Loading...
HEX Minutes 01/08/2026January 8, 2026 pg. 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Naples, Florida January 8, 2026 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 Timothy Finn, Planner III (attending remotely) Maria Estrada, Planner II Nancy Gundlach, Planner III Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I January 8, 2026 pg. 2 P R O C E E D I N G S HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're ready to go. Good afternoon and Happy New Year, everyone. Today is January 8th, 2026. It's 1 p.m. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting. My name is Andrew Dickman. I am the Hearing Examiner. We start the meeting, if we will please all just rise; join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Once again, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney. I've been practicing over 20 years in the -- primarily in the area of city, county, local government, land use and zoning. I am not a county employee. I was hired by the Board of County Commissioners to sit as an independent, neutral decision-maker here under the codes for the Hearing Examiner of Collier County. My job simply is to conduct -- prepare for these hearings, conduct these hearings, and render a decision. I don't render decisions here today. They are rendered in writing within 30 days of this hearing. As far as disclosures, I have not spoken to anyone about any application on the agenda today. I have not consulted with staff. I have not consulted with applicants, neighbors, anyone. I have reviewed the documents that are all in the backup package that everyone has access to. It's online, so I've reviewed all that. I made these disclosures just so that the public is confident that, in fact, I am here as an independent, neutral decision-maker with knowledge in this area. January 8, 2026 pg. 3 These hearings are going to be informal. They're called quasi- judicial hearings; however, it's important to note that this is going to be the end of the line, so to speak, of the record. So everything up to today is what I'll take into consideration, things that are in the record and what I hear today, what's received today. This is my opportunity to hear from the County staff, to hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative and members of the public, and specifically what I'm looking for is information as it relates to the criteria for whatever the application is. It's a public meeting by law. You know, the public's allowed to speak on anything that they would like. I would prefer that they speak on issues that are relevant to the -- to the agenda item. If you're nervous speaking in public, please don't be. I want to assure you that this is a comfortable, safe environment. It's more important to me that you be able to get your message across and that I'm able to collect that information because, as I said, after today, I can't communicate with the County, the staff, I can't communicate with applicants or anybody else and ask questions outside of this forum. It would be considered improper. This is a hybrid meeting. The County has set up a Zoom link for participation for those who can't be here today. So we will be going through that, and I thank the County for doing that. I think that's a real benefit to the public. If anyone here today is going to speak that's here in the audience, there are speaker cards that you need to fill out, and if you would provide them to this young lady over here, January 8, 2026 pg. 4 that would be great. The -- in a minute I will ask anyone who's going to testify here today to do so -- they have to do so under oath, and I'll ask the court reporter to administer the oath. Mentioning the court reporter, the County also provides a court reporter to take verbatim accounts of what is said, and in order to do that, we all need to be cautious not to talk over one another, not to talk too fast, to please announce your name and who you are, who you're representing, and then go -- don't answer things or say things with head nods and hand gestures. She'll stop the meeting if there's any time where she can't capture everything. Frequently I will ask for a copy of the transcripts when -- as I'm drafting these decisions because I want to go back and see some things, so it's very important to me, too, to have a verbatim record of the proceedings here today. So a lot of local governments don't provide that. I think it's a really nice thing that the County does for the public here. With regard to that, I think if anybody -- also, if anybody has anything that they want to talk about with who they're sitting with, please step outside in the hallway. It can get -- the acoustics in here have been improved, all the tech has been improved in here, and it's really easy for me to hear someone speaking in the audience while someone's trying to speak at the podium. So it's difficult. So please respect everybody's -- respect everybody's decision. And that reminds me to turn my phone off. If everybody else does the same, that would be nice and go from there. The process that we're going to follow is the County will introduce the item, give me a little information about January 8, 2026 pg. 5 what the petition is, any recommendations or conditions, and then we'll go to the -- they'll use this podium over at -- the podium on the far side over here will be the applicant, the applicant's representative, then we'll go to the public comments. Any public comments can be done up here or be by Zoom, and then I will allow for the applicant or the applicant's representative some time for rebuttals. I may ask questions during any of the presentations. If I don't any questions, please don't infer to that, please. And if I look away and I'm not looking you at and I'm looking at the file, it's because I have some paperwork in front of me. I don't want you to take offense that I'm not paying attention to you because I'm absolutely here ready to pay attention. You have my absolute, you know, attention today, and that's my job is to listen to you and to ask questions and make sure I have all the information I need in order to leave here today to render an accurate decision. So with that, anyone who's going to testify here today, I need you to stand and raise your right hand, and you will 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? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. I appreciate that, everyone. And by the way, if I haven't said it yet, Happy New Year to everybody. It's 2026. It's kind of hard to believe, but here we are. Time marches on. ***All right. The first item on the agenda, Item 3A. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Timothy Finn, Planner January 8, 2026 pg. 6 III. This is for Petition No. PDI PL20250010077, Juniper Townhomes Owner, LLC, request an insubstantial change to the Crews Road RPUD, Ordinance 22-03, for the modification of a Publics Utilities Development Commitment reducing the minimum size of the water main from eight inches to six inches. The property is located northeast of the intersection of County Barn and Whitaker Roads in Section A, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. The applicant has complied with all hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and mailers went out on December 19th. The hearing advertisements and property signage were constructed at the property by the applicant per the affidavit of posting included in Attachment D of the backup materials. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Tim. I'll reserve any questions that I have for you; that was enough. I'll wait for the applicant to come up and speak. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir. MR. PAPPAS: Good afternoon. Mike Pappas, professional engineer with RWA Engineering, Inc -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PAPPAS: -- representing the applicant today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. I don't know if you have testified in front of me before. If you haven't, could you just give me a little bit about your background and education so I could qualify you as an January 8, 2026 pg. 7 expert? MR. PAPPAS: Sure. I went to University of Florida, graduated with a civil engineering degree. I've been practicing engineering for the past 25-plus years here in Collier County -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PAPPAS: -- working on land development projects from subdivisions to commercial developments involved from the zoning side through the engineering, permitting, construction plans and construction turnover. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Very good. I see you as an expert then. You're qualified. MR. PAPPAS: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go. MR. PAPPAS: Okay. Next slide. Go ahead. Okay. So the applicant's Juniper Townhomes, like Tim mentioned. I'm Mike Pappas. And we also have Rich and Francesca that are here today. Next slide. This is just a quick aerial overview of the project on County Barn Road, like Tim mentioned, just south of the Collier County Fleet. Next slide. This is more of a zoomed-in part of the project showing it's really fully built out right now. Next one. PUD originally approved in 2022. The construction plans and plat were later approved in March of 2022, and then subsequently construction commenced on the project, and it's finished, and a 6- inch water main was constructed and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners later January 8, 2026 pg. 8 in 2024. Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can I ask you a question? So when you say -- MR. PAPPAS: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- "accepted" -- I just want to get all this on the record. So basically there's already a 6-inch water main in the ground, right? MR. PAPPAS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what you're saying. MR. PAPPAS: Um-hmm. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that you -- basically we're doing some paperwork here -- MR. PAPPAS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- trying to clean up what's in the documentation; is that correct? MR. PAPPAS: Correct, yeah. The construction plans were approved with the 6-inch line, it was installed with the 6-inch line, and then now we have a PUD commitment that had 8-inch in there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PAPPAS: So we're trying to revise that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Functionality, everything's working properly with the 6-inch? No problems? MR. PAPPAS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes? MR. PAPPAS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. Sorry to interrupt. January 8, 2026 pg. 9 MR. PAPPAS: No problem. So, again, the request is to revise from 8-inch to a 6-inch to reflect the as-built conditions with the approved construction plans. And prior to us submitting the PDI application, we did coordinate with Matt McLean in Public Utilities, and he did the modeling to confirm that the 6-inch was sufficient for this location. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PAPPAS: Next slide. So, again, this is just the PUD commitment, the kind of lengthy one that was in the PUD. Kind of midway down there is the change from the 8-inch to the 6-inch that we've got noted over there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's so funny that a small change like that could have large consequences, but you never know. I mean, more water, obviously, goes through an 8- inch than a 6-inch, but you're -- you-all are the pros and you know whether capacity is -- if that supplies enough capacity. And you're saying that six inches is serving and provides enough capacity for that? MR. PAPPAS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PAPPAS: This slide here just represents -- in blue is actually the water main that was -- that's on the project, installed. So that's the route that it goes through. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, yeah. I should have told you that. Sorry. Green is for go, everybody. MR. PAPPAS: So in closing, this insubstantial change to the PUD ensures the technical plans in the PUD language match for the benefit of the county records; that's the main January 8, 2026 pg. 10 purpose. And we are in agreement with staff's findings and recommendation of approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this water main purely is serving the private residential use there, or is it for anything else? MR. PAPPAS: No. It serves that townhome community right now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just that townhome community? MR. PAPPAS: Just that, yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And no one is complaining about lack of service or low pressure or anything like that? Okay. MR. PAPPAS: Not that I'm aware of, no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's see about public comment. MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers here today. All right. You brought an expert and two lawyers. Well done, just for one number. Okay. Well, I have to -- you know, I'm relying on the county staff, as they're professionals, and I'm relying on you as a professional to tell me that reducing this down to a 6-inch even though it's after-the- fact and it went in, that it's not going to interfere with the intent of having the 8-inch. The obvious reason for this pipe is to serve the development, and as long as -- as long as the 6-inch is satisfying all the services that are needed for that -- and I believe that's what you're telling me, correct? MR. PAPPAS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That -- I guess January 8, 2026 pg. 11 if there were some problems, there would be people here saying there are problems. MR. PAPPAS: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I would think. Okay. Anything else? MR. PAPPAS: No. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else from the County? Tim, do you have anything else? MR. FINN: No, nothing else. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You don't want to change your recommendation or anything? MR. FINN: Nope, I'm good. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I didn't think so. Okay. Great. Nice presentation. Nice to meet you. Go Gators, and -- MR. PAPPAS: No problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I'll get a decision out as quickly as possible. MR. PAPPAS: Yes, thank you. Appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take care of yourself. Am I allowed to do that? Okay, great. Hi, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Hearing Examiner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, boy. That sounds so serious. MS. GUNDLACH: For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner III in the Zoning division. And before you is Agenda Item 3B, Ave Maria SRA January 8, 2026 pg. 12 Amendment, landscape buffer deviations. This is a request for three landscape deviations for the Town of Ave Maria SRA. Ave Maria SRA consists of several communities located on approximately 6,000 acres. The petitioner's request is to remove the required landscape buffering between single-family residential and multifamily residential developments. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within LDC Section 4.08.07.F, B, and C. Staff finds this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC as well as with the Growth Management Plan. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were published by Collier County on Friday, December 19th, 2025. And the public hearing signs were posted on December 17th. And I have a copy of the signed posting affidavit with me, as that was not part of that HEX agenda package. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. If you could just provide that to me. MS. GUNDLACH: And I'll provide that to Terri. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Absolutely. MS. GUNDLACH: A NIM was held on December 17, and we had approximately 90 to 100 residents in attendance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Ninety-two, wow. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. And staff is recommending that the Collier County Hearing Examiner make a determination of approval of this petition. And that concludes staff's summary. January 8, 2026 pg. 13 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Thank you. So I will accept that and the affidavit into the record, and if someone from the County can send me a copy of it, I'd appreciate it. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. Applicant or applicant's representative here? MS. CRESPO: Hello, good afternoon. My name is Alexis Crespo. I'm vice president of planning with RVi Planning & Landscape Architecture. My résumé is on file with the Hearing Examiner's office -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. CRESPO: -- and I've been accepted as an expert in land-use planning in this forum previously. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, thank you. I accept it. MS. CRESPO: Okay. Great. Thank you. Joining me today -- am I working this or is -- MS. PEDRON: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, no. She works it. MS. CRESPO: I have the clicker, though. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's just the pointer. MS. CRESPO: Oh, okay. MS. PADRON: No. MS. CRESPO: It should be the clicker. MS. PADRON: Yeah, she's good. Yeah, you can control it for this one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, great. Sorry about that. All right. Sorry about that. My bad. January 8, 2026 pg. 14 MS. CRESPO: No problem. It's just because I have some animations. I didn't want to have to say, "Click, click, click." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I missed the memo. MS. CRESPO: So joining me today, the applicant is Pulte Homes. They have been authorized by other owners within the Town of Ave Maria to file this application. But joining me from Pulte is Drew Reiser as well as Zack Carto (phonetic). The engineer of record here, Nik Kasten is here from Atwell. Sabrina McCabe is our director of landscape architecture at RVi and has prepared the landscape plans for this project. She's also joining me to answer any questions you may have. So as Nancy outlined, this is an insubstantial change request to the Town of Ave Maria SRA. We are proposing to, I would say, modify internal buffers, but technically the application is to eliminate landscape buffers between single-family and multifamily dwelling units internal to the SRA subject to very specific scenarios, and that's really my task here is to walk you through where this would apply. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. Yes. It seemed a little simplistic when I was reading the description, and I knew that there must have been something a little bit more complex than that. MS. CRESPO: Correct. And we're not asking for wholesale elimination of buffers between single and multifamily products. It's really, again, within specific scenarios internal to the town. And I think that's why we had a really big turnout at our NIM was when you read it just at face value it seems like a very significant change. January 8, 2026 pg. 15 But we assure you it's really in limited scenarios. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. MS. CRESPO: Okay. So the request is only applicable for internal residential buffering within the SRA. So this will not apply to the overall perimeters of the town. Obviously, those areas interface with rural parts of the county, and buffering needs to be provided. This will not be applicable where internal buffers are required between nonresidential commercial uses and residential uses. Obviously, this is a large town with a mix of uses, and those internal buffers between more intensive nonresidential uses are not being requested for modification here. So this is really for internal buffers between similarly sized and scaled multifamily and single-family and within the confines of existing communities and future communities within -- within Ave Maria. And I'll explain that statement about similar scales. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I knew you would. Thank you. MS. CRESPO: So you are very familiar, I'm sure, with the location of Ave Maria -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh. MS. CRESPO: -- north of Oil Well Road west of Camp Keais Road. Again, the deviation only applying in undeveloped areas where -- under construction or future development tracts that have not been touched yet within the town. This will not go into eliminating existing buffering that exists within neighborhoods today. So those future development areas and the remaining undeveloped tracts within communities under construction are highlighted in green. This is an attachment to ensure January 8, 2026 pg. 16 that the deviation will be limited to these locations only. And I'll just walk you through each one. Deviation 3, there's already two landscape buffer deviations, so this would fall into the town plan as Deviation 3. This is where a 15-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer is required between multifamily and single-family dwellings. This is triggered on the multifamily side of the tract or location. So this is where the -- the Type B buffer would be provided on multifamily tracts. This is requesting to eliminate that Type B buffer only in specific situations. If there is an apartment complex, for example, where there would be a four-story building next to a one- or two-story home, that buffer will be provided. This is only for where a two-story multifamily product would be next to a one-story multifamily product or up to three-story multifamily product next to a two-story single-family product. So a picture being worth a thousand words here, I want to show you an -- this is within the Town of Ave Maria. This is within the Del Webb community that's currently largely built out, but there are some remaining development tracts. So we've got proposed single-family, and we have existing, or in this case of this deviation it could be proposed multifamily. If they are going adjacent to each other across the lake from each other, this is to eliminate that Type B buffer between these types of product types. And why is that? This is where the multifamily buffer would go. These are the single-family homes being developed, one and two stories. And you can see the attached part there as well. And this is the character and style of the multifamily January 8, 2026 pg. 17 products in question here. Two-story coach homes or even -- if I could use my pointer here. This is -- this is technically a multifamily product because it's four units within the same building, but it's single story. Looks very similar to a single-family dwelling. It's not, again, that scale of an apartment complex going next to a single-family home. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: So that's where that would apply. The next deviation, which would be 4, is where a Type A buffer is triggered on the single-family tract. And so that's the interesting thing with the code is where you have single- and multifamily next to each other, not only is a B buffer required on the multifamily side, but you have to do a dual buffer with a Type A buffer on the single- family side. So you really have a double buffer, which we would purport is unnecessary within the confines of the same residential subdivision. So this simply says the single-family dwelling is the lower density, smaller-scale housing type, and it should not have to provide a buffer on its tract when abutting, again, similarly-scaled multifamily. And so that's where, on the existing single-family tracts, they would have to do a 10-foot in that location. And so it would eliminate the need to do the buffer on the single-family tract when there is multifamily either -- adjacent. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Are all of these situations where there is some kind of, you know, water feature or something like that, or -- MS. CRESPO: No, these -- that is the final deviation January 8, 2026 pg. 18 that I'll hit on next. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Because I do understand -- you know, I mean, I guess plantings would include trees and lots of other things along the waterway, right? MS. CRESPO: Correct, which would block views. But this -- those first deviations could be where there's back-to-back lots, multifamily lot backing up to a single-family lot where there wouldn't be an intervening lake. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got you. MS. CRESPO: And so to kind of get to your point there, the last deviation -- the last deviation is 4 where there is an intervening lake. So we've addressed that the single-family would not have to provide the buffer. In this case, the Type B would have to provide the buffer, but we're just having some additional parameters set where a multifamily is going across from an existing single-family home. So if there's a lake going -- being constructed in a future development tract, there's multifamily on one side, single-family on the other, but they're -- neither are constructed yet, no buffer would be required. The property owner or resident is going to know what's going in there as part of that purchase and sales process. What this would do, though, is if there is an existing single- family home that's been constructed and a multifamily -- a new multifamily is proposed across the lake, an alternative buffer would have to be provided there to protect single-family residents that live in the community today that may not have anticipated a multifamily structure January 8, 2026 pg. 19 going across the lake from their home. So this was built into the application, honestly, right after the neighborhood information meeting just to protect existing single- family homeowners who weren't sure what was going across the lake, and if it ends up being multifamily, they will provide for this alternative buffer type. And this really echoes a lot of the code requirements. So there's going to be one tree per 30 linear feet. We can do palms up to 50 percent, again, to preserve lake views for both sides of that lake. There will be a shrub as well that can be clustered, and no landscape buffer easement required simply because there's already going to be a lake maintenance easement around -- around the lake. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's triggering this? I mean, you know what my question is, right? MS. CRESPO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why is this happening? MS. CRESPO: And that's a great question. And that is why I brought the RVi and Atwell team, because this really came up through the permitting process. So the initial PPL or plat was issued for Del Webb. Those -- that plat did not require any buffer between the multi- and single-family tracts or across the lake from each other based on the interpretation of the code at that time. Of course, development progressed, some modifications were proposed, and it went through an insubstantial change process. And on the second insubstantial change, the County flagged that, "Oh, really by January 8, 2026 pg. 20 the letter of the law, there should be internal buffers." I know it's the same subdivision. I know it's the same community. I know you haven't been required for previous permits, but we can't unsee this, and we think you need to either provide it or modify your deviations to address it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Okay. I just didn't know if some of the housing products have changed over the years and types of multifamily that you showed wasn't really contemplated at the time and, you know, I didn't know. But from what I understand, you're recommending that it's only where there is comparability -- compatibility and comparability between the multifamily and the single-family so that it's not, you know, three stories and one story and things like that. So, you know, the pictures that you showed are very -- you know, much in keeping with a similar type of single-family home, I guess. Is that -- am I correct in that? MS. CRESPO: Yes. And the condition on specifically Deviation 3 where it says if it's a three-story multifamily next to a one-story house, you're doing the buffer. If it's a four-story multifamily even next to a one-story or two-story, you're doing the buffer. So that condition was built in so that the pictures we're showing you are an accurate depiction of what we're requesting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And it's only applying to those areas that you showed in green that -- or yellow, I think -- green or yellow. I can't remember which one. So it's only in the SRA area, right? MS. CRESPO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: So those are the -- those are the three January 8, 2026 pg. 21 deviations. We've worked with staff on the -- this is just showing the two different buffer types. So we would have to still do the Alternative B on the multifamily side because there is -- you can see, per the aerial, there's an existing single-family on the left-hand side of the lake, and so we would do these cluster plantings along that lake edge because we're putting multifamily in a place where existing single-family is across a lake. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha, okay. MS. CRESPO: All right. So your staff has analyzed the request as well as does our application. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. CRESPO: I won't read all these for you, but staff has outlined this in their staff report. We're in agreement with their analysis and provided a similar analysis in our application materials that this meets the substantial -- insubstantial change criteria, rather. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Well, if you can go back one. Just, for the record, I mean, I do like it when we're doing an insubstantial change that we can do this analysis here on the record so that if anybody questions whether it's insubstantial or not insubstantial, we could at least get some testimony to that. So thank you for putting this slide up. I don't need you to go through the whole thing, but I do -- you know, I want to make sure that -- I don't have jurisdiction over non -- or substantial changes. So anything that's insubstantial is substantial, or the other way around, but that's the criteria. MS. CRESPO: This is the criteria, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. MS. CRESPO: So we're not modifying the boundary January 8, 2026 pg. 22 of the SRA. We're not increasing density/intensity. We're not increasing building heights in any way. The reduction of this buffering isn't reducing open space. Sometimes those things could be seen as correlated, but all the open-space requirements, preserve requirements will be met. Obviously, this wouldn't impact any trip generation by the project, and we -- really the key one to highlight and submit my opinion on would be 8, which is -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MS. CRESPO: -- that by either modifying these buffers per the proposed conditions the -- these dwelling types coexist well together. They are of similar size, scope, and scale and so that they would not be incompatible, and safeguards are in place through the conditions to ensure buffering where there would be any potential incompatibility. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Great. Thank you. And again, you know, people watch these meetings, and, you know, for the County's purposes, anybody bringing this kind of request forward, I do appreciate this type of analysis because it does kind of put to rest the jurisdictional issue for me. Thank you. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. We -- as the planner, we're never sure if we're going to bore everyone or if it's important, so we appreciate you telling me -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not boring me. Trust me. MS. CRESPO: -- it's important. Thank you. So to conclude, we're in full agreement with staff. We really appreciate them working with us on additional conditions to make sure this meets all the criteria and January 8, 2026 pg. 23 addresses compatibility concerns. The deviations, again, will not eliminate existing buffering, only apply to these new development areas and are appropriately conditioned to ensure consistency with the intent of the RLSA overlay. And, really, innovative planning strategies in terms of allowing for a cohesive design throughout the community and not requiring different buffering where we've already started these projects to a positive outcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for answering my questions and the presentation. Why don't we go to public comment. Do you have anyone else that you wanted to put on before I go to public comment? MS. CRESPO: No. We are good. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I'll reserve some time for you for rebuttal. Anybody here from the public to speak? Just bear with us. MS. PADRON: Okay. We have no -- or, I'm sorry. We have no one to speak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No one here to speak. No one in the audience to speak on this item, nobody online, correct? MS. PADRON: That is correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow, okay. Well, I guess the neighborhood information meeting, i.e., the NIM seems to have, like, solved all the problems. Ninety-something people at the NIM and nobody here. You couldn't bring me any people? Okay. January 8, 2026 pg. 24 All right. Anything else from the County on this topic? I think it's pretty straightforward. Thank you for explaining very nicely, you know, the actual result on the ground for these deviations. I'll review everything and get an order out as soon as possible, so thank you. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great. Have a nice day. ***We're going to 3C now. Hi, Maria. MS. ESTRADA: Hello. Good afternoon. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II, in the Zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3C. It's for a Variance Project No. PL20230016958. This is a request for a variance from the Land Development Code, Section 4.02.15.D, to reduce the minimum project size requirement -- requirement to the existing lot of record of .26 acres which will allow the continued commercial use of a property zoned Residential Multifamily 12 within the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay located at 2592 Santa Barbara Boulevard, also known as Golden Gate Unit 6. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review criteria contained within LDC Section 9.04.03 and deemed consistent and consistent with the GMP. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied as per LDC Section 10.03.06.F. The agent letter was distributed by the applicant on August -- February -- August 5th, 2024 [sic]. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were handled by County staff on December 19th, 2025, and the public hearing sign was installed by County staff on Tuesday, December 23rd, 2025. January 8, 2026 pg. 25 There was a couple of letters of support provided by the applicant that were included with the backup material. I received one call regarding a request to put a fence to the neighboring property to the south which would be addressed during the SDP submittal. Therefore, staff recommends that you approve the variance petition as previously noted and depicted within Attachment B of the staff report. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESTRADA: This concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Oh, sorry to cut you off. I just wanted to make sure, like, this is not an after the fact -- is this after the fact? Because in the agenda it says continued commercial use of the property. MS. ESTRADA: Well, it's not after the fact. It's that the properties -- it's vacant. They demolished the residence, and it would be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there's a new structure coming on -- MS. ESTRADA: The overlay. Well, yes. They're going to build a new structure, and the overlay now requires commercial construction. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: It's one acre. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's that? MR. BELLOWS: Remember it's one acre, the size. MS. ESTRADA: Yes. The project size for the property is one acre, and this property is only .2 acres. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it's -- it's below the required. January 8, 2026 pg. 26 MS. ESTRADA: The -- yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. I'm with you now. Thank you. MS. ESTRADA: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the applicant here? The applicant's representative is here. Hello. MS. PASSIDOMO: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman, staff. Francesca Passidomo, for the record. Thank you. And the applicant is here. Ms. Perez is the owner of the property; she's here today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: As is Ryan White, professional engineer with Davidson Engineering. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. PASSIDOMO: So as Mr. Estrada noted, this is a variance to the minimum -- this is a very unique overlay. I'll start with that. I was brought in probably six months ago. And staff will testify that this overlay is likely going through, and we catalyzed changes looking at the overlay. It's one of those where it seems that the Board of County Commissioners recognized this is an urban area, wanted to float an overlay, but there hasn't actually been much development consistent with the overlay. So Ms. Perez is attempting to develop a low-intensity commercial use on the property. I'll walk you through that, but I wanted to provide that introduction that this is a somewhat unique overlay, and through this variance, I believe, staff is looking at changes to the overlay to facilitate what the Board of County Commissioners envisioned for January 8, 2026 pg. 27 this area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So the overlay's not working, so -- all right. MS. PASSIDOMO: It's a better way to put it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The straightforward way of putting it. MS. PASSIDOMO: Right. So next slide, please. So this is the location of the property. It's on a major corridor, Santa Barbara, just north of Golden Gate Parkway. It's across from the east -- excuse me -- First Baptist Church of Golden Gate City, and it's just southeast of the County's right-of-way retention pond up there. Next slide. The future land use -- it is in the Golden Gate urban area, as I noted. It's in the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District. In terms of the future land use designation applicable to the property, it explains that the purpose of the overlay is to primarily allow commercial with certain conditional uses. The types of uses permitted within the subject are low-intensity retail; offices, personal services. I highlighted to retail, because that's Ms. Perez's intent for the property. Next slide. The zoning district overlay is the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District. This overlay district mirrors the future land-use designation. The property lies within this commercial overlay which floats over the multifamily base zoning district. The overlay promises to bring low-intensity commercial services and retail to the urban area of Golden Gate along a major commercial corridor. Next slide. January 8, 2026 pg. 28 At the time the overlay was adopted, it recognized that in order to facilitate redevelopment to commercial consistent with the future land-use element, variance to project standards including minimum project area would be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. I highlight for you that Section 2.2.32.3.14. This is in the original ordinance. The section references have subsequently changed recognizing that a variance would be appropriate. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I'm with you so far. So basically, there -- you know, the intent is to try to bring commercial, which is normal on a major arterial like that. But some of the lots are substandard, right, to the one acre, so they anticipated the need for variances in the legislation that you're showing me, correct? MS. PASSIDOMO: That's what I'm reading, that's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MS. PASSIDOMO: And I'll show you kind of the pattern, the context of lot sizes in this area and why many of the lots are substandard to a minimum one acre, but this one has specific circumstances, and that's why a variance would be appropriate. And the next slide I just show to you that the theme of a variance is reflected in the zoning verification letter Miss [sic] received from County staff before closing on the property recognizing that minimum project [sic] acre is one size for commercial development, and in order to facilitate commercial development; otherwise, a variance would be required. January 8, 2026 pg. 29 Next slide. Of course, a variance stands on the specific facts and circumstances of the particular proposal. And in this case, we submit that the variance to the minimum project size is justified by unique circumstances applicable to Ms. Perez's property and her proposed development. Her lot was established as a legal lot of record over 40 years ago and has been in single and separate ownership ever since. It hasn't been combined for development. It has been .26 acres for nearly half a century. Unlike the adjacent lots which are developed -- which staff did an excellent job in the report of explaining that this is somewhat unique -- there is no opportunity to expand north, south, east, or west. The lot boundaries are fixed. Her lot has lay vacant for a decade. There was a fire that affected this property specifically, creating necessary involuntarily demolition of the residential structure that existed on the property prior to the fire. The project engineer has also provided in your materials a Master Concept Plan with a very modest commercial building at just over a thousand square feet, which can be accomplished on the lot without creating any additional curb cuts on Santa Barbara and allowing for things like septic and things that would be necessary for commercial development. There was a note from a neighbor regarding buffers. We're not requesting buffers to setbacks or -- any deviations, excuse me, to setbacks or buffers. This would mean that anything that the Land Development Code requires between commercial and residential development would be complied with including, if required, fencing and hedgerows and January 8, 2026 pg. 30 things of that nature in our buffers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that entire community on septic? MS. PASSIDOMO: It is. Interestingly, that came to my attention through this process. There's a large transmission line in Santa Barbara, but you don't tap into it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. MS. PASSIDOMO: I would love to hear that the County's going to convert it to sewer at some point, if you can speak to that, Mike. Not to put you on the spot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good lobbying point there. I mean, septic tanks are really generally not good for the environment, and I'm surprised that such dense -- so much dense neighborhood is not on septic [sic] yet. MR. BOSI: And Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Public Utilities is working on a conversion project for Golden Gate City -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- currently. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: It's a very long -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The entire Golden Gate City is on septic? MR. BOSI: The majority is, yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Wow. Didn't know that. Thank you. Sorry for the sidebar. MS. PASSIDOMO: No. It was an interesting point to me, too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. January 8, 2026 pg. 31 MS. PASSIDOMO: So next slide. This just -- there it is. This is the underlying plat. And I just show you the overlay which is bubbled in the -- the overlay in yellow, excuse me, the multifamily zoning, which is under the overlay is bubbled. Her property -- Ms. Perez's property is in purple. You can see that it is one of only two vacant lots along this area. And, importantly, many of these lots are substandard, though they do include residential structures today. So -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in other words, the original plat was larger -- was an acre or larger, but as property was sold and subdivided, they were reduced? MS. PASSIDOMO: Interestingly, not even quite. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: So I don't know where the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Where they came up with one acre, right? MS. PASSIDOMO: Yes, because it was -- it's almost like in North Naples where you have a minimum lot size that doesn't conform to the plat. Not to bring up something that's a sore subject for any real estate attorney, but... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Who's been here the longest? Ray? Okay, good. MS. PASSIDOMO: I just wanted to help provide a little context in terms of -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MS. PASSIDOMO: -- location and the course of development. Next slide. So I'll walk you through the criteria, if it is your will. We do agree with staff's findings that we meet the criteria. January 8, 2026 pg. 32 They're in your packet. They're part of our written testimony. So, Mr. Dickman, whatever you'd like me to do at this point from a time-efficiency standpoint. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's just walk through it briefly. I want to get it on the record -- MS. PASSIDOMO: Sure. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- in case there's any issues. MS. PASSIDOMO: Yeah, of course. The first criteria -- criterium is whether there are special conditions and circumstances particular to the location, size, or characteristics, structure, or building. We explain this a bit, the preexisting size of the lot, which is bounded on the north and south by developed properties and the east and west by existing right-of-ways. And the fact that this lot is surrounded by development on both sides is particular to the subject property. In addition, I would add that the fact that the residential structure was demolished due to a casualty is very unique. This wasn't a voluntarily demolition and ask for redevelopment. There's almost no practical use of the property today, and so we believe No. 1 is satisfied. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: Special conditions or circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant. The parcel was lawfully established, as I noted, over 40 years ago in its existing configuration. The lot was made vacant from a fire and not due to an intentional act by Ms. Perez nor her predecessor. In other words, there are no unclean hands involved in this request. Next slide. January 8, 2026 pg. 33 Number 3, a literal interpretation of the code works an unnecessary or undue hardship. A literal interpretation creates an unnecessary hardship with no attendant public benefit. In fact, a literal interpretation of the code frustrates the public benefit of introducing a small-scale, low-intensity retail establishment to serve residents and travelers in Golden Gate City, which is exactly what the Future Land Use Element sus -- excuse me -- introduces for this area. Number 4, if granted, it's a minimum variance necessary. We certainly meet this request. Next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You don't have your clicker? MS. PASSIDOMO: Alexis is much more technologically sophisticated than I am. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I know, we're all not used to that. Whoever -- MS. PASSIDOMO: It will confer no -- not confer on the petitioner a special privilege. It's particular to the land involved, as we've submitted in our testimony. It must be reviewed on a case- by-case basis, of course. That is the definition of a variance. And in this case, the date the lot was established, the fact that Ms. Perez did not create the lot or demolish any building, the location of the property within the overlay, the preexisting access from Santa Barbara, I'll just note, again, that we're not moving the location of the access. And the context of the lot surrounded by development on both sides creates a unique circumstance which is particular and does not -- does not confer a special privilege on Ms. Perez. Granting the harmony -- granting the variance will be January 8, 2026 pg. 34 in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and not injurious. We submit that the granting of the variance is almost necessary to effectuate harmony and intent with the Land Development Code, specifically the overlay and Future Land Use Element. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. That was the legislation that you showed earlier. I agree with that. MS. PASSIDOMO: That's right. We're almost done. Next slide. There are natural conditions physically introduced. This criteria we don't believe applies, nor does staff. Number 8, granting the variance will be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Rather than repeating that theme, I think I've hit that point several times. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I mean, I think so. I think the point is that this property will be unused without a variance. MS. PASSIDOMO: That's right. We looked at -- poor Mr. Bosi had to sit there and look at almost every permutation of trying to develop the property, and this was truly the only mechanism for relief. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Don't feel sorry for Mr. Bosi. He's paid to be -- have to go through that. MS. PASSIDOMO: So with that, we conclude. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Totally understand where this is coming from. Any -- so it looks like there's a -- any -- this is just a generic commercial building, no use specified yet or -- MS. PASSIDOMO: We did -- by way of background, we did submit an administrative parking reduction which January 8, 2026 pg. 35 was a precondition to moving forward with the variance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: And as part of that, we need to say what the use will be. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: It falls into this miscellaneous retail category. Ms. Perez plans to sell -- sell flowers and art and things that are really low-intensity retail, which is what predicates the parking -- administrative parking reduction. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So this is not going to be an arcade or -- MS. PASSIDOMO: No, not a gasoline or restaurant or anything like that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And it looks like the sidewalks connect up with the sidewalks. Are there sidewalks on Santa Barbara? MS. PASSIDOMO: I see Mr. White nodding yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so the car access would, you know, hypothetically be off of Tropical Way. Okay. All right. MS. PASSIDOMO: Yeah. In this case, primary access will continue to be from Santa Barbara, which is a benefit in the sense that we're not creating any new curb cuts one way or the other. We're just adhering to the existing site condition. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. Great. Do you have anybody else you want to put on for the record? MS. PASSIDOMO: I do not, no. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You don't. Okay, great. January 8, 2026 pg. 36 Anything else from the County now that she called you out? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I will agree with the applicant in the sense that we were directed by the Board of County Commissioners so -- three months ago, and we're in the process of setting up a public information meeting to have the first of our conversations with property owners within the Santa Barbara commercial overlay. We're going to modify the regulations to be much more usable and much more flexible in terms of what can and can't go -- or can go forward within the overlay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. BOSI: So this -- this variance probably would not have been needed if we were done with this task -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- but they've been waiting -- Ms. Perez has waited a long time for this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: And this has been going on for over a year. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I see that. And they're -- I mean no offense, you're a great lawyer, but it's expensive to have to hire Davidson and -- MR. BOSI: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I love seeing all you-all, but I love it also when -- MS. PASSIDOMO: We're not offended. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- homeowners -- homeowners and property owners can handle things on their own, but this is complicated. I get it. So you did the right thing by hiring professionals. MR. BOSI: And I would say, I mean, on its -- the January 8, 2026 pg. 37 merits -- on the merits, this variance stands on its own, and it's being supported by staff. But it is further enhanced by the need for our recognition that we need to modify these regulations to get them right-sized. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, yeah. Maybe look at things like practical hardships -- MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and things like that which are maybe slightly less rigorous than your typical variance. MR. BOSI: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But this is strictly a substandard situation where this property's going to remain vacant until a variance is granted. I recognize that a variance was clearly articulated in the legislation that counsel showed, so I get that. And I do appreciate the Board of County Commissioners moving forward with recognizing that, you know, new legislation is needed in order to actually effectuate what they're trying to achieve in that area. MR. BOSI: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So good. Any public speakers for this one? MS. PADRON: Yes. We have two speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. PADRON: Our first speaker is James Beauchamp. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. How are you, sir? Just press that button. You can take that one, but press the button so you go green. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yeah. My name is James Beauchamp. I've owned the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you spell January 8, 2026 pg. 38 your last name for me? MR. BEAUCHAMP: -- property -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: What's that? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Spell your last name for me. MR. BEAUCHAMP: B-e-a-u-c-h-a-m-p. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Beauchamp. French? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BEAUCHAMP: I've owned the adjoining property to the north side for -- since 1990. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BEAUCHAMP: I really don't have any objection to them doing this other than I'd like to see them put some kind of a privacy, like a palisade fence on the north side. I'm on the north side. And I -- you know, because the parking is more -- I think it faces the windows of my tenants, you know, my building. Basically -- and it's elevated a lot -- a little bit more than my lot because, you know, conditions were, way back, differently. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A little different. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And basically that's all -- my only concern is they put up a fence. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Thanks for being here today. Thank you. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. January 8, 2026 pg. 39 Who else? MS. PADRON: Our last speaker is Curt Pearman. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hello, sir. How are you? MR. PEARMAN: Good afternoon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You can use the green one. MR. PEARMAN: My name is Curt Pearman, P-e-a-r-m-a-n, and I represent the property directly to the south of the petitioner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're on the south side. Okay, great. MR. PEARMAN: We have a duplex that has been our primary residence for a number of years, but now we live in Lake Placid, Florida, and we use this as a vacation space. I basically support the petitioner. There is one issue. The preliminary site plan that was sent to us showed them using Tropical Way for access, not Santa Barbara. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um. MR. PEARMAN: Santa Barbara -- the Santa Barbara access has not been used for 20 years, and the development plan for this overlay district calls for access to property to be coming in off of Tropical Way. So we prefer that they use Tropical Way the way that it was originally presented. I appreciate the County looking at this overlay district. I personally own a couple hundred thousand square feet of commercial property around the country in multiple states. This overlay district does not function the way that it's currently configured. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARMAN: It does need to be revisited. January 8, 2026 pg. 40 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARMAN: And there were no -- I've owned this property since 1986 -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. PEARMAN: -- so I've had it for 40 years. There have never been any parcels along there that were one acre. I believe the one acre was the -- the threshold for one acre was to do a PUD, and I think that that's how this got mingled in. And the way it got mingled in has progressed over the years, and each revision has become more and more strong for this one acre. Originally, one acre was just strongly encouraged, and as time has gone on, now it's become a mandate, which I think is a mistake. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. PEARMAN: If the County -- the County should -- the County's doing the right thing in converting these to commercial, because having children living on such a busy road is probably not a good way to raise a family. So converting this is the right thing to do. It's just that it needs to be helped a little bit. So that's my comment. We're in support of this with the exception of the Santa Barbara access. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Anybody else? MS. PADRON: That's all. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah, come on up. I'll let you -- I want to make sure that the applicant hears all the issues. So you're on the north side, right? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yeah. I just wanted to address January 8, 2026 pg. 41 in regards to use of the -- there never used to be an alley in the back, which they're calling, whatever -- Trade, whatever. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Tropical Way. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And it's very narrow, and there's a lot of kids that go up and down it on their bikes and stuff like that. I just don't think they should be able to use that as, like, for deliveries and stuff. My property's right adjoining, and it's not a very wide lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BEAUCHAMP: So I just feel they shouldn't be allowed to use that for delivery or parking, because they're going to end up parking on my lot, which is cleared in the back. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I think that was a similar comment to what the gentleman had just said, but thank you. I wanted you to come up because I want Francesca to hear that and understand that. Some of this stuff -- I'm going to have a dialogue real quick. Is there any other -- any other public speakers? MS. PADRON: That's all, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. We're closing the public hearing. To the County, question. So I'm just dealing with the variance right now. And I really don't want to put conditions on a variance necessarily unless it's relevant, but there are other steps that have to take place here, right, in order for them to do this. And can these other things like privacy fences and which side to have access to the property, are those -- is there -- is this going to be addressed administratively? Maybe Maria is the one to do that, I don't January 8, 2026 pg. 42 know. Or I don't want to put anybody on the spot. Somebody -- somebody -- take control, Mike. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. As part of the Land Development Code, anytime that you've got a commercial use going against a residential use, a fence or wall Type B buffer would be required, so that would be addressed as well as a restriction related to the utilization of Tropical Way. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. That's what I wanted to have the neighbors hear, because you heard one comment about his concern because they have residential use on the north and the south, and there is concern about Tropical Way, how that's going to be used. But I personally don't think that I should be conditioning variances using that. I think there is some leeway to that if it's rationally related and everything, but I don't want to turn this into a conditional use, because I get it, this is a preliminary site plan. It's not -- I'm not dealing with the site plan. I'm just dealing with the very narrow issue of the size of the lot, and that's it. Does that sound right to you? MR. BOSI: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Maria, are you in concurrence? MS. ESTRADA: Yes. I just wanted to mention that there was a revised site plan -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. ESTRADA: -- which showing the entry would be from Santa Barbara, not Tropical. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I assumed that because I thought that I heard Francesca say that. But I'm January 8, 2026 pg. 43 looking at one that says there's an entrance on -- so I assumed that there was something new happening. So, Francesca, do you want to put that on the -- address that? MS. PASSIDOMO: Well, I'll submit this into the record. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got to go green. MS. PASSIDOMO: And I can't get the -- but that's fine. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. MS. PASSIDOMO: I'll submit this to you. And for the benefit, I'll just show the neighbor real quick, just for your benefit. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. Go ahead and do that. Take your time. MS. PASSIDOMO: We did work with staff, but Mr. Bosi's exactly right that this is a site-plan-level matter. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So what I'm understanding -- and if you want to provide that to me, and I'll take a look at it. Again, I'm not approving a site plan, per se, but what I'm looking at right now is actually the opposite of what I have in my folder which does show ingress/egress off of Santa Barbara, not off of Tropical Way. So I think that addresses that issue. And then as Mr. Bosi indicated during the approval process, the administrative approval process, anytime uses like commercial and residential abut one another, they deal with it with landscape buffering, fences, walls, things of that nature. Is that correct? I know it works. You've got to hit it hard. There you go. January 8, 2026 pg. 44 MS. PASSIDOMO: There we go. I'll conclude with we will certainly comply with the Land Development Code. We would be hesitant to regurgitate everything it requires, including buffers between commercial and residential. But we're not asking for deviations from those standards. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I got that. And I just want to -- I want to -- you know, I want people who take the time to come here and speak and express their -- I didn't find it to be a -- an outright objection. I mean, it seemed like they just were asking for some assurances that their -- you know, their properties are going to be okay, and I feel like we're getting that. And I appreciate that they came here in the middle of the day. Anything else, Francesca? MS. PASSIDOMO: With that, we close. We respectfully request your recommendation -- your approval, excuse me. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, it won't happen today. I've got to do it in writing -- MS. PASSIDOMO: I agree. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and I've got to look over everything. Is there anything else from the County? Are we done? MR. BOSI: Nothing more from the County. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And there was no one else from the -- online or anything? MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. I will get a decision out in writing as quickly as I can. Nice job. Nice presentation. Good work. Oh, you have another? Are you up next? January 8, 2026 pg. 45 MS. ESTRADA: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're staying there. Are you trying to talk about this item or a different item? MS. ESTRADA: No, it's the next item. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're going on the next item. Okay. We're moving on to 3D, right? MS. ESTRADA: Yes. MR. BOSI: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Here we go. Giving out cookies? MS. ESTRADA: ***Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II, in the Zoning division. Before you is Agenda Item 3D. It's Variance Project No. PL20240011679. It's a request for a variance from LDC Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1. It's to reduce the required front setback from 25 feet to 21.4 feet on the east property line for the existing staircase being renovated on approximately 0.15 acres known as Lot 44 of Gulf Harbor Subdivision a/k/a 1287 Rainbow Court in Naples, Florida. The petition was reviewed by staff based upon review criteria contained within the LDC Section 9.04.03 and deemed consistent with it and consistent with the GMP. With respect to the public notice requirements, they were complied with. The agent letter was distributed by the applicant on August -- May 30th, 2024 [sic]. The property owner notification letter and newspaper ad were handled by County staff on December 19th, and the public hearing sign was installed by County staff on January 8, 2026 pg. 46 Tuesday, December 23rd, 2025. Received one phone call for information which was provided. They weren't opposed to it or for it. They just wanted -- what was going on; therefore, staff recommends that you approve the variance petition as previously noted in Attachment B of the staff report. This concludes staff's summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Maria. I appreciate it. MS. ESTRADA: You're welcome. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the applicant here? MS. ESTRADA: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And while the applicant comes up, I want to say, Mike, I mean, I saw an email earlier that was really complimentary of "in re" the staff here. And I do appreciate your staff. Maria mentioning who's calling. John does this really well as well. I don't know who started the process, but just expressing who's called and how it was handled. And I think that goes a long way with the community and how they feel about the County, at least from my perspective, knowing -- I practice all over the state, and it's not always like that. So thank you. Hi. How are you, sir? MR. ARRIGO: How you doing? My name is Mark Arrigo. I'm a certified building contractor, owner and operator -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARRIGO: -- of On the Mark. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. January 8, 2026 pg. 47 MR. ARRIGO: I'm here to apply for the variance of this replacement of the staircase. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what happened to the staircase? I know this neighborhood got really hammered during the hurricane, so... MR. ARRIGO: So it did get some damage from the hurricanes, but it's just -- it's old. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's just old. MR. ARRIGO: It's been there for 20-some-odd years. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARRIGO: And as it stands now, it protrudes into the setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Um-hmm. MR. ARRIGO: If it were put into the setback -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It would be too steep. MR. ARRIGO: It would make the rise of the stairs be eight inches, which is undesirable. So off permit, off record, the staircase was modified however long ago, and I'm trying to replace it in the exact fashion that it is now as it protrudes into the setback. I am going to make modifications of the landing. Currently it comes down into the side and protrudes into the driveway and prohibits proper use of the driveway. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARRIGO: So I want to come straight down -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARRIGO: -- and just have stairs off the front. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just all the way down and then -- because right now the photograph that I see is stairs going both sides. January 8, 2026 pg. 48 MR. ARRIGO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I guess you have garages on both sides. So explain how -- how is that changing again? MR. ARRIGO: So instead of to the sides? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. MR. ARRIGO: It's just going to come straight down. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Straight out, okay. MR. ARRIGO: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And then there will be some kind of pavers or something like that? MR. ARRIGO: Yes, like a landing. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Anything else? MR. ARRIGO: You know, it prohibits proper use of the driveway. They hit it. If there's someone in the garage, and they park, you know, outside of the garage and they're in the driver's side door on the right side, you know, they can't open and get out. They have to park away from it, so it limits the use. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARRIGO: And as it protrudes into the setback, like I already stated, you know, it allows for the seven-and-a-half-inch rise for a standard stair tread riser. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. And, you know, if you were -- just so everyone understands -- and correct me if I'm wrong. You're the contractor. MR. ARRIGO: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That in order to maintain that same rise, you would actually have to, like, January 8, 2026 pg. 49 alter the porch, right? MR. ARRIGO: Yeah, I would have to be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It would have to, like, basically take the whole front part of the porch back -- MR. ARRIGO: Cut it back -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- eighteen inches or so -- MR. ARRIGO: -- which there's just so many other implications because it's three stories and -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. That's what I wanted to -- everyone to understand. So this is just a replacement of what's there. And you came in for a permit. You did the right thing. They told you the right thing, that you're slightly encroaching into the front setback, so here you are by yourself without hiring lawyers, so great. MR. ARRIGO: Yeah. It's been a -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do love lawyers, but I like the fact that people can just come here. MR. ARRIGO: It's been a three-year process, and we've learned a lot. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm so sorry, but it's the way it has to be. MR. ARRIGO: Yep. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anybody here from the public to speak? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No public speakers, okay. This seems pretty straightforward. I understand what's happening here. I think it would probably be dangerous to January 8, 2026 pg. 50 have a steeper stairway. MR. ARRIGO: Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I wouldn't -- I don't see where this is really endangering anybody other than that -- you know, it's not hurting anyone by having very minor variance in order to maintain the exact staircase angle that's there today and just a replacement so that it's safe. And in order to meet the -- in order to meet the setbacks, the rise would have to change dramatically, or they would have to change the style of the staircase maybe to a spiral staircase, which is not -- MR. ARRIGO: Yeah. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- not the best thing. I don't prefer those types of things. So there's really not much of a choice. MR. ARRIGO: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I think I understand this pretty well. I'll get a decision out as quickly as possible. Do you have anything else you want to add for the record? Because we won't be able to talk to you. MR. ARRIGO: Just to note the variance is for 3.6 feet. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. MR. ARRIGO: But the City does allow an extra three feet. So, really, it's only .6 feet that he protrudes into the allowable setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I got that part. MR. ARRIGO: So... HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's very minimal. MR. ARRIGO: And that concludes my presentation. January 8, 2026 pg. 51 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great. Great job. MR. ARRIGO: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I will get a decision out as soon as possible. Thank you for being here. MR. ARRIGO: Thank you very much. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Appreciate it. MR. BOSI: Andrew, I should have -- at the beginning when you asked for any adjustments -- I didn't hear if you asked for any adjustments to the agenda. We have to let you know that 3E has to be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, is gone. MR. BOSI: Is being continued to February 26th because of an error within the date, I believe, on the -- MR. BELLOWS: Sign posting. MR. BOSI: -- on the sign posting. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The signs. Okay. Thank you. I should have asked. That's my fault. I should have asked if there -- MR. BOSI: I should have volunteered. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Number 2 says "review of the agenda." I skipped right past that, but thank you. We don't need to take a vote on that since I'm voting in favor of it. So, yes, we'll continue that to next meeting. So anything else we need to talk about? MR. BOSI: Nothing from staff's perspective other than, "Go Gators." HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, yes. Thank you for the cookies, our loyal baker here, and, everyone, Happy New Year again, and I appreciate all the new tech here, and thanks for the pointer/clicker. I like that January 8, 2026 pg. 52 upgrade in 2026. We're really moving along here. So everyone have a great day. We're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:15 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.