Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2021-29HEX NO. 2021-29 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. July 22, 2021 PETITION. PETITION NO. BDE-PL20210000519 406 Cristobal St - Request for a 20-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Land Development Code, to allow construction of a boat docking facility and vessel protruding a total of 40 feet into a waterway that is 358 feet wide, for property located at 406 Cristobal Street, legally described as Isles of Capri Number 3, Lot 579, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner seeks to modify an existing dock for a single-family home within Isles of Capri, subject to the RSF-3 Single Family Zoning designation. The existing boat lift accommodates a 25-foot vessel. The existing dock is proposed to be modified by removing a section to transform the "T" to an "L," and by adding a second boat lift for a 38-foot vessel. This request is needed because the total proposed protrusion from the property line to accommodate the new boat lift and vessel is 40 feet, which exceeds the maximum allowed protrusion of 20 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of the County Administrative Code. 2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person. Page 1 of 6 5. A public notice was published in the Naples Daily News on July 2, 2021, at least 15 days prior to the hearing; and a notification letter was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on July 2, 2021, at least 15 days prior to the hearing. A sign was also posted on the property 15 days prior to the hearing. 6. The County representative introduced the Petition and staff recommendations, followed by Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, and then public comment. 7. The County's Land Development Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boat dock extension request if it is determined that at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria, and at least four (4) of the six (6) secondary criteria have been met.' Primary Criteria: Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi- family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The property is located within a residential single-family zoning district. The number of dock facilities and/or boat slips appropriate for a typical single- family use is no more than two slips. The request is to maintain the existing condition of two boats; one is now proposed to be a 38 foot vessel with a boat lift and the existing boat lift is to accommodate a 25 foot vessel. The proposed modifications result in the dock and vessel combination protruding 40 feet from the property line. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this this criterion is not met. The water depth is not an issue. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) 'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 6 Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The proposed dock facility is to protrude a maximum of 40 feet into the waterway which is consistent with the existing conditions depicted on page 3 of the county's staff report and consistent with positions of neighboring dock facilities. Additionally, the proposed dock facility will not impact navigation as the waterway does not have a marked navigational channel; the entire Bay is open to navigation. 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The dockfacility is proposed to protrude 40 feet into a waterway that is approximately 358 feet wide, so the protrusion is under 12% of the width of the waterway. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The dock is proposed to maintain required 15 foot setbacks from the riparian lines, with no recognized impediments to the navigation of neighboring docked vessels. Secondary Criteria: 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The subject property shoreline consists of a concrete seawall with 85- feet of usable shoreline. The required side yard setbacks of 15 feet for a total of 30 feet leaves only 55 feet of buildable area for the proposed dock and associated vessels. Due to the applicant's vessel sizes and the existing adjacent neighboring docking facilities there is not enough space to design a dock and boatlift that would accommodate the applicant's vessel within the 20 foot limitations. The least impactive is to push the boatlift out further into the subject waterway as there is plenty of room for navigation and will not affect the waterway navigability. In addition, the consideration that the existing dock configuration is being maintained and potential protrusion appears to be less than the existing condition of dock and vessel protrusion shown in the aerial exhibit. Page 3 of 6 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The dock facility is proposed to be consistent with the previously permitted dock structure and is designed without excessive decking and provides sufficient area to allow for safe access to the vessel. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is not met. The proposed 38 foot vessel in addition to the 25 foot vessel totals 63 feet. This exceeds the 50 percent threshold of 85 linear waterfront feet, which calculates to 42.5 feet. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. The proposed boat dock facility satisfies LDC setback requirements from the riparian lines, and the existing dock configuration is being maintained. Potential protrusion appears to be less than the existing condition of dock and vessel protrusion shown in the aerial exhibit. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is met. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no submerged resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility. The applicant's Exhibit sheet provides an aerial with a note stating that no seagrasses were observed within 200 feet. The property is located adjacent to an ST overlay zone (Johnson Bay), which will require an ST-permit for the proposed docking facilities prior to issuance of the building permits. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated. Based on the record at the subject public hearing, including expert testimony and exhibits, this criterion is not applicable. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to individual docks behind individual residences. Page 4 of 6 ANAT,VSTS_ Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 5.03.06.11 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. The Petition meets 4 out of 5 of the primary criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria. DF,C'TSION_ The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20210000519, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. representing Beau Middlebrook, with respect to the property described as Isles of Capri Number 3, Lot 579, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following: • A 20-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Land Development Code, to allow construction of a boat docking facility and vessel protruding a total of 40 feet into a waterway that is 358 feet wide. Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Dock Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A — Proposed Dock Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Isles of Capri Number 3, Lot 579, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. An ST permit must be sought and approved prior to the issuance of any permits to construct the subject dock facility, consistent with the 20-foot boat dock extension. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6 fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ________________________ ____________________________________ Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner August 18, 2021 fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" F1 SUBJECT PROPERTY — APPROXIMATE RIPARIAN LINE SITE ADDRESS: 406 CRISTOBAL ST NAPLES, FL 34113 J °D I 14 34' DOCK TO REMAIN o +o 20 40 .SCAtZ9N%'EE7 0 EXIS'1ING SEAWALL EXISTNG 12' X 12' LIFT TO REMAIN I APPROXIMATE RIPARIAN LINE NOTES: • THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE • ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW • SURVEY COURTESY OF: *MARGO SURVEYING 3 MAPPING' SURVEY DATED: 03.2015 •» APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): SS • EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 781 • WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): 358' • TIDAL DATUM: » MHW (NAVD)= WAY MLW (NAVD)= 4.63' •» PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 692 • TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF)' 692 • TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL 40' Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. M IDDLEBROOK 406 CRISTOBAL ST. DESIGNED JR - DRAWN BY L Marine & Environmental Consulting - Oi 0-21 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 PROPOSED DOCK JOB NO SHEET Wi . 2101+ 03 OF 08 14 15 I - Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S RANGE- 26 E