HEX Final Decision #2026-03HEX NO. 2026-03
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
January 8, 2026
PETITION.
Petition No. SRAA-PL20250002891 -North of Oil Well Road and south of Immokalee Road
anA bisected by Camp Keais Road -Pulte Home Company, LLC, requests an insubstantial
change to the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), Resolution Nos. 2004-
89 and 2005-234A, as amended, to consider a deviation to remove required landscape buffers
between single-family residential development and multi -family residential development.
The subject property consisting of 5,928 acres is located north of Oil Well Road and south of
Immokalee Road and bisected by Camp Keais Road in Sections 28 through 34, Township 47
South, Range 29 East, and Sections 3 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South,
Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner consider an amendment to the Town of Ave
Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), Resolutions No. 05-234A and 05-23411, as amended,
to request deviations to remove required landscape buffers between single-family and multi -family
residential developments and to add a Landscape Deviation Master Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier
County Code of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was advertised and held on December 17,
2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Del Webb Oasis Club Grande Hall, 6008 Del Webb Way, Ave Maria,
Florida. The applicant's agent, Alexis Crespo of RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture, Inc.,
Page 1 of 5
introduced the consultant team and then gave a PowerPoint presentation of the SRAA petition.
Approximately M100 residents were in attendance.
5. The public hearing was conducted in the following manner: the County Staff presented the
Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, public comment and then
rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no objections at the
public hearing.
6. The analysis for a SRAA is governed per the County's Land Development Code (LDC) Section
4.08.07.F.4.b. As such if any of the ten criterion are triggered by being deemed substantial per
4.08.07.F.4.b then the petition is subject to review and recommendation by the Planning
Commission and BCC; however, if none of the ten criterion are triggered and are deemed
insubstantial then the petition is subject to part c and is therefore subject to review and
recommendation by the HEX. In the case of this SRAA, none of the ten criteria were triggered
and therefore is subject to review and recommendation by the HEX. For an analysis of the
petition per LDC Section 4.08.07.F.4.b and c, the following ten criteria were considered:I
(1) A proposed change in the boundary of the SRA;
The record evidence ar�d testimony fi°om the pzrblic hearing reflects that there is no proposed
change in the boundary of the SRA.
(2) A proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or
height of buildings within the development;
The record evidence and testimony fi°on2 the public hearing r-eflects that there is no proposed
increase in the number of dwelling units, no increase in intensity of land use, or an increase in
the height of buildings within the development.
(3) A proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas
within the development not to exceed 5 percent of the total acreage previously designated
as such, or 5 acres in area.
The recor°d evidence and testimony fi•om the public Lori 4ing reflects that then°e is no proposed
decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas i-vithin the SRA.
(4) A proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses, to include
institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation,
or open spaces), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there i-vould be no
incr°ease in. the size of areas used for• non-�°esiderrtial uses and no relocation of nonce°esidential
areas.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
(5) A substantial increase in the impacts of the development, which may include, but are
not limited to, increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts
on other public facilities.
The recol°d evidence and testimony from the public hCut ing°eflects that the/°e is no new aff c
generation, substantial changes in traffic circulation, or impacts to other public facilities.
(6) A change that will result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular
traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers;
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no changes
to the SRA that ti-vill result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic
based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
(7) A change that will result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or will
otherwise increase stormwater discharges,
The record evidence and testimony, fi°om the public hearing reflects that the p�°oposed changes
will not impact or increase storinivater retention or increase storrnWater discharge.
(8) A change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be
incompatible with an adjacent land use;
The record evidence and testimony fi•omthe public hearing reflects that there will be no
incompatible relationships ivuh abutting Land uses.
(9) Any modification to the SRA master plan or SRA document that is inconsistent with
the Future all Use Element or other element of the Growth Management Plan, or
which modification would increase the density or intensity of the permitted land uses.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that Comprehensive
Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the SRA Document 1-voidd be consistent
tivith the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and transportation planning staff have
revielved this petition, and no changes to the SRA Document are proposed that 1vould be
deemed inconsistent ivith the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) or• the
Franspottation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or
intensity of the permitted land uses.
(10) Any modification in the SRA master plan or SRA document which impact(s) any
consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under this LDC
section 4.08.07.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that County staff has
determined that all proposed changes are insubstantial.
Page 3 of 5
LDC Section 4.08.071.4.c - Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change
includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An
insubstantial change to an approved SRA Development Document or master plan shall
be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 4.08.07 FA.b., above, and shall require
the review and approval of the HEX or Planning Commission,
1. The applicant shall provide the Planning and Zoning Department Director
documentation which adequately describes the proposed changes as described in the
Administrative Code.
The record evidence and testimony from the public heap°ing t°effects that the applicant lags
submitted adequate documentation of proposed changes.
2. Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original
application?
The record evidence and testimony from. the public hearing reflects that no, the proposed
change does not affect the original analysis and findings and criteria.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION.
The petitioner is seeking three additional deviations from the requirements of the LDC. Deviations
1 and 2 were previously approved, and Deviations 3, 4, and 5 are proposed. Deviations as shown
in the attached Exhibit "A".
The �°eco�°d evidence and testimony f om the public hearing �•eflects that Count�� Stcff has
recommended approval of the additional deviations.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Peoner and/or the Peoners
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied per LDC section 4.08.07.F.4.b and c to
approve this Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. SRAA-PL20250002891, filed by the
agent Alexis Crespo, AICP, of RVi Planning +Landscape Architecture, representing the
applicant/owner Pulte Home Company, LLC, with respect to the subject property, consisting of
5,928± acres, located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area (RLSA) in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, and
Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
Page 4 of 5
• An amendment to the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), Resolutions
No. 05-234A and 05-234B, as amended, to request deviations to remove required landscape
buffers between single-family and multi -family residential developments and to add a
Landscape Deviation Master Plan.
Said changes are fully described in the Amended SRA Document 12-23-25 attached as Exhibit
"A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Amended SRA Document 12-23-25
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property, consisting of 5,928± acres, is located north of Oil Well Road and west of
Camp Keais Road in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) in Sections 31 through 33,
Township 47 South, Range 29 East, and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48
South, Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
• All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
January 22, 2026
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit C
Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Overview and Master Plan 4
Figure 1: Ave Maria SRA Master Plan 6
University District 8
Town Core 23
Town Center 1 54
Town Center 2 and 3 76
Neighborhood General 97
Services District 140
Community General 142
Stormwater Management 142
Transportation Network 151
Figure 2: Pedestrian Network Map 155
Street Cross Section 160
Parks 169
Open Space 174
Figure 3: Open Space 175
Community Signage 176
Terms and Definitions 184
Appendices 190
Appendix A: Legal Description 190
Appendix B: Shared Use Parking Analysis 204
Appendix C: Permitted Land Use Matrix 216
Appendix D: Amendments to Ave Maria 221
Appendix E: Solid Waste Management at Ave Maria University 223
Appendix F: Street Tree Spacing Exceptions 226
Appendix G: Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) 228
Appendix G-1: Exhibit G-1, Deviation Location Map 230
Revised: December 23, 2025
Town of Ave Maria Page 1
Appendix G
Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC)
Deviation #1: Relief from LDC Section 4. 08. 07. J. 2. d. . e) i), Town Design Criteria (Neighborhood
General), which requires multi- family residential lots shall be a maximum of 4 acres, to
instead allow multi- family residential lots to be a maximum of 25 acres. This deviation
applies to the Neighborhood General context zone.
Deviation #2: Relief from LDC Section 5. 06. 04. G, Off- Premises Directional Signs, which requires that
the sign may be located no more than 1, 000 feet from the building, structure or use for
which the sign is displayed, to instead allow an off -premises sign to be located on the
north side of Oil Well Road approximately 4, 500 feet outside of the Town of Ave Maria
SRA boundary.
Deviation #3: Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A and 4.06.02 C Table 2.4 "Table of Buffer
Requirements, which requires a 15-foot-wide Type "B" landscape buffer between multi-
family and single-family residential development, to require no Type "B" landscape buffer
between multi -family and single-family residential development located within the areas
identified on Exhibit G-1: Deviation Location Map.
This deviation shall not apply where:
marking lot is located adjacent to asingle-family development;
A 3-story or greater multi -family dwelling is located adjacent to a 1-story sin_ Iq e-family
dwelling; or
A 4-story or areater multi -family dwellina is located adiacent to a 2-story sinale-family
dwelling.
Deviation #4: Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C Table 2.4 "Table of Buffer Reauirements", which
Deviation #5:
requires a 10-foot-wide Type "A" landscape buffer between sin leg family and multi -family
residential development, to require no Type "A" landscape buffer between single-family
and multi -family residential development (located within the areas identified on Exhibit G-
1: Deviation Location Map.
Relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C Table 2.4 "Table of Buffer Requirements", which
requires a 15-foot-wide Type "B" landscape buffer between multi -family and single-family
residential development, subiect to clustering provisions, to require no buffer where multi-
family dwellinas are Dr000sed adiacent to a lake, within the areas identified on Exhibit G-
1: Deviation Location Map.
Revised: December 23. 2025
A endix G
�_ Town Plan
Town of Ave Maria Page 228
Where multi -family buildings are adjacent to lakes and across from existing, constructed
single-family lots, an alternative Type "B" buffer will be planted on the multi -family tract
as follows:
1 tree or p01111/30 linear feet (palm species are permitted for up to 50% of the
required trees)
- 30 shrubs planted 3' O.C.
Buffer plantings may be clustered to maintain gaps in plantings up to 60'
No platted landscape buffer easement is required
Revised: December 23, 2025 Town of Ave Maria Page 229