HEX Final Decision 2021-43HEX NO. 2021-43
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
September 9, 2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO. BDE-PL20200001107 - Request for a 40.3-foot boat dock extension that
extends 20.3 feet from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater
than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility with two boatlifts and
a boathouse with a 1.3-foot roof overhang that protrudes 41.6 feet into a waterway that is
872+/- feet wide. The subject property is located at 275 3rd Street West, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
Petitioner seeks to replace an existing dock with a dock facility comprising two boat slips and a
boathouse on a razed property of 0.24+ acres located within a Single Family Residential (RSF-4)
zoning district. The docking facility will have two boat slips, each with a lift, one to accommodate
30-foot and 10-foot vessels, respectively.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. 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.
5. The County representative introduced the Petition and staff recommendations, followed by
Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, and then public comment. There were no
objections to the Petition at the public hearing.
Page 1 of 7
6. The County's Land Development Code 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. The County's Land Development
Code Section 5.03.06.F. lists the criteria for a Boathouse. The Hearing Examiner may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny a Boathouse request if it is determined that seven (7) out of
the seven (7) criteria have been met.'
Primary Criteria:
1. 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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The property
is located within a residential single-family zoning district; the proposed docking facility
with boathouse will have two slips, each with a boat lift.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The petitioner
has demonstrated via survey and the provided cross-section, that water depths adjacent to
the subject property are too shallow to allow for the docking of vessels absent a BDE.
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 record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The proposed
dock facility does not intrude into marked or charted navigable channel, thus there will be
no adverse impact on navigation. The proposed dock, boathouse and lift have been
designed not to impede navigation and is consistent with all the neighboring docks along
the shoreline.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
BDE request is for 41.6 feet, including boathouse roof overhang, as measured from the
seawall. The "Overall Site Plan with Aerial" the actual waterway width is 1019.5± feet;
The overall protrusion of the proposed dock facility into the subject waterway is 4.08
percent. The proposed width between dock facilities will be 872.5f feet.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The submitted
plans reveal no impediments with neighboring dock facilities.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
property and adjacent neighboring properties along this shoreline all have special
conditions that require alternative dock design options, one of those conditions is the
natural shoreline makes it difficult to dredge the subject property which could reduce the
overall protrusion out. The record provides that of the seven other properties within this
subdivision that have western waterfronts, six have been approved for BDEs and the 7th
has an active petition.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. As shown on
the drawings by the petitioner, no excessive deck area is proposed.
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.)
Page 3 of 7
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been met. The subject
property has 80 feet of waterfront. Two vessels are proposed, one being 30 feet long and
the other 10 feet for a combined total of 40 feet which is exactly 50 percent of the waterfront
lot width.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The proposed
facility will be setback from the riparian lines in accordance with the requirements of the
LDC. The drawing in the applicant's support material labeled Overall Site Plan with
Aerial shows that the proposed facility will be comparable to the others along the same
waterway.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The
submerged resources survey provided indicates that no seagrass beds exist within the
footprint of the dock. No seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is NOT APPLICABLE. The
provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to individual docks
behind individual residences.
Boathouse Criteria:
1. Minimum side setback requirement: Fifteen Feet.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. Asper the
submitted site plan, the boathouse will not exceed mandatory side yard/riparian setback
requirements.
2. Maximum protrusion into waterway: Twenty-five percent of canal width or 20 feet,
whichever is less. The roof alone may overhang no more than 3 feet into the waterway
beyond the maximum protrusion and/or side setbacks.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
BDE request is for 41.6 feet, including boathouse roof overhang, as measured from the
seawall. In the "Overall Site Plan with Aerial " the actual waterway width is 1019.5± feet;
Page 4 of 7
The overall protrusion of the proposed dock facility into the subject waterway is 4.08
percent.
3. Maximum height: Fifteen feet as measured from the top of the seawall or bank, whichever
is more restrictive, to the peak or highest elevation of the roof.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The proposed
height is 15 feet above the seawall.
4. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site: One.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. Only one
boathouse is to be built on this property.
5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all 4 sides.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The boathouse
will be open on all four sides.
6. Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on the
principal structure or may be of a palm frond "chickee" style. A single-family dwelling
unit must be constructed on the subject lot prior to, or simultaneously with, the construction
of any boathouse or covered dock structure.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The roofing
material and color of the proposed boathouse will match that of the existing single-family
residence serving as the principal structure at this location.
7. The boathouse or covered structure must be so located as to minimize the impact on the
view of the adjacent neighbors to the greatest extent practical.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The boathouse
is located within the required side/riparian setbacks and is consistent with other similar
facilities along the subject shoreline.
ANALYSIS.
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.H
of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. The Petition meets 5 out of 5 of the
primary criteria and 5 out of 6 secondary criteria. With respect to the Boathouse element of this
project, the Petition satisfies all 7 of the 7 required criteria.
Page 5 of 7
nF C'ISION_
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20200001107, filed by Bill
Nelson and Sabrina Dobbins of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, representing PBK Properties,
LLC, with respect to the property described as 275 3rd Street West, Bonita Springs, Lot 2, Block
F, Replat of Unit No. 3, Little Hickory Shores, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 40.3-foot boat dock extension that extends 20.3 feet from the maximum permitted
protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of
a boat docking facility with two boatlifts and the establishment of a boathouse with a 1.3-
foot roof overhang that protrudes 41.6 feet into a waterway that is 872± feet wide, for the
subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Dock Plans and Survey attached as Exhibit "A" and are
subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Dock Plans and Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
275 3rd Street West, Bonita Springs, Lot 2, Block F, Replat of Unit No. 3, Little Hickory Shores,
in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. A building permit for an allowable principal structure must be obtained prior to obtaining
a building permit for the subject dock facility; and
3. A Certificate of Completion for the subject dock facility will not be issued until such time
as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for an allowable principal structure at this location.
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
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.
Page 6 of 7
APPF AL S.
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 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
Proposed Dock Layout
GREG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 949-5588
Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 275 3`'d St W
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Date: 5/24/2021
Approved Signature:
Approved Date:
Proposed Dock and Boathouse Layout
..4
-Lot Width - 80-feet
- Required Side Setbacks-15-feet
- Maximum Protrusion Requested: 40.3-feet,
measured from the Seawall.
1- Per LDC Section 5.03.06.F.2 a boathouse roof
Imay overhang no more than 3-feet into the
'waterway beyond the maximum protrusion and/or
iside setbacks. There is no encroachment into
,side setback and the boathouse roof alone will
,protrude no greater than 41.6-feet which is less
than the 42.8 allowable.
South
P/L
30.7'
31 2'
Wet Face of Seawall
41.6' 40.3'
Total Over Water Sq Ft 1209
Proposed Boathouse
(16'wx35'I)560ft2
i
Proposed
7,000 #
Boat Lift
w/ Thru Row
I Decked PI
Proposed Dock Id 12.0'
489 ft2 60,
32 5' 14 16 3'
North
P/L
Existing Seawall Property Line { 4" waterward of wet face)
GREG ORICK MARINE Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 275 3''d St W
CONSTRUCTION, INC.Bonita Springs, FL 34134
(239) 949•5588 Date: 5/24/2021
Approved Signature:
Approved Date:
1.33'
3 1' Draft
2'
Dock Facility — Cross Section
PL
41.6'
35'
Proposed Boat i ft1 fl Roof Material & Color
same as Principal Stn
40.3'
G REG ORICK MARINE Name: Stuart Wood
CONSTRUCTION, INC. Address: 275 3`'d St W
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
(239) 949-5588 Date: 5/24/2021
15.0'
0.2' Cap to PL
Approved Signature:
Approved Date:
Wet Face of Wall
Proposed Dock Level
w/ the Existing Seawall
3.8' NAVD
—1.5' Seawall Cap
L5' Cap to Wet Face
Little Hickory Bay
-- — 914.1'
872.5'
Available Navigable Channel from Proposed Dock to Existing Dock Across
1019.5'
Total Waterway Width from Closest Point 1019 5
(MHWL to MHWL as indicated on Survey)
Proposed Dock and Boathouse
with a Total Protrusion of 41.6'
North l_
P/L
South`s
P/L �"
m
0
x
3
N
n
10
N
0
N
ALE: 1 "
4�P 1FfQgTO��'y
N . 5335
ST TE OF -
'a.
°•4 RID-`
'�FOg RVEy OP���,
�y11 11111\\\1\
PREPARED FOR: STUART WOOD
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: NOVEMBER 11, 2019
AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
0191
mAY Wgmd SY Wayne D. Apnol, R. S. M.
naoom ON, E=epn49rQa001, CN- Wayne D.
BY-y!(ayQe n n9"^I;rjL_'. m. AqL. R. S. W. Oe N�noiBo Dm 6 8-ow,
1 -.L-Neplse WW"C=US
Deb. 2021.0528 08:3523.04%'
WAYNE D. AGNOLI, R.S.M., NO. 5335 DATE
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH
BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES.
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE
ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF THE FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER.
ADDITIONS
OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORTS BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING
PARTIES
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS
PROHIBITED BY
CHAPTER 5J-17 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY IS CERTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF FIELD SURVEY, NOT
THE SIGNATURE DATE.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
2. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM
EAST ZONE, NAD 83/90 DATUM AND REFERENCED TO THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK F. LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 3,
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AS BEING SOUTH 89. 33' 28" EAST.
3. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 1988.
4. THE VERTICAL CONTROL ACCURACY FOR THIS SURVEY WAS BASED ON THE
FLORIDA STATE PLAIN
COORDINATE SYSTEM EAST ZONE NAD 83-90 DATUM.
5. THE HORIZONTAL CONTROL ACCURACY FOR THIS SURVEY ACHIEVED THE
COMMERCIAL/HIGH RISK LINEAR: 1 FOOT IN 10,000 FEET.
SURVEYORS NOTE:
C
275 3RD ST. WEST BOUNDARY SURVEY
x -7.80
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS
}
WD
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING
Q
MLWL(-.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS
D]
x -5.89
WD x
}
D70
W
N
p
x
Y
U
J
PROPERTY LINE
~
(80' PER PLAT)
SCALE: 1"=20'
SEE PAGE 1
x -5.05 x _33''33
WD
RIPARIAN
LINE
W I
- — — — — —
—y—— —
W%. 99
— — — — — — — — —
x All
x -8.25 S-10
WD d:
x -6.20
WD Zx A
'3•�p
x w9.69 w2.6x8
DxWD x-SD.91 D
W
EXISTING DOCK
-------------------
RIPARIAN LINE -4.44 _
�c x x
-10.27 x -22�42 -1.63W
WD -7..44 WD WD WD
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.7'
SYMBOLS LEGEND
rE; = ELECTRIC BOX
= LIGHT
S1; = WATER SERVICE
FE = PROPERTY LINE
MHWL=0.01' NAVD88
MLWI=-0.80' NAVD68 (ij
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.7'
EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB
ROPERTY LINE
,—EXISTING BRICK PAVERS
W
Z7
xG EXISTING WALL
O
ND
N
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.W
71
AND
XR&
EXISTING FENCE
LINE
O
275 3RD ST. WEST EXISTING CONDITIONS
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS
}
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING
Q
MLWL(-.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS
m
r
N
o
`1
_U
2
J
PROPERTY LINE
(80' PER PLAT)
SCALE: 1"=20'
�=
SEE PACE 1
J
RIPARIAN LINE
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
PROPOSED 16'x10' BOAT LIFT nm
W I DECKED PLATFORM
PROPOSED DOCK
W / PILES
X 9.75'
NOTE: PROTRUSION
n IS MEASURED FROM
n WETFACE
(WIDTH OF BAY)
— — — — — — — — — I ---------
RIPARIAN LINE
2'
PAL {`
EDGE OF ::k_;',::::'.
SW CAP
SEAWW,
DETAI
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.7'
MHWL=0.01' 8
MLWL=-0.80' NAVNAV D88 Qjj
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.7'
EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB
ROPERTY LINE
,—EXISTING BRICK PAVERS
—EXISTING WALL
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.8'
EXISTING FENCE
■
LINE
O
275 3RD ST. WEST PROPOSED DOCK
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS }
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING
MLWL(-.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS 0]
}
N o
Y
U_
2
J PROPERTY LINE-)
(80' PER PLAT)
SCALE: 1"=20' J SEE PAGE 1
RIPARIAN LINE
PROPOSED 16k1U' BOAT LIFT
W I DECKED PLATFORM
PROPOSED DOCK
W / PILES
1.33'
OVERHANG
1 3T
OVERHANG o ^ NOTE: PROTRUSION
IS MEASURED FROM
`I n WETFACE
(WIDTH OF BAY)
- - - - - - - - Ll - - - - - - - - -
RIPARIAN LINE
2'
P/L ;;t,•
EDGE OF
SW CAP
WF
SEAW,
DETAIi
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.7'
MHWL=0.01' NAVD88
MLWL=-0.80' NAVD88
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.7'
EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB
ROPERTY LINE
EXISTING BRICK PAVERS
-EXISTING WALL
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.8'
EXISTING FENCE
4
LINE
(D
275 3RD ST. WEST PROPOSED BOATHOUSE
W
Z7
0
EA
fTl
U)
1
N
13 1
14
15
16
17
SCALE: 1"=100'
18
19
7
20
8
21
9
22 10
23 11
16
O
)I +
i
�z +s
1019.5'
IF
275 3RD ST. WEST BAY WIDTH
for, STUART WOOD
a—sg
XXX
88e; MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT 2, BLOCK F
drawn:
LITTLE HICKORY SHORES, UNIT NO. 3
Ln
SECTION S. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH & RANGE 25 EAST
checked;
(PLAT BOOK 6 3 PAGE 2)
VVDA
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
add #.
!� date:
1225 51 MAY 25, 2021
00!
S
�Wta�`1GNOLI OWN scale: 29
project
iman
iipARBER & cogo #:1'
os-0o66
sheet #.
iiini RUNDAGE,-,
Ptnfeasbnal Etghreen, Pannero, Lath Survtyas 8 Ltuds®ye Ardlitttq!
of
>',asrm aNtLsw ma, Nlp.RNlM r 2"7a1+
file#:
f:"tlM1b ot�.r,vebon Na.la 1L61 EBB &LC21000Cat F-r=A6