Loading...
HEX Minutes 02/26/2026 February 26, 2026 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER NAPLES, FLORIDA February 26, 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 Maria Estrada, Planning II Zoning Reviewer Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I February 26, 2026 Page 2 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the hearing examiner for Collier County. It's February 26th, 2026, 1:00 p.m. We have the agenda here. The first item is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand and join me with the Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Welcome again, everyone. As I said, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney. I've been practicing over 20 years. I'm not a county employee. I was contracted by the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill the obligations and requirements in the code of ordinances for the Collier County HEX. And my job is to conduct this quasijudicial hearing, which is essentially, almost, the end of the line for you-all applicants because this is where the record ends, and I take in all the information and render a decision. My decisions won't be rendered here today. I will be rendering a written decision within 30 days. Typically, I can get that done quicker than 30 days, unless it's something that's very complicated. I have not had any outside -- what's called -- "ex parte communications" with county staff, with applicants, with neighbors, February 26, 2026 Page 3 anyone. I read the entire record for all the items that are posted on -- which are posted on the website, and there's a lot of back-up materials that are part of the record. I read all of that. And what I'd like to do is, when I'm here, is be able to ask some questions that I may want to get on the record or something that -- fill in the blanks, if I have any questions about something. It's also an opportunity, since these are all noticed, an opportunity for the public to join in and give their comments. The County has made this a hybrid meeting, in-person and via Zoom, so there may be some -- some participation via Zoom as well. Anyone and everyone who is going to testify here today will have to do so under oath, and in a minute, I'll ask our court reporter to administer the oath. Mentioning our court reporter, everything is going to be transcribed verbatim. So let's all try to speak clearly into the microphone, not talk over one another so that the record is clean and clear and we can -- we can have a transcript that doesn't have any issues with it. The court reporter will stop the hearing if she cannot understand what someone is saying, if you're speaking too lowly or too fast or talking over someone. She has full authority to stop the hearing. We want to make sure that the record is absolutely clear. February 26, 2026 Page 4 The most important thing for me -- and you can say whatever you want to say. It's your time. But the best thing you can do is address the criteria that pertains to the particular item. We have five items on the agenda. Each one are slightly different, and they all have different criteria. So it's important, to me anyway, while I'll listen to anything, almost, that you want to say, it would be a better use of everyone's time if you address things that are pertinent to the criteria that I have to use to evaluate the application. That being said, this is an informal proceeding, and I want everyone to relax. Anybody that's here for the public to speak, please realize this is -- it's more important for me to understand and hear from you than it is anything, so I want you to not be -- be timid about speaking here today. So with that, I would just ask everyone to silence your phones. And anyone -- we'll go ahead and administer the oath. Anyone that is going to testify on any of the items here today, please stand and raise your right hand. Would you mind swearing them in, please. (All speakers were sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. All right. So we do have the agenda in front of us. February 26, 2026 Page 5 Are there any changes to the agenda? Any withdraws? Any continuances? MR. BOSI: No changes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***Okay. Great. Then we'll just go right into the advertised public hearings. 3A is the very first one. MR. FINN: Yes. For the record, I'm Timothy Finn, Planner 3. This is for Petition Number PDI PL 20250013644, Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, Requests an insubstantial change to the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, Ordinance Number 11-41, for (1) the addition of a footnote to Table II - Commercial, Including Mixed-use buildings, Public Safety, and Senior Housing Development Standards, adding that the minimum yards for the principal use may be reduced to 15 feet on the east and west sides of the Commercial Tract identified as Tracts A and B of the Cadenza at Hacienda Lakes of Naples Plat as recorded in Plat Book 74, Pages 16 through 20 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; And (2) the addition of a utilities note to Table II - Commercial, Including Mixed-use Buildings, Public Safety, and Senior Housing Development Standards, that setbacks must comply with the required separation between utility infrastructure and buildings or structures provided in the Utility Standards and Procedures ordinance, Chapter 134, Article III of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The subject parcel is in the Commercial Tract of the MPUD and is February 26, 2026 Page 6 located approximately 1,280 feet east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.09 acres of the 2,262-acre MPUD. The project is compliant with the GNP 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 February the 6th. The hearing advertisements property signage were constructed at the property by the applicant per the affidavit of posting, included in Attachment E of the back-up materials. And that concludes my presentation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, Tim. Appreciate that. Nice presentation. And I see Mr. Arnold is here for the applicant. MR. ARNOLD: Hey, good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold. If you can advance that to the project team. I'm here with Rich Yovanovich, representing the applicant. There may be other team members that are on Zoom. I'm not quite certain. February 26, 2026 Page 7 But as Tim mentioned -- if you could advance that, I'll show you the location. It's on a vacant commercial tract in the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Plan Development. And the parcels outlined in yellow, the area immediately to our west, is the future Costco site that -- I don't think that item was heard by the hearing examiner, but you may have followed it; but that is the location, right there at Collier and Rattlesnake, where the -- the Costco would be. We're separated from that tract by about 170-foot wide FP&L easement. And then to the east, we have another vacant tract. And then we have a senior housing project that has -- primarily, it's a parking lot adjacent to this tract, with a small leasing office right next to the cul-de-sac that's there. Next slide, please. As Tim mentioned, it's just a shade over a five-acre tract, and it's known as Tracts A and B of the Cadenza at Hacienda Lakes Plat. During our review, the utilities department asked us to include a note in the development table, which we did, which references just that the setbacks can't interfere with some of the utilities, is essentially what that note means. So we have no issue with that. Next slide, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So that -- that first request, the footnote, it was after staff review they had -- that was a February 26, 2026 Page 8 comment from staff? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: So this is an overall master plan for Hacienda on your left, and you can see our small five-acre tract is listed as the subject property here. But Hacienda is a very large development of regional impact and, of course, this tract has been established for mixed-use development for many years there. Next slide, please. This is the existing development table and it identifies that the minimum setbacks are 25 feet for principal uses. And the next slide, please. This is our proposed revisions. The red text box identifies the two notes. One reflects our reduction for the east and west sides of the property on Tracts A and B, if you to go down 15 feet for the principal structure, and then the utility notice is noted as well. Next slide, please. This is a conceptual site plan for the property. North is to your left, so that's Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the left. You can see a February 26, 2026 Page 9 parking area proposed adjacent to Rattlesnake Hammock and then the proposed building, while a good portion of the -- the building is adjacent to the FP&L easement with the reduced setback, you can see that it's a lot smaller portion of the proposed building than actually has the reduction of 15 feet along that cul-de-sac that serves Cadenza and the subject property. Next slide. So to tell you a little bit more about the project, this is for a new medical college. It's going to be an osteopathic college. NCH College of Osteopathic Medicine is what it's intended to be. The Board of County Commissioners heard this item as -- not this specific item with regard to a setback reduction, but with regard to the overall project and -- and is -- is issuing about $6 million in incentives for the medical college to be built here. So the college has prepared some renderings that I was going to go through and show you a little bit about what they're proposing to do. So next slide, please. This is a view looking, kind of, from the northeast. You can see that parking area adjacent to Rattlesnake Hammock to the right portion of your screen. That's the access point that goes to the cul-de-sac to our west. And you can see a three-story building. It's gonna -- no reductions in landscape materials, et cetera. It's going to be a really nicely done architectural building. February 26, 2026 Page 10 There was a similar facility that was recently constructed in Orlando, for Orlando Health, ,that's also a medical college. And this is sort of a prototypical building, if you will, to replicate that because they do have certain demands for laboratory space, classrooms, et cetera. Next slide, please. This is a view looking from the other side but also looking at that parking area that's visible. You see a lot of glass and it's going to look like a, you know, Class A office building, if you will. And we think that the setback reduction for allowing this medical college to be built here makes a lot of sense and doesn't have any negative impact on the surrounding properties. Next slide. Another view. This is from the cul-de-sac and the roundabout looking back to the north and you can see, again, the building is going to be a beautiful design, as the conceptual is shown here, and good functional access to the roundabout and back to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Next slide is really our conclusion slide and, you know, I'm not going to go through each of the criteria, but Tim did a very good job of identifying all the various criteria for qualifying for an insubstantial change. But primarily we are consistent with the land development code. We're consistent with the growth management plan. Really, I think, February 26, 2026 Page 11 that the heart of the PDI process for this one was evaluating whether or not we do have any negative impact on the surrounding property. And as I said, to our west we have that 170-foot wide FP&L easement, so we don't really have any neighbor there. And then to the east we have the Cadenza senior housing project, but again, the building is proximate mostly to its parking area. I think it's about 900 feet to the nearest residential component of that project. So we don't find any negative consequences to those residents or to those buildings. Again, we -- we don't have any traffic increases. These are permitted uses that are allowed under the commercial tract. So we're not an attractor of more trips. And, again, we think the fact that this is truly an economic engine for Collier County makes a big difference to authorize the setback reductions for this one tract. As I said, a lot of job creation. There's an executive summary from the economic incentive package that talks about, you know, probably 400-some-odd employees, lots of construction jobs. I think fairly prestigious for us to get a medical college here in Collier County, and I think we're excited about it. We're excited to be working on the project, and I know that the school is very excited about being constructed here. So with that, I'm happy to answer questions you may have or go through any additional detail that you may need to help make your decision. February 26, 2026 Page 12 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, just a clarification. So you did say -- so you showed the outline of the Hacienda. That is part of a DRI? Is that what you said? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Part of integrational impact. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: If you have a lot of detailed questions, Rich has been involved since the inception of Hacienda so -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Really? MR. ARNOLD: -- he can chronicle all of the changes -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 1955? MR. ARNOLD: -- and provide an executive summary. And I do have a copy of the presentation -- a hard copy, if you would like to add that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That would be great. Okay. Let's go to public comments. Did anybody sign up for public comments? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We have someone back in the back raising their hands. MS. CURRIER: We didn't sign up. I didn't know anything about that. February 26, 2026 Page 13 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's okay. If you can come on up and speak, and she'll give you a speaker card and you can fill that out afterwards. Come on up to the podium, please. You can use this center podium, if you would. You can just fill that out afterwards. Just use this one right here. Hi. Good afternoon. Your name and address, please? MS. CURRIER: My name is Evelin. I live at -- I live at Ekos, the senior development there. When we moved in we were -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, Evelin. Can you tell me how you spell your name? Evelin what? MS. CURRIER: E-V-E-L-I-N, and Currier, C-U-R-R-I-E-R. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Evelin. Okay. MS. CURRIER: When we moved in, we thought it was going to be more of an isolated place with woods and everything there, and now they just started plowing all the woods down. There's -- the main concern that I have is the buffering and landscaping because we have the swimming pool that's right there where people will be parking, and they'll be able to see people at the pool. So that's my main concern. And the traffic. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So -- so the buffering for the pool and then the traffic -- February 26, 2026 Page 14 MS. CURRIER: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- correct? MS. CURRIER: So it's basically going to be a medical college. Okay. So that's -- that's during the day? They come and go? They don't stay there, correct? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I'm not going to answer the questions here. I just need to hear public comment from you. But I will ask the applicant to -- I'm sure they're taking notes. They'll get back up and answer those questions. MS. CURRIER: Okay. That's the main concern is the landscaping -- they -- we're not buffered at all anymore. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And you also wanted -- MS. CURRIER: Like, we're just wide open. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: One second. You also wanted to know about hours of operation? MS. CURRIER: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Was there anything else? MS. CURRIER: I -- I think that's about it for now. February 26, 2026 Page 15 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, this is your -- MS. CURRIER: I know this is the only one. That's all I can think of for now. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, this is the -- the -- MS. CURRIER: I get it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is where it all stops right here. So if you've got anything else -- MS. CURRIER: I get it. The other main concerns is the traffic. The landscaping so we have privacy. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MS. CURRIER: That's -- that would be the main one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Tell me -- MS. CURRIER: And when you hear "college," you start thinking kids partying. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're not 18-year-olds, I would imagine. To get into medical school, you're a little older. MS. CURRIER: I just had to throw that in there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I -- that's great. So describe for me, again, where you are in proximity to this location. February 26, 2026 Page 16 MS. CURRIER: I live in -- in the building right there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The building right there? MS. CURRIER: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: To the west? The east? MS. CURRIER: There's two buildings that are right there next to where they just plowed everything down, just next to the property. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. MS. CURRIER: They have to share the road that we use to get into our apartment. They have to use that to get into where they're going as well. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Evelin, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it. MS. CURRIER: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If you could just fill that out and give it to Ailyn. MS. CURRIER: Uh-huh. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. Thank you for being here. Anyone else? Anyone else in the audience? Anybody else via Zoom? MS. PADRON: No, sir. February 26, 2026 Page 17 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're going to close the public hearing. Mr. Arnold, you heard a couple of comments, maybe you can address. Some of those had to do with the -- the buffering landscaping around the pool, primarily. There's also some questions about traffic, and then hours of operations. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. So -- so just to be clear, this is truly a medical college that -- there's no resident component to this. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can I -- can I -- can we go back to a bigger screen? I just want to get a sense of where she's located. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. If we can go back to an aerial near the beginning, Ailyn. I think that's -- there you go. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. All right. MR. ARNOLD: So you have the clicker, but that's part of the Ekos. And there's another building to the north of that, an L-shaped building. And the little building right at the roundabout is their leasing office. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So these are apartments? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Yeah. Condos or apartments? February 26, 2026 Page 18 MR. ARNOLD: They're apartments. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And then, of course, across Rattlesnake Hammock, I don't know if you've driven out this way recently to see what's going on, but there are other condominiums and apartments that have been constructed in that vicinity. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So to get here, the primary access point is going to be right here? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. To the west, right here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's going to be right here. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. And that's the defined access to this tract for the -- it is a commercial tract and whether it was going to be the college or some other office building or retail, those are the two that are permitted. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And the pool that she's referencing, is that it right there? Or is there another pool down in here? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But, again, as I mentioned, no reduction in landscaping is proposed. We'll have our full landscape buffer requirements, just as we did. February 26, 2026 Page 19 And, again, traffic impacts, commercial tract, we were going to have commercial -- there's a trip cap in the PUD that's relevant that's being analyzed. We have a concurrent site development plan that's under staff review presently. We've worked out the details of the trip. So I don't think, technically, traffic is a technical concern. I understand that it's a resident concern for many residents in the community, but it's not necessarily a technical issue for this specific site. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask Mr. Bosi here about the buffering and the screening and things like that. Is that something that will happen at the site development phase? Will you be looking into that? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, planning and zoning director. Yes. And it's currently under review, so the -- the screening and the buffering would be required per the Hacienda PUD. This area is scheduled for commercial development, so the buffering is not being altered by what's being proposed. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. BOSI: So whether it be the school, whether it be any other commercial use, they would have to obligate the same buffering that would be required. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Mr. Arnold or Mr. Yovanovich, let me ask you a question about the -- I mean, we're February 26, 2026 Page 20 referring to it as a "college," but this is a post-graduate college, I would imagine. I think you said an osteoporosis [sic] -- MR. ARNOLD: It's an osteopathic college. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. So it's when you're getting specialized in a medical field. So you've already gone through medical school, probably. MR. ARNOLD: This is the medical school, so you would have gone through a -- probably, a four- or five-year premed program at the University of Florida, University of South Florida, Florida State, for instance, in the state, have those programs, and then those students would come here. They'd take another two years to go through the medical college and then they are ready to become resident doctors, and we hope that those students become resident doctors here in our community because we need them. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's a specialized profession. So I didn't want to leave the -- the image of a college, per se -- MR. ARNOLD: It's -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- 18- to 22-year-olds. MR. ARNOLD: It's a rigorous program. My daughter-in-law happens to be an osteopathic doctor, and she went to school in Colorado, but it's a no-nonsense kind of February 26, 2026 Page 21 program. You go, and they will have classes into the evening, like most schools do. But there's laboratory time, there's classroom time, et cetera. But this is not a typical college campus program. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Any idea what the student body might be? MR. ARNOLD: I think it's going to be around 200 each year. Each class will be around 200 students. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Okay. Any -- anything else from the county? Did you-all have anything else you want to put on the record? MR. ARNOLD: I would just highlight -- you know, Ailyn has on the screen just the, sort of, conceptual site plan, and you can see the relationship of the building on the eastern side closer to the Ekos. But the entire building does not take advantage of the proposed -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is the right turn in? So you'll come in this way off of Rattlesnake Hammock -- right? -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- this way, and it's situated more towards the main Rattlesnake Hammock Road versus -- so most of the parking is going to be in the backside, right? MR. ARNOLD: Correct. And the reduction for the setback reduction, you can see that it doesn't really impact the entire eastern February 26, 2026 Page 22 boundary but that's how we reflected it. But the site plans shows that the building envelope is actually a small portion of the eastern property line. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else? MR. ARNOLD: That's it. I think that's it. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anything else from the county? Tim, anything. MR. FINN: No. Nothing to add. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Tim. I appreciate that. MR. ARNOLD: Other than we're on a tight construction schedule. So to the extent that the 30 days can be reduced, that would be -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: My office is listening. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***All right. Let's move on to 3B. I guess that's you, Maria. MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon, HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN. February 26, 2026 Page 23 For the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II, Zoning Division. Before you is Agenda Item 3B, Petition Number PL20250003185. It's Panda Express restaurant. This request pertains to a sign variance from Section 5.06.04.F.2.a, of the land development code. It seeks permission to install one additional 60-square-foot wall sign facing the shopping center. This would allow for an additional third wall sign measuring 6 feet by 6 feet. The subject property consists of approximately one acre, specifically located at 8955 Founder Square Drive, Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. I received one phone call regarding the lighting of the existing signs on the restaurant. That was -- that concern was communicated to the applicant, and the applicant has complied with all the hearing notices, which was handled and confirmed by our operational staff. The advertisement and mailers were sent out February 6, 2026. The property signage for the hearing advertisement was placed on the property by the applicant and is included in the Attachment D of the back-up materials. The project is compliant with the growth management plan; therefore, staff recommends approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. What we're talking about here is an additional sign. So basically a total of three wall signs, right? MS. ESTRADA: Yes. February 26, 2026 Page 24 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A total of three wall signs and they're lighted -- backlighted? MS. ESTRADA: Yes, they are. Illuminated. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Is the applicant here? MS. ESTRADA: Yeah. Via Zoom. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh, via Zoom. Hi. MS. ESTRADA: You're on mute, Gina. You have to unmute. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you chat with her at all? MS. PENNEY: I got it. Sorry about that. I was pressing the wrong unmute button. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hi. MS. PENNEY: Hi. How are you today? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wonderful. Let's hear what you've got to say. MS. PENNEY: So I'm here to represent Panda I'm with Atlas Signs. This is for -- let me go to the next -- I don't know if I have control, but I need the next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gina, can you tell me a little bit about yourself, please? Just your background. February 26, 2026 Page 25 MS. PENNEY: Yeah. I am from Atlas Signs. I'm the director of permitting. Do you need the address where I reside or -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. And also just how long have you been in this capacity? How long have you been involved with seeking variances for wall signs? Things like that. MS. PENNEY: I have been -- I have been working with Atlas Signs for going on 14 years now and running around all over. I'm actually in Phoenix right now. That's why I'm not there in person. I'm doing variances for multiple -- multiple clients that we service. I, prior to this, worked in construction for about -- I don't know -- 20 years before Atlas doing permitting and variances -- not for signs, but for other -- for other regulations that we needed to get exempt from. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I recognize you as an expert. Thank you, Gina. MS. PENNEY: Okay. You want me to continue with the presentation now, or do you guys have any -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. Please go straight into your presentation, please. MS. PENNEY: Sorry. It's a little bit weird on Zoom for me. February 26, 2026 Page 26 Panda -- Panda Express's new restaurant is located here. This new restaurant will provide jobs for around 50 people. Next slide. A little bit of history for Panda. They began as a fine-dining restaurant in 1973. Their first location was in Pasadena, California. After the success of the Panda Inn, they opened the first Panda Express in 1983, and the new concept quickly became a pioneer in the quick-service Chinese food market. Next side. This is just to show, like, what they looked like originally when they were Panda -- the first Panda Expresses and what their new branding looks like. Next slide. Their mission is to deliver an exceptional Asian dining experience with -- by building an organization where people are inspired to better their lives. They are one of America's largest family-owned Chinese restaurants with more than 2,500 stores and over 50,000 associates across the United States and abroad. Next slide. This is just a little bit of information on what they give back to the community. They -- Panda Cares supports and helps the education of underserved children. Since its launch in 1999, the companywide initiative has raised more than $415 million to provide February 26, 2026 Page 27 food, funding, and volunteer support to children's organizations and disaster relief efforts in the U.S. and worldwide. They do Panda Cares Center of Hope. This is where they're committed to providing youth in our communities with safe, supportive spaces where they can learn, grow, and thrive. They partnered with Children's Miracle Network Hospitals and Boys and Girls Clubs of America. They've helped to establish Panda Care Centers of Hope nationwide, delivering meaning -- sorry -- meaningful resources and encouragement to patients and students alike. Next slide. This is to show what is already approved for this location. The front facade is the first one. The Panda Express letter set. That's the existing wall signs. That is measuring out at 52.30 square foot. And then for the existing sign on the west elevation, this is the logo disk and that is at 36 square feet. Next slide. And this is what we're proposing, on the opposite side, east elevation. We're trying to mirror what is on the west elevation to provide visibility for the traffic heading westbound. And that one is proposed at 36 square feet as well. Next slide. February 26, 2026 Page 28 So for this property, it has a unique layout of -- this parcel creates a visibility challenge that cannot be adequately addressed through the permitting -- or the permitted wall area allowances prescribed by the Collier County Land Development Code. Although the building fronts a roadway, there is no direct entrance from that roadway. Customers traveling along Immokalee Road must turn onto Founders Square Place that leads to Founders Square Drive, where the actual entrance to the property is located. This indirect access significantly limits the building's visibility and wayfinding clarity from the primary corridor. Following a comprehensive site review, we have determined that the proposed additional wall signage is necessary to effectively identify the building to motorists traveling in either direction on Immokalee Road and to provide reasonable, functional wayfinding consistent with the intent of the LDC. Next slide. In closing, the requested variance for one additional 36-square-foot wall sign represents the minimum relief necessary to address the unique visibility and access challenges of this parcel. The property's indirect entrance, multiple required turns, and limited sight lines, particularly from westbound traffic, create conditions not typical of other sites within the MPUD district. Strict application of the County LDC would result in unnecessary hardship by limiting effective identification and safe February 26, 2026 Page 29 wayfinding for customers. The request is modest in scale, consistent with the intent of the Collier County Sign Code, and will not create visual clutter or adversely impact adjacent properties. Approval of this variance ensures fair and reasonable use of the property while promoting traffic safety and effective communication to the public. That's my presentation. Thank you for your time. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. All right. So just to be clear, so the signs requested are on the east, west, and north, not on the roof, right? MS. PENNEY: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. That was just a logo. MS. PENNEY: Yes. That's just to show that that's the Panda location. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just want to be clear about that. So I have a question about -- I'm actually looking at this -- the staff report. Maybe this is for Maria. The staff report, on Page 4, it appears that there are two vacant lots or two other lots that are adjoining it. I don't know if that's also part of Founders Square or, you know, is this going to interfere in any way with those? February 26, 2026 Page 30 I don't know. It looks like there's two parcels that are, according to this, are undeveloped. MS. ESTRADA: Yeah. They are undeveloped right now. They haven't -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. So I mean, that -- those developments could potentially impact the eastern side signage, depending on where they put this. But I just -- I mean, I'm taking variances on a case-by-case basis, but I'm just anticipating, you know, as they build that out, that you may want to take that into consideration. Let me go to the public comment. Any public comments here today? Anybody here? MS. PADRON: No speakers for this one. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers signed up? Zoom or in person? MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Live or in-person. Okay. The public hearing is closed. Yeah, this is pretty straightforward. I presume -- so that -- that is part of the PUD that is Founders Square PUD. So I guess the folks that buy in there are aware of, you know, the fact that they're, you February 26, 2026 Page 31 know, the -- the east and west side -- I get the north side, which is facing Immokalee Road, right? So that's important. But I think if everyone is going to be doing east and west side, as well as north side sign wall variances, just be prepared for that. And I do see that it is -- I mean, Immokalee Road is a large right-of-way and the property is set back, and I would imagine that the -- looking at the site plan, the building is actually, kind of, set back a little bit. So visibility from Immokalee Road is important because you have to go to Founders Place, I guess, to get into the development, correct? MS. ESTRADA: That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Okay. Gina, thank you for your presentation. It was very good. Sorry you couldn't be here in beautiful Florida, but -- MS. PENNEY: Thank you. Me too. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- maybe next time. I understand exactly what's being requested. I will get a decision out as quickly as possible. Thank you. MS. PENNEY: Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have a good day, Gina. February 26, 2026 Page 32 MS. PENNEY: Have a good day. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***Moving right along to 3C. Maria, Number 2. MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon, HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN, again. For the record, my name is Maria Estrada, Planner II Zoning Reviewer for the petition in Zoning Division. Today we have Agenda Item 3C variance identified as PL20250011116. The applicant is seeking a variance from the R-2 Development Standards in Section 4.06, Table II A, of the Orangetree PUD. They request to reduce the required side yard setback for an existing accessory screen enclosure on a single-family detached home. Specifically, they're requesting to reduce the setback from 5.5 feet to 4.01 feet on the northwest property line. The property is approximately 0.24 acres. It is located at 900 Grand Rapids Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34120, in Section 14, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Staff has reviewed this petition according to the criteria established in the Orangetree PUD Ordinance 12-09. Staff believes this petition aligned with both the review criteria outlined in PUD and the GMP. February 26, 2026 Page 33 Regarding public notices, they were fulfilled as per LDC Section 10.03.06.f. The applicant distributed the agent letter on February -- January 16th, 2026. The property owner notification letter and the newspaper advertisement were handled by operational staff on Friday, February 6, 2026. Public hearing sign was posted by county staff on Monday, February 9th, 2026. County staff has received one inquiry regarding this petition for information; therefore, staff recommends approval. And that concludes the staff summary. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Or the applicant's representative? How are you, sir? Welcome. MR. WARDLOW: Good. How about yourself? My name is Logan Wardlow on behalf of William Kennedy and Tara Gillespie, the property owners of 900 Grand Rapids Boulevard. As a preliminary matter, I'd like to adopt and incorporate the staff analysis in recommendation of approval into my argument here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. WARDLOW: As you see, we have a slide show. I think we're ready to hit the next slide. February 26, 2026 Page 34 Okay. Here is where we're at. This is an aerial of the property. You can see the property lines here. And you can see the pool cage and the pool that are already built and have been there for right around 15 years. That's currently there now. I'll get to how we came before you here today here in a minute. If you can go to the next slide. Again, this is the variance requested. This is a minimum side yard setback in Collier County Ordinance 2012-09, Section 4.06, Table IIA, for a single-family detached home on a property within the R-2 tract of the Orangetree PUD. This is to reduce that side yard setback from 5.5 feet to 4.01 to allow for this pre-existing pool enclosure. And as a note, the pool itself is within the setback. This is just for -- this is just for the aluminum enclosure itself. I think we're good for the next slide. I have got -- following this slide, I have got some slides that are just comparing what we submitted, and the staff report. As far as the lot goes, the size and characteristics that are special conditions here, as you saw, it's converging into somewhat of an irregular pie shape. And I guess what I mean by "irregular" is it's not a rectangle. And as many lots within the PUD are rectangular and countywide, this is restricting the buildable area -- area within the rear yard as it would be smaller than the rectangular setback. And as February 26, 2026 Page 35 you saw, this pool is just like many pools within the PUD. This isn't a crazy party pad out in their backyard. This is just a pool. I think we're good for the next slide. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let me ask a question. So you indicated that the pool was within the -- the setback -- within the setbacks, it's just the cage is not. But does that not also include the -- the cement apron or whatever it is around the pool? Is that also? I'm just curious about how you treat that. Is that considered a structure or no? MR. WARDLOW: No. It is not considered a structure. The pool and the cement apron would -- is allowed to be within the setback -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I thought. So but for the enclosure, the enclosure is what -- because it goes vertical and becomes -- MR. WARDLOW: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- more of a structure. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MR. WARDLOW: No. You're good. Here we are on -- on B. This is the preexisting conditions. And this is kind of how we got here. The prior property owners' February 26, 2026 Page 36 contractor built this property not to specifications of the approved plans, which were at the 5.5 foot line. And with -- just recently, the owner who had this pool built and never had the permits closed out, sold the home. And throughout the closing process, this was then recognized through a spot survey trying to close out these permits that this was, in fact, encroaching into the minimum side yard setback. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in other words, after the fact? MR. WARDLOW: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. It happens. MR. WARDLOW: I think we're ready to go for the next one. Literal interpretation, will cause grave hardship to the applicant here because they would have to completely restructure and rebuild the pool as far as the aluminum cage goes. And, again, this is not -- this is not something that is -- these pool cages are not something that's uncommon. And it's within the harmony of the community and there's nothing . . . I think -- I think we're good. This is the -- the minimum variance granted to put this within the specifications of the -- of what we're requesting because it's right at the line. 4.01 is the minimum. That's where it currently sits. There are, I believe, that within the -- the packet that you have is the February 26, 2026 Page 37 rejection survey, where it shows there's two encroachments: one being at 4-point -- one measurement being at 4.49 and the other one being at 4.01. So this would be -- 4.01 is what we're requesting and that would be the minimum. I think we're ready to go. This would not confer any special privilege. And going back to the prior slide, there is a hedge row -- there is a hedge row between the applicant's property and the neighboring property. And it is -- it is fairly large. You can see it in the picture that Ms. Estrada took where she took a picture of the sign posting. This is not conferring any special privilege upon the applicant. This pool has been here. There's been no complaints about this pool for the 15 years that it's been there. And -- and this is -- this has just been brought up throughout the closing process. And -- and this was a cloud in the closing process that we're now taking care of here, after the fact. And it's not a larger pool than what would otherwise be allowed in this neighborhood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So could some of this be -- and we talked about this last time. Technology has changed a little bit with survey equipment. Is that part of the problem? MR. WARDLOW: Absolutely. It most certainly can be. You know, the -- the precision that's now being able to be recorded or documented within the survey and has provided for a little bit more February 26, 2026 Page 38 accuracy. And because of that, I think you're going to see more and more. We do have administrative variances -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I thought. MR. WARDLOW: -- unfortunately, if we did not meet that criteria. But normally anything below 10 percent could qualify. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I was wondering about that. Sorry to interrupt you, but I was curious -- I mean, it's just too bad -- well, I mean, I guess back 15 years ago it was close enough, right? And then now here a property owner is having to pay good money to try to clean up something else. So I -- I get the gist of what you're asking for. MR. WARDLOW: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. This happens from time to time. I think at our last meeting exactly this almost very same thing happened, where something had existed for a very long time. A new buyer comes in, they catch it during -- doing their due diligence. They're kicked over into this process, which isn't easy by any means, because it's not administrative. But unfortunately, it does fall into the after-the-fact category, so --- which is not to shine a poor light on your client, of course, because they're not the ones that -- this wasn't taken care of. But there is quite a bit of new technology from 15, 20 years ago that, you know, these type of de minimis encroachments, I would say, February 26, 2026 Page 39 something to think about. You know, talk with your -- with the county staff. I don't know how to handle some of these things. At some point -- I guess, you're saying 10 percent, that's the cutoff line. Okay. That's about right. Okay. I understand. Sorry to interrupt you. I understand exactly what you're -- but maybe you should get it all on the record. Plus, I want you to go through the process. MR. WARDLOW: I appreciate that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Rock and roll. MR. WARDLOW: I appreciate that. So granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare. It's consistent with the intent of the zoning code and the fair and reasonable use of this property. Again, the hedge row caused vegetation privacy between these two lots. And as stated again, there's been no -- it's been there for 15 years and nobody has made any noise about it. We're good. This will be consistent with the growth management plan. And Collier County will support the right of the property owner to use, maintain, develop, and improve his or her property for the personal use -- use any other -- or the use of any other person subject to state law and local ordinances. And I believe that we are within the property rights element of that. February 26, 2026 Page 40 Again, I would like to emphasize that staff recommended approval of this, and I believe that should conclude my presentation. If you have any further questions. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. Great job. I don't think I have -- I know you were here once before, but I haven't seen you handle a hearing all by yourself. Nicely done. Well done. It's good to see a new face. Glad to have you here. Hopefully, you treated the good people here at the county well and didn't rough them up like your colleague over there usually does. Honey goes a lot longer than vinegar, so trust me. Is anybody signed up for the public to speak? Public speakers? MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No public speakers online or in person? Okay. Anything else from the county? I guess that's a no. MR. BOSI: Nothing from the county. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. You never know when I'm going to ask you a question, Maria. Is there anything else you want to get on the record? MR. WARDLOW: There is one more thing. February 26, 2026 Page 41 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I was going to say, you were going to ask -- to say you're in a big hurry and you want to get this out fast. MR. WARDLOW: There is an escrow deadline here that we're trying to meet within, and I think it falls right on the 30-day mark. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. My office is listening. I got it. MR. WARDLOW: All right. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nice work. Good to see another land use attorney around. Take care. MR. WARDLOW: All right. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***All right. We're going into marine time. Docks. And John's part of the agenda. 3D. Do you want to do, like, an entrance song or smoke or anything? MR. KELLY: I'd prefer the smoke. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. KELLY: Okay. Good afternoon, HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN. John Kelly, Planner III for the county. Before you is Agenda Item 3D. It's a boat dock petition PL20240010109. The petitioner requests that the hearing examiner approve a 16-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow the February 26, 2026 Page 42 construction of a boat-docking facility protruding a total of 36 feet into a waterway that is 154 plus or minus feet wide, pursuant to Section 5.03.06.H of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject property is located at 400 Oak Avenue, also known as Lot 7, Block I, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. It's property ID Number 27581000007. It's located within a residential single-family 3 zoning district. The subject property comprises 0.21 acres with a single-family dwelling. No dock presently exists, as it was removed to facilitate the construction of a new seawall constructed by Building Permit Number PRMAR20240309517, which comprises Attachment D. In conjunction with the seawall, the area landward of the new seawall was backfilled, which increased the useable land mass and changed the contour of the water front. The new dock facility is to be perpendicular to the shore and will have one slip with a boat lift for a 30-foot vessel. The dock will protrude 36 feet measured from the property line into the Vanderbilt Lagoon and will be set back 15 feet or more on both sides. 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 February 6, 2026, and a public hearing sign was posted by myself on February 10, 2026. The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria LDC 5.03.06H of the primary criteria. It satisfied five of five. Of the February 26, 2026 Page 43 secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six, with the sixth being not applicable, as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it was found to be consistent with both the growth management plan and the LDC. I received two phone calls regarding this petition. Both parties were sent e-mails containing a link to the public hearing package and were invited to attend the meeting and/or to provide correspondence to me before 5:00 p.m. yesterday. I received no such correspondence. However, there may be a participant. I'm uncertain. Staff's recommend -- staff recommends the hearing examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachments A and B. And I'm here for any additional questions, should you have any. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Stick around, John. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative here? MR. KELLY: The applicant will need to be sworn. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh. Please raise your right hand. (The speaker was sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's nice to see you again. MR. OREUS: How are you doing? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good. February 26, 2026 Page 44 MR. OREUS: Mark Oreus, Greg Orick Marine Construction. Yeah, we're planning to do a -- what you heard, a 36-foot dock from the property line. The previous -- as you heard, the previous seawall was at an angle. It was dredged from the uplands so we, after many months of permitting, managed to get permission to put it out to the property line, which the previous dock, which sat out at about 30 feet as well, but behind the property line. So basically the new owner now just wants almost the exact same type of dock that was previously there on the new property line, which would have now encroached into the -- past the 20-foot protrusion. The 250 30-foot boat, after many designs and working with the client, we came up with a design for the -- that would properly fit the 30-foot pontoon within the means while not obstructing, as much as possible, the western house. That is up there with their encroachment. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sorry to interrupt. This is just going to be an oral presentation? Do you have any diagrams or anything like that you want to show? MR. OREUS: No. Just the -- just use the stuff that's in the -- the back-up file and stuff like that. I can usually pop in the back-up files, if you want to look at -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, I have them here. MR. OREUS: -- yeah. February 26, 2026 Page 45 So for the most part, that's what we're basically proposing, just to put the -- to be able to fit the boat into the proper -- property owners, basically, without trying to obstruct anything else from the neighboring -- and basically just put the same thing that was there before. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So it appears as though -- so this is going to be pulling in perpendicular to the property line; is that correct? MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it looks like a pontoon boat; is that correct? MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Just trying to get some of the diagrams here. Okay. So on either side there's going to be 5-foot catwalks; is that correct? MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And that's going to be either side. And then there's going to be -- looks like on the west side, there's going to be more of a, looks like, 20 by, I'm going to say -- MR. OREUS: 13. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- 13 deck area. February 26, 2026 Page 46 That's just a proposed deck area? That's not going to be a floating up and down for watercraft or anything? MR. OREUS: No. No. So previously, when we're doing the designs as well, an option to do a floating -- a platform lift was proposed. We came up with a design to not do that, just for the simple -- even though it would be within their 20-foot setback -- just for the simple fact we wouldn't want any -- to apply any pressure -- more pressure to the neighbor to the west, who's had his dock for years and years and years and comes in parallel to the shoreline. We don't want to -- even the proposal to bring the dock all the way up to 15-feet setbacks, which would be within their allowable, just wouldn't be neighbor friendly, in a sense. So this is the best design that we could come up with so the owner could fit his vessel. Also have the storage to put anything else without encroaching into his neighbor's ingress and egress for him to be able to come in and out with his boat. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the vessel's almost 32 feet long, correct? MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. With the motors. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. And what you're telling me is a parallel design would interfere with the neighboring dock? February 26, 2026 Page 47 Is that, essentially, what you're saying? MR. OREUS: So, yeah. So if we would have done a 32-foot parallel to the shoreline like that, with the space to the front and back, we would be pushing more into the setback -- well, we would be within our restriction to what we were allowed. Just -- like I said, it's not neighborly, friendly because the neighbor to the west has about a 25-foot-plus slip. So if you were to put a boat in there and then we went all the way to our 15 feet allowable, it would be possible. But it's not -- like I said, it's just not ideal to get a boat in and out on that section. We are also working with the neighbor to try to propose some ideas as well to, kind of, help him out just in case if he wants to change his designs. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How did that shoreline get the way -- I'm looking at the aerial on the staff report Page 4. So basically you straightened out the shoreline? Is that what you did? MR. OREUS: Yes. So previously, I'd say pre-1990 -- I forget what year it was. Over the years, the shoreline kind of got dredged out from Uplands, so we're even working with the two -- the three neighbors to the west to try and help them out. They will probably not be able to get it all the way out to the property line because you can see it's only those four properties originally that were dug out like February 26, 2026 Page 48 that. Almost like that was a -- called -- like, a dead end that got dredged out. But it's not. It just, unfortunately, got dredged out. And those neighbors to the west, I think, have -- I have been to that house. I think they have 5 to 10 feet of backyard only -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, it's really interesting. MR. OREUS: -- because it's completely dredged out from them. So, I mean, we're hoping -- it's just kind of an unfortunate situation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you were able to get it back -- MR. OREUS: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- get your seawall to the property line? MR. OREUS: That house, specifically, we were able to get it out all the way back out to the property line. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. MR. OREUS: Yeah, through DEP's approval. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Interesting. Okay. I see the issue. Anything else? MR. OREUS: No, sir. February 26, 2026 Page 49 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, why don't we see if there's any public comment here. Anybody here to speak publicly? MS. PADRON: Yes. We have possibly two speakers. Our first speaker is John Robert. He's here with us. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Roberts. MR. ROBERT: Good afternoon. Thank you. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're welcome. MR. ROBERT: My name is John Robert. And by the way, the property owner at 390 Oak Avenue adjacent -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You projected so well I didn't even know the microphone was off. MR. ROBERT: Okay. My name is John Robert with -- I'm an independent contractor with John R. Wood Properties. And we currently have the adjacent property at 390 Oak on the market. And it is adjacent to 400 Oak Avenue. And I believe the owner of the property, Dr. Steve Hagan, represented by the initials "SH" up there, is going to also speak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So you're the rep- -- you're the property representative. February 26, 2026 Page 50 MR. ROBERT: Well, I guess I -- or I'm here on behalf of the property owner. How is that? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Got you. MR. ROBERT: All right. And I don't know if Dr. Hagan is able to unmute his microphone, but I -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Why don't we do one at a time, and we'll let you speak first. And then we'll go to the property owner. MR. ROBERT: Okay. All right. That sounds good. If you could put that last slide up that John had, I'd appreciate it. There. You see the red arrow? If you go to the left of that arrow or west, that's the property we're talking about. That's correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I see it. MR. ROBERT: Okay. Our concern -- and I guess maybe -- maybe our question is -- and you brought the point up, maybe not user friendly. But our biggest concern is, in building this boat dock with slip, how that might infraction the maneuverability of the current owner's ability to exit and enter his boat slip. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Which is? MR. ROBERT: You can see he would have to back up to the east towards 400 Oak Avenue to maneuver out, and then coming back February 26, 2026 Page 51 in, he would have to go to the east and then maneuver himself into his boat slip. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. MR. ROBERT: So we're not aware -- and maybe you have some figures we're not aware of -- what that clearance might be. He, the owner, Dr. Hagan has a 30 -- I'm sorry, a 28-foot World Cat tri-hull boat that he would be maneuvering in and out of there. And . . . HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes. So that's a good question. So what I'm looking at -- so -- and so in other words, the -- the neighbor, which has also got the same, kind of, rear property line problem, pulls in parallel from the east into their slip; is that correct? So I'm looking at Page 1 of 1 of your back-up material, and it looks like the -- the -- that square deck area that we referred to is -- I would say it's -- well, I'm seeing something as a 15-foot minimum side yard. So it doesn't even get close to the 15-foot side yard, right. MR. ROBERT: No. Yeah. We put it about 7 -- about close to 8 feet away from the setback that we are allowed, just to allow for better navigation. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it would be at least 20 feet away from the adjoining property lines? Any -- any docking would be 20 feet away? February 26, 2026 Page 52 MR. ROBERT: Okay. All right. I mean, for my purposes, I obviously -- any -- given I'm an independent contractor with John R. Wood Properties, it's my intention, my responsibility to be able to disclose those kinds of things to potential incoming buyers. That's why I'm here today. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So in other words, they're not asking for a side yard setback variance. They're staying within the side yard setbacks? MR. ROBERT: I'm not. Dr. Hagan is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. I'm talking about their request. Their request is not encroaching into the side yard setback on their property. So whatever is on your -- your representatives -- and we'll get to that -- that's in addition to the 20 -- I'm just saying 20 -- it's about 20 feet. MR. ROBERT: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 20 feet, plus whatever is on his side. I don't know if that's enough to, you know, to get in. MR. ROBERT: I can't answer that, either. But that's our concern, and that's why we're inquiring as to what kind of clearance. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. MR. ROBERT: And then if there isn't enough clearance or it's determined that the situation is, as stated, not neighborly friendly, February 26, 2026 Page 53 does the property owner happen -- or he may have to change his positioning of the dock. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So what I'm going to -- I'm looking at -- actually, this is the site plan that was submitted as part of the Attachment C to the applicant's back-up material, so it's been in the public record for a while. MR. ROBERT: Okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's showing that to the -- the distance from the proposed dock at the applicants' proposed dock to the eastern side of -- I'm just going to call it your client's dock -- is approximately -- is measured at 38.1 feet total. MR. OREUS: Yes. Yeah, so I don't know if you would be able to pull up that survey just so this gentleman can see as well. So yeah, so we have about 38 feet, like you saw in the actual survey from that. I was -- I -- to -- we measured out the slip and then we specifically put multiple encroachments. So you -- we can easily, if your client would like, also provide an aerial or a diagram showing exactly how we have done this. Just so you can see it better. It's usually a lot more relaxing when you can see the encroachment on paper -- not encroachment, but the approach in paper. So we would have no problem providing that as well. We measured it out personally. When we were designing it, we measured it out to a 25- to 30-foot boat, just because that's what we wanted to -- if a 30-foot boat got out of that slip, it would only leave February 26, 2026 Page 54 you about 8 feet between the now dock that we're putting. So that's exactly what we're looking at here. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. If you can look at this. So this is what I was talking that. That's 38.1. So their proposed line here to approximately their property line is about 20 feet, and then it looks like your -- I'm going to say "client" -- is -- their slip starts 38 feet away from their proposed deck. So I imagine, you know, they're going to have to do this type of thing to get in? Like that; is that correct? MR. OREUS: Yes. You would -- yeah, you would approach exactly like that. You'd come in from the east and then swing your boat out and pull into the west like that. When we measured it out -- like we said, when we measured it out, if we had gone to the 15 feet where we're allowed, I -- I just don't feel comfortable giving that to a client and telling them, Hey, yeah. We can max out what you're allowed, but then, kind of, it just sucks for everybody else, in a sense, by doing that. So that's why we pushed it the max that we could to the east side with 15 feet setbacks and then built the dock from the east to the west instead of starting from the west to east. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand that. So let me ask you a question, and then I'm going to get back to the public comments. February 26, 2026 Page 55 So in your professional opinion, is that a safe ingress and egress for the neighbor to pull their boat in and out? MR. OREUS: Yes. Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Let's go ahead and finish the public comments. I think the property owner is also on the line. Do you have anything else that you want to? MR. ROBERT: No, I don't have anything else. But I appreciate them offering to give us the aerial visualization. I think that would go a long ways in, perhaps, satisfying the property owner. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. I appreciate you being here, sir. MR. ROBERT: Of course. I appreciate having the opportunity. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the property owner online? MR. HAGAN: Can you hear me? MS. PADRON: Steve, can you hear us? MR. HAGAN: Yes, I can. Can you hear me? MS. PADRON: Yes, we can. February 26, 2026 Page 56 MR. HAGAN: Okay. No, that's -- and I appreciate Mark and John and their comments. And the owner of the property next to mine has certainly been a nice guy with everything. Yeah, my concern is I have got a 28-foot boat, and even though that it looks like it's 38 feet, it doesn't leave a lot of room for error, you know, to get in and out. So I don't know what the -- what the solution is. I've actually worked quite a bit with Greg Orick in the past. You know, they actually came in -- that whole area in Conners, the -- the water is really not that deep. And so Greg Orick actually went in about two years ago and dredged under my dock and lift to -- to get rid of some of the -- to, you know, to make it deeper. And I know that's one of the problems that 400 Oak has as well. He's, you know, extending out because of the depth of the water. And, you know, that may be one thing he has to do as well, that Orick did for me two years ago. It cost about 7,500 bucks to dredge that out. We just -- John and I just want to make sure -- we just listed my house for sale. Probably have had too much heartbreak with Ian, Milton, and Helene. But it's just -- maybe just time to do something different. But I just want to make sure that I can get, you know -- or the new owners are going to be able to get in and out. February 26, 2026 Page 57 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hagan. I appreciate you being on the line. Is there anybody else? MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. So describe for me, again, that process that you went through, because it seems like if everybody went through that same process of kind of straightening out their property lines, like, to bring out -- I mean, that dock would come out, too, right? Like, would have to come out? MR. OREUS: So the -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Help me out. MR. OREUS: Are you saying the dock to the west? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Like, where is the property line? Is it right here? MR. OREUS: No, the property line is -- MR. HAGAN: Well, if I'm -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. No. No. No. Mr. Hagan, we're finished. We're done. MR. HAGAN: Okay. Thanks. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mute that. February 26, 2026 Page 58 Thank you. So I just want to understand. So, anyway. MR. OREUS: So, yeah, the property line is the -- the neighbor to the west is actually in the middle almost -- there it is again -- almost in the slip. So you see that line? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one right here? MR. OREUS: Yep. That's their property line. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So if they brought this -- if they were able to -- they would have to do backfill? MR. OREUS: Yes. You would have to backfill all of that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So you-all had to go through that process, right? MR. OREUS: Yes. Because the -- so the seawall where the -- on the right side was exactly where it is. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right here? MR. OREUS: On the eastern side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this came along this way? MR. OREUS: Yeah. Exactly. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Wow. February 26, 2026 Page 59 MR. OREUS: And basically went all the way out to, like that. So that all had to be filled in. You could tell by the -- I think we had to put about 20-, 25-foot return on the western side just to hold everything stable so that -- yep. So that is basically an entire wall on the left side. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How much higher is that than the other seawall? MR. OREUS: In terms of -- oh, just height in general? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The caps? Are they going up, like, 2 feet now? MR. OREUS: I don't think it's that much. The only thing is, especially in the Vanderbilt area, there's -- there's old and new. So the older people that have had their house for a while, their sea walls are low. The people that have gone through -- unfortunately, the people that have gone through a lot of hurricanes, their seawalls are low. And the people that are just coming in are putting extremely high seawalls. So that's why -- - HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If they were to -- let's say they -- whoever the subsequent buyer is, they go through that process -- which I imagine is not fun -- but then this particular slip would end up out here, right? MR. OREUS: Yes. February 26, 2026 Page 60 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: More or less. And then that's -- whatever happens, it's not going to get worse, it's going to get better as far as navigability. MR. OREUS: Yeah. So from a future standpoint, if that were fully approved, we'd have to take out the dock and basically build within that 20-foot setback. Everything else would have to go through the same thing that our client is going through, BDU or variance process. It's just, unfortunately, those four houses just really got the short end of the stick. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, yeah. I'm sure it was from, really, a crater or UFO landing or something like that. MR. OREUS: Nowadays, you never know. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Any other public -- I didn't ask, but were there any other public speakers? MS. PADRON: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I appreciate the owner being there. I imagine you've already talked to them already? MR. OREUS: Yes. We talked to all of -- like you said, they're all clients of ours, and we have reached out as well to make sure that everybody is okay in terms of -- that's why it took such a long February 26, 2026 Page 61 process to design this, because we want to make sure that it's not just the owner's house that we're looking at. It's everybody else that's going to get affected because, like I tell everybody, it's not your property that's going to have a problem, it's everybody else that's going to have a problem. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I mean, I do recognize that you shifted everything as far to the east as possible to meet that minimum, the -- right at the 15 foot. You know, I guess if you had to, you would maybe shrink one side of the catwalk to -- from 5 foot to 3 foot and then reduce that whole decking area. But then it would just be a whole different -- a whole different arrangement. But you've put on the record that you believe, in your professional opinion, that your -- the neighbor can navigate into -- safely into that -- into that western slip, right? MR. OREUS: Yes, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. John, you're itching to say something. MR. CONNORS: John Connors, for the record. I just wanted to add that you had questions about the seawall and the backfill. You'll find Attachment D. And there are -- it does show the before and after. So . . . HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You said "D" or "B"? February 26, 2026 Page 62 MR. CONNORS: I believe it's Attachment D. Permit Number PRMAR20240309517. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I got it. Thank you. It's fascinating. I haven't seen -- I have no idea why that happened. Strange. Where did you get the fill? Did you drive it in? Or did you dig it out of the -- MR. OREUS: What, the pictures? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No. The backfill. MR. OREUS: Oh. We -- we usually have to purchase it, because -- it would be nice to just be able to -- there's two ways you could do it. You can either dredge, and then there's a long process to clear out the dredge to make it okay so the stuff that -- the gunk that comes out of the ground doesn't get reabsorbed into the ground. It's a way of clearing it, drying it out, making sure everything's been filled. Or you can just -- you have to purchase the fill itself to be able to put it in there, which is a lot more expensive, as you can imagine. But, I mean, it's environmental -- the two things you don't want to mess with is the EPA and DEP. So whatever it takes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I heard the Collier County HEX guy is the roughest, to be honest with you. MR. OREUS: As long as the signs are out and we're not setting precedence, I think we're pretty good. February 26, 2026 Page 63 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This one is a tricky one, honestly, to be honest with you. But please continue talking with Mr. Hagan's representative, please. MR. OREUS: Yes, we will. Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Give them whatever material that you have so that they -- they're selling the house, so they want to have full disclosure to their seller -- to the -- whatever subsequent buyers they have so they have that. I will give consideration to that. That's my only concern, is the same concern you had, is respecting the western, and they are a client of your company, so I'm sure you don't want to harm them, either. MR. OREUS: Yeah. Absolutely. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So appreciate that. Okay. Does anybody have anything else from the County? Or from the applicant? Let's wrap this up. MR. CONNORS: No, sir. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anything else? You good? MR. OREUS: No. All good. I appreciate it. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Take care of yourself. MR. OREUS: Thank you. February 26, 2026 Page 64 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: ***We're moving into the last one now. That was interesting. Well, guess who it is? John Kelly. MR. KELLY: Okay. Again, for the record, John Kelly, Planner III for the County. Before you is Agenda Item 3E. It's Boat Dock Petition PL20250005726. I provided with you -- for you an attachment that -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Hold on. Time out. One second. Do you guys mind talking in the hallway? Thank you. I don't want anybody interrupting you, John. MR. KELLY: Thank you, sir. I provided earlier a new attachment. The correspondence was received late yesterday afternoon and so it is now being identified as Attachment G. And it's a letter of support from the homeowners association. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I have it right here. MR. KELLY: So that will go onto the -- the project in civic and everything should be fine. But -- so to carry on, the petitioner requests that the hearing examiner approve a 19-foot boat dock extension from the maximum February 26, 2026 Page 65 permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width to allow a new boat docking facility protruding a total of 39 feet into a waterway that is 114 to 120 feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 1843 Gordon River Lane, also known as Lot 7, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Property ID Number 63770000940. It's located within the residential component of the River Reach Planned Unit Development, Ordinance 85-71 as amended. The subject property comprises 0.38 acres with 139 feet of water frontage located at the northern end of the Gordon River, which is also located within a drainage easement that allows for docks that do not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway. The subject waterway measures 114 to 100 feet wide mean high waterline to mean high waterline. And the dock will protrude 30 feet from the main high waterline, which equates to 25 percent of the waterway. The actual 39-foot protrusion is being measured from the most restrictive point, which is the property line. The dock facility has been designed with one boat lift to accommodate a 30-foot vessel. And a platform lift for two personal watercraft to be stored side by side. The required 15-foot side riparian setback will be respected on both sides. February 26, 2026 Page 66 Public notice requirements were as per Land Development Code Section 10.03.06.H. The property owner notification letter and clerk's posting were effected by the County on February 6, 2026, and the public hearing sign was posted by myself on February 10, 2026. The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies five of five. There is an error on the staff report with respect to Criteria Number 4. I believe I said it was not satisfied; it is. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies five of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So let's get that right. So the primary or the secondary was satisfied? Number 4? MR. KELLY: Of the primary criteria, all five were satisfied. The error is in Number 4. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Of the primary. MR. KELLY: Of the primary, which was also satisfied. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Let's see. And it has been found to be consistent with the growth management plan and the land development code. Two people contacted me in response to advertising. They were both provided with a link to the published hearing package and February 26, 2026 Page 67 invited to attend the meeting and/or to provide correspondence between -- before 5:00 p.m. yesterday. I received nothing. Staff recommends the hearing examiner approve this petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment A. That concludes staff's presentation. I'm available for questions. And I turn it over to the petitioner's agent, Jeff Rogers, who will need to be sworn. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Come on up, Jeff. (The speaker was sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's a good thing I didn't change the agenda around and make you first. MR. ROGERS: Told John I'm not going to show up right away. Could be a long day. I think I made him sweat a little bit when I said that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Well, honestly, this is -- I love it when you're here because I love the way you set up the plans and you -- any questions that need to be answered, you've got the graphics and the design all done. Just before we get started -- have you ever seen -- are you familiar with that Oak -- Oak area? MR. ROGERS: I am. And we -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How did that happen? February 26, 2026 Page 68 MR. ROGERS: I don't know the true history of -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: To me, it's just like -- MR. ROGERS: -- that Conners area being -- it was all dredged and filled. And for some reason, those particular four lots -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Four lots. MR. ROGERS: -- were -- I've gotten numerous calls over the years. I have been doing this -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's like the dude that was dredging just, kind of, fell asleep at the wheel and took a right turn. MR ROGERS: Or the plat changed. But the plat never was -- it doesn't reflect that historically. So I don't -- we look at old aerials. That's the best way to do it, and get the book that we have and it's -- it's weird. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Didn't mean to sidetrack you. MR. ROGERS: No. It's fine. I was looking at that and shaking my head because getting State and federal permits for that, let alone federal, is difficult, to say the least. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good luck. All right. Let's get rolling. MR. ROGERS: For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates, here today representing the applicants, Tim and Maria February 26, 2026 Page 69 [sic] Myers, that live at 1843 Gordon River Lane -- that's an error on that slide there. I just noticed that -- Naples, Florida. This is on the north end of the Gordon River before it takes a hard east turn to Airport Road. Today this is for is a single-family lot within an existing development that does have an existing docking facility, as well as a canopy. And a cover -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're not in the water. I see you -- MR. ROGERS: In a kayak. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- in a kayak -- or an associate of yours. MR. ROGERS: The water has been too cold. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You don't even go out on the water anymore, do you? MR. ROGERS: Not as much as I used to. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You just send your interns out now? MR. ROGERS: Yes, exactly. I wish I had interns all the time. Go to the next slide, please. You're distracting me here. So these are existing conditions -- February 26, 2026 Page 70 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is what you get for being here. MR. ROGERS: -- for you. This is a challenge. The one on the right you can see barely -- I wish it was a little bit more blown up, but you can see the shoal that you'll see on the survey, as well as my exhibits, that is a natural -- being a natural waterway, there's obviously a lot of water that comes down this at certain times of the year, being mostly the drainage ditch for the Golden Gate Estates area, one of the major outfalls. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, on Attachment A of the proposed site plan, I can see how shallow it is there. MR. ROGERS: Yes. If you want to go forward -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's pretty clear. MR. ROGERS: On the slides there's -- yeah, go ahead. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's pretty clear. Right there. MR. ROGERS: There's a historical area. We'll go back to that. That's pretty cool. You guys can always see that. Go back one, please. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I'm just amazed with all the old ones you show. February 26, 2026 Page 71 MR. ROGERS: Go back one slide real quick just to show everybody. So this is the main Gordon River, basically. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Once upon a time. MR. ROGERS: Once upon a time. This is a 1952 aerial. So that's obviously the property boundary today. The river is dredged here and now takes a hard east to be what I call the drainage ditch of Naples Bay. So go ahead, move forward. So based on that, this is a manmade waterway, obviously. And with that, over time, requires maintenance activities. And as John mentioned in his presentation, this is a, I believe, per the plat -- correct me if I'm wrong, staff -- this is a drainage ditch that I believe is owned by Collier County. The district and them would probably fight over ownership, but I'm not sure in regards to that. So -- go ahead. MR. KELLY: Sorry to interrupt. John Kelly, for the record. I'm -- I believe you'll find a significant amount of information in the letter provided by the HOA referring to that. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it right here. Thank you. February 26, 2026 Page 72 MR. ROGERS: In regards to that, I think there's a lot of arm wrestling on ownership/maintenance requirements for navigational purposes of this waterway, which is why I think this letter is a little bit more elaborate than just a letter of support. So moving forward to the request, there's an existing dock. They're going to rip it out, basically, and put in a more accessible dock for access to the slip, as the water depths are really restrictive. Here is the mean low waterline for the survey that is required. You can see it outlined. Mean high is the darker blue line that does actually go up to the tow of the watercraft. So the northern section -- northern half -- almost northern two-thirds of this property shoreline is quite shallow. If you go forward one more slide, please. I think I have water depths that you can see. So these water depths are a reference to mean low water. So in an average low tide, there is less than 1 foot of water on this whole area. And then significantly does drop off to get to about 4 feet of water on an average low tide. So . . . HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is this a common walkway? Shared common walkway? MR. ROGERS: No. No. It's actually an upland, like, retaining wall -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. February 26, 2026 Page 73 MR. ROGERS: -- cap that you're seeing. It looks like -- more like a sidewalk, but it's an upland fill retaining wall, so to speak, for the development. So this shoreline and all this shorelines in here are riprap shorelines along this whole development. So basically the applicant is requesting a 19-foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 for 39 feet of protrusion out into the waterway, which is taking from the most restrictive point here being the property line. So from the mean high waterline, the actual protrusion is significantly less. But, again, as this BDE criteria states, it's the most restrictive point. So moving forward with the criteria, I want to just go through this real quick to get it on the record. The Primary Criteria Number 1, whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips is appropriate in relation to waterfront length, location, and land use. And this is a single-family lot zoned and, therefore, is allowed up to two slips. We are proposing two boat lifts with this design. One is for a 30-foot vessel -- up to a 30-foot vessel, and one is for two Jet Skis to be stored on one boat lift, which is common practice. And the County, as well as the State, just interprets that as one slip, for the record. So moving forward, Number Two, whether water depths at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, February 26, 2026 Page 74 and draft, as described by the petitioner, is unable to launch or moor at a mean low tide. And as you saw -- yes. The answer to that question is yes. The water depths are the biggest issue here with this particular property. And really, this is the only property on this waterway the natural shoaling has occurred. It's really because of the turn that the waterway takes and the settling area for sediment over time. It piles up. So we took that into consideration -- HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that accretion or reliction? MR. ROGERS: Gosh. Getting into the weeds there. That's a good question. It could be washout. Honestly, I think it's washout from upland, when the high water comes in and it allows these natural shorelines to just, kind of, erode away and sediment collects in one area. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Could potentially be their property at some point. MR. ROGERS: Could very well be. It changes -- I mean, the plat wouldn't change, but the mean high waterline for setbacks and such would change drastically. So there is that, yeah, domino effect with that. So water depths were the driving factor with this design. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got you. February 26, 2026 Page 75 MR. ROGERS: Number 3, whether the proposed dock facility may have adverse impact on navigation. If you go forward a slide for me, please. Maybe two. Go one more, if you would. This shows the -- here's some typical 30-foot boats navigating through here. They're going to have to go around the shoaling anyways to go around this dock. This dock does extend out slightly further than others on this waterway, but it is in the 25 percent width, as taken from the southern portion of this property. On the north portion, you can see here this is where that 114-foot dimension is taken. The mean high waterline -- it looks very deceiving because the water does go back, but that's where the surveyors put it, so we deferred to them on their information. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just -- so for the record, this is the Number 4 that John was referring to that he's saying it's not met. But it is met, correct? MR. ROGERS: Correct. Yeah, in regards to the 25 percent width, yeah. So that's where it is a little confusing. It's not a square line -- or a straight line, so the speak, on the protrusion. You have 114 here and 120 there. Again, I'm stressing that this is the surveyor -- licensed surveyor who provides us with these dimensions. So it's not my interpretation of the width of the waterway. February 26, 2026 Page 76 So with that, we are able to maximize the protrusion on the southern third of our property to get out to better water depths -- more adequate water depths at a low tide for the stern of the boat, which is the deepest part of the drafting part of the boats to get in and out on an angled slip. And as designed in its ingress and egress to the slip, would not interfere with neighboring docks as they currently lie. So that's, kind of, 3 and 4 put together in one response. Number 5 of the primary, whether proposed dock location and design is such that the facility would not interfere with neighbors' docks. I just touched on that, and as laid out currently, the angled slip is the way to go to prevent that versus a more parallel -- more into the shoreline. Moving forward, Secondary Criteria Number 1, whether there's special conditions not involving water depths. There -- really, you know, you can talk about the mangrove fringe across the waterway, how it's encroached into the waterway further. What I found out doing these -- actually done a couple on this neighborhood, they own across the waterway. So the -- there's an easement that goes across that this development has. So it's -- it's maintenance for -- for the waterway, so they technically could go over there and trim the fringe back. And what would that do? That would just widen the waterway even further because these are just mangroves and other vegetation that aren't rooted out that far. They're more lateral branch growth, kind of February 26, 2026 Page 77 growing eastward, so to speak, instead of vertical -- just vertical; they're growing out into the least-restricted area. So over time, that's going to become a more navigable pinch along this waterway, as well as -- if you're familiar with this part of the Gordon River, the Greenway Bridges are also just south of here. And those -- they're newer structures within the last, you know, decade or last -- to be honest with you, probably last five years. But they're -- the piling supports of those bridges that the Greenway support has are tighter than what we're apparently proposing here. So navigation-wise, we're not creating anything more restrictive. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You mean the space between the -- MR. ROGERS: Correct. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- what is the clearance of the -- is it pretty low? MR. ROGERS: It's pretty -- the height is 10 foot, which matches the 41 bridges. But it's -- the widths in between the piles was down to the 20 feet. So two 10-foot-wide boats, which is a common beam-sized boat these days, as -- you know, that's this type. And, again, we're in a section of the Gordon River that navigation is significantly less than it is south of the 41 bridges, obviously. So getting two boats to pass at the same time up here is less likely to happen. Could happen. Can't say it will never happen. February 26, 2026 Page 78 Number 2, whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading and unloading, as well as routine maintenance. So the answer to this is yes. We have a small catwalk on this side and we have some extra decking on this side. One could say it's excessive. But there's staircases that we've designed into this to get him down to the water's level so that he can float his kayak in and out. So he's -- he's a big kayaker and paddleboarder, so there is recreational storage activities proposed for this section of the dock, as well as he could tie the boat up here temporarily and load and unload at the stairs and go as well. The personal watercraft platform lift is a typical practice these days. It provides safer access to on and off of the Jet Skis when they're up on the lift versus an open-air, so the speak, boat lift. So that criteria is met, as well, in our opinion. There is no excessive decking. Number 3 for single-family dock facilities, whether the length of vessel or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear frontage. And we do not exceed the 50 percent as proposed. We're a 30-foot vessel and a 12-foot Jet Ski. The county counts one Jet Ski when they're more like this as -- as -- versus two. So we're under that threshold, and that's standard practice for the County. February 26, 2026 Page 79 Number 4 on the secondary, whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring property owners. In this case, no. I mean, I -- we don't feel it would interfere. No one's objected to this neighborwise. We are kissing the setback on the south side, so to speak. So if we could push it further north to provide more of a setback from the south, we would. But, again, we don't believe there's any interference with existing views of the water. It's a boating community. You know, boats and docks are part of -- of -- of this whole area. Number 5 pertains to seagrass beds within 200 feet. And I did swim this and walk it. I do not have a picture of that. But we did get in the water and the amount of fresh water up -- this far up this -- up the Gordon River is unlikely to have the actual seagrasses up here. Number 6 is the Manatee Protection Plan and it's a single family, so it is not applicable to this petition. So all in all, we request your approval and happy to answer questions. We are coming forward with a few others in this neighborhood, just so you know, in the future. So it's a -- it's changing up there. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, so I do have the letter that was provided to me by John Kelly from John White on behalf of Nature Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., in support of this application. February 26, 2026 Page 80 They are raising some other issues that you alluded to that, for the record, are clearly outside of my pay grade. So I'll leave it up to the good folks here to my right at -- who work for the County to kick this wherever they need to kick it to to have that dealt with. I can't deal with that. I don't -- don't have any jurisdiction over who dredges that waterway, for the record. MR. ROGERS: Understood. Understood. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Any public comments? MS. PADRON: We have no speakers. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No speakers signed up. All right. Public hearing is closed. Excellent presentation, as usual. Thank you very much for all the hard work you put into that. I'm always fascinated with the old aerials, because it really just shows welcome to Florida. MR. ROGERS: Do you have one of our books? HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I do have one, actually. MR. ROGERS: Okay. I was going to say. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Yes. Very helpful tool. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I recommend everyone in Florida buy one. MR. ROGERS: I wouldn't take it that far, but thank you. February 26, 2026 Page 81 HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're welcome. Thank you. I have no other questions, unless you have something? Or John, do you have anything else you want to say? MR. KELLY: No, sir. Just have a good afternoon. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Great. Then we are done. Thank you very much. I want to thank the County for putting this together, all the hard work. These -- everything -- putting the signs out, putting the notices out, putting on this hearing. I thank my office that are here. Kelley and -- and -- and Sharon are here taking notes. You didn't say you were in a rush, so too late. MR. ROGERS: Yeah. No. We need this in a week, so if that's okay. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Too late. If I'm not mistaken, our next public hearing is March 13th -- Friday the 13th. Is that right? MR. BOSI: Yes. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: We just want to be clear about that. I have to -- I have something going on on Thursday -- February 26, 2026 Page 82 MR. BOSI: And that is a 9:00 a.m. HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 9:00 a.m. Not in the afternoon. It's Friday the 13th. March 13th at 9:00 a.m. All right. Making that very clear. Trying to keep that to a minimum, but once in a while it has to happen. All right. Anything else? We're going to adjourn this meeting. It's now 2:45 p.m. Thank you, everyone. ******* February 26, 2026 Page 83 There Being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the hearing examiner 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 SHAUNA T. ALLEN, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.