. 24 November 13, 2025 And this, once against, is an example of our radius veranda. Next slide, please. And the customer request is to allow a 14 -- 40-by-14 removable boat lift canopy to properly protect his investment. Next screen, please. And the current ordinance of 05.03.06, Section G1, 2, 3, no more than one boat lift canopy for each residential unit lawfully existing on canal-front property, and two shall be permitted on the bay-front property. No canopy, when measured at its highest point, shall extend more than 12 feet above the seawall cap, or if no seawall exists, above the decking of the marine improvement. No boat canopy shall exceed 35 feet in length, and no more than 27 inches of overhang. Next slide, please. This is an example -- or this is Mr. Jensen's property. Next screen, please. And this is a closeup of the site plan. He does have the one boat lift over to the right. He is not covering that one. Where he's putting the large one is over to your left. It will be a 40-by-18 [sic], and it will be 14 feet in height. And the maximum protrusion is only 12 feet, and he has plenty of setback on each side and no navigational hazards. Next screen, please. Mr. Jenson is asking for the approval of his 40-by-14 boat lift canopy to protect his investment from the Florida elements. Waterway Canopies, Incorporated, is asking on behalf of Mr. Jensen to have the deviation approved. All right. Thank you very much. pg. 25 November 13, 2025 Anybody signed up to speak on this matter? MS. PADRON: Yes. We have two speakers. Joe Fallucca. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Mr. Fallucca, you can use this middle -- this one right here. MR. FALLUCCA: This one right here? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, sir. MR. FALLUCCA: I live across the canal from the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. FALLUCCA: And I have no objection to it at all. Actually, the seawall is caving in and filling the canal up. It doesn't have anything to do with the boat lift, but since he's moved in there, he saved the canal. Where you had to go around -- when you went around the corner, it was full of rocks, and he had all the rocks removed, seawall put in, and he put the lift in. And I can't see where the lift going in between -- in the canal next to the lift, that you would have any problem. It's not going to bother a boat. It's only like a 3-and-a-half, 4-foot canal depth. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. May I ask you a question? You're at Lakeview Drive across the canal? MR. FALLUCCA: 3425. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Which address? MR. FALLUCCA: 3425 Lakeview. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I gotcha. Okay. I see. I was just looking at the aerial right here. Thank you. All right. So you're in support of it. Okay, great. Who else do we have? MS. PADRON: Our last speaker is Kevin Jensen. pg. 26 November 13, 2025 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's the applicant. MR. JENSEN: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry. I didn't know that. MR. JENSEN: I'm Kevin Jensen, and I'm just here to -- just in case there was any opposition to it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JENSEN: And I just appreciate what Joe -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JENSEN: -- and the Waterways has to say. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. So you are the applicant? MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. No problem. MR. JENSEN: Thank you. MS. PADRON: That's all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you very much. All right. This looks -- it's pretty straightforward. I have the staff report. Anything else from the County, if anything? MR. KELLY: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Just keeping you on your toes. All right. I've heard everything. Thank you very much. And I will get a decision out as quickly as possible. Thank you for being here. MR. JENSEN: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate it. ***Okay. Moving right along. 3D. pg. 27 November 13, 2025 John, are you still here? Let's give them a second to get out the door. All right. MR. KELLY: All right. This is going to be Agenda Item 3D. It's Variance PL20250000214. It's a request to have the Hearing Examiner consider an after-the-fact variance from Land Development Code Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required western side yard from 30 feet to 26.3 feet to allow for the continued existence of a 12-foot- by-24-foot utility shed and to allow a further reduction of said side yard to 24.8 feet to accommodate the structure's 1.5-foot roof overhang. The subject property, Folio No. 36616360001, comprises 2.5 acres located at 4160 First Avenue Southwest, also known as the eastern 165 feet of Tract 90, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 1, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, of unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's located within an Estates zoning district. Public notice requirements were effected as per Section 10.03.06.F.2. The agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about July 25, 2025, as per notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the county on October 24, 2025, and a public hearing sign was posted by the applicant's agent on or about October 16, 2025, again, per a notarized affidavit. The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03 and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. Staff notes that the applicant initially retained Astrum pg. 28 November 13, 2025 AM Construction, LLC, to construct a 12-foot-by-24-foot utility shed on a concrete slab for which Building Permit No. PRAC20240834556 was obtained on or about October 30, 2024. The applicable side-yard setback for the subject utility shed is 30 feet. The concept plan used for permitting purposes demonstrated a western side-yard setback of 38.25 feet; however, an as-built survey obtained upon completion of construction revealed that the structure was built 26.3 feet from the western property line, resulting in an encroachment of 3.7 feet. As the structure has a 1.5-foot roof overhang, a further reduction of the western side property line to 24.8 feet is necessary. The petitioner is unable to obtain a certificate of completion without obtaining a variance. Approximately four telephone calls were received in response to advertising. Once the project was fully explained, each caller noted that they had no issues with the requested variance. For the record, Astrum AM Construction, LLC, has retained the services of Reliable Permitting to represent them in this proceeding. An affidavit of authorization was obtained, which is before you. It's the document you had a question about earlier. A copy has also been provided to the court reporter. Thus, Shalonda Washington will be presenting. Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the requested variance to reduce the western side-yard setback to 26.3 feet for the vertical structure and to 24.8 feet to accommodate the structure's 1.5-foot roof overhang as depicted within Attachment A subject to the following pg. 29 November 13, 2025 condition of approval: All required inspections for Building Permit No. PRAC20240834556 must be favorably -- tongue-tied -- must be favorably completed, and a certificate of completion must be obtained. Again, for the applicant, Shalonda Washington with Reliable Permitting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, one second. MR. KELLY: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it was permitted correctly with the correct setbacks, according to the concept plan, but upon final inspection, it was determined that it was built in the wrong location -- MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- correct? And is there a companion Code Enforcement action on this yet or no? MR. KELLY: I'm uncertain. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. No problem. And there's two ways this can go. It can either be legalized through this process, or it can be demolished and built in the correct location, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Hi. MS. WASHINGTON: Hello. How are? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you were not going to speak at the other item? MS. WASHINGTON: No. I thought I was -- you pg. 30 November 13, 2025 know, I do follow instructions when -- you know, I was confused. I was confused. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's okay. MS. WASHINGTON: But no, to answer your questions that you were just asking Mr. Kelly, what happened was we -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you could give me a little bit of your experience and expertise so I can get that on the record. MS. WASHINGTON: Sure. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, my name is Shalonda Washington, and I've been the owner of Reliable Permitting and BSS, Inc., for over 28 years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. WASHINGTON: So I've done a lot of land development, I've permitted a lot of permits, and I've done a lot of variances. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. WASHINGTON: So over years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. WASHINGTON: So -- but to answer your questions that you were asking John, the process was we applied for the building permit. The permit went through review with the proper setback on the site plan. The permit was issued, right? We've gotten a lot of inspections already done. We have more left, but before we even submitted the final -- the spot survey, right -- because that's the stage where we're at, the spot survey. The surveyor went out to spot it, and he brought it to our attention. So we brought this up to -- there has not been a spot survey uploaded. If you look in the portal, it's not there. So pg. 31 November 13, 2025 what we -- the contractor was, like, "Oh, my goodness. So what do we need to do to correct this?" Because, you know, of course, they're -- they passed a lot of inspections where the walls are up. You know, they have the roof already ready. And so we reached out to find out what would be the process. And so an administrative variance was not going to work. We had to do it this way. So at this stage, the structure is pretty much there. And it was an oversight in the field due to a layout misunderstanding resulting in the 3.7-foot encroachment. Rebuilding it would cause significant financial hardship, and requesting the -- we're requesting a variance for the minimal relief needed without negatively affecting the neighboring properties, so... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, the good news is that it's actually on the correct parcel. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Believe it or not, a few years ago -- MS. WASHINGTON: Yes, I've had those, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- we had a house that was built on the wrong lot -- MS. WASHINGTON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- once. MS. WASHINGTON: No, this is on the proper lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is on the right lot. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MS. WASHINGTON: So I think ours is pretty simple. pg. 32 November 13, 2025 I don't know about -- do I need to go through these slides? Go to the next one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, yeah. Let's go through this. MS. WASHINGTON: Okay. So that's the lot from the appraiser's office. And what they did -- you can go to the next one. There is a well water softener -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's down here, right? This is where it's at, down here? MS. WASHINGTON: Yes. Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the main structure's here. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You drive in. So it's in this corner back here? MS. WASHINGTON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. WASHINGTON: And it's actually abutting where the water softener pad was already, so that's where the mishap happened, because, you know, they were not counting that portion when they went out to actually construct it, right? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, okay. MS. WASHINGTON: So that's what did the overage. Go to the next. Okay. I did explain that just now, what we're requesting. You can go to the next one. The property does -- does contain a preexisting 12-by-12-foot concrete pad housing pool equipment, which pg. 33 November 13, 2025 influenced the decision to expand the structure to a 12-by-24 feet. The encroachment into the side yard requirement resulted from practical considerations regarding the placement of the garage door and the man door as well as the minor engineering misunderstanding that happened during construction. The expansion accommodates the existing layout while ensuring the water filtration system remains untouched. The garage door and man door were oriented to face the front of the property for functionality and accessibility as alternative placement, such as facing the back would have been impractical. Next. The existing concrete pad which houses the water filtration system created constraints on how and where the expansion could be placed. Practical considerations including maintaining the integrity and functionality of the equipment heavily influence the design. Next. Compliance with the zoning code at this stage will require complete demolition, which we don't want to do, of the structure which is neither practical nor financially feasible. The structure has been constructed using block and rebar reinforcement which complete electrical systems, windows, doors, and roofing. This could create unnecessary hardship by rendering the investment in the completed structure unusable and wasting significant resources. The structure does not negatively -- go to the next one -- oh, it cut off but I have it here. It does not negatively affect the other properties around them, okay. The requested variance is the minimum adjustment November 13, 2025 pg. 34 needed to enable reasonable use of the property. The design avoids unnecessary changes and maintains functionality, health and safety and welfare. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. WASHINGTON: Next one. Granting the variance will not provide any special privilege denied to others in the same zoning district. It ensures compliance with zoning regulations while resolving an unavoidable constraint. So no one won't come and be mad. They won't think you're just favoring us. So granting the variance aligns with the intent and purpose of the zoning code by addressing unique property conditions while maintaining functionality and accessibility. The variance will not harm the neighborhood or public welfare. No, there are no natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulations in this case. The variance request is based on property- specific structural and design considerations. Next. Granting this variance is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The variance accommodates unique property conditions without compromising the plan's overarching objectives, including orderly development, land use, efficiency, and preservation of community standards. Next. And we have obtained letter of no objections from those that are around us, and we have one from the property at 4190 First Avenue Southwest. That's Mr. Stephen Peel. Next one. And we also have one from David Pollach at 4130 First November 13, 2025 pg. 35 Avenue Southwest. Next. And Daniel Rogastead, 4145 Third Avenue Southwest. All three of these property owners have no objection to the shed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. WASHINGTON: Next. In conclusion, we'd just like for you to grant us our wish, your highness -- no, because Ray Bellows is my friend. That's all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you very much. Are there any public speakers for this item? MS. PADRON: Yes. We have David Woodworth. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Mr. Woodward (phonetic)? (No response.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not present? Okay. Not speaking, then. Okay. MS. PADRON: We also have Kristin and Michael. I believe they're the property owners. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Come on up. MS. WASHINGTON: First time meeting them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You-all can use the center -- the center. If you would both alternate if you're -- MS. VARALY: Okay. We weren't sure who was coming, so we wanted to make sure we were here. I think she did a lovely job presenting our -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you just November 13, 2025 pg. 36 give me your names and address. MS. VARALY: Oh, Kristin Varaly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. VARALY: And my husband, Michael Varaly. I have the original letters if you want me to present them. I guess I'll give them to John. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're here to support -- or you have no objection to this variance? MS. VARALY: We're praying that we can get this done and finished and CO'ed, yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Gotcha. All right. Thank you very much for being here. MS. VARALY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, John, I have a question for you. So it appears as though, like, the -- what led this a bit astray was the existing pad for the water filtration system. And that was in compliance, or no? Or would a water filtration system pad need to meet the setbacks or not? MR. KELLY: We only apply setbacks to items that are 30 inches and above -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MR. KELLY: -- grade. So I don't believe that was on the survey. And it's the actual structure that's encroaching the 3.5 feet. I don't think the water filtration equipment necessarily was the same size as the pad. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. And then they would -- since they've already got their building permit, they don't -- it doesn't seem like they would November 13, 2025 pg. 37 have to pay the triple permit fees, do they? MR. KELLY: No, sir. It's just that the structure's already there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure of that. Gotcha. Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Was anybody else signed up to speak? I should have asked you. MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, I am closing the public's hearing officially. I understand what's happening. Frankly, this happens from time to time, and most of the time it has to do with the Estate lots that are very long and very thin. So I tend to -- I see that more over the last couple years that I've been here, most of the time when we're dealing with after-the- fact permits. You know, these very, very long, irregular type of lots that aren't the typical type of lots, they have some unique characteristics to them, tend to somehow create some possible problems when it comes to after-the-fact situations. So I recognize that. I understand everything that's going on here. Very good presenting. Thank you very much. And, John, good job. And I will get a decision out as quickly as possible. So thank you all for being here. ***All right. 3E. Oh, hi, John. MR. KELLY: I'd appreciate it if you keep the accolades coming. This is Agenda Item 3E. It's a sign variance, PL20250003605. November 13, 2025 pg. 38 The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner approve a sign variance from Land Development Code Section 5.06.04.F.4.A to increase the display area for an on-premise wall sign for a unit within a multiple occupancy parcel from 20 percent of square footage of the visual façade not to exceed 150 square feet for buildings or units up to 24,999 square feet to instead allow a 193.7- square-foot wall sign for the Sprouts Farmers Market at the subject location resulting in a 43.7-square-foot variance request. The subject property is located at 5351 Airport Road North in the Ridge Port Plaza in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, unincorporated Collier County, Florida. It's Property ID No. 00240440006. The subject property comprises 13.4 acres located within a heavy commercial C-5 zoning district. Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F.2. The required agent letter was sent by the applicant on or about August 20 -- I'm sorry -- August 18, 2025, as per a notarized affidavit. The property owner notification letter and Clerk's posting were effected by the County on October 24, 2025, and the public hearing sign was posted by the applicant -- I believe that's "signs" -- on or about October 24, 2025, as per a notarized affidavit. The petitioner -- the petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.06.08, and it's consistent with both the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. Staff notes that the subject business, Sprouts Farmers Market, will occupy a 24,999-square-foot unit within the Ridge Port Plaza. The LDC limits the maximum allowable display area for signs within the commercial multiple November 13, 2025 pg. 39 occupancy parcels to 151 square feet for buildings or units up to 24,999 square feet. The allowable sign area increases to 200 square feet for buildings or units of 25,000 to 59,999 square feet. The applicant argues that the one-square-foot deficiency is the result of an unusual floor plan that allows for a second tenant. They, therefore, request a 43.07-square-foot variance to allow for a 193.7-square- foot wall sign. No phone calls or correspondence has been received in response to advertising for this project. The staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the subject petition to deviate from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4.A by allowing a 193.7-square-foot wall sign for Sprouts Farmers Market as depicted in Attachment A of the staff report. The petitioner is Lance Oij with Sign Permits Plus, and he is here to speak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you, John. MR. KELLY: I'm available for questions should you have any. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Don't go anywhere. I'm sure I'll have questions. How are you, sir? MR. OIJ: I might be able to answer them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are you from Apollo Beach? MR. OIJ: I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm from Ruskin. MR. OIJ: Oh, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. November 13, 2025 pg. 40 MR. OIJ: It's a long drive. 75 is nasty. And I'm a very impressed with her over here. It's just -- I don't know how she keeps up. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: She is impressive, yes. We were trying to keep her as long as we can. Your name and a little background, experience, if you would. MR. OIJ: My name is Lance Oij. I was in the sign -- sign industry for over 30 years. I've been doing permitting variances. I've had Sign Permits Plus. Just actually retired and turned it over to my daughter, so now I get to do the variances since I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. OIJ: -- have the experience and can answer any questions about signage or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, I hope she continues paying you and treating you well. MR. OIJ: Yeah. I've got to take these four-by-eight signs down by myself when I get done with this. Big signs. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's have it. MR. OIJ: So basically what we're looking for is a 43.7-square- foot variance from the -- from the sign ordinance for a sign of 193.7 square feet. The first site kind of gives you an idea of the location and the sign area. The signs -- a building setback is over 500-foot from Ridge [sic] Road back to the front of the building, so there is quite a substantial setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I just want to -- so the -- we're talking about -- this is probably the November 13, 2025 pg. 41 space, right? MR. OIJ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: More or less. So there's an entrance here, entrance here. MR. OIJ: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're talking about that, okay. So it is set all the way back in? MR. OIJ: Correct. So it's 500 foot back. It was an existing Bed, Bath & Beyond. And when the Bed, Bath & Beyond went out of business, the developer decided to convert this into two separate units, and then Sprouts decided to take one of the two separate units, and the separate unit it decided to take was 24,499 square feet. The next drawing there is a front -- they're showing the existing location, and basically it still looks like that other than they have started the interior renovation, and they're working on the front parking lot. Next, please. As you can see, the way they've separated that out is to allow for additional retail next to Sprouts Farmers Market, but it still gave them the area in the back for the storage of their products. But what has happened is that because of the configuration, they ended up with 24,999 square feet. One additional square foot of floor space, and they could have 200 square feet of signage area, and the variance would not have been necessary. Next please. One more. That gives you just a little bit better picture. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, there it MR. OIJ: As you can see right now, the Sprouts is. November 13, 2025 pg. 42 Farmers Market does not overwhelm the whole storefront itself. The storefront actually goes to the right over there to -- an additional 65 feet from the corner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if they split that whole Bed, Bath & Beyond -- so they split it, so basically this is taking this part of it. So the majority of the store -- MR. OIJ: That's part of Sprouts, and then to the right there is an additional -- additional retail spaces that the developer put in place. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. OIJ: And as far as the staff, worked with staff. When we originally started this whole process, Sprouts had "Farmers Market" and had all of the byproducts, you might say, or products -- product listing over onto the right-hand side. So what we ended up doing is negotiating back and forth with staff to come up with something that could be possibly looked at as being approved by staff and also the hearing master. We've come to that compromise and brought everything into just the area right -- the taller area of the building right there and put nothing to the right-hand side of the location. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. OIJ: So I don't know -- is there anything else? Oh, there might be -- is there another -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One more slide. MR. OIJ: One more slide. That just kind of gives you a little more detail to show you. So when they do the square footage of the signage, they draw a box around the entire area of the sign. So there is November 13, 2025 pg. 43 some additional areas in between "Sprouts" and "Farmers Market," and then a little bit of additional square footage that is being considered as part of the square footage, which actually it's not. So it's just -- they draw a big box around the entire area or rectangle. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Right. So you went through a few iterations with staff, finally came to -- MR. OIJ: Several. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- something that you felt staff could support, and you're before me? MR. OIJ: Correct, correct. And, you know, dealing with a national company, they feel that, everybody -- "I should get what I want," you know, and it's hard to go back and forth. But I think we went several times back and forth with different drawings and stuff to be able to had come to this and get them to say, "Okay. Well, we'll do this." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. Well, they are moving into a -- they're retrofitting a space, so they have to be flexible -- MR. OIJ: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- as well. MR. OIJ: Right, right, right. I'm sure if they were building it, they would have built it 25,000 square foot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Exactly, exactly. Okay. Great. Anything else? MR. OIJ: That's it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Public speakers? Anybody signed up to speak? MS. PADRON: We have zero. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Zero public speakers. November 13, 2025 pg. 44 Okay. Well, then you have nothing to refute or rebut. Thank you very much for the presentations. MR. OIJ: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's nice to see a fellow Hillsborough County -- East Bay High School maybe? MR. OIJ: No, no, no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No? Okay. MR. OIJ: Plant City. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Plant City, gotcha. All right. We're practically neighbors. MR. OIJ: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. John, thank you. Appreciate it. MR. KELLY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We'll move on. I have enough information. I know what's going on here, so I will get a decision out as quickly as possible. Yeah, I was going to say that. So we're moving into the next item, which is an administrative appeal, and if you don't mind, I would like to take about a 10-minute break just so we can all get ready for this. Thank you. So we'll come back here at a little -- like, say, 17 after, according to those clocks. (A recess was had from 2:09 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. This is the -- we're reconvening. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting. ***And we have the last item on our agenda which is an administrative appeal, and I will say that after all these November 13, 2025 pg. 45 years, this is the first administrative appeal, I believe, in front of me. So let's go. MR. BOSI: Afternoon, again. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director, and I'm here representing staff on the administrative appeal. I just wanted to note within the packet the -- or the public notice that was provided to the Clerk's website in accordance with the required posting. What I did not add, though, was the 500-foot property owner letter verification. We've got an affidavit that our emailing company sent that out. I will send that both to the court reporter and to Andrew for the full record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. BOSI: Next slide, please. So we're talking about the property at 2023 Pine Street. It's zoned C-4-GTZO-MXD. A carwash is a permitted use. It's Permitted Use No. 29 in the C-4 zoning district. So what I wanted to clearly establish is this isn't about use. This is -- a carwash is allowed at this location per the zoning district. Property owners may establish uses, densities/intensities in accordance with the existing LDC regulations of the underlying zoning classification or elect to develop/redevelop under the provisions in the applicable GTZO subdistrict. In either instance, the GTZO site development standards as provided for in LDC 4.02.16 shall apply. So what that's saying is you can pick the uses from either the Bayshore designation or the base zoning under -- zoning district, but you have to follow the standards of 4.02.16. And the appeal is that the Site Development Plan did November 13, 2025 pg. 46 not meet the criteria contained within that LDC section, and we'll walk through the assertations (phonetic) and what staff's perspective was in relationship to it. Next slide, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Bosi, before we continue, could we just sort out who are -- who are the parties here. I mean, I know the County made a decision, and who is appealing? Is it the -- so who -- why don't we -- let's just sort that out for the record. If you could put your name in the record, please. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Dickman. My name's Henry Johnson, and I serve as counsel to -- Start again. May it please the -- may it please you. My name's Henry Johnson. I serve as counsel to Strons, Inc., and Ronald Fowle. They are the owners of a parcel that is across the street from this parcel at 2595 Tamiami Trail East in Naples. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So when you say -- I just want to -- across the street, across the Tamiami Trail or -- MR. JOHNSON: Across 41. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So all the way over on the other side of 41, got it. Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Correct, correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they're -- you are the appellant. MR. JOHNSON: We're the appellant. Yeah, I know. It's a sort of a first time -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no. I just want to -- for the record, let's just get the -- and I believe then you probably represent -- go ahead, put your name on. November 13, 2025 pg. 47 MR. DAVIES: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hearing Examiner. Good afternoon. Noel Davies with the law firm of Davies Duke, for the record, and my client is the developer that received the SDP approval -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Carwash. MR. DAVIES: -- that is the subject of this appeal, yes, correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. So with that, what I would like to do is have Mr. Bosi go ahead and go through his presentation, and then if Mr. Davies as the appellee wants to say anything else, then do that, and then we'll have you do your case in chief, and we'll go from there. Does that sound fair? MR. JOHNSON: Fair, great. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We'll work through this, you know. I just want to keep the record very clean. MR. DAVIES: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Mr. Bosi, go ahead. Sorry to interrupt you. MR. BOSI: No, my apologies. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And just for the record, he is the -- he's running -- he's speaking on behalf of the County, which is the one that made the determination that is now under appeal. MR. BOSI: And unfortunately, it's really tough to read the language within the overhead. This is the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay district. The section contains special conditions for property in and November 13, 2025 pg. 48 adjacent to the Gateway Triangle as identified within the designated GTZO of the applicable Collier County Zoning Atlas. And what I wanted -- and I highlighted in yellow was a provision. Basically it says, when possible, buildings are located near the street with on-street parking and off-street parking on the side or in the rear of the parcel. And I point that out to highlight the characteristics of a CRA. A CRA is a unique animal within the County's zoning district, and it was an area that's been deemed blighted and designated as CRA to cure that blight. And the strategies that are provided for within the -- within the regulations are specific, but -- and a lot of times they encourage activity. Now encouraging activity is allowed, but it's not a requirement, so -- and that starts on some of the thrust of some of the -- I think the different interpretations that have happened within this, and I think we will explore those throughout the rest of this presentation. Next slide. The first section of code that's in reference is 4.02.16.D.3.b, and it says, "Frontage." It says, "The primary entrance for any building must be oriented to the street. That orientation is achieved by the provision of a front façade, including an entry door that faces the street or plaza." The appellant's assessment is, "The primary entrance to the office as well as the main entrance for the carwash funnel will be facing south and not oriented to the street as required. It's important to highlight these two entrances will account for all the customer/vehicle access. The location of November 13, 2025 pg. 49 the entry door does not meet the code requirements." The County's assessment of that, from a review of the proposed site plan, "The facility provides a front door for customers and an exit for the car wash tunnel facing U.S. 41," and it's as shown within the rendering provided for within the SDP. Next slide. And what you're seeing here is -- on the upper left is the front -- the front façade, the primary front façade for the facility which is facing U.S. 41, and then to the right is a -- is the -- is the primary front façade facing Pine Street. Both of those are the primary façades designated for the architectural compliance. As you can see, within the -- within the frontage facing U.S. 41, there is an exit door for the car wash funnel as well as an entrance door, and that's an entrance door that's on the primary façade. So that would be a primary entrance, in staff's perspective. And as such, we've reviewed it -- we reviewed it underneath that understanding. Further, you can't really see because of the clarity, but within Exhibit B, I submitted the architectural renderings for the facility, and both U.S. 41 and Pine Street, the two street frontages, are the primary façades. With two primary façades, you have two -- and the two other sides of the building are considered your side yards for setback purposes and for architectural purposes. But the design of the building, the characteristics, the architectural devi -- or the architectural breaks, the awnings, the glass has all been crafted for the traveling public to be able to see an interesting visual amenity. Based upon that, staff reviewed this code section and November 13, 2025 pg. 50 felt that front door was a front door on the primary façade, therefore satisfying the requirements of the code. Next slide. Additionally, this shows the southern elevation. This is the elev -- this is the front -- this is considered a secondary façade in the back of the building. This is where the car wash -- the cars will enter the car wash, and this is where the stacking of the cars will happen. And staff views that as an arrangement that is favorable for the overall visual appearance of this facility with the stacking happening behind the building, away from right-of-way, not in the front of the building -- not in the front of the building right on the right-of-way. Next slide, please. This next section of the code is 4.02.16.D.8.c.i. And it says, "The first floor building façade shall be located between the minimum and the maximum front setback line (if provided) and provided in LDC Section 4.02.16.A.a.ii for a maximum of 50 percent of the lot width." The applicant -- or the appellant's assessment is that the corner parcel has two front yards. The setback line needs to be a maximum of six and a half feet -- or a minimum of six and a half feet and a maximum of 56 feet between the north and the west sides of the property. The west side setback is 68.31 feet, which exceeds the maximum setback. Next slide. The County's assessment of that is the code section's not applicable. 4.02.16.B.1.a.ii, Table 7, which addresses setbacks for properties zoned GTZO-MXD, which this property is, it doesn't provide for a maximum front yard setback. Therefore this -- this provision is not applicable. November 13, 2025 pg. 51 Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So are you saying that they can have no -- zero front yard setback? MR. BOSI: The minimum front yard setback is 6.5. The maximum asserted by the applicant is that it's 56 feet. There is no maximum setback for properties zoned GTZO-MX [sic] based upon that table. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: LDC Section 4.02.16.D.8.B, yards. "The commercial building has a primary yard located to the rear of the structure with the potential for a small front plaza or courtyard to provide public space or dining." The appellant's assessment: "The primary yard and the yards to the south are approximately 5,731 square feet, and the west side of the building is approximately 10,540 square feet. This makes the primary yard in the front of the building instead of [sic] required in the rear of the structure." The County's assessment is, "The property with two street frontages, per code, has two front yards and two side yards. The code section states that the primary yard is located to the rear of the structure with the potential for a plaza or a courtyard but does not specify dimensional requirements for a primary yard as asserted by the applicant. As provided for within the associated site plan, the rear of the structure is the stacking area for the vehicles to enter the car wash" to -- in staff's view would not be an appropriate area for a courtyard, public space, or dining. Staff recognized this code section is not applicable to be -- to the permitted use of a car wash due to the limitations on space and the required functionality of the site plan arrangement. What this code is asking for is a public space, a public November 13, 2025 pg. 52 space in the rear yard. It's not requiring. It is asking for it. The assertion that there was a -- there's a dimensional requirement for what the -- for what the primary yard is or where it should be located I don't believe is supported by the code. I believe the code says it should be in the rear of the building with no measurements or no specific requirements for what the size of that primary yard shall be. Next slide, please. Section 4.05.08.C.D [sic], each parking space shall have a minimum -- this is for bicycle parking requirements. "Each parking space shall have a minimum of three feet of clearance on all sides of the bike rack." The appellant's assessment: The bike space -- "The bicycle spacing currently measures only two feet in width for both spots, whereas the code requires a total of six feet for the two designated areas." The county assessment: "The current location of the bike rack west of the pedestrian entry door on the north primary façade doesn't meet the requirement of the 3-foot clearance on all sides of the bike rack." So we agree with the appellant that we issued approval in error regarding the spacing for the bike rack. Next slide, please. LDC Section 4.02.16.F.5.b.ii: "On-site: Bicycle parking (not located within the parking structure) shall be located on site within 50 feet of the main building entrances. Bicycle parking shall not obstruct walkways." The appellant's assessment: "Bicycle parking is located approximately 80 feet from the main building entrance and is placed in front of the entry doorway and walkway, violating the above code." November 13, 2025 pg. 53 As noted within the staff report, the architectural renderings show the primary facade facing U.S. 41 and Pine Street right-of- ways. And further, the review of the SDP shows the bike rack parking located near the doors on the primary façade facing U.S. 4 -- U.S. 41; therefore, staff's of the opinion that the bike rack is within the required 50 feet. Next slide. Thank you. And I highlighted in yellow, you can see on the bottom right-hand, that is where it says the two -- bicycle rack, and it's pointing over to the area right next to the front door. So in that regard, staff feels that the distance measurement has been satisfied. Next slide, please. Finally, Section 4.06.05.C, minimum width planting shall be five feet. Remember, the code requirements are supposed to -- the dimensional standards, the standards applicable are contained in 4.02.16. The County assessment is 4.02.16 states, "Building foundation planting. Building shall be required per LDC except as follows: The building shall provide the equivalent of 10 percent of its gross ground floor area in the building foundation planting area. A continuous building foundation planting width is not required per the LDC Section 4.06.05." That's a key. "However, the foundation plantings shall be located within 25 feet of the building edge in the form of landscape courtyards and a seating area landscape. The proposed one-story building is 2,690 square feet, which per the LDC Section 4.02.16.E.4 requires 269 square feet of building foundation planting with LDC Section 4.06.05 allowing a maximum of 50 percent of the required foundation planting be located in the perimeter buffer, November 13, 2025 pg. 54 equating to 135 feet" -- or "square feet required around the actual building foundation." Also, LDC Section 4.02.16.E.4 states, "A continuous building foundation width is not required. The SDP provides that 221 square feet is provided around the foundation perimeter of the building. Since the GTZO site design standards in LDC Section 4.02.16.E.4 do not require the continuous building foundation planting width, it's the Zoning director's opinion that the 5-foot minimum width contained in Table 4.06.05.C of the LDC does not apply. The excess foundation plantings and perimeter landscape buffer satisfy the requirements." Next slide, please. And this is another -- hard to read, but it's from the architect -- or the landscape plans associated with the SDP showing that the required square footage of building foundation plantings has been provided for within either the buff -- the perimeters or on the foundation of the building. And finally, next slide. Staff recommendations: Staff is recommending that the Hearing Examiner approve the appeal and require that the SDP be amended to provide for the required 3-foot clearance for the bike rack on the northern primary façade, and that allows me just one other comment. As I had mentioned at the very beginning, this is not -- the question of use is not in question. This is clearly a use that's allowed for the -- on this parcel of land. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a use of right, so it can be approved administratively? MR. BOSI: Administratively. It's a permitted use. It can be approved administratively. November 13, 2025 pg. 55 The question is, has the administrative approval been issued correctly? Are there components of this building design that does not meet the code? And that's what the appeal is. So at the end of the day, if the code is not being satisfied, it's not deny the project. It's order the project to go back and amend the SDP whether through an insubstantial change or a full amendment if required, if it was that substantial, to correct the remedies that have been identified as not meeting the code in the determination of the Hearing Examiner. That's the outcome of what this hearing is about. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of questions. MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The first one is going to be -- I need you to put on the record your role with the County and specifically as it pertains to this application. MR. BOSI: As the Planning and Zoning director, I have been assigned by the -- by the County Manager as the interpreter of the Land Development Code. The SDP was approved by Ms. Cook's shop, the development review team. But as the official interpreter of the -- of the code, it is my responsibility to defend staff -- staff's interpretation of that code. So in that regard, the reason why I am the one making the presentation other than -- and not staff who issued the SDP is I am the official interpreter of the LDC. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And how long have you been in this capacity? MR. BOSI: Since 2021, so for four years, and then for nine years prior to that in the same capacity as Zoning November 13, 2025 pg. 56 director. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're -- would you say that you're familiar with the Collier County Land Development Code? MR. BOSI: Yes, I would. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And that it's your job to supervise the planners who review these applications as they come in? MR. BOSI: The planners who review the administrative review I do not directly supervise, but I have a regular dialogue in coordination with in terms of applicability if questions come up, things like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And then you reviewed every -- you reviewed their interpretations and this case before coming here today? MR. BOSI: Yeah. As part of my preparation, I met with Lisa Blacklidge, the LDC review -- or Development Review manager, and we went over the issues in the application. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And again, I'm just asking -- I want to get things on the record. Can you speak to -- I notice that -- all right. I want to talk -- and this is going to be spoiler alert. This is something that I'll probably want to hear from both lawyers. But I notice that in the staff review here, it talked about being filed on May 21st, 2025, and then again, there was some type of revision on June 16th, 2021. What was that revision; do you know? Don't guess if you don't know. MR. BOSI: One second. Could I consult with -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, if November 13, 2025 pg. 57 someone's going to speak, they need to say it. Maybe you want to introduce her. MR. BOSI: This is -- this is Jaime Cook. She is the director of Development Review, the issuing department. Okay. So I'm just curious about that. I mean, because this is going to timeliness as well. So -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have you been sworn in? MS. COOK: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let's do that. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MS. COOK: I do. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. MS. COOK: Mr. Dickman, the plans that were submitted in June was a minor revision to the landscape plans. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's the landscape that was -- would you con -- and you're calling it a minor revision. MS. COOK: When staff originally went back and looked at this was when concerns were brought to the Development Review team. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. COOK: We did notice that there was a tree missing from the landscape plans for spacing requirements. So we had worked with the applicant to get those plans revised and resubmitted and reviewed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank November 13, 2025 pg. 58 you for that information. I appreciate it. MS. COOK: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Bosi, so with regard to just the timeliness, I note that there was a 30-day -- you know, that's calendar days, unless -- would you -- is it your belief that by having this landscape modification, that restarts the 30-day clock? MR. BOSI: Yes. We reviewed that as that minor modification, though, opened up the approval, and because of that -- that -- in staff's perspective, any administrative approval has a 30- day challenge period, and we thought that would open up that 30- day challenge period as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So, then, you're of the opinion that this is a timely -- timely filed appeal. MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Last question, I note that on the application itself, the appeal for administrative decision, it -- I'm going to talk about, like, the standing issue. I know you're not a lawyer, so -- but I just want to get your input on it. It talks about an affected property owner, and then it just says "within 300 feet of the property lines of the property." Is that the -- but you did a 500-feet radius of the notice, right? MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And is -- the appellant, are they within 300 feet of the property, or -- don't guess if you don't know. MR. BOSI: I do not -- I would -- I think close -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- but I would have to confirm that. November 13, 2025 pg. 59 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Very good. And then it also goes on to say, "An aggrieved or affected party is defined as a person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code, or building code." So I didn't know if -- and is that -- is that coming right out of the county code? MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it's kind of like saying you're either an -- you're considered to have standing, if you will, or affected property owner, if you're within 300 feet, but then it goes on to say you also have to be adversely affected. Do you have any opinion regarding, like, whether or not this person is adversely affected? If you don't have an opinion, you don't have an opinion -- MR. BOSI: I would say that, no, I don't believe that there is an adverse effect upon the appellant regarding the claims of the -- of the code not being satisfied because of the design of the building. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Very good. And again, I was just sort of telegraphing to both lawyers because I wanted to handle those procedural issues first, and then we'll get into the substantive matters, okay. Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Appreciate it. So why don't we go to the representative for the appellant first and then -- no, the -- you're the appellee. So why don't we follow up with -- why don't we do the appellee first. November 13, 2025 pg. 60 MR. DAVIES: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then hear from you. Obviously I want to know about timeliness and standing first, and then you can go into your arguments. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Hearing Examiner. Again, for the record, Noel Davies on behalf of the property owner that was issued the SDP. So timeliness and standing, first of all -- and this is all in a presentation that I have incorporated into the backup. A letter -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Just for the record, I do have both the legal memos. I believe both of you submitted legal memorandums. MR. DAVIES: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I have those. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. Okay. I don't know that it's entirely clear on this -- I mean, I can't say that I've dealt with this specific issue before on the 30-day rule. I can tell you that that's the first thing that we looked at because if you're doing the -- the way that I reviewed the stamped SDP approval -- and I think it was May 21st -- it had that date on it -- we're not denying or objecting to the facts that Ms. Cook and Mr. Bosi shared with you which is that there was, albeit very minor, a post SDP approved date submittal or partial submittal with respect to the tree issue that Ms. Cook outlined. So there's really two issues in my head that I think that brings up. One is when you do an after-the-fact submittal like that, after SDP is approved, does that then toll the time November 13, 2025 pg. 61 period such that 30 days then resets based on that? I don't know that the code provides a specific answer for Your Honor on that. I think the answer is it probably does. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. If you want -- I mean, it's something I'm going to have to look at, but I mean, I read your memo, and I believe that you're bringing up a timelessness issue. So if you just want to, like, reiterate that on the record, say that we do object to this on a timeliness basis, I think it is something that I have to look at because, you know, is this a -- is this considered a second approval later on just because of the landscape change, or was this a modification? I'll have to sort all through that. So if you want to -- MR. DAVIES: Thank you. So, again, for record purposes, we would like the record to reflect a legal memorandum that we provided -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: -- which does assert a timeliness objection. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. What do you make of the affected party, aggrieved party standing issue? MR. DAVIES: Yeah. If I may, before we get there, just one other thought on that. So on the -- so that objection is in the memo and is noted for the record. Generally, i.e., the date that the appeal that we're here for today was filed after 30 days had run from that May 21st date. But I think a nuance there as well is if we accept that the date is tolled. Is it appropriate that this body here, the entirety of items with respect to the SDP, or is it only November 13, 2025 pg. 62 bringing into play those items with respect to that supplementary submittal which, as you heard from Ms. Cook, was a very minor, "Hey, fix this tree." "We fixed it." "Okay, you're good." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So whether it's plenary or limited is an issue, okay. MR. DAVIES: Um-hmm. So perhaps -- and we would note for the record a position that I don't think my legal memorandum includes, but I'd like the record to note that I think that in the event that Mr. Hearing Examiner feels that the time was tolled, Mr. Hearing Examiner should also consider whether or not that tolling applied plenary or simply to the subject not nonmaterial landscape change that was provided. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Understood. And we may have to circle back to Mr. Bosi on that to see what his opinion is. But I understand the issue that -- you bring up a good issue, because -- so we're talking about timeliness, but we're also talking about, like, scope. MR. DAVIES: Scope -- scope as part of timeliness. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Okay, great. MR. DAVIES: So that's one of timeliness. And then the second item you wanted to hear about -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Aggrieved. MR. DAVIES: -- is this aggrieved party -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The standing issue. MR. DAVIES: You'll hear in my formal presentation some important context which is that the property owner -- November 13, 2025 pg. 63 the appellant is a property owner across 41 who happens to run a car wash. So it's my -- so I don't know what and how that may potentially impact that. I think my position, Mr. Hearing Examiner, is I would agree with the position of staff insomuch as I don't believe that this is an adversely -- that the appellant has suffered some sort of adverse impact or is adversely affected specific to the allegations set forth in the appeal documents. So in other words, you know, this idea, right, in the land-use practice comes up all the time, adverse impacts and mitigation thereof. As I'm -- as I'm sure you're getting a sense of or perhaps have already a sense of, prior to this hearing, we're really in the weeds here, right, with this specific SDP provisions. I'm going to walk, for record purposes, through each of the appellant's arguments. But these are -- I don't think that anything put forth in the appeal, whether -- whether that -- no matter your decision on that, has some sort of material -- or specifically an adverse impact on a property owner way -- you know, across from -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand. MR. DAVIES: And again, it's across from the East Trail, right? So... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me -- do you know this or not: Do you know whether or not they are within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is affected? Do you -- wait a second, Mr. -- I'm asking counsel. You don't? MR. DAVIES: I don't. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. November 13, 2025 pg. 64 MR. DAVIES: I'm not going to guess. I think it's probably close because it's -- but I'm not sure the specific measurement. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And there's another part to this which talks more to the adverse effect, and it's a little strange because, you know, it seems like -- I don't know if this means you're automatically a party with standing if you're within 300 feet, and then there's another part to this which says, an aggrieved party, da, da, da, da, da. So I've got to sort through that. MR. DAVIES: I'm not sure if it's an "and" or an "or" there, if that's where you're going. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know. I don't know either. It's not clear. But I do understand standing quite a bit, and I think what you're saying is that, okay, don't -- there are -- they're a competing car wash. Not so sure that the standards in terms of -- the performance standards in terms of the orientation and the landscaping, the things that they're arguing about don't necessarily affect them. It's actually the use; is that a fair statement? MR. DAVIES: Yeah, I think that's a fair statement. But let me give you a quick example which we'll get to in more detail. But one of the allegations which you heard Mr. Bosi talk about is the difference between two feet versus three feet of space or clearance from the pertinent bike rack on the property, okay. You'll hear that we don't have an objection to fixing that, and we're in agreement the county staff recommendation. However, whether the bike rack has two feet of clearance or three feet of clearance, I don't believe that that is an item that creates adverse impacts on a November 13, 2025 pg. 65 property owner across the East Trail. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, I understand. All right. So you want to jump right into your case in chief? And, by the way, I'll give both of you time for rebuttal. Just -- I want to hear everything because this is the only time I'll have the ability to talk to you guys and hear it. So I'm going to take my time to make sure we get everything on the table, okay? MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Hearing Examiner, as a practical matter -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: -- do you want our side, as the appellants, to address the procedural issues before we get into the substance, or do you want it all at one time? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I would rather keep it clean and just go from one party to the next. I think that will read better in the transcripts, if you don't mind -- MR. JOHNSON: Perfect. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- but thank you for asking. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then just so you guys realize, I made -- I'm making notes, and we may need to go back to the County for their opinion on certain things. MR. JOHNSON: Perfect. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for your patience. November 13, 2025 pg. 66 All right. Mr. Davies, the floor is yours. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, again, Mr. Hearing Examiner. Record purposes, the formal name of my client, the recipient of the approved SDP for the car wash, is the East Trail Management, LLC, the subject property owner. My client is the builder/developer/property owner of the car wash that we're here this afternoon to discuss. My client representative, Mr. Calabrese, is here, as well as my client's civil engineer, Mr. Dan Griffiths. As I had mentioned earlier, Mr. Hearing Examiner, we do concur with the findings and evidence presented by county staff. We are agreeable to providing the additional one foot on each side of the subject bicycle rack consistent with county staff. We don't believe there is any merit to any of the other items mentioned in the subject appeal, all of which should be dismissed by Your Honor. I mentioned this earlier. I had submitted some arguments on September 3rd, 2025, which are in the backup for today's agenda. That backup, for record purposes, is found at Pages 378 to 382 of today's backup -- of the agenda for today's backup. Next slide, please. Some history. My client filed the subject SDP application on July 12th of 2024. County staff approved the application for SDP on May 21st, 2025, and this appeal was filed, I believe, on July 14th of '25. Housekeeping matter, Your Honor. I would like to qualify my client's civil engineer, Dan -- Daniel Griffiths, as an expert with respect to civil engineering in the application and interpretation of the Collier County Land Development November 13, 2025 pg. 67 Code governing SDP applications. For the record, I would like to submit a copy of Mr. Griffiths' curriculum vitae. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you have copies for the appellant as well? Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Mr. Griffiths has the specialized knowledge to qualify him as an expert witness. He's worked as a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida -- or is licensed in the state of Florida as a professional engineer and has been working on Collier County SDP applications for over 10 years, specifically since 2014. He is here today if you have any questions for him. If not, I would ask that he be accepted as an expert witness in civil engineering as requested. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I've reviewed his résumé, and it appears as though he would qualify as an expert, so... MR. DAVIES: Thank you, sir. Again, as you heard from county staff, they are recommending that this be -- appeal be approved but only for an amendment to memorialize the bicycle rack spacing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: May I ask a question about that? MR. DAVIES: Yeah -- yes, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So, hypothetically, if it does go back to change the application on the bike rack, does that restart the 30-day appeal period? Are we getting in a loop? MR. DAVIES: Potentially. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: I think that if Your Honor rules that November 13, 2025 pg. 68 there's no basis to the appeal -- or to the arguments set forth in the appeal documents with the exception of the bicycle rack item, the additional one for the clearance on each side, and as Mr. Bosi pointed out, you're directed to -- or my client's directed to submit -- under that scenario it would be an SDPI, right, an insubstantial amendment to SDP to fix the bike rack spacing, and that SDPI is approved, then I believe, but I would defer to county staff, that there would be a 30-day clock on that administrative approval as an SDPI, but again, back to scope. I think -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Or -- or it could be per the Hearing Examiner's decision, which would basically be a decision to make that change ordered here so that it doesn't start -- MR. DAVIES: A real-time amendment to SDP -- we have a copy of -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, assuming -- I mean, I won't make any rulings here today, but I am concerned -- and I'm not trying to telegraph anything to anybody. I don't have an opinion on that, but I do -- I do worry about a waste -- a waste of everybody's resources and getting -- having this be Groundhog's Day and coming back to me, and we're like, you know, okay -- but I think I know how I can handle it or try to handle it. MR. DAVIES: Let me do this, if I may, then. To that end, upon receipt of the staff report, Mr. Griffiths did put together a revised plan that depicts the subject bike rack spacing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: So I would like to submit this into evidence as a plan that depicts a revised location of the November 13, 2025 pg. 69 bicycle rack at issue, and perhaps this could be -- well, let me just -- let me just say that and put that into evidence as an exhibit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it something that perhaps Mr. Bosi or his team can look at and confirm that it actually makes that adjustment here? Do you have extra copies? MR. DAVIES: I'll defer to Mr. Bosi. I think we have it electronically. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: And we had a copy just in case. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So let me ask Mr. Bosi a question real quick because -- so this is -- we're going to do this as slightly informal, so bear with me. We're going to try to keep it like court but also keep it informal. So, Mr. Bosi, if they give you -- if they show you this revision, are you capable of confirming that it has resolved the bike rack issue? MR. DAVIES: Could I ask that we send it electronically so maybe he can zoom in on his computer? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think it's important for -- also for the appellant to have the ability to look at it as well. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I can see there is an increased area for where the bike rack is located and a clear area around that. I cannot -- I don't have a digit -- a scale to be able to kind of measure it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, okay. MR. BOSI: But it would appear that there is -- November 13, 2025 pg. 70 vegetation has been pushed back in that three feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, let me ask -- let me ask the appellant's attorney a question. And this is -- I'm going to kind of do this off the cuff here. You heard what I just said about Groundhog's Day, and if it goes in that direction or -- is there any way that you would be willing to -- I mean, if this goes that direction -- and I'm not trying to say I'm leaning one way or the other. I'm just trying to hypothetically think about a waste of legal time, our time, everything. If there was going to be, "Hey, send it back and make that minor insubstantial change on the bike rack," is that something that -- where you or your client would waive the appeal? MR. JOHNSON: I would feel uncomfortable with it without discussing that, respectfully, with my client, because -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I would ask. MR. JOHNSON: -- I may be a waiving -- I may be waiving an important right. So respectfully, I wouldn't want to do that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Maybe if you can just give it some thought. I just thought I would ask you. Okay. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. All right. MR. DAVIES: So I think where I left off was the bike rack spacing. No objection to that. And the record reflects the revised plan, which I believe comports with the staff recommendation in the staff report. November 13, 2025 pg. 71 All other allegations made by the appellants have been rejected by staff, as you heard. We concur with that. And we are in agreement with the evidence and testimony in the record for this item as presented to you by the County staff. The subject property, as you've heard, is zoned C-4-GTZO-MXD, which means that it is located within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay District specifically within the mixed-use district thereof. The, quote-unquote, "Purpose and intent of this district" -- and I'm reading from 2.03.07.N, as in "Nancy," 1, quote, "is to encourage revitalization of the Gateway Triangle portion of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area," end quote. The subject property is located within the CRA, or a CRA, which is an area within the County for which the County is seeking redevelopment and private-dollar investment. You heard this from Mr. Bosi as well. If we look to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically Page 164, Section V, as in "Victor," H as in "Harry," states, quote, "The intent of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this area." These encouragement-of-redevelopment statements are embedded throughout the pertinent provisions of the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan governing this CRA. The county wants these properties developed and, of course, wants them developed in accordance with the governing regulations which my client has complied with and staff has confirmed by issuing the subject SDP approval. November 13, 2025 pg. 72 Again, the broad purposes of a CRA district are the encouragement of the redevelopment of blighted areas, and inherent within that concept, as well as the governing Florida case law, is certain regulatory flexibility through interpretation by and deference to county staff. All due respect to the appellant, as you've heard from county staff, appellant cites to the wrong provisions of the Land Development Code, specifically the citation -- there's a citation to a code provision that applies only to the mini-triangle portion of the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay. Subject property's not located within the mini-triangle. And you'll see on your screen a Footnote 6. This is taken directly from Table 7 within Section 4.02.16.B.1 of the Land Development Code, and it states, quote, "Developments in the mini-triangle area of the GTZO-MXD subdistrict shall have a maximum setback of 20 feet," end quote. We're not located within the referenced mini-triangle area subdistrict within the Gateway Triangle Zoning Overlay. So there's no maximum front yard setback. And I think it's important that Your Honor's aware that appellant is incorrectly citing to provisions of code that don't apply to the property. My client was frustrated by that, certainly, and it's a theme that you'll hear from my remarks. In addition to citing to the wrong code provisions, it's our opinion that appellant has perverted, quite frankly, the County's administrative appeal process as a delay tactic. Appellant is a competitor of my client. You've heard previously that appellant owns a car wash. It happens to be across the East Trail from the subject property, and that's the real reason why we're here today. We're not here because the appellant has purportedly suffered some sort of adverse November 13, 2025 pg. 73 impact. We're here because the appellant wants to delay a competitor from coming into business across the street, and the way that they've decided to do that is to try to pick apart very, very detailed and specific provisions within the SDP portions of the Land Development Code. They've cited to some incorrect ones. They've made a number of incorrect statements, and because of that and because of the county's due process requirements, which we certainly respect and appreciate, it's taken months to even get to you today. And I think that that's something that should be examined by the County's Hearing Examiner because, as you well know, the filing of appeal, which we certainly acknowledge -- affected parties have the right to file -- causes delay with respect to the construction of the -- of the subject project. And the subject project was duly approved, went through the SDP process, multiple back-and-forths pursuant to that process with staff, and staff has the competence, ability, experience, specialized knowledge to interpret the code and to apply it to each property. And to Mr. Bosi's comments also, to specific permitted uses on the property, there's some nuance to that application and interpretation, and that's within the broad deference that staff's given to interpret its code to apply it to a use on each site, particularly when it's in a redevelopment area. Beyond those two mentions of appellant's arguments, the remainder -- and I think I previewed this -- are simply incorrect statements. You've heard that from county staff. I'm still going to go through the rest of them. You'll hear from my client's expert civil engineer that he's in agreement with the staff that the SDP meets the governing regulations. The appellant makes a claim about the primary entrance. November 13, 2025 pg. 74 Next slide, please. This is a reference to Section 4.02.16.D.3.b of the LDC. This provision requires the entrance face the street. Next slide, please. So you've seen this before, Mr. Hearing Examiner. These are the renderings that were provided to the County. If you look at the one on the left, this is a view if I'm standing on the East Trail and I'm looking at the site. You'll see the exit to the car wash. To the right of that you'll see two double doors, two glass doors. That's the entrance. It faces the street. And this is one of the examples that I think it's important that I share with you about what really is a disingenuous filing citing to a provision. You've got record evidence from an appellant citing to a provision that says, the doors -- "The entrance doesn't face the street." And I think everyone in this room can see that the entrance faces the street. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that's the primary door for patrons to enter and pay, and whatever else? So those doors -- I'm going to point to them. MR. DAVIES: That is the -- yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is like a -- basically the elevation that faces Tamiami Trail, and this is the primary doors that someone would go into? MR. DAVIES: Yeah. I mean, it's -- it's a car wash. There's not a whole lot -- this is not a -- this is not, you know, an accountant's office, a lawyer's office, a general office or retail, right? The purpose of this use is to allow for washing of cars. But there's a small office in there, and, you know, we all know what happens if you've got an issue with November 13, 2025 pg. 75 your sticker or whatever. And yes, that -- my understanding is that's the primary entrance. It faces the street. I think anything else is frustrating to see. Appellant is also arguing that the bicycle parking is not within 50 feet of the main building entrance. Next slide, please. This is Section 4.02.16.F.5.b.ii. You heard this from Mr. Bosi. The bike rack is right next to the entrance. Claiming that the bike rack is more than 50 feet away is, again, concerning to see. It's well within the 50 feet. You heard testimony from staff, that's in the staff report, yet we're here defending the client's approval that a bike rack that's right outside the doors is something more than 50 feet away. Appellant also asks you -- or I expect will ask you, and in their filings asked you -- to effectively add words to a specific provision of the code with respects -- with respect to yards. Next slide, please. Mr. Bosi referenced this as well. This is 4 -- Section 4.02.16.D.8.b, as in "boy." Primary yard located to the rear of the structure -- so, excuse me. A -- "Commercial building has a primary yard located to the rear of the structure with the potential for a small front plaza or courtyard to provide public space or outdoor dining." You heard staff conclude that this provision does not apply to the specific car wash use on the site. We certainly don't agree with that. And, you know, staff does have broad discretion, as I mentioned, to apply and interpret the code. If I may, Mr. Hearing Examiner, there is a full body of case law that supports the broad discretion of staff and the November 13, 2025 pg. 76 respect that courts have given them with respect to their interpretation of code. I'm going to read some cites, if that's okay, for the record, and then I do have copies of these cases with me for Your Honor and for opposing counsel. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: Um-hmm. Office of Fire Code Official of Collier County Fire Control and Rescue Districts v. Florida Department of Financial Services, 869 So. 2d 1233, Pin 1237. It's a Collier County case out of the Second DCA, 2004. Also, Las Olas Tower Company v. City of Fort Lauderdale. That's 742 So. 2d 308, Pin 312. That's Fourth DCA from 1999. Palm Beach Polo, Inc., v. Village of Wellington, 918 So. 2d 988, Pin 995, 996, out of the Fourth DCA from 2006. And State Contracting and Engineering Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 709 So. 2d 607, Pin 610, out of the First, 1998. And finally, Golf Crest, G-o-l-f, Nursing Home v. State Agency for Healthcare Administration, 662 So. 2d 1330, Pin Cite 1333, out of the First, 1995. I'll provide copies of the cases now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. So I believe what you're saying is these stand for the proposition regarding the County's authority to interpret its own Land Development Code? MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And there's some specifics there. These are -- these are five examples, but they're -- like I said, a body of case law on this topic that makes clear that "great weight," quote-unquote, should be given to staff's interpretation of the code. November 13, 2025 pg. 77 Importantly, overruling that deference of staff's interpretation requires a finding that such interpretation is, quote-unquote, "clearly erroneous." So we've got a clearly erroneous standard, and then the Collier County Second DCA case that I mentioned takes that even a step further. And the quote there is the staff deference, quote, "Requires that we uphold staff's interpretation if it is within the range of possible and reasonable interpretations," end quote. Staff's interpretation here should be respected. It should be upheld. It is certainly appropriate, it is definitely possible, and it's more than reasonable in this case. That's staff discretion. Beyond that, to the extent that Your Honor disagrees with staff or finds that staff is clearly erroneous on this specific item, it's our position that to the extent the code provision applies, that we've met the letter of the code. As previously outlined specifically this provision -- and you heard this from Mr. Bosi, but the language -- and, again, you see this as we've -- as I've shared earlier and as Mr. Bosi shared, you know, there are certain things that are being requested, right, in the CRA district or items that -- the word in the code is "potential," right? So if that makes sense and if that works, again, depending on the use -- you've got a lot of uses to choose from between C-4 and the Gateway Triangle Overlay. And as you heard from Mr. Bosi, you can pick from that. But there's discretion embedded within staff's interpretation of that code. And this says "potential." It doesn't say "shall." It doesn't say "require." There's an argument from appellant about landscape plantings. You heard from staff about this as well. This is Section 4.06.05.C. And 4.02.16.E.4, Mr. Bosi outlined this November 13, 2025 pg. 78 nicely. So there's the 5-foot rule, but there's an exception to that. This is the one with the landscape plantings where Mr. Bosi showed you the math. Again -- and I get it. The -- there is a lot of code in Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. There's -- there's certain exceptions. We fit within that exception. County staff outlined that. And that provision of the code was and has been met. There were a couple of additional arguments that appellant added in a brief recently filed, as I understand, and supplement to its original. This was not in the original appeal document, but I want to make sure that, for record purposes, I address it. One relates to Section 5.05.08.D, as in "dog," ii. It's regarding convenient access from both parking and the street. I believe this was submitted -- I'm not sure if this argument was submitted before or after the staff report. I don't believe that staff agrees with the argument. But the theme remains the same. This is a convenient access from parking provision from the street. There's convenient access. I'm not sure how else to say that. We just respectfully disagree that there's not convenient access from the parking lot to that small office in the car wash and from the street. The other added argument references architectural standards. This comes from Section 5.05.08.A, as in "apple," vi. This relates to visual interests from the perspective of a pedestrian, a reduction of massing or scaling of this sort of uniform monolithic appearance. Mr. Bosi, I believe, did touch on this. There -- it's another incorrect statement by the appellant. There are architectural embellishments. There are pleasing aesthetic features to the building that are, you know, aesthetically November 13, 2025 pg. 79 interesting from a pedestrian viewpoint, from an architectural standpoint, generally. Admittedly, the car wash use -- I expect -- I'm no architect -- is a challenging one to design in a really architecturally interesting way, but I think this one does include these components. The code encourages that. There are different embellishments, architectural ornaments that do exactly what the code suggests. And so, again, bringing that up when we meet the letter of it. We certainly disagree with that. The bike rack spaces, we've spoken -- I've spoken to, excuse me, a fair amount. Again, there's no objection to adding an additional foot of clearance if that's what Your Honor would like us to do. Certainly, to tie up your prior comments on that, I mean, I mentioned the delay, and, again, respect the appellate process very highly in the county code, but this has caused a significant delay for this project, responding to these allegations, preparing, and attending this hearing today, and to the extent that we've got to go do an insubstantial change when we already had an SDP back in May, anything that Your Honor feels in his discretion with respect to trying to avoid the Groundhog Day concept and giving a final decision, whether that be rejecting the appeal in its entirety or accepting the staff recommendation and perhaps incorporating this exhibit that was provided with a revised bike location or, alternatively, making clear in some creative fashion that -- as much as we like being here, we don't want to have to continue to come back over and over for very nonmaterial minor changes and, quite frankly, misreading of the code application. With that and with the exception of the bike racks November 13, 2025 pg. 80 spacing item, we're asking respectfully that you dismiss all of appellant's arguments. The SDP was properly issued. It's in compliance with the pertinent Collier County code, and the interpretation of staff should be given the appropriate deference per the cases that I've added into the record. That concludes, Mr. Hearing Examiner, my formal remarks. I would like to briefly have Mr. Griffiths, the civil engineer, put some evidence into the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: I believe he's been qualified as an expert. I'm just going to do a couple direct questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go ahead. MR. DAVIES: Why don't you go ahead and state your name and your title. MR. GRIFFITHS: Yes, Your Honor. Dan Griffiths from Griffiths Engineering, principal. MR. DAVIES: And, Mr. Griffiths, do you agree with the code interpretations expressed in my remarks and as outlined in my letter dated September 3rd, 2025, which is in the backup for today's hearing at Pages 378 and 382? MR. GRIFFITHS: Yes, I do. MR. DAVIES: And do you agree with staff's conclusions as set forth in the staff report and the presentation provided by staff that the approved SDP complies with all applicable provisions of the code, notwithstanding the bicycle racks spacing item I mentioned? MR. GRIFFITHS: Yes, I do. MR. DAVIES: And, again, notwithstanding the bike spacing item -- or the bike-rack spacing item, is it your expert opinion that the SDP approved by the County for the subject property was appropriately and lawfully issued and November 13, 2025 pg. 81 complies with all applicable code sections. MR. GRIFFITHS: Yes, I do. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Hearing Examiner. That's all I've got. I'm happy to answer any questions. MR. JOHNSON: Cross-examination. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So if -- as long as the -- you keep your questions within the scope of the questions that were asked of him and not introduce new evidence, because you're going to have plenty of time to do your case in chief. So he would like to ask your expert some questions. MR. JOHNSON: I'll try to keep it brief. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. It's Mr. Griffiths? MR. GRIFFITHS: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSON: I'm Henry Johnson. MR. GRIFFITHS: Hi. How you doing? MR. JOHNSON: And I have the pleasure of representing Strons, Incorporated, and Ronald Fowle. I have a questions for you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, if you could -- all of you speak -- MR. JOHNSON: Here we go again. Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There you go. That's better. Much better. MR. JOHNSON: My name is Henry Johnson. I serve as counsel to Strons, Inc., and I have a few questions for you. MR. GRIFFITHS: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: First, so it's clear for the record, November 13, 2025 pg. 82 you're not a lawyer, correct? MR. GRIFFITHS: Correct. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And you haven't been asked to interpret any of the code provisions of the Land Development Code here in Collier County; is that correct? MR. GRIFFITHS: Say that question again. MR. JOHNSON: You haven't -- you haven't been asked to interpret the provisions of the Land Development Code from a legal perspective? MR. GRIFFITHS: No. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And are you familiar with this particular drawing which is part of the packet which is for today's hearing? MR. GRIFFITHS: Let me see. MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to show you here -- I apologize for the Hearing Examiner. I'm an old-school fellow, and I have a beautiful, beautiful pointer. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me ask you this: So I see that it's Sheet A100. Is that an official document that's in the record that's part of the application? MR. JOHNSON: It is part of the application, and it's in part of this record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So he is showing him Page A100. MR. DAVIES: And is there a packet page reference to today's hearing? MR. JOHNSON: I can check for the record. It's in the staff record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is this -- is this addressing a question that Mr. Davies asked him? MR. JOHNSON: He ask some broad questions, and I November 13, 2025 pg. 83 think there is one specific question I would like to ask, okay? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Go ahead. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Griffiths -- MR. DAVIES: I'll note an objection on that piece for the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Mr. Griffiths, are you familiar with this schematic? MR. GRIFFITHS: This is the architect's plans, I believe. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Are you familiar with these? MR. GRIFFITHS: We corresponded with each other, yes. MR. DAVIES: If I may, Your Honor, to the extent he's asking my question about architecture, my client's a civil engineer, has been accepted as an expert in civil engineering, not architecture. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I agree. Please limit your questions to what -- I mean, I assume you have your own expert. MR. JOHNSON: I do not -- I do not have an expert. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Well, stay within the parameters of which he testified to. MR. JOHNSON: I will -- I will allow him to move forward, and I'll get on to my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Your Honor. November 13, 2025 pg. 84 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we're moving on to the appellant's main presentation. Welcome, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. May it please Your Honor. We represent Strons, Inc., and Ronald Fowle. I'd like to address, first of all, the procedural issues that were -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate that. MR. JOHNSON: -- where we started. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate that. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. For the record, the public records that have been filed for -- with Collier County for this matter reflect the following: And I have additional copies if we need that, but I will represent that the -- the Collier County records reflect that the SDP was approved on 6/16 of 2025. That was the approval date. And it's reflected in the public records of Collier County. And I can provide and request, if you wish to add as an exhibit to today's hearing, the actual public record which shows that the planned -- the approved site plan was on 6/16 of 2025. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, please. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But I'm going to have some questions for you about that. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. A copy for Mr. Davies. And if may I approach. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, please. Yes. We're not that formal here. Go ahead. All right. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. November 13, 2025 pg. 85 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So my question's going to be, please address the May 21st approval. And you heard earlier that the June 16th approval was really for -- was for a minor landscape change. So my question to you would be regarding -- I think there is a legal question regarding the scope of the appeal because if your appeal is not timely as to the plenary action, I think I'm going to have to deal -- I'm going to have to deal with that legal question, the scope. MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to present for the record, which was the May 21st, 2025, letter that was addressed from Collier County to Dan Griffiths -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: -- which I think will help to verify. I have certain pieces and parts. MR. DAVIES: Your Honor, can I make an objection for the record to this document? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. DAVIES: My understanding -- and I'm not sure what this document purports to depict. I believe that this is a printout from CityView which shows a -- which references with that 6/16/25 date -- the subject landscaping addition, but every SDP -- or excuse me. Every document of the SDP approval that I've seen has a date stamp on it of May 21st which is the date of the approval. I don't think that this -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I think -- let me just -- MR. DAVIES: -- changes that. So I just want to note that objection for the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand that. And so before we get into a waterfall of new evidence November 13, 2025 pg. 86 and new exhibits and things like that, it's -- this is an appeal, and you understand -- MR. JOHNSON: I realize that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- what an appeal is. So an appeal is based on the record. MR. JOHNSON: Right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so these -- I'm hoping that these documents -- I mean, of course, you're allowed to provide case law. That's law. You both are lawyers. That's what I expect you to do, but I mean, if you're bringing in new documents, you know, it's -- I may have to cut that off. MR. JOHNSON: We're asking -- we're only asking Your Honor to take judicial notice of what's of public record, and I think that that's absolutely permissible in this informal proceeding. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: This is a public record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me examine that, please. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And Mr. Davies has already objected, so your objection's noted. And was this part of your appeal packet, like -- MR. JOHNSON: It was -- it was only -- it was not part of my -- Your Honor, it was not a part of my appeal packet. It was only -- we only recently received a copy of Mr. Davies' letter that had been provided to the County in the appellate -- in the full county record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hmm. MR. JOHNSON: And as a consequence of that, we did November 13, 2025 pg. 87 our due diligence. We took a look and saw, well, what really happened on the 21st? And on the 21st, it says, "General conditions. Changes in use and/or design of these site and architectural plans are not authorized without written approval by the County. Changes shall require rereview in accordance with all current county codes including parking facilities, utilities, transportation, environmental requirements and the like." Then we say that this letter on the 21st was just that, a letter. And the record that our client relied upon initially when he filed his notice of appeal, without the assistance of counsel, was based upon the fact that the public record reflected the timely file, meaning that the public record reflected that the SDP was approved on 6/16 of 2025; that this letter from May 21st of 2025 reflected that there could be changes, could be modifications and placed no limitations on that. So we don't -- it's our position, respectfully, that the May 21st is not an operable date. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. This is a legal -- a question -- a procedural legal question that I'm going to have to grapple through. You both have made good arguments to that effect with regard to the timeliness, but -- not only the timeliness but the scope, because what was changed at the later submittal was a landscape issue. So I'll have to deal with what the scope of -- what would have been fair game for an appeal or not. MR. JOHNSON: Fair enough. Fair enough. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then I do need to hear about why your client is an affected or aggrieved party. November 13, 2025 pg. 88 MR. JOHNSON: Well, first of all, his property's within 268 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How do you know that? MR. JOHNSON: From the representation of our client. And we can put him under oath. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're a lawyer. You can't provide me with substantial competent evidence. So how do we know that? MR. JOHNSON: The answer, it's the first time that we've heard that there's a challenge based upon that issue. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no. I'm asking the question because I have to, like -- as a basic question, you have to have standing; do you not? MR. JOHNSON: Absolutely, and I can put testimony on of my client to establish that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Bring your client up. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Fowle, come on up to the podium. MR. FOWLE: I haven't been sworn in. MR. JOHNSON: Hold on. Hold on. He needs to be sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. FOWLE: I do. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Fowle, will you please state your full name for the record. MR. FOWLE: My name is Ronald Arthur Fowle. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And, Mr. Fowle, are you the November 13, 2025 pg. 89 owner of property that is within a specific number of feet from the property line of the property which is the subject of this hearing? MR. FOWLE: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And within how many feet is your property line from the property line which is the subject of this? MR. FOWLE: Approximately 268 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And based on -- hold on. Let me help you with this. MR. FOWLE: From -- okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you have -- what is the basis upon which you're relying to give me that information? How do you know that? MR. FOWLE: Collier County Property Appraisers, and Mr. Bosi could look that up right now and Zoom in and say under 300 feet, and I'm sure he checked that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me -- let me ask you a question. How -- or maybe I'll ask the County the question. How wide is the right-of-way for Tamiami Trail; do we know? I'd like to get this issue settled as quickly as we can. Go ahead, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. My quick -- using the measurement tool from the Collier County Property Appraiser showed that it was about 250 feet from property line to property to line -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So within under 300 feet. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. So -- but you're still going to have to deal with November 13, 2025 pg. 90 the other part of this, which is confusing, because I don't know -- I don't know that that means, "Hey, you're automatically affected if you're within 300 feet," which would be nice because that's very objective. But tell me, as a competitive -- competitive car wash, how are you adversely affected by the things that you're alleging? MR. FOWLE: How am I? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Fowle, yeah, would you explain it to -- MR. FOWLE: I will say that I'm affected by the County didn't have the proper rights to issue the SDP, so that affects me. If the car wash can't be built or built the way it is and it becomes a smaller car wash, it becomes less competitive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let me ask you this question. Maybe we can put this to bed. Do you -- is it your contention that a car wash is prohibited on that property? MR. FOWLE: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it is permitted. But your contention is that if it -- it needs to meet I'll call it performance standards of the zoning code or the Land Development Code, it would be configured differently? MR. FOWLE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Because it's configured differently, it's your contention that then it would not be -- you would not be adversely affected if it's configured -- because you -- MR. FOWLE: If it's configured to county code, I'll still be affected, but it's built to county code. November 13, 2025 pg. 91 Can I -- could I give you a little backstory? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no, no. MR. FOWLE: Well, no. I'm just -- you're asking me a question. Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. I'm in control of this. Let's all agree to that. MR. FOWLE: Great. All right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Because I'm just trying to get through the preliminary parts about, like, standing, because you've already -- we've already established that you don't -- that you do not -- that you're in agreement that a car wash can go there but that if it's -- it has to be configured and built according to land development codes, then you would not be adversely affected? MR. FOWLE: I'm not understanding that question. I apologize. MR. JOHNSON: Let me help. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you think -- so in other words, your appeal is -- is just based on the fact that it's your opinion that it would be a different car wash if it were built correctly, according to codes? MR. FOWLE: That is correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And therefore, you would or would not be adversely affected? MR. FOWLE: I'll always be adversely affected by another car wash being there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MR. FOWLE: But he's getting an advantage by putting a piece of property on -- a car wash on a smaller piece of property. I mean, I know you've been involved with car November 13, 2025 pg. 92 washes before, you know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I wash my own car, though. MR. FOWLE: No, no. I'm saying in this room, okay, that -- when you take a small piece of property, you put a lot of stuff within a small part. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's exactly what I wanted to hear you say. Okay. I got it. Got it. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's get going. MR. JOHNSON: We're back, okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Both of you, thank you for walking through those issues with me, because I think those are some preliminary -- basic preliminary issues that are going to have to be dealt with. Thank you, both. MR. JOHNSON: Our memorandum that has been provided, and it's a matter of record for Your Honor, I think clearly and succinctly sets forth what really is our highlighted positions. I will tell you that our arguments that we have narrowed down for today's purposes for appeal are -- relate to three sections of the Land Development Code. It's -- we contend that there's a violation of Section 5.05.08.D.ii, which we're -- which is the argument that the building which is located along a public or private street is not designated with a clearly defined main entrance with convenient access from both parking and street. We need to sort of zero in on what may be the epicenter of this appeal. November 13, 2025 pg. 93 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So are these exhibits that are new? MR. JOHNSON: No. They're all part of the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're all part of the record. MR. JOHNSON: They're all part of your record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, yes. These are photographs that I recognize in your presentation, Mr. Davies, and also in the County's presentation. MR. DAVIES: No objection to these. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you want to take a look at it? Do you want to take a look at all the exhibits real quick and just make sure we're okay. MR. DAVIES: What's the next one? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you don't mind. MR. DAVIES: No objection to these two renderings. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: This one here. MR. DAVIES: Yeah. I'm not sure that one is. That's the one he tried to ask my expert about. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, it's got a lot of complicated stuff in it. But all right, fine. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: The argument that we've heard today is that this is a front entry. It's not. The evidence that you have before you will show you that that's an entry to a mechanical room. It's not a front entry. The car wash has entry from the rear of the car wash, has an office at the rear of the car wash, not in the front here but in the back here, and therefore, it is directly in violation November 13, 2025 pg. 94 of the Land Development Code because there's not a clearly defined main entrance with convenient access from both parking and the street. This has -- this section here, this office here which abuts 41 has no access from 41. It is self-contained. And if we look at the drawings from the architect of record -- they're a matter of record already for this hearing -- it shows that the entry door here goes into what's listed as equipment room. So the suggestion that somehow there's an express compliance with this section of the code is not true based upon the record evidence, that I say respectfully, that you have before Your Honor. It doesn't apply. That -- it wouldn't -- it doesn't comport with the requirement of the statute. Furthermore, I've cited in our memo a -- what we claim is a violation of Section 4.02.16.D.3.b. The primary entrance for the building is not oriented to the street by virtue of the fact that the front façade does not face the street from which access is granted. Let's talk about this. Your records will reflect that this is the Pine Street Car Wash. Pine Street runs along the side -- runs along the side of this building, runs right along here. There is no entry on this -- on this side of the building, there -- and the suggestion that somehow this door in the front is the door that somehow is a clearly defined main entrance, we say, respectfully, it isn't. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you're saying that that doorway leads to -- MR. JOHNSON: To a mechanical room. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's -- okay. MR. JOHNSON: It's not -- it's not a main -- a clearly November 13, 2025 pg. 95 defined main entrance for this car wash with convenient access from both parking and street. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: That's what the -- that's what the code, we would say, respectfully requires and that the main entrance to the building is not oriented to the street by virtue of the fact that the front façade doors do not face the street from which the access is granted. So there's no door on this side of this particular structure of this building. And furthermore, we respectfully submit that Section 5.05.08.8.A [sic] of the Land Development Code says that the design and orientation of the building, which we claim is providing commercial car wash related services on this side of the building -- on this side of the building fails to incorporate architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest from the perspective of the pedestrian. It fails to incorporate a façade designed to reduce the mass, scale, and uniform monolithic appearance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm going to -- I'm going to have to stop you there because I don't think that you can testify to architectural features or design or things that an architect would -- I mean, I'm looking at it right now, and I see -- I see windows. I see awnings over the windows. I see lots of stuff. But you are not an architect. MR. JOHNSON: I'm not. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not an architect. He's not an architect. So let's keep it to legal arguments -- MR. JOHNSON: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- okay? MR. JOHNSON: The Supreme Court -- and we rely November 13, 2025 pg. 96 upon the -- has concluded that the local ordinances are subject to the same rules of interpretation as any other statutes and that a court interpreting local ordinances must first look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the ordinance. If the plain and ordinary meaning in the ordinance is clear, then we submit that other rules of construction and interpretation are not necessary or are unwarranted. I've taken a glance at the small stack of cases that Mr. Davies has provided, and he has failed to address, which is now the landmark case in Florida, which is -- which we contend, which is Town of Longboat Key v. Island Side Property Owners Association Coalition, LLC. It's in our memorandum. It's at 95 So. 2d 1037. It's a Florida Second DCA, 2012, which was our DCA before we moved to the Sixth District Court of Appeals and, therefore, we believe that that case would be controlling. So our argument is that the Pine Street Car Wash -- it's the Pine Street Car Wash -- is designed in a manner that we claim violates certain provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, and its Site Development Plan, as it presently exists, should be rejected. I've listened to Mr. Davies's arguments and positions, and I've listened to the County. And, quite candidly, yeah, we all agree this is zoned so that there could be a car wash. Okay. Fair enough. It needs to be redesigned. It needs to be reconfigured. It needs to be set up in such a way so that what they're calling front entry doors are, in fact, entry doors, because we claim these are not front entry doors. There's nothing to support that. The graphics that you have show that those show entry November 13, 2025 pg. 97 into a mechanical room, and the graphics that you have support the proposition that entry comes from the south side of the car wash, comes off -- the cars come off of Pine Street. They go into the car wash. They get out of their cars. And whatever office exists at the back of this car wash is, therefore, where they enter and exit, and that's the entry and exit point. So you can't -- we say you can't put a front door in disguise, and that's what we have here. So what we would say -- let's be practical about this. They would say, "Look, Mr. Davies' client needs to present to the County a different plan, needs to present the plan that acknowledges the restrictions within the Land Development Code, restrictions that are consistent with the express language of the code." We think that Your Honor has the ability to read the plain meaning of language and to under -- and to interpret that this is exactly what is intended by the code. We would emphasize that, of course, the Collier County Land Development Code -- and it's in our memorandum -- 4.02.16, design standards for development in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Development Area, would apply to this particular project. There it says that "all buildings shall meet the design requirements set forth in the Land Development Code, Section 5.05.08, unless specified in this section." And, again, as I've stated to Your Honor before, Section 5.05.08.D.ii says that "buildings located along a public or private street must be designed with the main entrance clearly defined" -- clearly defined, "and," conjunctive -- "with convenient access from both parking and the street," and we would contend the street to which it's November 13, 2025 pg. 98 oriented. And, quite candidly, this front entryway, you can't get into this front entryway directly from U.S. 41 without trying to trip over plantings or something like that. So we say that based upon -- the violation, what we claim by this particular configuration of this property, is that it is violative, presently, of these two sections of the Land Development Code, 4.02.16.D.ii and 5.05.08.D.ii. The -- again, there's no street access from U.S. 41 to the Pine Street Car Wash with all of the parking for the business being located on the west side of this building parallel to Pine Street. We would say, "Look, Mr. Davies, your client, if you want the car wash, have the car wash configured so that it is oriented to Pine Street and really has a front entry door, but at this point in time, you don't have it." And I think we all know why it doesn't exist. It's because -- and I think that in some regards Mr. Davies touched upon it, that is that there is an economic advantage to having the car wash sign on 41. It gives an economic advantage. It allows passersby as they're traveling east or west on 41 to see, "Hey, there's a car wash. Look at that right there." We think that that's inappropriate; that causes an adverse impact upon our client; that it tries to create a front entry door where one doesn't exist. It doesn't provide for the kind of access that the mandates of the Land Development Code specifically require. So we say the argument in the end is a simple one. Go back to -- you're going to have to go back to the County for revision or whatever you think, but I think that what's going to need to happen is that in order for there to be express November 13, 2025 pg. 99 compliance with the Land Development Code, there's going to need to be a redesign. If the desire by this applicant is to have a car wash, then it needs to be redesigned; otherwise, all this car wash -- all the car wash by the applicant gets is an economic advantage over the -- over our client's car wash across the street because he has full signage. He's able to have a -- what he claims to be a front entry door when one really doesn't exist. And we think that that is violative of the express requirements of the Land Development Code. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a question. If -- if that front door that they say is a front door actually does lead into operations, let's say, where people walk in and go in there, that doesn't change the size of the car wash, does it? MR. JOHNSON: It might. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, how? MR. JOHNSON: It might -- I don't -- because they've configured it in such a way so that they have a mechanical room along the side of this car wash so their cars can come in through the back beyond the -- what would be the east side of the -- east side of the property and then come through. I think it could. I mean, we're conjecturing if we think that that couldn't -- that isn't going to make a difference. I think that this -- that this particular car wash has attempted to be configured to maximize both the square footage that it may be entitled to utilize on this particular footprint of the property and to be able to, we would contend, summon cars from U.S. 41 to come to the car wash. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is your client's car wash configured in a way that's in compliance with the November 13, 2025 pg. 100 code? MR. JOHNSON: It's different. Our client's car wash has existed since, I think, the -- MR. FOWLE: 1972. MR. JOHNSON: 1972. MR. FOWLE: And yes. Your question [sic] is a yes. My front door -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. If you could not speak -- come on up. MR. JOHNSON: Come on up here, Mr. Fowle. Question from the Hearing Examiner. MR. FOWLE: Your question [sic] is yes, my front door -- my main entranceway is around the back. But my car wash is unique. It sits on three streets. There's a small street there that's very little traffic, but it sits on that. And my car wash was also designed all before the CRA even existed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are there other car washes in the area? MR. FOWLE: Not in the CRA. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. FOWLE: Just me and him. There's another one planned, which you had a meeting on for Snappy's Car Wash, and there's another one planned right up the street, which has kind of stalled. They went into it, and they realized that it's really hard to obey by the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. FOWLE: -- Gateway Triangle. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Snappy's is over by the Home Depot, right? MR. FOWLE: Home Depot, yes. November 13, 2025 pg. 101 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And were you -- you were here for that, right? MR. FOWLE: No. I was on Zoom for that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, that's right. I remember. You were objecting to that as well. MR. FOWLE: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. FOWLE: They had an unfair advantage. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. FOWLE: You're welcome. MR. JOHNSON: In the end what we're requesting is that there be a level playing field. That how the code's interpreted for Mr. Davies's client gets interpreted across the board and that, in the end, an economic advantage not be granted to this -- this particular applicant. We also say, look, the County can say what it wants, but the plain meaning and the language of the statutory interpretation is up to yourself. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. And that the case law that Mr. Davies has cited to you, I think all the cases predate Long Boat Key. I think they all predate Long Boat Key. So Long Boat Key, we would claim, amalgamated this discussion. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: All right. Are there any other questions you have of me before Mr. Davies speaks? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. I don't have any further questions. You did a really nice job. You and your client did a November 13, 2025 pg. 102 really nice job. Thank you for answering some key questions that I think at least got resolved, for me, anyway. So I appreciate that. So I'm going to give Mr. Davies some time to come on up and do his rebuttal. MR. JOHNSON: I don't know if, then -- it's so informal that there might not be the possibility for surrebuttal. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: For what? MR. JOHNSON: Surrebuttal, more rebuttal of what he might have to say. I don't know how long this can go on. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Re-rebuttal, yes. We'll -- but I think we're getting close to the end here. MR. JOHNSON: I gotcha. Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Davies. MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Mr. Hearing Examiner. I'll be brief. I really stand on my case in chief here. I didn't hear anything new or different or something that would controvert, from an evidentiary perspective, the evidence that's before you today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do have questions, thought, if I may. MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it seems like we've resolved the 300-foot issue, right? I mean, from Mr. Bosi; he looked at it. He believes that it's legitimately within 300 feet. But I still have to work out the issue of is that an "and" or an "or." I don't know. But I think what I've heard as -- and, you know, I'm a small business owner, too. So everybody worries about, you November 13, 2025 pg. 103 know, your business. And so he's claiming an economic -- he'll be economically disadvantaged or an affected party because of that. That's what I heard. So... MR. DAVIES: That's what I heard as well. I'm not familiar with any criteria or regulations within the SDP provisions of the Collier County code that allow for -- or that prohibit a -- or address economics or economic advantage or disadvantage. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yep. MR. DAVIES: This is America. And I think we're in a market capitalistic society. And quite frankly, I think that the presentation from opposing counsel made -- made clear that this is a reach. This is sort of code gymnastics to support someone who doesn't want the competitor coming in right next door. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do think that, you know -- like, his point is that it may be a different -- it may have less of an impact economically if it was built to code. That's what I heard the -- that's what I heard, his argument. Look, I'm not going to -- I'm not making a decision about, like, whether that's valid or not. I'm still a little puzzled -- maybe we'll have to ask Mr. Bosi, like -- because I have seen code where it says, "If you're within the mailing radius, you're automatically an interested party or affected party at a quasi-judicial hearing." So I don't know how I have to -- you know, I don't know that I have to put an "or" here or an "and," but I guess I'll have to work through that. I'd rather -- I'd rather deal with this on the -- on the substantive issues and rather not the procedural issues. MR. DAVIES: And respectfully, I don't have a November 13, 2025 pg. 104 definitive answer for you on that. I'm confused by it too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Okay. I'll deal with that myself then. Is that everything or -- MR. DAVIES: A couple of just record comments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: You can -- I'm very familiar with the case that's -- the one case that he presented. It does not overrule the line of cases with respect to discretion of staff. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Discretion. MR. DAVIES: All of those cases are valid. This is simply some examples of the line of cases that supports that proposition. For the record, I mean, the mechanical room piece I was confused by. I'm not sure what document in the record shows that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a question about that because, I mean, you're -- the graphic -- maybe the other one's a little bit better. If you could put the other one up, because I think all of you used the same graphic, the one that's actually more showing the front part. No, no, the other one. The other one. I think everybody showed this one. So I'm kind of curious. Like, so what are those doors for? What -- is that the front door? Is that a front entrance? MR. DAVIES: That's the entrance, yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That is the entrance? MR. DAVIES: That's the entrance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Into the car wash where people go and do what? November 13, 2025 pg. 105 MR. DAVIES: Yeah. If you want to go to the office, fix your little key thing or something like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: It's ancillary office. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's not just a vacant hallway where nothing's happening? MR. DAVIES: No, it's not a vacant hallway. It's not a mechanical room. We're also -- the specifics of the interior, as you well know, right, are part of the building permit approval process. We're looking at SDP and site design, right, and the civil with respect to that. So I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The only reason I asked that is it seems odd to me as a business owner, would I want my customers to go into doors and just go to a mechanical room and possibly get hurt? MR. DAVIES: I don't know where that came from because it's not -- that's not -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm a little baffled by why you would just put fake -- or what's the -- faux? MR. DAVIES: Faux doors. They're not faux doors. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. I'm not an architect, but faux doors, I think they do work, right? Is there any argument that you guys think that these doors are just fake doors or -- I don't -- I don't think -- MR. JOHNSON: They're doors -- they're -- I don't want to steal Mr. Davies' thunder, but -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're real -- hold one. Let's go one at a time. They're real doors, right, to the front? November 13, 2025 pg. 106 MR. DAVIES: They're real doors. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They go right in where customers are going to go in, right? MR. DAVIES: Correct. MR. JOHNSON: There's no evidence -- there's no record evidence that those are where customers go. There's record evidence to support that customers come in through the back, and there's record evidence to support that, as to the plan, there's only an equipment room. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. DAVIES: There's no record evidence that supports that customers -- which way the customers go and what's the use of that. That's a mischaracterization of the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That's something I guess I'll sort out. The record's pretty big here, so... You both did a great job. It was a pleasure to meet you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: He's always a very respected lawyer. Thank you. I'm also old school, so I would not dare try to do anything technical in one of my presentations because it would consistently fail on me. So thank you. You did a very nice job. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MR. DAVIES: If I may, Mr. Hearing Examiner, I just want to return to the legal standard here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, yes. MR. DAVIES: Which, as you know, is competent substantial evidence. November 13, 2025 pg. 107 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. DAVIES: You've got a bunch of evidence before you from county staff. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. DAVIES: You've got a staff report. You've got a private civil engineer that's been accepted as an expert. And I think all we've heard on appellant's side is legal argument. And so I would simply ask that when you're doing your deliberations during your 30-day period, that -- that the weighing of that evidence certainly is very important, and that's what the record reflects. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Last word, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Legal argument carries the day, and your interpretation of the Land Development Code would stand based upon Long Boat Key. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Both of you -- I'm going to give the County, if they heard something that they want to clarify or say, I'm going to give them an opportunity to do it at this point. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And the only thing I would say related to the aggrieved party versus the standing is if there was an appeal of your decision, if you have standing, that goes to the BZA. If you're an aggrieved party, that would be to the Circuit Court per your -- per the Hearing Examiner's ordinance. That's a distinction that is important. So if the appeal was by a party with standing, it would be the BZA that would hear the appeal. If they appealed your decision -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm not clear. I'm not clear. Oh, if they appeal the decision that I render... November 13, 2025 pg. 108 MR. BOSI: The decision that you make, if it's appealed by the property owner who's within 300 feet, they have standing, so that would go to the BZA. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: If the appealed by somebody outside of that -- of someone with standing -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They have to show their affected interest? MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So that gives me some -- I'm just reading this off your application. I'm not reading it in the code itself, but, you know, from a standing point of view, they're within 300 feet. MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You know, whether or not -- yeah, I understand. I understand what you're saying. So anything else that the County needed to say, or are you done? MR. BOSI: We're done. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, we're done. All of you, thank you very much for waiting through those other items, but I think it was worth it, and I appreciate your time and efforts that you put into this. And I do respect, you know, the concern. I meant no disrespect, sir. I do -- I do respect your concern. This is your livelihood, so I do understand that. I'm not trying to say I don't. I'm not trying to telegraph which way I'm going to go one way or the other. But it's a very interesting -- some very interesting legal issues were presented, and I November 13, 2025 pg. 109 found it fascinating, and I'll have to dig deep into these. So thank you. MR. DAVIES: Thank you very much. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for your time. MR. DAVIES: Have a good bay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'll get a decision out as quickly as I can. Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. Do we have any other business? MR. BOSI: No other from the County. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Then we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone, for all your hard work. Appreciate it. November 13, 2025 pg. 110 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 4:06 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER _______________________________________ ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ___, as presented ___ or as corrected ___. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF VERITEXT, BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.