HEX Agenda 06/13/2019AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2019 IN CONFERENCE ROOM
610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING & REGULATION BUILDING,
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED 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. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: This item was continued from the May 9, 2019 HEX Meeting.
A. PETITION NO. CU-PL20180000383 – CERTUS PNR OWNER, LLC requests a Conditional
Use to allow an assisted living facility with 64 beds within an Estates (E) district pursuant to
Section 2.03.01 B.1.c.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a 4.68± acre property
located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 400 feet east of Whippoorwill Lane, in
Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Gilbert
Martinez, Principal Planner]
B. PETITION NO. BDE-PL20180001018– Mitchel and Karyn Cooper request a 235-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 255 feet, to accommodate a new docking facility with one boat slip
for the benefit of property located at 37 Pelican Street W., on the north side of Pelican Street W.,
approximately 1000 feet west of Capri Blvd., in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Gilbert Martinez, Principal Planner]
C. PETITION NO. VA-PL20180001748– Mitchel and Karyn Cooper request a variance from
Section 5.03.06 E. of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback for a
boat dock facility from 7.5 feet to 1.3 feet on the north side of the proposed boat dock, and from 7.5
feet to 2.1 feet on the south side of the proposed boat dock, for property located at 37 Pelican
Street, on the north side of Pelican Street, approximately 1000 feet west of Capri Blvd., in Section
31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.18± acres.
[Coordinator: Gilbert Martinez, Principal Planner]
4. OTHER BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
6. ADJOURN
AGENDA ITEM 3-A
This item was continued from the May 9, 2019 HEX meeting.
The packet materials were submitted at the May 9, 2019 HEX meeting.
The attached is a supplement to the packet materials.
PETITION NO. CU-PL20180000383 – CERTUS PNR OWNER, LLC
requests a Conditional Use to allow an assisted living facility with 64 beds
within an Estates (E) district pursuant to Section 2.03.01 B.1.c.5 of the Collier
County Land Development Code for a 4.68± acre property located on the
north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 400 feet east of Whippoorwill
Lane, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. [Coordinator: Gilbert Martinez, Principal Planner]
ATTORNEY LETTER
DATED APRIL 16, 2019
From: David Swinehart <cevqs5@vahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:37 AM
To: Martinezcilbert <Gilbert. Martinez@colliercountyfl. qov>
Subject: Objection to Cooper Dock Boat Dock ExtensionPL20'180001018; Variance PL20180001748
Git,
As we discussed, here is my objection statement. Also one attachment of closed sales for lsles of Capri
covering the last year.
I am David Swinehart, owner of 31 W. Pelican St, parcel 77.1 . I wish to register my flrm objection to the
Cooper boat dock variance request PL20180001748. Referring to Mr. Mikula's extensive document and
being in full agreement with his points, I would like to add a few of my own.
Point One - Environmental impact
ln the review documents provided by Cooper and County it is proposed that because there was no sea
grass present there would be no environmental impact. This is not the case. Due to the prevailing North-
Northeast winds all construction debris will be pushed directly into this quiet corner of the bay. lt is well
known and sad fact that the local contractors often leave much to be desired when it comes to properly
maintaining environmentally friendly practices, being in the business of maximizing profit, doing the job as
fast as possible. All the construction crud floating into this corner will cause a disruption of the
environment and fish population at the very least for months. ln addition, driving the forty-some pilings will
cause unacceptable noise and vibration pollution in this restricted corner of the bay.
Point Two - Restriction of access and view disruption
ln the review document the area of proposed construction was referred to as the "dead end" area of the
bay and thus would have minimal impact on boat traffic. I strongly object to this summary dismissal of Mr
Mikula and my rights of free and unhindered access as currently exist and for which we paid and expect
to continue as such. Due to the Northeast winds and existing sandbar, access is already difficult,
especially in low-tide conditions. This construction would further complicate access. The addition of this
dock and "'17 foot skiff' would jut out significantly past all existing docks and boats, putting a navigation
hazard directly in our path. Further the construction barge itself would totally block lvlr. Mikula and my
access for an unknown period of time.
Point Three - Loss of property value
Attached you will find a document providing the list of closed sales for the lsles of Capri covering the
period of the past year. lt is obvious from the list that value depends significantly on location, canal, bay,
access, etc. lt is obvious from this list that Mr. Mikula and I are on the high end of this list (his property
was purchased well before this list, but based on current tax value as provided by him) prices paid rely on
the unobstructed access and view as when purchased. I was unaware of the pending construction, and
as such would have certainly carefully considered my offer and purchase price had this been disclosed to
me. As lt is now too late for those considerations I must insist on protecting the investment value I paid for
the property as a significant portion of the value is based on these two factors (existing view and
unimpeded access) which will be significantly affected by this construction. The simple fact is, Cooper
would experience a significant increase in property value while the surrounding properties would
experience a corresponding decrease in value.
To whom it may concern:
For these reasons the requested variance should be denied. Thank you.
David Swinehart
On Thursday, November 1,2018,2:57:55 PM EDT, Martinezcilbert.@twrote:
Hi David, per your request, please find the attached staff report and back up materials.
Sincerely,
Gil Martinez
Principal Planner
239-2524211
Mr. G ilbe rt Martinez,
I am writing to you in regards to petition # P120180001748, for request on setback, to reduce the
minimum setback from 7.5 ft to 1.3 ft. on the North side and Petition P120180001018, to extend dock to
2s5 ft.
I am concern that the setbacks will limit my ability to safely navigate my vessel when docking and
leaving port. These setbacks will not allow room to safely pa rk my vessel at the end of my dock. The
requested dock extension to 255 feet would further impair my ability to navigate. My dock is 210 feet in
length, the requested 255-foot dock would surpass my existing dock by 45 feet, resulting in inadequate
room to access my dock. My observation since the Hurricane Wilma and Hurricane lrma is that the mean
low tide has gained over a foot of water. I question if a recent water survey has been performed which
reflects the need for a dock extension. I would like my concerns be made known and be considered in
the petition hearing. Thank you for your time concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul Schneller
39 W. Pelica n St.
Naples, Fl. 34113
CasanovaAlexandra
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
MartinezGilbert
Wednesday, January 30,2019 L2:04 PM
BellowsRay; StoneScott; Jeff Rogers
SmithCamden; VelascoJessica
FW: Letter to DEPlSamantha Troast
15175 08-20-15 SS.pdf;ATf00001.htm; Attachment A - Varriance (dragged).pdf;
ATT00002.htm; Schuit's Su rvey.pdf; ATT0O003.htm
To All, FYI the email below and associated attachments are related to the Cooper Dock
Gil Martinez
Principal Planner
239-252-421.L
cffi*,Cov*tty
Growth Monogemenl Division
Exceeding Expecfofions, Every Day!
NOTE: Emoil Address Hos Chonged
2800 Horseshoe Dr. N
Noples, FL 34104
Phone.' 239-252-421I
From: Dave & Laura Mikula
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1.7:47 AM
To: sam.troast@ Florida DEP.gov
Cc: Steve. Kellogg@ DEP.state.fl.us; Ma rtinezG ilbert ; John Hooley
Subject: Fwd: Letter to DEP/Samantha Troast
RE:
Collier County Permit# PRBD2018084709301
DEP Case No. 18-1080
DEP Consent Order No. 18-01880
Of: Jerry and Mary-Anne Schuit at 35 W Pelican St., Naples FL 34113
1
Hello Samantha,
Thank you for your continued updates with regard to the DEP'S response to the non-
permitted dredging and mangrove destruction activities of Mr. Schuit. There has been
some response from them so lwanted to keep you in the loop with regard to the
ongoing issue of his creating a boat ramp over submerged lands and our property.
We retained legal council and on December 5, 2018, we filed a civil case in Collier
County against Jerry and Mary-Anne Schuit for his involvement in removing land from
the beach that was our property above the MHW line in order to create his boat launch
on what had been a narrow canoe path on his neighbor Cooper's property (Case # 2018-
CA-003725). Mr. and Mrs. Schuit responded to the suit and filed their answer denying all
activities to remove our land and also stated that they had permission from the DEP to
create this boat la unch in a DEP Consent Order dated 5/29/18. Five days after our filing
the civil case against him, Schuit was granted a permit to build his "Seawall at Existing
Boat Launch" from Collier County.
ln their response, Mr. and Mrs. Schuit are using the DEP's Consent Order and Collier
County's permit as a defense in this legal case. lf indeed they have been granted a
permit to proceed with the boat ramp and seawall, we would ask that your department
not just put their projects on temporary hold, but reconsider granting this authorization
altogether. I ask that you consider the same standard quoted in the DEP Complaint
(page 3, paragraph 2) that states "..in Rule 62-340.300(3), F.A.C. Wetland delineation
pertinent to potentially non-compliant activities do not consider the alterations as they
exist but rather what they were immediately before the non-compliant activities took
place" when you reconsider granting permission for his projects on land modified
through non-complaint activities. Also lwish to bring to your department's attention
once again that Schuit mislead the DEP and the County in stating that his boat launch
was "existing" when in fact he created it illegally and then proceeded to gain
permission. You are aware of the multiple removal events documented in dated
photographs we previously submitted to your office and the lot descriptions of our
property and Schuit's. We also submitted to your department our 2015 survey showing
the MHW line as it existed prior to any non-permitted dredging activity by Mr. Schuit,
Schuit's own survey of 2015 and the survey conducted by Turrell and Associates in 2018
for his neighbor Cooper's dock project. The Turrell survey shows the significantly
modified MHW line at the "boat launch" area behind our lots and removal of all lands
above the MHW line behind my house which were belonging to me. I have attached
them for your convenience. Schuit's lot description does not indicate "to the Mean High
Water" anywhere on it and in fact all of Schuit's property was above MHW prior to his
land modification activities. His property had absolutely no water access and he had to
cross a portion of our land to launch his boats. ln affect, he has been granted permission
to build a seawall where there was no sea and a launch where he has no access.
Jerry Schuit continues to press ahead with his agenda for water access at any cost both
with this launch behind his house and his involvement in Cooper's long dock. Jerry
Schuit is a successful home builder in Canada and clearly he can read surveys. These
were deliberate and intentional actions to deceive the authorities and bully and steal
from his neighbors (us). lt is our goal to have the land restored and we are strenuously
attending to that effort through all means possible. We understand it is also a serious
concern of the DEP a nd are greatly appreciative of your continued activities toward our
common purpose. Because of the abundant evidence we have submitted to your
department and the legal actions we have been forced to take, we are requesting your
assistance in revoking the DEP's consent to Schuit's seawall and a boat launch projects.
2
Sincerely,
3
Dave Mikula
33 W Pelican St
Naples FL 34113
4L2-337 -6099
makomik1997@smail.com
FEe)>=oII*J TJ Er\a l\sEEEE:EE
EEEs
HHEE
H=E
UE
F:Bjl
ilFil=
o
!
o
@o
I
s3aoooiiiiEEI:!\st**arEXET:::ilEllcEeseERiT
t:d
I
n
I
=N
2o
FDx
tigi
il6llail-il6ll5ll--il:ilollD8R^"i I>E;=*r==H:=ltsl9_pd>Br-=F
E
tr
9E!
Ett!Il
"<!
i
,trB
I,
s:EBE=EEtssBdaEBE
I
B
q
6
I*=
lg
9g
XS
Be
g"
I
d
lilgliiigilill*iffli
;gS;ESEIEgg=g*;s!E
:
il
llil
I
8idl
I
u
a
I
N
3
t,
Ic
lli!
:trcit
ltc
5Urt;Iur!
I t5,@
t t5_E2
,5-@'
WJ7'X\
I
rt
It
TB
e&
;688
8.q
aa
6tsds
8B!s
8s
u8-
8Bq8.
I
385 pFrl tBN=EE$B=E=Ns Er!!triTE 53AE=Esr Sl*nl +sEi *EFi 3alo !l;i IE=E i=--!=bfi -:E3 *SqE =ER=s
E=S E
sEE
heo
I
I
Ir
i:
E
Fz
Sdpaa llFiEiEu llEIEs!n ll;i*it: lll*8Bd llI:H:; ll=I=x;$Hsis ESE= 136sx HiEeEIB]B\E*IEpEH9:<98
It
i
o:
6
DAVD S OACOSTINO, PSM",:m,&
&INC.
Mpls,
CERTIFIED TO:
UVD UIKW NO UM IKUU fuSUNA M fiTEWIR6I U@INL NC. MU, ANAW ULg, ANMry Af UV
010 ww MnM nf5 NSUWr CO@Mf, tg@, at6
15175
1
*$T;
)
rloanal sr{ld:E MIsr.r !{icwlav^_ArNno}u:rdct Llun@l{lilJ\dynrlo x&o.Br l[d,a-!-FP
I
E
8eIg
5E
a)
=
s9tz
g
n
E
E'fAAtIrcF!tt9Ee
x
G
19
Bre
3:Bh,q H
$
4,1l
a
z
=zm
)
(
g.{
\
\
{q
\\
\
\
=zoaoAT
r2=ofie
a
-E
n
=zm
=2|\ >5
,.\ EE
\
q.
\\
A
=-€
Io5
r.2
z
I
l5
l#
It
EiiE;;;liisliil
irii',iiE,i*Ii
titt ,".-Et i,.l
I
0
o0
EEfi
Ig n
Itgsl'0lx
ari
oI
oz
.t
0tzgtI!
T
z
o
m
f
6
E
Z
t E,I
a
d
E 3tsE dld! Elgi =tt+
{
.D
o3!
o
@
-^.
(/
!
_l
]l
I
1
LEGAL. DBSCRIP'TION
L.r 7r. ldd oa C.Pr{ (r l O{ o. eod'd h
Pbr a6r ! .t t c. al or o! P\d(
l-d!. ot colh. cd9, n*ido.
{r.d oa kr'd t-rrH h
*r-;.i nr*r @ 2.22 ot ?.r. ,227,
c.r- csb. Flrirro Mnc h F\..nPso !.r;
i.06 Jl, io,.hb a! !.!lh, r..tt 2!
Edr. Cotir Cdlr, Flql&, brlc 6d
o.rll.1,|.d,.,-.Di,o1.b'.,
Ca!tr!.E .t rrr ldior'nt Cd ot t l,. l& .r cdi Ltri 0r- 6 ,tcra.a r.
a"i *or r ot Fr.n ., ol llx Pu$.
idr'{. .i Cr.fi.. Corr,, tldtb, u,a Mpfr d'al'6' tot d6a li. rld lr oi
bt 7C td o c,.r6.. o, !1!.m l..l lo
in. xarld cold o, -'d (,r ,r' or..
b.rto th. Poirl ol B.oin ig ol rrl Fa.l or
l6.d-n E rr..n!.d,.t't. 23'. .rrE tlt flo.{d.art rli .l t,,t
olf.Lr R..otd. &or 2'22
.r P.d r22r. CCrl. CMt, tbti.l. rt c
.in.;. or 7l.la rd, o.E. run sq,rr
atoa lo' E.i. Ir o d.td. oa 2.oa r-l to
. B,.r on th .rr-.16 0r th. Edl [.. ol
-! ra x, tt'oo run Sorin os.l oo' r-t
5r'ea ,-l io i't llodt-n
Cod oa ..li t l 71. tw. M tador
i9
co
dfo
o
9
5
Lor 7l
s 9 20' , lta zo tta)s iott'@' v t t 5-oo (l\)
0:_
D.ttll
0
s,9@t"a aattu)
GRAPHIC SCALE
,r0
iI
e
i
8r
?):
Itr:
ds
ai6{Ploll.d Lol Lhc
s
^s1s'oo'
E 6a0o'(PL)
N oo'lt'N' € tls.OO'(PL)
N @rt2o' E ttl*'(u),/2
aadaDiba
Lot 60
t
I ,+
!$lt-d'20
r6'lE: IIEV IOIIS riE l6tD Oal nt NOiTH
r5.crx vtxra{ o^lrx 6 rraa(tr^o)
FLOO: zoNE rNFORL llor{
FLoOO ZO.{E:AE Etfv E (MvD)
COMUUNmY: 120067
PrOlEc: Oa26 H
DAIE:5-16-2012
(1/2ty'3)60
't*
Lol 79
il
5r
I
I
aDEscnrPt,o,t; FURNTsHEo gY cLTENT
LOT 79
ISI.ES OF CAPRI. UNIT ONE
SEE LEGAI, DESCRIPTION
,S iECO(Om li. AIr AOOt-LA'$r-l- tvR '-r
OF IHE AraJC RECORDS Ol ldtialctullrY, FLOFIOAI
niaE uy ts {D.l1(xa ItStECnOr.S i{ rlt l.or Iic@ o.r tG Rrt Di^r r.Y E rUrO i rll€ I,uuc ltc&s t lx6 cuJxtY l
msr ltllI {o rasrRrar. lxc.
OLD REPUA.T MIolIA! TTILE INS'iiA'{C€ COI'P NY
GERALo SOrUI XIO l.^&r
^,{I{€
SCHU|T
R H.,r6 m ,ieot ,3 |udir ri Ero. r.o r.flt r* xt |tD.rrr naur6nc^,(r.6'rRIcq-
- tlor w, ,no(, na sasrrta do ncm a.!Ei !r^ r iL .!m Lrcat6lD ffi
- relfr , oofrlrs ro e-/aY r^,s o.6B h lrtaa DQ na !c'.6riirlD nnov? ,ntBr co..!a{t
".rs. r,.rz c/rd/
ra ".t.a *. *.'"{ -&
's orLY rd n€ LANoS a5 DESCA*o
cExrflc^ildtr c nn.t' ,oarlc 6rasn^cr iot it\Efo
xor Loc^tto uLfss roIED
oi^rtt gr J0 SC l,€: 1' - 20'
suF,rEY o^rE -_---.L!:L99f-rE!0 8oo( --!l!- Pr6€ --L!:f!-
&REViSTONS:6/0.^a d *rd 4.d.,
0!zrlr! ur-r. ir.tr r ra
A. TRTGO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
?DrErsIl! uF rruftrDE a IIPPB
222!t ttu)l clrllEi t YirtE3, ttDilDl !,aloe
llr(D sutlrnE ilrqll , raa{
96.0775.0!
+
D.a.lt SITE PLAN
MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY
tl
il
I
NLE NO:
CasanovaAlexandra
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SmithCamden
Wednesday, January 30, 2019 L2:23 PM
Ma rtinezG i I berU Bel lows Ray; StoneScot| Jeff Rogers
VelascoJessica
RE: Letter to DEP/Samantha Troast
Jeff,
I assume l'm bumping this since there is still a legal counsel issue?
Respectfully,
Note: Email Address Has Changed Camden.smith@colliercountvf l.sov
Tell us how we are doing by toking our Zoning Division Survey ot htto:l/bit.lv/CollierZonins..
Exc e e d i n g Exp e cto ti o n s
From: MartinezGilbert
Sent: Wednesday, January 30,2019 12:04 PM
To: BellowsRay ; StoneScott ; Jeff Rogers
Cc: SmithCamden ; VelascoJessica
Subject: FW: Letter to DEP/Samantha Troast
To All, FYI the email below and associated attachments are related to the Cooper Dock.
Gil Martinez
Principal Planner
239-252-42L1.
C,Rff,,,Couttty
Growth Ma n o gem e nl Divisio n
Exceeding Expecfofions, Every Doy!
NOTE: Emoil Address Hos Chonged
2800 Horseshoe Dr. N
Noples, FL 34104
1
Camden Smith, MPA
Senior Operations Analyst - Zoning Division, Operations Manager
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Ft 34104
Phone:239-252-1042
Phone: 239-252-421I
From: Dave & Laura Mikula <ma komik1997@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2oL9 LL:47 AM
To: sam.troast@FloridaDEP.gov
Cc: Steve. Kellogg@ DEP.state.fl.us; MartinezGilbert <Gilbert.Ma rtinez@colliercountvfl.gov>; John Hooley
< ih oo ley@ na plesattv. co m>
Subiect: Fwd: Letter to DEP/Samantha Troast
RE:
Collier Cou nty Permit# PR8D2018084709301
DEP Case No. 18-1080
DEP Consent Order No. 18-01880
Of: Jerry and Mary-Anne Schuit at 35 W Pelican St., Naples FL 34113
Hello Samantha,
Thank you for your continued updates with regard to the DEP'S response to the non-
permitted dredging and mangrove destruction activities of Mr. Schuit. There has been
some response from them so lwanted to keep you in the loop with regard to the
ongoing issue of his creating a boat ramp over submerged lands and our property.
We retained legalcouncil and on December 5,2018, we filed a civil case in Collier
County against Jerry and Mary-Anne Schuit for his involvement in removing land from
the beach that was our property a bove the M HW line in order to create his boat la unch
on what had been a narrow canoe path on his neighbor Cooper's property (Case # 2018-
CA-003725). Mr. and Mrs. Schuit responded to the suit and filed their answer denying all
activities to remove our land and also stated that they had permission from the DEP to
create this boat launch in a DEP Consent Order dated 5/29/18. Five days after our filing
the civil case against him, Schuit was granted a permit to build his "Seawall at Existing
Boat Launch" from Collier County.
ln their response, Mr. and Mrs. Schuit are using the DEP's Consent Order and Collier
County's permit as a defense in this legal case. lf indeed they have been granted a
permit to proceed with the boat ramp and seawall, we would ask that your department
not just put their projects on temporary hold, but reconsider granting this authorization
altogether. I ask that you consider the same standard quoted in the DEP Complaint
(page 3, paragraph 2) that states "..in Rule 62-340.300(3), F.A.C. Wetland delineation
pertinent to potentially non-compliant activities do not consider the alterations as they
exist but rather what they were immediately before the non-compliant activities took
place" when you reconsider granting permission for his projects on land modified
through non-complaint activities. Also I wish to bring to your department's attention
once again that Schuit mislead the DEP and the County in stating that his boat launch
was "existing" when in fact he created it illegally and then proceeded to gain
permission. You are aware of the multiple removal events documented in dated
photographs we previously submitted to your office and the lot descriptions of our
2
property and Schuit's. We also submitted to your department our 2015 survey showing
the MHW line as it existed priorto any non-permitted dredging activity by Mr. Schuit,
Schuit's own survey of 2015 and the survey conducted by Turrell and Associates in 2018
for his neighbor Cooper's dock project. The Turrell survey shows the significantly
modified MHW line at the "boat launch" area behind our lots and removal of all lands
above the MHW line behind my house which were belonging to me. I have attached
them for your convenience. Schuit's lot description does not indicate "to the Mean High
Water" anywhere on it and in fact all of Schuit's property was above MHW prior to his
land modification activities. His property had absolutely no water access and he had to
cross a portion of our land to launch his boats. ln affect, he has been granted permission
to build a seawallwhere there was no sea and a launch where he has no access.
Jerry Schuit continues to press ahead with his agenda for water access at any cost both
with this launch behind his house and his involvement in Cooper's long dock. Jerry
Schuit is a successful home builder in Canada and clearly he can read surveys. These
were deliberate and intentional actions to deceive the authorities and bully and steal
from his neighbors (us). lt is our goal to have the land restored and we are strenuously
attending to that effort through all means possible. We understand it is also a serious
concern of the DEP and are greatly appreciative of your continued activities toward our
common purpose. Because of the abundant evidence we have submitted to your
department and the legal actions we have been forced to take, we are requesting your
assistance in revoking the DEP's consent to Schuit's seawall and a boat launch projects.
Sincerely,
Dave Mikula
33 W Pelican St
Naples FL 34113
4L2-337-6099
makomik1997@gma il.com
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mailto this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
3
CasanovaAlexand ra
Flom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lois Georgeadis < lois.georgeadis@gmail.com>
Tuesday, January 22, 2079 2:59 PM
Martinezcilbert
variance,/extension letter
Collier varience letter.odt
Thank You,
Lois Georgeadis
330-523-01.17
lois.georgead is@gma il.com
Dear Sir, I am attaching a letter opposing the request for variance
#P1201800O1748 and also boat dock extension
#BDE-P120180001018. My husband and I own the home at 27 Pelican St.
W. and feel these exceptions would be very harmful to the bay and area
residences.
1
COLLIER COLINTY GROWT}I MANAGEMENT DEPT JAN.18,20t9
ATTN: GILBERT MARTINEZ
RE: 37 PELICAN ST. W.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
This letter is in response to the scheduled hearing for PETION NO. BDE-PL20180001018 and
PETION NO. VA-PL20180001748 - Mitchel and Karen Cooper.
My husband and I own the property at27 Pelican St. W. (lot 75). We are opposed to both the
request for a variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback and also to extend the boat dock to a
total of 255 feet plus an additional 17 feet for a skiff.
Everyone with proper water frontage should have the right to construct a boat dock. Waterfront
land is purchased at a premium and also taxed at a premium rate. Buyers are willingl to accept this
extra expense for the privilege of having water frontage and a pier or boat dock. Someone with almost
no water frontage or access to the bay should not be allowed to have the largest footprint on the bay. By
constructing such a long dock with so little frontage, the homeowner is infringing upon the riparian
rights of all the homeowners on the bay.
Riparian areas are an essential part of our aquatic preserve and should be protected. Allowing
the homeowner to remove a large area of mangroves and build a dock that protrudes 255 feet over the
shoreline would certanly do harm to the protected vegitation, wildlife, marine life, and seabirds.
Also, any boat that is tethered from only the bow, at the end of a 255 foot dock, would be an
extreem hazzard to all other properties during inclement weather.
Thank you for any consideration,
Paul and Lois Georgeadis
27 Pehcan St. W
Naples, Fl34113
216-978-6776 -Paul
330-523-0117 - Lois
1
CasanovaAlexandra
From:SmithCamden
Sent:Friday, May 31, 2019 1:13 PM
To:CasanovaAlexandra; BosiMichael
Subject:FW: PL20180001018 Cooper Dock IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE IN BACKUP???
Attachments:#3 Final Judgement.PDF; ATT00001.htm
Respectfully,
Camden Smith, MPA, PMP
2
reviewing this petition and and to be added to the packet to let them know of potential legal implications should this
project be approved.
From what we are able to ascertain, at 235+ feet, the size and scope of this proposed dock far exceeds anything
that is within usual variances for dock structures in Collier County. Our house has Pompano Bay directly behind
and is the last house to the west along West Pelican Street with a big-water view directly out the back. We are
highly concerned about the addition of such a structure that would be added to an already-crowded corner of the
bay, not only for aesthetics of viewing but also with regard to the value of our property which is established on
having a long water view of a natural bay.
Any infringement of our “right to view” has serious implications as a set forth in a historic lawsuit that set the
precedent in favor of property owners whose view has been “substantially and materially” obstructed. (Lee County
v. Kiesel 702 So. 2nd 1013 Fla. District. Ct. App. 1998). In this case, the land owner was awarded substantial
reimbursement for the obstruction of the view he had of a canal when the county built a bridge. In that case, the
bridge served a public benefit and still the award was given to the property owner for the loss of value of his property
when the view he purchased was obstructed 80%. In our case, this monstrosity of a dock is for the benefit of only
Cooper, who has no water view whatsoever and whose property is valued as such, and is solely to our detriment
and 100% in our view. The implications of infringing upon our “right to view” is currently being reviewed by legal
council. And that is only one issue.
Another is the fact that building such a dock in this corner of Pompano Bay will open up another potential conflict in
an area that already has a history of issues of with regard to ownership and riparian rights. A lawsuit was filed by
the then-owner of our property (Hufnagel v. Puente Case No. 02-1743-CA) and against Cooper and the other
neighbors to the west who encroached upon his deeded property. Hufnagel won his case and was awarded a Final
Judgement in 2005 and quiet title to all the lands north of Lot 78 to the mean high water line and those lands outside
of the platted Lot 79. This resulting warranty deed, which is now ours, extends to all lands to the north of our lot
including naturally accreted lands. This proposes a potential problem for anyone wanting to build north of our lot as
lands can be accrued to us and cause conflicts with other property owners who only have a quit-claim deed to their
water access portion of property that was previously state-owned. And indeed another conflict has occurred last
year when the owner of Lot 79 did non-permitted dredging in order to remove our accreted lands and modify the
mean high water line to the benefit of himself and Cooper and his survey and dock project forcing us to open a
lawsuit against the owner of Lot 79 to have our lands restored. (Mikula v. Schuit.) (It is our belief through the
materials we have uncovered in this lawsuit, which is currently open, that the owners of these two lots intend or
intended to build this dock for shared use.) Building anything on quit claim property is building on a shaky
foundation that can be undermined by anyone with a better claim to the property, such as the have with our warranty
deed to accreted lands. Without yet seeing the plans submitted for this newest scheduled hearing and based on the
plans that were submitted in 2018, the dock Cooper proposal not only infringes directly into our riparian lines, but the
dock itself overlaps accreted lands legally belonging to us.
Finally, there is the legal issue of our right to “quiet enjoyment” of our property that is afforded to us as owners of a
warranty deeded property. This proposed dock would incur foot-traffic and associated noise and would infringe
upon this right, which is not afforded to owners of quit claimed property. It also raises serious concerns we have for
privacy and security with potentially people we do not know or trust walking directly behind our house any hour of
the day or night.
Variances to standards that are used to solve minor issues are reasonable. This project is far outside reasonable
bounds and potentially would create far more problems than it solves. It is precisely for this reason that the
County has setbacks and standards in place to protect property owners and the government that serves them from
entering into potential conflicts such as this project would initiate.
We strongly urge you to deny this project.
Sincerely,
David Mikula
3
33 W Pelican St
Naples FL 34113
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
ATTORNEY LETTER
DATED APRIL 16, 2019