HEX Minutes 03/26/2026 Draft March 26, 2026
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples, Florida, March 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
Timothy Finn, Planner III (Via Videoconference)
Maria Estrada, Planner II
John Kelly, Planner III
Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I
March 26, 2026
Page 2
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good
afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. Today is March 26th, 2026,
1:00 p.m. This is the Collier County Hearing Examiner meeting. My
name is Andrew Dickman and I am the Hearing Examiner.
Our agenda is set and we are going to start it off with the Pledge
of Allegiance. Please stand in joining me. Please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Again, welcome.
As I said, my name is Andrew Dickman. I'm a Florida Bar attorney
over 20 years practicing in local government, environmental law,
land use, zoning and that kind of thing. I'm not a county employee. I
was retained by the Board of County Commissioners to fulfill the
duties of the Hearing Examiner as they are prescribed in the Code of
Ordinances.
My job is to basically review the record that is associated with
each one of the petitions that are on the agenda and conduct this
quasi-judicial hearing. When I say "quasi-judicial," it means I am
sitting here as a quasi-judge and my job is to look for competent,
substantial evidence and apply it to the criteria for whichever type of
petition we're hearing.
So the process we're going to follow is: The county will
introduce each item one at a time, and then we'll go to the applicant
or the applicant's representative. Then we'll open it up for public
comment.
We have a -- we do have an in-person and Zoom, in other
words, hybrid meeting. The county has set that up, as you can see on
the screen, so there may be some participation via Zoom as well.
Sometimes there are some technical difficulties, but we work through
that, and just bear with us. I think it's a nice service that the county
offers the public.
Anyone who's going to speak here today needs to fill out a
March 26, 2026
Page 3
speaker's card -- they're on the table over here where the water bottles
are -- and hand it to this young lady over here on the other side of the
room. Everyone will have to speak under oath. That means that in a
minute I'm going to ask our court reporter to administer the oath to
anybody who's going to speak on any of the items -- any of the items.
I have not had any meetings with county staff about any of the
items that are on the agenda today. I have reviewed the entire record
for each one of the petitions. I've read the staff reports, gone through
the submittals, everything else. So the record is set.
Anything else that's submitted today will go into the record.
Any testimony here to- -- will go into the record. And I will not be
making a decision today. I have 30 days to issue a written decision.
I typically can do that in a quicker manner, and what I ask everyone
to do is just relax and try to get the pertinent information that I need,
because after this meeting is the last time I'll be able to ask any
questions about your petition.
So with that, let's -- Madam Court Reporter, would you mind
swearing in all witnesses, please?
THE COURT REPORTER: Could everybody raise their right
hand?
(Hands raised in unison.)
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you solemnly swear or affirm
that the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much,
everyone.
Okay. So let's go over the agenda real quick. There's A, B, C,
D, E, F and G. Is anything being continued? Is this the agenda that
we're going to follow?
MR. BOSI: No changes.
March 26, 2026
Page 4
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No changes to the
agenda. Okay. Great. So we're going to start and just go right
through it with 3A being the first one.
MR. FINN: Yes, for the record, I'm Timothy Finn, Planner III.
This is for Petition Number PDI PL20240013377. HSE (sic) -- I'm
sorry -- HSC Orangetree, LLC, requests an insubstantial change to
the Estates Shopping Center CPUD, Ordinance 21-40, for a sign
deviation from LDC 5.06.04.F.4 to allow for two signs on the front
south elevation of the building facing Golden Gate Boulevard, with a
combined total of no more than 180 square feet, with the second sign
at 33 square feet, as shown on Exhibit F-1, the sign exhibit.
This deviation only applies to the Tractor Supply located on the
west half of Tract A within the PUD. The subject property is
4.13 acres of the 41-acre PUD located at the northwest quadrant of
Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard in Section 4,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore,
staff recommends approval. The applicant has complied with all
hearing notices by our operations staff. The advertisements and
mailers went out on March 6th. The hearing advertisements/property
signage were constructed at the property by the applicant per the
Affidavit of Posting included in Attachment H of the backup
materials.
And that concludes my presentation.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Finn. I
appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Is the applicant or applicant's representative here?
MS. PADRON: She's online.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Oh.
MS. BERGMARK: Hi. Hello.
MR. BELLOWS: Can you speak up?
March 26, 2026
Page 5
MS. BERGMARK: Can you hear me?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MS. BERGMARK: Nice.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, now we can.
MS. BERGMARK: Okay. Sorry. I was having a hard time
hearing whoever was speaking before Timothy.
Did you want me to share my screen for the presentation?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, if you could. We
cannot see you at all.
MS. PADRON: Melissa, if you would like, I can share the
presentation.
MS. BERGMARK: Okay. I have it right here. You should be
able to see it, I believe.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes, Melissa, this is
Andrew Dickman. I'm the Hearing Examiner. Could you please put
your -- give us your name, full name, who you are, what your
background is, a little bit of that, what your role is?
MS. BERGMARK: Okay. My name is Melissa Bergmark and I
am of Sign Permits by Mel. And, I'm sorry, what else did you ask
for?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Well, could you give me
a little -- you're presenting this as an expert, so if you can give me a
little bit of background of -- you're with Sign -- you're with Sign
Permits by Mel, right?
MS. BERGMARK: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How long have you been
doing that? How long have you been making these presentations?
MS. BERGMARK: This business has been for just over a year,
but I've been in the sign permit business for about nine years.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very
much.
March 26, 2026
Page 6
MS. BERGMARK: And this is my first HEX meeting, though.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Welcome. Okay.
MS. BERGMARK: Thanks.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go.
MS. BERGMARK: I'm sorry?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go ahead. Proceed.
MS. BERGMARK: Okay. So as Tim mentioned, we are
proposing a secondary sign on the Tractor Supply at 77 Golden Gate
Boulevard, and it is going to be on Wilson and Golden Gate
Boulevard West.
So we are seeking deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04, and this
is where we are not allowed to have it. So we're seeking deviation to
have the two wall signs on one elevation. This secondary sign is only
to direct customers to the pickup and garden area of the store.
We will not negatively impact residents or businesses that are
neighboring through here. This is a secondary sign that is being
proposed. This sign is seven feet and five inches by four foot four
inches, and as you can see, it is directing customers to the drive-thru
or the pickup area, and it's going to be over their garden center.
So here -- we have a better photo here where we're going to have
the drive-up spot over here in the garden center and then their main
sign attached to the main part of the building. This is the aerial. And
then we have Tract 4 with our deviation for it here in the middle for
Tract A.
And then we have our deviations, one through four. Four is the
new one being proposed, again, for 5.06.04.F.4, Development
Standards for Signs in Nonresidential Districts.
And that is the extent of our secondary sign for the Tractor
Supply.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So this is
exclusively for an additional sign -- is that correct -- because
March 26, 2026
Page 7
you -- you're only allowed to have one wall sign there and you've
already -- you're using that for the Tractor Supply, but you want
another sign for the garden center? Is that correct? Is that
basically --
MS. BERGMARK: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- the --
MS. BERGMARK: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- specific -- Okay.
MS. BERGMARK: We're supposed to -- the code says that
there can only be one sign per elevation, with a maximum of two
signs, wall signs, and here I'm proposing a secondary sign on the
same elevation, but no other wall signs on other elevations of the
building.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Thank
you very much. Let's see if there are any members of the public that
are signed up to speak on this item.
MS. PADRON: We have no speakers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. The public
hearing is closed.
Do you have any -- Melissa, do you have anything else you want
to add?
MS. BERGMARK: I'm really sorry, but when you speak, it's
only letting me hear like every other word.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. I'm asking
you: Do you have anything else you want to say before I close the
hearing?
MS. BERGMARK: I believe that you're asking if there's
anything else that I need to say, and there is not because it's just for
the secondary wall sign. And I'm sorry --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MS. BERGMARK: -- that the connection is not coming through
March 26, 2026
Page 8
all the way.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Melissa, where are
you --
MS. BERGMARK: I hear --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- right now? Melissa,
where are you?
MS. BERGMARK: I'm in the office. Like, I could hear Tim
fine, but then --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no, no, not --
MS. BERGMARK: -- once the speaker --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- not the office. What
state are you in?
MS. BERGMARK: Oh, Florida.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What --
MS. BERGMARK: Fort --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- city?
MS. BERGMARK: -- Myers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What city?
MR. BELLOWS: Fort Myers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What city are you in?
MS. BERGMARK: I'm in Fort Myers, Florida.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is there a reason you
could not come here physically?
MS. BERGMARK: I had an appointment today --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MS. BERGMARK: -- and they -- they advised that I could do it
on Webex.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BERGMARK: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. That item is
closed. And just for the record, I would like people/applicants, if
March 26, 2026
Page 9
they're nearby, to be here. I don't want to have to go through that.
That's disruptive.
Okay. Let's go to the second item. Otherwise, we'll continue it.
MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon, Mr. Dickman. For the
record, Maria Estrada, Planner II in the Zoning Division. Before you
is Agenda Item 3B, which seeks a determination of use of a general
automotive repair shop, SIC Code 7538. It's a comparable -- they're
asking for a comparable in nature to a gasoline service station, SIC
Code 5541, a permitted use in Exhibit -- that's in Exhibit A of the
Randall Curve Mixed Planned Unit Development, Ordinance Number
2021-42, as amended, and it's included in the petition filed in
Attachment B.
The subject property is located at 13707 Winchester Trail,
Naples, Florida 34120, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida.
The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria
contained within LDC Section 10.02.06 K.2, a through e, and staff
believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria and the
LDC, as well as with the GMP.
With respect to the public notice requirements, they were
complied with as per the LDC Section 10.03.06 O. The newspaper
advertisement was taken care of by the county operational staff on
Friday, March 6th, 2026. I received no calls or any other
communication from the public regarding this petition request;
therefore, there is no public opposition.
Staff recommends that you determine that the proposed use of
this general automotive repair shop is comparable in nature to the
gasoline service station that's a permitted use within that PUD.
This concludes staff's summary. And I also want to note that the
applicant is from Vero Beach and he's online.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, let's hope
March 26, 2026
Page 10
that that works.
But I have a question for you.
MS. ESTRADA: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Not really a question. I
just want to get something on the record so that the people
understand.
So in a zoning district, you would list certain things. When that
zoning district is established, there's certain things that are prohibited,
certain things that are permissible or permit- -- permissible as of right
and certain things that are conditional in use, respectfully. But the
city utilizes a process which uses the SIC codes, right?
MS. ESTRADA: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So when someone -- it's
really difficult to list every single thing that may show up because
over time things change. So you-all have a process where you try to
match up these SIC codes that have the same type of intensity
and -- density or intensity -- with that type of use; is that a fair
statement?
MS. ESTRADA: Correct, yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And so we are
here to establish that comparable nature of those two uses, correct?
MS. ESTRADA: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. All right.
So let's go. Hopefully this will work out better.
By the way, just so everyone understands, anybody who's an
applicant and you choose to do this virtually, you're doing it at your
own risk.
And I believe they signed something to that effect, right?
MS. ESTRADA: I think so.
MS. PADRON: Danny, can you hear us?
MR. RICHMOND: Yes.
March 26, 2026
Page 11
MS. PADRON: Perfect.
MR. RICHMOND: (Inaudible) -- one of the attendees to be able
to unmute his mic because he's the EOR and he's not listed as a
panelist.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I didn't hear a word
you're saying. Can you explain? Who are you, please?
MR. RICHMOND: I'm Danny Richmond. I'm with
Kimley-Horn. I'm working on this project, but I am not the engineer
of record. He is an attendee on this meeting. He's not a panelist, so
he's unable to unmute his mic.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. You know
what, I'm going to continue this item. You have been continued to
the next meeting when someone on your team can be here and -- live
and in person, okay?
MR. RICHMOND: Okay. He's --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's go to the --
MR. RICHMOND: -- he's walking over. He can present it right
now.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, no, this is not the
way we're running these meetings. I'm sorry. You're going to be
continued to next month.
MR. FASANO: Hello? Hello, sir. This is A.J. Fasano --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you just --
MR. FASANO: -- the EOR representative --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- turn that off, please?
MR. FASANO: -- for Christian Brothers Automotive.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Turn that off, yes, that
item. Again, any applicant that chooses to try to do this virtually, I
believe that they've signed something that says they're doing this at
their own risk.
This is very disruptive, especially if we're trying to have a clean,
March 26, 2026
Page 12
clear record that is verbatim. And I don't want to have everybody
just choosing to do this because it's convenient for them.
This is set up in order to allow for people that just cannot be
here. And, you know, somebody like Kimley-Horn is a
reputable -- reputable firm and they should know better.
So we're going to Item C.
MS. ESTRADA: Good afternoon. Again, Maria Estrada,
Planner II, for the record. Before you is Agenda Item 3C, which
seeks a determination that use of a public safety facility, SIC Code
9229, is comparable in nature to the other permitted uses within the
Community Facility tract of the RCMA Immokalee MPUD.
The subject property is located at 3206 Lake Trafford Road in
Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County,
Florida.
The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the review
criteria contained within LDC Section 10.02.06 K.2, a through e, and
staff believes the petition was consistent with the review criteria in
the LDC as well as with the GMP.
Although notice requirements were complied with per the LDC
Section 10.03.06 O, the newspaper advertisement was canceled by
the county operational staff on Friday, March 6th, 2026.
I did not receive any calls or any forms of communication from
the public concerning this petition; therefore, there's no opposition
coming from the community regarding it.
Staff recommends that you determine that the proposed use of a
public safety facility, SIC Code 9229, is comparable in nature to the
uses permitted within that CF portion of the RCMA Immokalee
MPUD.
This concludes staff's summary.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And that's the
Community Facility; that's what you're asking --
March 26, 2026
Page 13
MS. ESTRADA: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- to do a -- you're asking
for the comparable use with what's called --
MS. ESTRADA: Within that portion, Community Facility tract.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. So glad
to see Mr. Yovanovich in person.
MR. YOVANOVICH: In person. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich. Although it was a long commute from Tamiami Trail, I
was able to make it here, and I appreciate your desire to ensure that
applicants do come here in person. It is difficult to do it --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm just trying to keep
the record clean.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And with me today is Victoria
Contreras, who is with the RCMA, and Deputy Chief Cunningham,
who is here from the Immokalee Fire District.
Next slide, please.
This is the location of the PUD on the screen. It's about 62 acres
in size. I'll show you the master plan in a second as to where the
public facility is going to be located.
Essentially, as you mentioned earlier, it's difficult to predict
every use that may ever go on on a piece of property. And we
learned through this process that a public facility is not a use that's
allowed everywhere in Collier County, so we have to go through this
process to allow for the Immokalee Fire District to locate a public
facility.
We're not asking for just a fire station because, as you know,
they particularly co-locate other users within the facility. The sheriff
can be there and so can EMS. So that's why we're asking for a public
facility.
Can you go to the next slide, please?
As staff has already told you, we went through and identified the
March 26, 2026
Page 14
uses in the PUD that are facilities that serve the public. Clearly, the
public facility we're asking for is consistent with other uses in the
PUD.
And the next slide, please.
You have this in your backup. This is some of the permitted
uses.
Next -- next slide, please.
This is -- this is the overall PUD master plan. So you can see
where you have residential on the left, a community facility in the
middle, and on the right you'll see a small piece of commercial
designated property.
Next slide, please.
The request is for -- if you look at the shaded area on the left,
that's the conceptual site plan. The shaded area on your left is where
the fire district will acquire the property. We've already done -- gone
through the necessary process to do the lots, but to create the
parcel -- so the final step of the transaction is to go ahead and get this
comparable use determination hopefully approved by the Hearing
Examiner so the fire district can close on the property and move
forward with constructing facilities to serve the Immokalee area.
Final slide, please.
And the facility -- you went through all the criteria. It's all in
your backup. I'm not going to take you through that.
But, again, the traffic -- there's a traffic impact statement
showing that the uses on this site will be a significant reduction than
other uses that are allowed, and staff is in concurrence that we meet
all the criteria to determine that the public facility is a comparable use
to other facility -- other uses within the PUD.
And that's the conclusion of our presentation unless you have
any questions of me or --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I do.
March 26, 2026
Page 15
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the lot
split -- notwithstanding the lot split, the PUD boundary itself is
staying the same?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything is staying the same. We just
had to -- we had to carve out a parcel that will be sold.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: For a transaction?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For a transaction, correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. All
right. Let's see if there's any public that signed up to speak up on
this.
MS. PADRON: We have no registered speakers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're going to
close the public hearing on that.
Did you have anyone else you wanted to speak or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think so. I think you've got all
the experts you need through the staff.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Well, then I guess
you're adopting the staff report and all the items that are in the
backup and the record. I don't need to have to say that, but that is the
record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is the record.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That is the record.
Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. I will get
something out as soon as I can.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate it. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. We're going to
D. Before we do D, why don't you -- I'm going to give these guys
another shot at it, at B, but at the end of the meeting.
March 26, 2026
Page 16
If you want to chat with them to maybe get their ducks in a row
so that I can hear it and it's not disruptive, I'll put them at the end of
the agenda.
MS. PADRON: Absolutely.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Here we go.
This is D.
MR. KELLY: I'm D.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. -- or good afternoon,
Mr. Dickman. John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. This is
Agenda Item 3D. It's a boat dock petition, PL20240005463.
This item was continued from the March 13th, 2026, meeting of
the Hearing Examiner as the property was sold. The new owner
desired to continue the project and all required documents have been
updated accordingly.
The petitioner requests the Hearing Examiner approve a 28-foot
boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to
allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 48 feet into a
waterway that is 446, plus or minus, feet wide, pursuant to LDC
Section 5.03.06.H., for the benefit of the subject property located at
267 3rd Street in Bonita Shores, and further described as Lot 17,
Block G, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The
property ID number is 56001320005.
It's located within a Residential Single Family-4, RSF-4, zoning
district. The subject property is a legal and nonconforming,
unimproved 0.02-acre parcel that is too small to accommodate a
house and is one of 23 such lots that received a provisional use,
presently known as a conditional use approval, to be used for a
March 26, 2026
Page 17
noncommercial boat-launching facility per Resolution 87-260,
adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 27th, 1987. The
proposed facility will comprise a finger pier with boat lifts on each
side for two 38.3-foot vessels.
Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section
10.03.06.H.2. The property owner notification letter and clerk's
posting were effected by the county on February 20, 2026, and the
public hearing sign was posted by myself on February 24, 2026, and
was later updated to reflect the date of today's meeting.
The petition was reviewed based on review criteria contained
within LDC Section 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies
five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfied four of six, with the
sixth being nonapplicable as it's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it
has been found to be consistent with both the Land Development
Code and the Growth Management Plan.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Did you say four of six
on the secondary?
MR. KELLY: Four of six.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And six being not
applicable?
MR. KELLY: Correct. No inquiries have been received in
response to advertising of this project, and staff recommends that the
Hearing Examiner approve this petition in accordance with the
proposed plans contained within Attachment A subject to the
following condition of approval:
1. Prior to or concurrent with obtaining a building permit for the
dock, a right-of-way permit shall be obtained for access
improvements to prevent roadway and drainage system damage if not
previously obtained. That's as per Resolution 87-260 previously
referenced.
2. The dock is private in nature and shall not be used for rental
March 26, 2026
Page 18
purposes.
3. This dock shall not be used for any commercial purposes
including the mooring of commercial boats.
And that concludes staff's presentation. I remain available for
questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. KELLY: And Jeff -- Jeff Rogers is here for the applicant.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Good
afternoon, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I believe we were at this
site recently.
MR. ROGERS: It's one of the last few left to do.
For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates, here
today representing the applicant in working concurrently with the
marine contractor on this, who was the original agent, being Overall
Marine Services.
As John went through with you, this property is located at 267
3rd Street West. We have written down Slip 17, but it's more -- it's a
lot. They really go by lot numbers because they're all basically the
same addresses.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it really Bonita
Springs, though?
MR. ROGERS: It's technically --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John said it was Bonita
Shores.
MR. ROGERS: Oh.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I'm always confused
when I hear this neighborhood.
MR. ROGERS: I think the property appraiser's site says Bonita
Springs. I could be wrong, though. John is pretty thorough.
March 26, 2026
Page 19
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Don't worry about it.
MR. ROGERS: He's more thorough than I am specifically.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If it was --
MR. ROGERS: It is confusing.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: If it was in Lee County,
you wouldn't be -- you wouldn't be here.
MR. ROGERS: I wouldn't be here, no. And Bonita Springs is a
difficult place to get docks approved, for sure.
So moving forward, if you would, on the slide show,
this -- these are boat dock lots put forward. This is a picture of the
existing conditions. So basically it's a small -- very small lot with
about, I believe, 30 feet of linear footage of shoreline on these lots.
So, really, it becomes a parking lot for a car to access their dock.
And typically two boat slips, one on either side, is the common
practice with these docks here in this area.
This bay is Little Hickory Shore -- or Little Hickory Bay. It is a
natural waterway for the most part. There are some man-altered
areas, but, you know, per state and federal, it's a natural waterway,
just for your consideration.
The uniqueness about these, as you can see on this overview, is
with the other docks there, and what John outlined in these being boat
dock lots, there's no setbacks required. So you're allowed to build
basically lot line to lot line, and as you can see here, that's what has
been done in the past.
So moving forward, if you would, please.
This is -- this is -- basically, the most restrictive point in this one
is the mean high-water line. So the applicant is asking for a 28-foot
boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet, overall being 48 feet
out into the waterway. The actual dock itself will be 45-feet long,
and the motors of the two proposed boats are what extend the
additional three feet past the actual docking structure itself.
March 26, 2026
Page 20
So with that being said, quickly, you have all of their criteria in
front of you, as well in your report. We do meet all -- all five of five
in the primary, which this is a Single-Family-zoned lot, so we are
allowed two boat slips. So that is met.
The water depths here are very restrictive because it is a natural
waterway. You can dredge in some cases, but the amount of
dredging to get to adequate depths here is -- doesn't -- would
complicate permitting purposes. So, therefore, it's easier -- not
easier -- it's practiced in the past to ask for a boat dock extension in
this area. So that's why we're here in front of you today. Basically,
the water depths are driving the extension.
Number 3 is navigation of the primary criteria, and we're
consistent with the other docks in the area. I know that doesn't
always matter in this case, but we don't expect any additional or new
impacts to navigation with this proposed dock as we will be
surrounded by other docks adjacent to us.
Number 4 of primary is the 25 percent width of the waterway.
The waterway is actually -- if you could zoom ahead on the aerials,
please. I think I've got another waterway view. Here's another.
Keep going forward, please.
There's another cross-section just for your reference -- maybe
not. Anyhoo, no, we don't.
But the waterway width is 446-feet wide. So basically with that,
we're about ten -- a little over ten percent, just under 11 percent of
protrusion out into the waterway.
Number 5 of the primary is whether the proposed design would
interfere with the use of neighboring. We're consistent with the
neighbors. Really one way in and one way out with these, basically a
north-to-south mooring along the finger piers. So you're basically
perpendicular to the shoreline, so no impacts to neighbors.
Secondary criteria, number 1 is the special conditions not
March 26, 2026
Page 21
involving water depths. In this case, there's a few. A, it's a boat dock
lot, so no setbacks are required. And the linear footage of shoreline,
a combination of all of that is -- basically pushes these docks out past
30 -- or 20 feet, especially with -- the fleet sizes of boats these days
also drives -- drives that.
Number 2 of the secondary, reasonable safe access to the vessel,
this dock has been minimized to the fullest extent possible that I
would ever get -- like to see being --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I wanted to
ask you about.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That was the one thing I
see. You have a three-foot walkway?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: In your professional
opinion, do you feel that that's safe?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, it is safe. It just does -- I would like to see
it be four foot, I would; however, it is still considered a safe structure
to access the dock.
Ultimately, with the pilings, you know, it just kind of pinches
you even further, the three foot, ultimately. So your overall width
does get less than three-foot wide with the way you construct the
dock.
So I would not like to see it any less than that. That's something
that I did push back to the agent on -- being the designers of the
dock -- on that. However, the vessels that are going to be stored here,
the beam width is what ultimately pinched us on that.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. ROGERS: So that's how we ended up with three foot.
To answer your question, though, yes, I still feel it's safe to
access the vessel.
March 26, 2026
Page 22
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ROGERS: Number 3, the length of shoreline here is
30 feet. We -- this is the one criteria on primary -- or on secondary
that we do not meet due to the linear footage of shoreline.
And, you know, it would have to be a 15-foot boat, basically, to
meet this criteria with these particular lots. So we do not meet this
one.
Number 4, whether we have an impact on a view. Luckily in
this whole neighborhood, it's lot line to lot line. There is no
residential homes in this area, so I don't expect any interferences with
view.
Number 5, the seagrasses. I dove this area, as well as the
applicant -- or the agent had another environmental firm involved,
and they dove it as well, and no seagrasses were observed in this -- in
this particular area.
And number 6 is the Manatee Protection Plan. We do not apply
for that -- or we're not subject to that because of the MPP
requirements.
So with that, happy to answer any questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: But a recap, 28-foot boat dock extension and
overall 48 feet out.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, so I just want to
confirm: So these are two boats that look basically the same size,
same type of boat, same thing. You've read the conditions. The dock
is private in nature and shall not be used for rental purposes, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Uh-huh.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do you agree to that?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The dock shall not be
used for any commercial purposes, including the mooring of
March 26, 2026
Page 23
commercial boats. Do you agree to that?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great.
John, you look like you want to say something.
MR. KELLY: Yes, I just need to correct the record. These lots
are subject to the regular dock regulations, and the reason that the
setback is different is -- and this is contained as part of the staff
report -- most of the docks in this area would have the
seven-and-a-half-foot side riparian setback. However, Resolution
Number 2000-051 passed in either 2000 or 2001 was a variance for
quite a few of the lots. I can't say how many. It's part of the
attachment if you desire to look further.
Probably 20 of the 30 lots were included in that. And this is one
of the subject lots; therefore, it does have a zero-foot setback.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So, in other
words, some of the lots were grouped together and given, via
ordinance, a -- the, you know, accumulative waiver or variance for
the setbacks because, obviously, the size of these lots are so small
that it would be almost impossible to put a -- maybe a canoe would
fit. I don't know.
MR. KELLY: Correct. It was -- it was a formal variance and it
reduced it. As I said, probably 20 of the 31 or so lots --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. KELLY: -- were part of it.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Do you want to
refute that at all?
MR. ROGERS: No, totally, that just reminded me, we have
done a couple of the other lots that didn't -- weren't part of that group.
We've done side-yard setback variances as well as BVDs here.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha.
MR. ROGERS: That is consistent.
March 26, 2026
Page 24
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right.
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So we are not talking
about a side setback variance; we're talking about extension only,
correct?
MR. ROGERS: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Great.
Any public -- let's go to public comment. Any public comment
signed up for this one?
MS. PADRON: We have none.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, none. Okay.
I did check the map and it looks like the City of Bonita Springs
runs along Bonita Beach Boulevard, and this is south of Bonita Beach
Boulevard, and so I feel pretty comfortable ruling on this one.
MR. ROGERS: Yes. Well, thank you for your time. I
appreciate it.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, I'll get -- I'll get
something out as quickly as I can.
MR. ROGERS: Thanks.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Moving on.
Item E.
MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. Good afternoon again. For the
record, John Kelly, Planner III. Before you is Agenda Item 3E. It's
a -- PDI-PL20250005556. It's a request for the Hearing Examiner to
approve an insubstantial change to the Pelican Marsh Planned Unit
Development, Ordinance Number 02-71, as amended, by amending
the Section 3.4.A.9 of the PUD document to allow one of the 50
rental residential units allowed within the PUD to be located in the
clubhouse at the Egret's Walk Condominium Recreation Building.
March 26, 2026
Page 25
The subject property comprises 15.55 acres located at 952
Egret's Run in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. It's parcel num- -- ID Number
66679200453.
The property, and more specifically the clubhouse recreational
building, are located within the "R" residential district component of
the Pelican Marsh Planned Unit Development as per the current
master plan.
Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06.H.
The applicant conducted a duly-advertised neighborhood information
meeting at 5:30 p.m., on November 6th, 2025, at the Collier County
Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater, located at 2385 Orange
Blossom Drive.
The sign-in sheet reveals 11 members of the public were
present. The meeting commenced on time and a presentation was
provided by Mr. Davies, who also took questions from the audience.
Staff observed no opposition to the project.
And please refer to Attachment H for the complete
neighborhood information meeting summary.
Property owner notification letters and posting with the Clerk of
Courts was satisfied by the county on March 6th, 2026. A public
hearing sign was posted by the applicant on or before March 11,
2026, as per notarized affidavit.
The petition was determined to be eligible for the PDI process
using the review criteria in LDC Section 10.02.13.E.2. Said
determination required evaluating LDC Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and
E.3 to determine that the requested change is neither substantial nor a
minor change. The proposed insubstantial change does not change
the analysis for the findings and criteria used for the most current
PUD documents.
As of this date, staff has received five phone calls requesting
March 26, 2026
Page 26
project information and one letter of objection that arrived after the
staff report was drafted and before -- however, it was received before
it was published; therefore, it was electronically distributed as part of
the package as Attachment J.
Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve this
petition as previously described and as delineated within Attachment
A. With that, staff concludes its presentation and turns the floor over
to Noel Davies.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, wait, before you
leave --
MR. KELLY: Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So is this an additional
unit, or are all the dwelling unit numbers staying the same?
MR. KELLY: There are no additional lone units within this
structure. This was a caretaker's residence when it was initially built,
so the structure has been there. It's nothing new.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. KELLY: There's just a language change to allow it to be
one of the 50 rental units within the Pelican Marsh Planned Unit
Development.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Did
you have something else?
MR. BOSI: I was just going to say, this does not change the
overall --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The density?
MR. BOSI: -- density for the number of units allocated within
the PUD.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's what I was getting
at. Thank you. Sorry I didn't ask the question correctly.
Hi.
MR. DAVIES: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Hearing
March 26, 2026
Page 27
Examiner. Good to see you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good to see you.
MR. DAVIES: For the record, Noel Davies on behalf of Egret's
Walk Commons Association, Inc., which is a neighborhood
association within Pelican Marsh. With me today is my client
representative, David O'Loughlin.
Next slide, please.
As you heard -- next slide, please.
As you heard from Mr. Kelly, the subject request is for an
insubstantial change to the Pelican Marsh PUD to permit a
long-existing, single residential unit, which sits on top of the Egret's
Walk clubhouse, to officially be able to have that unit rented out to
third parties.
Next slide, please.
So the property is located at 952 Egret's Run. It is in the
Residential District of the Pelican Marsh PUD.
Next, please.
And next.
And it's in the Urban Residential subdistrict of the Future Land
Use Map.
Next, please.
One more, please.
So some historical context, Mr. Hearing Examiner, the
clubhouse was built in 1995 --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. DAVIES: -- with a single dwelling unit on top of the
clubhouse, or on the second floor. There was a designation as
caretaker's residence or manager's unit.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And just so I get clear on
this, this is a legitimate dwelling unit that's been -- with plumbing and
it's not -- it's not something that's been converted illegally --
March 26, 2026
Page 28
MR. DAVIES: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- or anything like that?
MR. DAVIES: CO'd, always been a dwelling unit. We're just
trying to get rid of the limitation of it being a manager's unit or
caretaker's residence.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. In order to rent it
out?
MR. DAVIES: To rent it out to third parties.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: As a vacation rental, or
anything like that?
MR. DAVIES: Not -- not particularly. I mean, historically,
they've just done like an annual lease.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right.
MR. DAVIES: So --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: How many square feet is
it? Just -- sorry to ask you that. It's just a small studio apartment; is
that what this is?
MR. DAVIES: I think it's like 900, 1,000 square feet.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's not small. Okay.
MR. DAVIES: So as I mentioned, the unit has been rented out a
number of times since 1995. It was not always rented out to a
property manager or to a --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right. So --
MR. DAVIES: -- caretaker.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- this became a
problem? In other words, so this became a problem? Was there a
code violation?
MR. DAVIES: A Code Enforcement case was alleged last year.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So there's one
going on right now or --
MR. DAVIES: Correct. I mean, there's -- there's a pending
March 26, 2026
Page 29
case --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yes.
MR. DAVIES: -- that's been tolled, essentially, with us going
through this process.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it's -- okay. So
we -- we're dealing with, it's been rented out, because it says -- I'm
just going to kind of cut to the chase a little bit --
MR. DAVIES: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- and let you make
your -- I'm going to let you make your record, but I just want to
process this.
So it's been a dwelling unit, but because it says "caretaker" or
"manager unit," there's a question about whether or not the
association can rent it out to individuals, obviously --
MR. DAVIES: A non-manager --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- to make money?
MR. DAVIES: -- yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it ultimately ended
up in a code violation, so you're doing the lawyer thing, which is
basically to just clean up the language that is triggering the code
violation potential situation, right?
MR. DAVIES: Yeah, or that limitation specifically --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. DAVIES: -- of caretaker's residence or manager's unit.
So --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And if there is a case
that's pending, it's stayed until the decision is decided?
MR. DAVIES: Correct. So once -- I was retained right after the
Notice of Violation was received.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. DAVIES: I reached out to Zoning staff, talked through
March 26, 2026
Page 30
process language, you know, how -- how would we do this, and this
PDI was the best way to do it.
So it's a specific PDI that would govern this site only and
essentially removes that limitation to allow them to be able to rent it
out to third parties.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And this -- so
this, it's a dwelling unit, it's always been a -- because it was for a
caretaker, but it was built as a -- CO'd as a dwelling unit?
MR. DAVIES: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's why it doesn't
change the overall density of the PUD, right?
MR. DAVIES: Correct. And if we could go --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, sorry.
MR. DAVIES: -- a few more slides to the proposed text.
This was part of what we worked on with staff as far as
how -- the how, Mr. Hearing Examiner.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. DAVIES: So you'll see in the start of that language -- this
is 3.4A9 of the PUD.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. DAVIES: Up to 50 residential units -- these 50 residential
units, it's my understanding, these are entitled. They were never
built. And so we're adding this language that says, one rental unit,
one of those 50, can be located in the Egret's Walk clubhouse.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Now, is there
language that speaks to the caretaker, or things like that, that need to
be deleted or --
MR. DAVIES: The record, candidly, is messy about where
that -- so to be clear, there's not -- and I would defer to staff, but I
don't think there's an express permitted-use dwelling unit, like,
parentheses, caretaker's unit.
March 26, 2026
Page 31
I think like the original SDP from the early '90s designated it as
such, if my memory is correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Does anyone on the
county side have any recollection? Because there must be something
that's causing a legitimate code violation to be issued.
MR. KELLY: John Kelly, Planner III, for the record.
The original site development plan states that it's a caretaker's --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So there's a notation on
it?
MR. KELLY: Correct. And nothing in the PUD limits what can
be there --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So do we want to --
MR. KELLY: -- I mean, within the residential component.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Do we want to say
something like notwithstanding the notation on the original site plan
or something like that?
MR. DAVIES: No objection --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No?
MR. DAVIES: -- to that.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You're okay -- I mean,
you're okay with that?
MR. DAVIES: Well, I mean, I -- I don't have any objection to
adding that language.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I just don't want you to
have -- if I do approve it, I don't want you to have to come back
because someone makes another legal argument that says, Oh, that
notation is still on the original site development plan.
MR. DAVIES: I think the argument is that the PUD is going to
trump that old SDP, especially given the date of the PDI. But --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: -- I would be fine with like language in front of
March 26, 2026
Page 32
that sentence that says, Notwithstanding, the manager's unit or --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's on the --
MR. DAVIES: -- caretaker's residence of SDP you know, X, Y,
Z --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So that's where
it's being found. It's being found on a notation, or it's labeled on the
original SDP, site development plan, as caretaker units. So that's
what's giving the code enforcement's jurisdiction to issue a citation,
right?
MR. DAVIES: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I just want to
know that because I may need to -- I want to --
MR. DAVIES: Yeah. And for full context, I mean, this
was -- the way this started, right, was the code, you know, allegation
comes in and then it's -- we were brainstorming about, you know,
what's the proper procedural mechanism to do this.
And this -- this is what, you know, staff and my office came up
with as far as go straight to the PUD and essentially put this
notation --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: -- in there that makes it expressly clear that
the -- there's a unit there, it's allowed, or it's a permitted-by-right use,
and there's no, you know, restriction and it can be rented out, there's
no other limitation on there.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. You can keep
going if you want.
MR. DAVIES: So you've seen the proposed text.
Next slide, please.
We did, as you heard from Mr. Kelly, hold the neighborhood
information meeting. There was no -- there were some attendees, but
there was no opposition at the neighborhood meeting.
March 26, 2026
Page 33
Staff just reviewed the request. Staff is recommending
approval. We meet the pertinent PDI criteria set forth in the code,
and we're respectfully requesting today your decision of approval.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Just one second.
Yeah, I'm looking at it in the record. There's a SDP from '94.
Is that the one, John, that you were referring to?
MR. KELLY: Yes, sir, and also the building permit is there.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It is there?
MR. KELLY: The building permit does not call it out as
anything; however, it shows a master bedroom, a bedroom and
kitchen, all of the usual amenities for a residential unit.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Great.
MR. KELLY: It does not call out caretaker.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
Any public speakers here?
MS. PADRON: We have none.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No one signed up?
MS. PADRON: (Shaking head.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I noticed there was a
letter of opposition in the record. Is it really from Mr. Marsh in
Pelican Marsh, or is that -- did somebody fact-check that?
MR. KELLY: You have the letter.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'm just saying,
the whole place is named after him. All right. All right. The public
hearing is closed.
I understand exactly what you're trying to do. I will get a ruling
out as quickly as I can --
MR. DAVIES: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- on this. Did you have
anything else you wanted to --
MR. DAVIES: Nothing further from the applicant.
March 26, 2026
Page 34
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. DAVIES: Good to see you. Thank you very much.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here in
person.
MR. DAVIES: Likewise.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it. I'm
starting to become an old man.
All right. We're going to F -- 3F.
MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. Before you is Agenda Item 3F.
Before continuing, John Kelly, Planner III, for the record.
This is a comparable use determination, PL20230004883. It's a
request for a determination by the Hearing Examiner that a liquor
store, SIC 5921, is comparable in nature to other permitted uses in
Exhibit A, Section 1.A of the Tamiami Crossing Commercial
Planned Unit Development, adopted by Ordinance Number 08-50, as
amended.
The Tamiami Crossing Commercial Planned Unit Development
comprises approximately 25.02 acres located within the southeast
quadrant of the intersection on Collier Boulevard and State Road 951
and Tamiami Trail East/US 41.
The Commercial Planned Unit Development is -- comprises the
following addresses, 13030, 13050, 13080, and 13100 Tamiami Trail
East, as well as 6662 Collier Boulevard, in the Section 3, Township
51 South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida.
The subject commercial planned unit development is located
within Activity Center 18 as it's designated on the Future Land Use
Map which allows a full array of commercial uses.
Public notice requirements were as per LDC Section 10.03.06 O.
No agent letter, property owner notification letter or sign are required
for a petition of this type. The clerk's posting was satisfied by the
county on March 6th, 2026.
March 26, 2026
Page 35
This petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria
contained within LDC Section 10.02.06 K and has been found to be
consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan.
As of this date, no comments have been received from the public
in response to advertising, and staff finds the applicant's arguments to
be both convincing and compelling and, therefore, recommends the
Hearing Examiner determine that a liquor store, SIC 5921, is both
comparable and compatible with the other listed permitted uses
within the commercial planned unit development subject to the
following conditions of approval:
1. Any onsite service and/or consumption of alcohol at this
location shall be limited to product tasting and/or sampling in
compliance with applicable federal, state and local regulations.
And, 2, we had to change from -- this one from the original staff
report. We're removing everything after the word "only." So it
should just read:
2. This comparable use determination is limited to a retail liquor
store with ancillary tasting and education only.
That concludes staff's presentation. And with that, I turn it over
to Wayne Arnold.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. --
MR. KELLY: I'm available for questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, real quick --
MR. KELLY: Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- I just want to be clear
about -- make sure we're okay with the ordinance number. So
you're -- you're saying the ordinance number is 08-50?
MR. KELLY: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I'm seeing
another ordinance in here in the record. I just want to make sure
March 26, 2026
Page 36
we're looking at -- that's 15-14.
MR. KELLY: 15, correct. Let me check on that. And I'll allow
the applicant to proceed --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mr. Arnold, will
probably --
MR. KELLY: -- and I'll correct the record.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- clarify this, but I
just -- I note that you're just saying with other -- other uses listed and
you're not picking a use. And on this ordinance, it says, you know,
attorney offices and legal services are allowed.
Isn't that very similar to a liquor store? Do you want to pick
one?
MR. KELLY: Huh-uh.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No? Okay.
MR. KELLY: Does it have anything about reptile breathing
or --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha. Okay. Do you
understand what I'm talking about?
MR. ARNOLD: I do.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Go ahead and state your
name for the record.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified
planner with Pape-Dawson. With me today is Jim Stocks, who's with
Kite Realty, who's the property owner of the property. Also, I think
remotely is the attorney representing Total Wine, who will be the
occupant of the tenant space.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: His name is Robert Lewis. He could not be in
town today.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: I have a couple copies of my presentation. I'll
March 26, 2026
Page 37
leave one for you --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: -- and one for the reporter.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate that. Do you
understand what I'm saying about the ordinances? Am I looking at
the wrong thing or -- I want to make sure I'm looking at the right one.
MR. ARNOLD: The original ordinance was approved in 2008.
There was an amendment in 2015.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: It looks like John wants to say --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the original one was
08-50, and then there was an amendment after that, which is the
ordinance that's attached to your backup documentation?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. And that's
what we're working off of?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Those are the listed uses
that --
MR. ARNOLD: The listed uses were the same anyway.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The same, yeah. It's just
there were some -- this is not the first amendment to this, right?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Now we're set.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Yeah.
Next, please.
So highlighted in yellow on the screen is the project location.
As John mentioned, it's in the southeast quadrant of the intersection
of US 41 and Collier Boulevard. It's known as Tamiami Crossing
PUD, also Tamiami Crossing Shops.
And the subject property is developed. It has several in-line
March 26, 2026
Page 38
commercial tenants. One of those tenants located in this location, it's
Michaels Crafts. They are ceasing business operations there.
And we're here because Total Wine has expressed interest in
leasing that tenant space. And the liquor store use that they are is not
a permitted use under the current PUD. But there are other uses, if
you could advance that.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, so, for example,
I'm seeing drinking establishments and places -- eating
establishments and places, things like that.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. So I don't know if you're familiar with
Total Wine or any of the other large liquor-format stores, but most of
those that I'm familiar with do offer in-store tastings of their product.
I can go to my local Publix and they have wine tastings there
regularly as well, so it's not something uncommon where they have
liquor sales.
I highlighted here just showing you just what some of the other
uses are around us. Publix over here obviously sells beer, wine, has
liquor. We have a Fresh Market over here that also does. Walmart
also sells beer, wine. And then on the other intersection, we have a
CVS drugstore that also sells, you know, liquor.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I'm probably just
cutting to the chase, but -- so they're going to take over an existing
space, right?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so that really
doesn't affect the parking or traffic very much currently?
MR. ARNOLD: No. It's another retail use. This was
approved --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: -- as a hundred percent retail shopping center.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
March 26, 2026
Page 39
MR. ARNOLD: They actually built about 95 additional parking
spaces over what the code requires, so I think we're well equipped to
handle the traffic associated with it.
And this would be a much smaller format than the Total Wine
store that you may be familiar with that's on the north --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And it's another retail
operation?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, it is.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: If you can advance to the next slide.
These are some of the other uses you're looking at from the
ordinance that I highlighted that also have -- you know, a bowling
center, that's where you would certainly assume that they're going to
consume alcohol.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: You didn't want to
highlight number 3?
MR. ARNOLD: Which one was 3? Was that the attorneys'
offices? I feel slighted because planners aren't listed there, honestly.
But anyway.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Planners' offices, gotcha.
MR. ARNOLD: But there are a whole host of other uses that
are permitted here. But the PUD does allow eating places --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: -- and drinking establishments, which is
why -- if you'd advance to the next slide, I'd appreciate it.
I'm going to -- these are the criteria. I'll come back to those if
we need to.
But if you could advance to the one where I show the revised
conditions, that would probably be the most appropriate.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Revised --
MR. ARNOLD: There you go.
March 26, 2026
Page 40
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- from what John had
put in the record?
MR. ARNOLD: So this reflects a strike-through underline of
the two conditions that were in your original staff report, and shown
in the red is the stricken language that John referenced.
We think it's really not necessary because the PUD already does
allow eating places and/or drinking establishments, and we didn't
want this to somehow confuse it, if Total Wine somehow moves out,
that there would be this -- some restriction that is trying to prohibit
those uses. So we're fine with Total Wine having their samplings.
One of the other things that's mentioned was the educational
aspect. You can sign up and take a class and learn about wine in
Total Wine a couple of times a month. So that's something that's a
little unique. We wanted to make sure that's explicitly known but not
unique to a lot of these uses.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is the county okay with
that?
MR. BELLOWS: (Nodding head.)
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Yeah, I
spoke with Mr. Arnold prior to the hearing, and as John read into the
record, we are -- we agree with the removal of the last one because
we don't want to provide any ambiguity.
And as that has indicated, you know, both eating places,
drinking places are permitted uses in the existing PUD. So we didn't
want to provide any confusion. So we agree with the -- the
elimination.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Perfect. Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: And some of the other criteria -- I'm not going
to go back and go through each of them; the staff report includes
those and they're in my presentation -- but we don't have a parking
issue related to this retail use.
March 26, 2026
Page 41
The use is comparable. I think I pointed out several other uses
where alcohol is consumed on premises. And even though there's
only incidental consumption on premises for a Total-Wine-type store,
it isn't incompatible with that particular use.
Hours of operation, pretty standard for retail. I think Total Wine
may have hours until 10:00 p.m. certain nights, 11:00 p.m. maybe on
a weekend. But there are no restrictions of hours of operation for any
other use in the PUD. And, in fact, if there's a convenience store, it's
probably open 24-7 anyway.
So we think this is a very compatible use. We think it's
comparable and hope that you can support it with the revised
condition.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Does anyone else
from your team have anything else? Attorney for the applicant?
Nobody?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I risk having him click --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: -- in since he's remote.
MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon. Robert Lewis. I've been a
member of The Florida Bar for approximately 30 years. I'm an
alcohol/beverage attorney and I've been representing Total Wine &
More since about 26 years.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay --
MR. LEWIS: So --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- Mr. Lewis.
MR. LEWIS: -- if you have any --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I don't have any
questions.
MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I will give you an
opportunity if you want to say anything else; but somebody told me
March 26, 2026
Page 42
one time, saying less is more.
MR. LEWIS: No, if you -- if you have no questions, sir, we are
certainly speaking in favor on behalf of the application.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I think you're in
good hands with Mr. Arnold here.
Anybody from the public signed up to speak on this?
MS. PADRON: No.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Then we're
closing the public hearing.
I understand this completely. For some reason, I was fixated on
the ordinance. I mean, I know the original ordinance was 08-50, and
usually, you know, it has been superseded since then. So, whatever,
we'll deal with that.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It's me being a lawyer.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. I will
say we do allow, sometimes, partial amendments, but those partial
amendments do not contain the full PUD.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So it doesn't repeal?
MR. BOSI: So it -- yeah, so it doesn't repeal. It adds onto, but
it doesn't repeal it, and because of that, the listed permitted uses
weren't always included within that -- the '15 ordinance. So that's
why we referenced back to the original ordinance.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And I was just
looking for some repealer language, but there isn't. So I guess if
someone did a title search, that original ordinance would come up
since it's recorded. Okay. Got it.
All right. I think we have everything. Thank you again,
Mr. Arnold --
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for being here. I
March 26, 2026
Page 43
appreciate it.
MR. ARNOLD: Nice to see you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank your whole team,
and I'll get something out as quickly as possible.
MR. ARNOLD: I appreciate it.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. All right.
We're moving on to 3G.
John Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Again, good afternoon -- again, good afternoon.
John Kelly, Planner III, for the record. This is --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: John, can you pause for
one minute?
MR. KELLY: Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Were you able to chat
with the other individuals, and are they going to be cued up to go
after this?
MS. PADRON: Yes, the agent and his representative, they're
both online.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I just didn't want
to put everybody through all of that agony, so now they're last in line.
MS. PADRON: Yes. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Good.
John, go.
MR. KELLY: Okay. This is Agenda Item 3G. It's a boat dock
petition, PL20250004529. The petitioner requests that the Hearing
Examiner consider a 36-foot boat dock extension from the maximum
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 boat-docking facility protruding a total of
56 feet into a waterway that is 527 to 719 feet wide, depending on
where it's measured from and to, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H.
March 26, 2026
Page 44
The subject property is located at 167 East Hilo Street. It's also
known as Lot 408, Isles of Capri Number 2 in Section 32, Township
51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. It's Property ID
Number 52400640005.
It's located within a Residential Single Family-4, RS-4, zoning
district. The subject property comprises 0.2 acres with 119 feet of
shoreline consisting of a seawall configuration with a riprap toe for
support.
Staff has determined, using research attached within the staff
report, that the existing dock facility is legal, non-confirming. The
applicant desires to construct a single boat lift on the north side of the
existing facility for the mooring of a 32-foot vessel with outboard
engines that will protrude further than the most waterward portion of
the fixed dock.
It has also been determined that the property line is landward of
the seawall and is, therefore, the most restrictive point for the
measurement of protrusion. The minimum 15-foot-side riparian
setbacks will be respected on both sides of the dock facility.
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 March 6, 2026, and a public hearing sign
was posted by myself on February 24, 2026.
The petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria
contained within LDC 5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, it satisfies
five of five. Of the secondary criteria, it satisfies four of six, with the
sixth being not applicable. It's the Manatee Protection Plan. And it
has been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan
and the Land Development Code.
A letter of objection was received early on from the adjoining
property owner at 161 East Hilo. However, it also contained other
complaints that I believe have been resolved by the Code
March 26, 2026
Page 45
Enforcement Department.
Additionally, the subject property owner initiated a petition
drive of residents who had no objections. That's part of the
attachments with the staff report. And a letter of support is being
added at this time as Attachment G-1, as it was received after the
hearing package was published. I distributed that earlier before the
beginning of this meeting.
With that, staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve this
petition as described in accordance with the proposed dock plans
provided within Attachment A.
And with that, I turn it over to Nick Pearson. I am available for
questions.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, John. I
appreciate it.
Hi, Nick.
MR. PEARSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Hearing Examiner. For
the record, Nick Pearson. I'm the owner of Bayshore Marine
Consulting, and here is my PowerPoint.
So as you can see, this is where the property is located on Isles
of Capri. It's kind of that last top, I guess, northeast-most finger of
land.
If we could go to the next slide.
So this shows it a little better where it's located. As you can see,
it kind of looks almost directly across at the Island Gypsy and what's
going to be another marina actually there on that large vacant lot.
Next slide, please.
Okay. So just really quickly, I want to go over this. This
structure is being considered a grandfathered structure to county and
state code. With the county, though, there's small asterisks there
where basically we pulled the building permits, and those are the
plans.
March 26, 2026
Page 46
Except that when the structure was built, it wasn't quite exactly
to the same plans. So rather than straight out, the structure was put
on a slight angle and it was built a little further out than the plans
show. So it's been there since 1979. Things weren't done the same
way back then as they are now.
So the structure was permitted. It went through all the hoops,
but it was just built a little bit differently. So I didn't want to cause
any confusion. Moving forward, I'm going to really refer to the
existing structure as it's built rather --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me pause you there
and just get confirmation from the county.
So it's been stated that this -- this dock was permitted many,
many, many years ago. However, comparing it now, there's some
slight deviations to how it ended up. But at the end of the day, the
county's position is that this is a legal non-conforming structure? Is
that the term?
MR. KELLY: Correct. The LDC says as little as a photograph
is showing the non-confirming dock and work. We did have the
plans. They're not entirely consistent. However, for the most part,
they are.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. KELLY: And so we are calling this a legal
non-conforming --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right.
MR. KELLY: -- structure.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: It could be that plate
tectonics happened so long ago. All right. So we're good on that
point. Let's move forward.
MR. PEARSON: Yeah, I would just add, you know, as a
benefit, this petition would, I guess, technically rectify that
ambiguity.
March 26, 2026
Page 47
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: This is the survey of the existing dock, just to
show exactly where the seawall is, how it kind of is on a curve versus
the old plans which kind of show a straight seawall.
That's probably all I have to say about this slide, so we can go to
the next one.
So here is the proposed project. Basically, the dock, as you see
it, is going to remain largely the same. It will be trimmed out,
actually, underneath the boathouse roof, so there will actually be a
net -- a net reduction in decking as --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So I want to be clear: Is
all of this existing?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And what is this hatch
supposed to indicate?
MR. PEARSON: That's -- that's the boathouse roof.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's the boathouse
roof. Okay. So all of --
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- this is existing,
finger -- four-foot finger pier here?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Kayak launch over here,
boathouse, and all of this is decking up against there?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so the proposal is to
add a boat lift here that --
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- where the outboards
protrude to this point; is that correct?
MR. PEARSON: That is correct.
March 26, 2026
Page 48
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And you're -- you're
confident that four feet is safe ingress/egress to the boat, a
30-foot -- 32-foot vessel?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: So historically, this -- well, I should just say
in the past, this area has been used to store boats. The prior owner of
the property actually put a large Sport Fish there, so --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So they moor it there,
right?
MR. PEARSON: Yes. It was just a wet slip, basically.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Gotcha.
MR. PEARSON: So really what we're asking for is just to
be -- you know, install a lift here in what I would kind of call an
existing slip.
But, yeah, the other things to point out, the yellow line there is
where the typical 20-foot protrusion line would be.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: When you say -- excuse
me. I'm going to interrupt you for a minute.
When you say wet -- it was a wet slip, does that mean that there
would be like pilings out here already, existing pilings?
MR. PEARSON: No, there's no piles out there currently.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. No piles out here.
But you're just saying that they would moor the boat on this side of
the dock?
MR. PEARSON: Well, there -- there -- we are proposing to put
piles out there.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No, I understand that.
MR. PEARSON: Okay.
March 26, 2026
Page 49
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But when you said it was
a wet slip, I would assume you would mean that there were
pil- -- like tie piles on the other side?
MR. PEARSON: I think that there was some ambiguity there
with staff --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: -- about whether to call it a slip or not. I kind
of am of a mind that it was used in the past to store boats, so it is a
slip.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: It's sort of difficult with grandfathered
structures like this to be hard-line, you know, one way or the other --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Gotcha.
MR. PEARSON: -- with certain facts.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: So, yes, back to what I was saying: There, the
yellow line is the usual protrusion unit. That's an offset of the
property line, which is like on the inside of the seawall.
So I think it's about a foot, foot and a half kind of landward, if
that makes sense.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. PEARSON: So realistically, you have actually even less
than 20 feet of water there. It's probably like 18 and a half feet.
And then the other thing I was going to point out are those
orange dashed lines. So the first line nearest to the riparian line is the
county's 15-foot side setback. You can see, we're very clearly
meeting that.
The state actually requires a 25-foot setback here unless you can
get a waiver signed by the neighbor. The neighbor wouldn't sign a
waiver, so the only way to get the lift in here was to basically push it
back as -- as we're proposing.
March 26, 2026
Page 50
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: And that should be it for this slide. Next
slide, please.
So, again, just showing the cross-section of kind of what we're
proposing, out of basically trying to keep this a clean drawing, I
didn't show all the boathouse piles, the boat underneath the roof, but
you can imagine where it would be based on where the roof is.
The new boat on the lift shown in the foreground, I think, gives
kind of a good idea of exactly how much, you know, is really
changing in terms of view.
Next slide, please.
So again, just another angle of the cross-section, and you can see
exactly where the lifts are in relation to one another.
Next slide, please.
So here's the waterway. You can see the yellow line is more or
less just a linear connection of where the nav piles are.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. PEARSON: So you can also see kind of how wide the
waterway is there already, 85 feet from the existing dock, you know,
which is --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So this is an official
channel? So it does have channel -- it's not a common channel?
MR. PEARSON: There are -- well, yes, there's channel markers
there, so --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: There's a marker there,
marker there, marker here to avoid this area?
MR. PEARSON: Yes. It gets shallower in that area.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So they have to
swing in through here?
MR. PEARSON: Uh-huh, yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. And there's the
March 26, 2026
Page 51
other one.
MR. PEARSON: And I think the next slide better shows that
area, if we could go to the next slide.
Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: The magic word is "next
slide."
MR. PEARSON: Anyway, you can see adding the lift in here
doesn't -- it doesn't pinch the channel at all, so public navigation
shouldn't be affected. It's more or less the same as the existing
situation.
Next slide, please.
Seagrass survey. So there were grasses along that kind of -- I'll
call it a bar.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. PEARSON: But they're far enough away that we shouldn't
be affecting them at all.
Next slide, please.
So here's the view of the project area. As you can see, the
neighbor to the -- to the -- to that one side is coming straight in and
straight out. So we shouldn't be affecting their navigability either.
Next slide, please.
And just another quick thing on the criteria, as you can see, that
all five primary and four of the six secondary with just that Manatee
Protection Plan being not applicable.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And this one?
MR. PEARSON: That's the only one we didn't meet, yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Mathematically?
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. Is that
it?
MR. PEARSON: I think so.
March 26, 2026
Page 52
The next slide, just to make sure I'm not forgetting -- yep, that
was it.
This is just a cleaned-up version of the channel.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Anything else?
MR. PEARSON: I don't believe so.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. PEARSON: I had one other, you know, letter of support,
actually.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's get that into the
record.
MR. PEARSON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anybody sign up
to speak on this item?
MS. PADRON: None.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Nobody has signed up to
speak, so we're closing the public hearing on this.
Okay. So it sounded like there was a lot of community activity
because of this one, but here you are; you must have solved all the
problems.
MR. PEARSON: I -- I try.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. So I would
give John that letter, if we don't already have it, and let's get that
formally into the record.
John, if you could give our court reporter a copy later on and
send a copy to my office, please.
MR. KELLY: Okay. I'll make that Attachment G-2, if you
please.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: That's perfectly okay.
Thank you.
Okay. Pretty straightforward. I understand what you're asking
for, and we'll get a decision out as quickly as possible.
March 26, 2026
Page 53
MR. PEARSON: Perfect.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here.
MR. PEARSON: Thank you very much.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So we are going
to circle back and hopefully this is going to go smoothly.
We are going to 3B, right?
MS. ESTRADA: Correct. 3B. Item 3B.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: 3B. Hi, Maria. Sorry
about that, but I just didn't want -- I didn't want everyone sitting here
waiting around --
MS. ESTRADA: I understand.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for them to try to
figure out their tech.
MS. ESTRADA: So good afternoon again, Mr. Dickman. For
the record, Maria Estrada, Planner II, in the Zoning Division.
Before you is Agenda Item 3B, which seeks a determination use
of a general automotive repair shop, SIC Code 7538, comparable in
nature to the gasoline service station, SIC 5541, a permitted use in
Exhibit A of the Randall Curve Mixed Planned Unit Development,
adopted by Ordinance Number 2021-42, as amended, and included in
the petition filed, Attachment B.
The subject property is located at 1307 Winchester Trail,
Naples, Florida 34120, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida.
The petition was reviewed by staff based upon the criteria
contained within LDC Section 10.02.06 K.2, a through e, and staff
believes this petition is consistent with the review criteria in the LDC
as well as with the GMP.
With respect to the public notice requirements, they were
compiled -- complied with as per LDC Section 10.03.06 O. The
newspaper advertisement was taken care of by the county operational
March 26, 2026
Page 54
staff on Friday, March 6, 2026. I received no phone calls or any
other communication from the public regarding this petition;
therefore, there is no public opposition.
Staff recommends that you determine that the proposed use of
the general automotive repair shop is comparable in nature to the
gasoline service station that's a permitted use within that PUD.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you. Thank you
very much.
MS. ESTRADA: You're welcome.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Let's go to the
applicant.
MR. FASANO: Hi. Good afternoon. This is A.J. Fasano with
Kimley-Horn. I am the EOR and applicant representative for
Christian Brothers Automotive.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Could you spell your
name, please?
MR. FASANO: It is A.J. and Fasano, F-A-S-A-N-O.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much.
And give me a little bit about your -- are you an engineer with
Kimley-Horn?
MR. FASANO: Yes, sir, I'm a civil engineer.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. FASANO: Before you is the presentation. This is for the
Christian Brothers Automotive in Naples, Florida, within Collier
County. It is within the Randall Curve PUD and we are seeking for a
variable use determination.
Next slide, please.
The location is at 13707 Winchester Trail, Naples, Florida, and
this is off of Immokalee Road. It's within Tract J of the Randall
Curve MPUD.
Next slide, please.
March 26, 2026
Page 55
Just a little background of Christian Brothers Automotive, it is
an automotive repair shop chain in the United States. The common
services are AC services, brakes, batteries, oil and filter changes,
check engine lights, tune-ups. And that's the general background.
Next slide, please.
We are seeking a comparable use from a SIC 7358, general
automotive repair, to the SIC 5541, gasoline service station. For the
general automotive repair, typically, you know, this is for
just -- specializes in aftermarket automotive repair and maintenance.
This excludes heavy bodywork. It focuses on just general repairs that
you'd come in for for your vehicle.
Within CBA, the buildings, they have enclosed garage -- garage
doors. No vehicles are stored outside beyond normal customer
parking. And in comparable use to a gasoline service station, first,
CBA, they have typically lower daily trips compared to a gasoline
service station.
The operating hours are similar, but they are not 24 hours.
Vehicle types are generally the same, just recreational vehicles, no
heavy machinery or trucks, it being just deliveries.
Parking is contained within the subject properties. There's no
overflow or staffing, similar to a gasoline service station. And the
surrounding uses typically are the same.
Within this MPUD, there is a 7-Eleven which is a gasoline
service station, McDonald's, Auto Zone, and another carwash facility.
The next slide, please.
This is the proposed layout. This is in Tab J. The building is
approximately 6,200 square feet, which is similar to other gasoline
service stations. There's ten service bays, which is similar to other
gasoline service stations in terms of bays or filling stations.
The parking meets the LDC requirements. We are showing
30 -- there's 35, actually, on here, with two ADA stalls and two
March 26, 2026
Page 56
bicycle parkings. And similar to other gasoline service stations,
there's water treatment features, including stormwater, dry detention
ponds and outfall to the master storm pond.
Next slide, please.
And if there's any questions, we'd be happy to provide any
answers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you very
much.
Question for the county: So I'm looking at the ordinance itself.
Is this -- we're looking at the commercial part about this, correct? Is
that --
MR. BOSI: Correct. Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And so you've
got 8 -- or, I mean, you've got 1 through 7 there. The first one,
actually, it says C1 through C3. So there's -- there's a ton of things
that are in C1 through C3, correct?
MR. BOSI: Roughly 90-some uses, yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. And I
see you also list car washes, dental laboratories, medical laboratories,
motor freight, transportation, warehouse, eating, nursing facilities.
And is that pretty typical now, that you guys -- you list out any
other principal use as determined by the BCA or Hearing Examiner?
MR. BOSI: That is -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director.
That is common practice within most commercial PUDs. There will
be a component for the comparable use determination for -- in
advance of a use that wasn't included that may be similar or have
similar characteristics of the uses that are --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- already adopted.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you. All
right. All right. All right.
March 26, 2026
Page 57
Has anybody signed up to speak on this item?
MS. PADRON: We have no speakers.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I've been notified
there are no public speakers signed up. The public hearing portion of
this is closed.
This is a pretty straightforward ask. I will review everything
and get a decision out as quickly as possible. Thank you for your
patience and thanks for coming back.
MR. FASANO: Yeah, thank you very much. Have a great day.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: No problem.
Okay. That's everything?
MR. BOSI: (Nodding head.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So why don't we talk for
a minute about just -- I want to make sure that people know, like
these applicants, all right -- I vaguely remember, I think that they are
required to sign something saying that the -- you know, you're doing
it at your risk, at your own peril going on Zoom, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. So I would
strongly encourage somebody that is within an hour and a half drive
to not like just decide out of convenience to do it by Zoom, because it
is disruptive if they can't -- I know the problem is not on our side, it's
on their side, and I don't want to disrupt the people that are here
personally.
So if we're going to do those things online, maybe we should do
them last so that people don't have to go through the agony of all of
that.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, again, Planning and Zoning Director.
And I spoke with Ray earlier. I said this was something we're going
to have to get on the -- our Friday morning planners' meeting --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
March 26, 2026
Page 58
MR. BOSI: -- to basically stress to the applicants, If you're
local, show up. Do everything you can to show up. Just -- and -- but
your -- your recognition, there are -- sometimes the applicants can't
show up, or maybe they are -- they are in a different state. And if that
is the case, we are going to notice -- we'll note that as we're doing the
agenda so we can put those last, because, that's right, you don't want
the people who are here to have to be waiting for technical issues.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Absolutely. Thank you.
And I'm not telling you how to run the agenda, even though I can
move the agenda around. But I would kind of like to know, I guess,
if they're -- you know, for example, if it's -- if it's a husband-and-wife
property owner and they're asking for a variance and they live out in
Immokalee and it's just not -- it's too hard for them to get here at this
time, I'm okay with that.
But if it's a professional that's been hired and paid to be -- to
handle this, I get frustrated if it goes -- I mean, I like the fact that
you've got some planners that can work remotely. That's fine with
me.
I just -- I think you understand what I'm saying here, is that I just
don't want to have people in the audience waiting around and trying
to do this.
And I think also for the transcript point -- part of -- part of it, it
would be better if we just put it in the back of the -- at the end of the
agenda so that if there are issues -- I don't mind waiting around until
we get those worked out; I just don't want to make other people
to -- go through that process.
You know, and you guys put a lot of money into rehabbing this
room, and I know the tech is good here, so I'm just assuming that
they're having problems on their end, okay?
MR. BOSI: Understood. And those are very constructive, and
we'll definitely work off of those in the --
March 26, 2026
Page 59
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Staff report discussions?
MR. BOSI: Yes, absolutely.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. All right.
Anything else we need to talk about?
MR. BOSI: Nothing from the county.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: All right. Great job,
everyone. Good job, Maria, John. Thank you very much. Tim, if
you're still there --
MS. ESTRADA: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- thank you. We're
adjourned.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing Examiner at 2:39
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
____________________________________________
ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on ___________,
as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF VERITEXT,
BY CHRISTI K. COLE, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
REPORTER, FPR, AND NOTARY PUBLIC.