HEX Transcript 02/11/2016 February 11,2016 HEX Meeting
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
February 11,2016
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 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION at 2800
North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN
ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Eric Johnson,Principal Planner
Scott Stone,Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 5
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 11,2016 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610
AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING®ULATION BUILDING,2800 N.
HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WANED BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING
PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT,
PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING
EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A
COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS,
AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO
RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. BD-PL20150001119—Beth Murphy and John Morrissey-Pumo request a 67-foot
boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development
Code, for a total protrusion of 87 feet to accommodate a docking facility with two boat lifts for the
benefit of Lot 73, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County,Florida. [Coordinator:Eric L Johnson,AICP, CFM,Principal Planner]
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
February 11,2016 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
BD-PL20150001119
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
C-Aerial Distance Measurement 10
* * * * * * *
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,February
1 lth meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. We have a few housekeeping announcements.
Individual speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived.
All decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners,and a decision will be
rendered within 30 days.
Review of the agenda: We have one item on today's agenda. It's Item 4A for a boat dock extension.
There are no prior meeting minutes supplied from our last meeting yet,so we'll move directly into that
first advertised public hearing.
***It's Petition No.BD-PL20150001119. It's the Beth Murphy and John Morrissey-Pumo 67-boat
dock extension on the Isles of Capri.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. My disclosures: I spoke with Jeff Rogers representing
the applicant,I've talked with staff,and I've reviewed all the files as well as some historic files.
Exhibit A will be the staff report,Exhibit B will be the legal ad,and there will probably be an Exhibit
C added here as we get into the situation.
This particular location is on the southern part of the Isles of Capri. That's the location on an aerial
provided in the staff report.
The proposed dock is 87 feet out to the end of the boats that are there. It's got a 4-foot gangway and a
158 terminal platform-- 158-square-foot terminal platform. It's set up for two boats. This is a blowup of that.
This shows the depths going out and where the boats are,the depths needed to anchor the boats.
These are the seagrass beds that were shown in the area. When there are seagrass beds,there are
specific requirements in the LDC that have to be met.
This is a cross-section of the heights of the docks,and one of the questions that I'll be having is an
explanation of the NAVD height.
Staff recommendation: And I guess,Jeff,the first thing I want to ask,do you have any problems with
the staff recommendations?
MR.ROGERS: No,sir,we do not.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. There is a member of the public here,or two,and I
believe it's the applicant. Seeing no other members of the public,I don't need a formal presentation. I've read
the entire document. I do have some questions. I didn't know if you wanted to add anything to your--to the
staff report,to the material that's been supplied.
MR.ROGERS: No,not really. You know,this is the--the only special condition that we have here
is,you know,the state aquatic preserve,so we have to abide by those rules that the state has for this area,and
that relates to the dock design and elevation of the dock,referring back to your question.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I did check out your maximum,and we'll--I think there's
a--I wanted to get to that.
There are four items when there's--seagrass beds are present. The first one is that the dock height
Page 2 of 5
February 11,2016 HEX Meeting
shall be at least 3.5 feet,and it's NGVD.You submitted everything in NAVD as required now by the county
but,unfortunately,the LDC has not been updated. And I just wanted acknowledgment that the NAVD
calculations that are shown on that cross-section are equivalent or greater than the minimum 3.5 NGVD that
was required in the LDC.
MR.ROGERS: They are. It's greater.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. So your testimony is it's greater?
MR.ROGERS: Yes,sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Eric or Ray,are you guys in agreement with that since you wrote
the staff report?
MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.We're not the experts on that. We were trying to get
a crash course just a few minutes before the meeting started. But we have one of our county experts here,so if
you could try to address what is--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You have to come up to the microphone,Brett,and identify
yourself for the record.
MR.ROSENBLUM: Brett Rosenblum.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I bet you didn't know you were an expert in conversion of
NAVD.
MR.ROSENBLUM: I did not know I was an expert. All right. So the question,it
was--everything was supposed to be at 3.5 NGVD;is that correct?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: First of all,this is the plan that was submitted,and it's calling for
a height of the access walkway,five feet above mean high water. Mean high water is.42 NAVD.They're
going to be five feet above that. The concern was,since it's in NAVD and the planning--and the LDC
references NGVD,my only question is--to make sure we're consistent with the code is that the 3.5 feet NGVD
is equal to or exceeded by the NAVD references they have.
MR.ROSENBLUM: Yeah. 3.5 NGVD is approximately 2.3 NAVD. So it's about a 1.2
give-or-take conversion,so--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,so--
MR.ROGERS: --if they're higher than the 2.3 NAVD,then they should be fine.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I certainly appreciate your clarification. Thank you.
MR.ROSENBLUM: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And now that you're an expert in NAVD and NGVD,I'm sure
you'll be readily used.
MR.BELLOWS: We'll call on you again.
MR.ROSENBLUM: Oh,great. We do have a county surveyor who could have handled this as
well,so...
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Excellent. Thank you,Brett.
MR.ROSENBLUM: All right. Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Appreciate it.
I did check,and the terminal platform appears to be 158.4 square feet,which is less than the 160 as the
not-to-exceed. The access dock width is four feet. And based on the way--the layout of the dock,they've
done,I think,the best that they can in regards to not intruding on the seagrass beds.
Some of the criteria for the dock—and this particular one is that the facility will protrude more than 25
percent of the width of the waterway.And we relied,apparently,on the criterion to be met by visual estimate.
I had talked with Jeff and suggested that since we have the benefit--and,by the way,this code was
written a long time ago,and we didn't have the benefit of Google maps and the county appraiser's site with the
measurement tool necessarily that we have today. And since we have that,I would suggest to staff that that's a
better document or a better measurement tool to use than someone's visual estimate,especially since Jeffs not
been qualified as an expert in visually estimating distance.
So,Jeff,did you bring up a document I asked about yesterday?
MR.ROGERS: Per our conversation,I created an aerial for the record. I can give it to the court
reporter.
Page 3 of 5
February 11,2016 HEX Meeting
Basically,it shows the approximate width of the waterway from mean high to mean high being about
1,024 feet. You've got right there 1,019 feet,so a small discrepancy.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Pretty close.
MR.ROGERS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Either way,you're going to be less than the required distance.
MR.ROGERS: We're going to be less than what's--what we're--what's called for,or restricted to;
25 percent. So we're about 10 percent.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: That's all I was trying to confirm by a graphic.
So what we'll do is,if you could provide the court reporter with that graphic,it will be Exhibit C,and it
will be titled the"aerial distance measurement."
And then that takes us back to this,and this question is more a total--a question of staff.The criteria
that's not been met is the one about the length of the vessel or vessels,and it does request that the length be the
discussed item or the item that is used for measurement,yet staff provided an argument concerning the width of
the two vessels. And I'm trying to understand the correlation between the need to do that when the criterion is
not met and it's strictly supposed to be length.
MR.JOHNSON: Sure. For the record,Eric Johnson,principal planner.
With respect to Criteria No.3,it is,in fact,criteria not met because of the language that you see on the
screen. Really,the second sentence where it starts,however,it should be noted that according to the drawing
labeled proposed site plan--proposed site with dimensions,I was just really trying to demonstrate that the 29.9
feet is very--it's slightly less than half the linear water frontage of the platted lot.
Again,the two vessels combined length-wise doesn't meet the criterion. It was really just a--it was
just an explanation of if you were to look at it from the point of the width of a vessel,the dock,and then the
width of a--the width of the vessel,the two vessels,that the 29.9 feet is slightly less than half the linear water
frontage of the platted lot.
In the future what I could do,Mr.Hearing Examiner,is if the criterion is not met,I shouldn't write
anything above and beyond something that would be contrary to staff opinion.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I think the argument you made here might be fine in a text
of the staff report or as a testimony here at this hearing,but I wouldn't want to see it under the criteria anymore
only because it might be utilized by someone else frying to justify how they meet or don't have such a problem
with their argument in regards to this criteria. So I don't want to set up a standard that we shouldn't be using,
so...
MR.JOHNSON: That's fine,and we'll change accordingly in the future.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I think this has been resolved. It was the question that
originated my NAVD versus my NGVD question.
I have no issue with the bottom. I think we already--I already talked about that. And those are all
the questions I have at this time.
Jeff,is there anything else that you have?
MR.ROGERS: No,sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR.ROGERS: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And,Eric,do you have anything you want to add to the staff
report?
MR.JOHNSON: No,I have nothing more to add.Staff is recommending approval contingent upon
the three conditions of approval.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. Any members of the public wish to comment on this
particular case? Yes,sir,please--oh,you weren't sworn in,so please raise your hand to be sworn in.
MR.HUGHES: No,I stood up.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Oh,did you? Okay,please come up and address your--use the
microphone and state your name for the record,please.
MR.HUGHES: My name is Jim Hughes. I live at 94 Dolphin Circle. If the map was there,I could
point to it. To the left of their dock--close back in again there. To the left of their dock,a group of five
Page 4 of 5
February 11,2016 HEX Meeting
docks,and I'm the second one from the bottom there. Right there,yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HUGHES: Yeah. And, in fact, I was the first to put in an extended dock,and I realized the
problems that people could have or are having.And over the years,I'm happy to see the county helping people
get their docks,and I realize we have to stick by codes and ordinances,but it's good that everybody can get
access during a--getting our dock, I read a lot of articles,and I read one that Doc Loach said,and Doc Loach
was the developer of the island. And Doc Loach said that everybody doesn't have equal access,but everybody
should have access to the water,and that's the purpose of the island,to be a fishing village.
And some people have sandbars,as this bay does,and other people have narrow canals where they
have some problems there. But I'm happy to see everybody getting access to the water.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: You have no objection to this application?
MR.HUGHES: That's what I was just going to say here. I totally approve this project.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: I do notice that you have quite a sandbar over there.
MR. HUGHES: Yes. Our lot size doubles twice a day.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Too bad you didn't own all the way out in the water.
MR. HUGHES: That's right.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Well,I sure appreciate your testimony,sir. Thank you very
much.
MR.HUGHES: Well,thank you for your help.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Is there anybody else that has any comments on this issue?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll close the public hearing,and a decision
will be rendered within 30 days,most likely within 10 days,and you'll have a decision by email.
With that, I thank you all for coming,especially your testimony today. Appreciate it.
That brings us to other business. There isn't any.
Is there any other public comment?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Hearing none,this meeting's adjourned. Thank you.
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:14 a.m.
C CLIMB CO TYIEA G EXAMINER
r #� L� ( ; %� l l
MARK TRAIN,HEARING EXAMINER
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 1- ,as presented c-%'
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC.,BY
TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 5 of 5