HEX Final Decision 2021-64 HEX NO. 2021-64
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
November 12,2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO. BDE - PL20210001835 260 Conners Ave McKibben Dock - Request for a
14-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility
protruding a total of 34 feet into a waterway that is 268±feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section
5.03.06. The subject property is located at 260 Conners Avenue and is further described as
Lot 14, Block R, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests to remove and replace the existing boat docking facility with a larger dock
facility designed to accommodate a single 45-foot vessel. The new dock will protrude 34 feet from
the property line,the most restrictive point, into a waterway that is 268±feet wide at this location;
therefore, the proposed dock will occupy approximately 14 percent of the width of the waterway.
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 Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
Page 1 of 6
representative. There were several neighbors that made objections to the Petition at the public
hearing, including neighboring property owners, and numerous letters objecting to the Petition
were submitted prior to the public hearing. The petitioner owns the abutting residential home,
including the existing dock facility,located at 246 Connors Avenue,directly west of the subject
property.
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.1
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property is located within an RSF-3 Zoning District and supports
a single-family dwelling for which the LDC allows two boat slips. The proposed boat
docking facility comprises a single boat slip designed to accommodate a 45-foot vessel.
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET The applicant's agent states: The reason for this BDE request is due
to the applicant's vessel size and the two adjacent existing docks. The applicant owned
shoreline length is 80-feet and with 30-feet being within setbacks the only dock design
option in order to accommodate the applicant's vessels is to push the dock further out into
the waterway. The two adjacent properties have existing docks which limited the proposed
dock design due to lack of space to safe navigate the vessel between the docks for a more
parallel mooring design. As proposed the dock provides safe access to the slip as well as
maintains the required 15-foot setbacks and the overall dock protrusion has been fully
minimized.Additionally, the proposed design will not interfere with the adjacent properties
nor their access to their shoreline or subject docks/slips."
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET There are no marked channels within this area of Vanderbilt Lagoon and the
overall width of the waterway is approximately 268 feet across from the proposed facility.
As proposed, navigation within the subject waterway will not be impacted.
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET The approximate waterway width is 268 feet wide. The proposed dock
protrusion is 34 feet from the MHWL which is under 15 percent 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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET The existing dock facility satisfies the required side yard/riparian line
setbacks of 15 feet for dock facilities on lots of 60-feet or more in width. Neighboring
properties have the same setback requirements, therefore, there should be 30-feet between
dock facilities which is consistent for the area. The new dock will maintain these setbacks
and should have no greater impact. However, the size and configuration of the proposed
dock facility for a 45-foot vessel is excessive. The size of the vessel apparently drives the
desire for mooring at an angle to the seawall rather than perpendicular or parallel. The
proposed dock would protrude more than any other dock on this waterway, more than 10
feet past the neighboring docks.
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET.
Page 3 of 6
The applicant states: "The subject property special conditions that have been factored in
the overall proposed dock layout are the existing width of waterway, applicant owned
shoreline length and the adjacent docking facilities.As for the subject property's shoreline
length of 80 feet does not provide sufficient backing distances for a shore parallel mooring
like the existing docking facility. The typical design criteria for backing distance are length
and half of the vessel size utilizing the slip therefore we would need to provide 67.5 feet.
With the two adjacent properties both having existing docking facilities the shore parallel
design was not an option for this property. Based off that the only other option for this
property is to protrude further than the allowed 20 feet due to the subject property being
located on an open waterway. This allowed us to push the dock out further and still remain
within 25%width of the waterway as well as not to interfere with other vessel's navigation
on the subject waterway. "
The neighboring dock facilities must be considered when looking at the waterway as a
whole and furthermore that the actual length of owned shoreline factors into the proposed
boat dock facility design. The only reason for this petition is because the petitioner wants
to moor their very large vessel at their residence rather than at a marina more appropriate
for this large vessel. Owning a large vessel cannot be considered a "special condition. "
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET
The applicant states: "The proposed docking facility design provides reasonable and safe
access to the boat as well as provides the additional square footage needed for routine
maintenance on the boat, recreational activities on the dock like fishing, kayaking, or
paddle boarding. As designed this dock is still consistent with other docking facilities
within the Vanderbilt Lagoon waterway but can protrude further out into this section of
waterway as the property is on one of the larger bays within the Lagoon."
The decking is excessive even for a 45 foot vessel. The size of the vessel and the mooring
configuration appears to drive a large dock facility. Absent the mooring space, the dock
facility dimensions would be 50 x 34.
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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET The subject property has 80 feet of water frontage and the proposed
vessel to be docked at this location is 45 feet long. The vessels size exceeds the 50 percent
limitation.
Page 4 of 6
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The petitioner owns the home directly to the west so logically no
objection would be from that home. The home directly to the east will be impacted by the
larger docking facility and 45-foot vessel.
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor the neighboring
properties within 200-feet of the existing dock structure.
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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is
NOT APPLICABLE. The proposed project is for a single-family residential boat dock
facility. Section S.03.06.E.11, Manatee Protection Plan, is not applicable for this boat dock
proposal.
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 not approve the Petition. The Petition meets 3 out of 5 of the
primary criteria and 2 out of 6 secondary criteria(one secondary is not applicable in this case).
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby DENIES Petition Number BDE-PL20210001835, filed by Jeff
Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates representing Douglas G. and Christine E. McKibben, with
respect to the property described as 260 Conners Avenue, further described as Lot 14, Block R,
Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 14-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility
protruding a total of 34 feet into a waterway that is 268±feet wide.
Said changes are fully described in the proposed Dock Plans and Map of Specific Purpose Survey
attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Dock Plans and Map of Specific Purpose Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
260 Conners Avenue, further described as Lot 14, Block R, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates
Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
Petition is denied.
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.
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.
December 10, 2021
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT " A"
N w
N
o et i 1 d n
etas
A
�:3Xx'►�i iJiiiq
R r 11.
T r i a. , i
•J a Y in iili0118� l s g a g
D. ilitg$ 1 4 a a 4 a g Z
a kg geTl
� rII 23' I i N
n — W
CC
,II :\ >
Q
i .:' / 8 :
1 111 2
7 ZZvi 1 Y O
Jg \, , ., a OLL ,
1
\ ElL '^
W
II te
ay N
II116". Aof °a. c
d 0
U °QeNi �
V] � `g
0 J '�~'�Z b _ L) .v
'' FQ1 vpC*� �
re
IX a 2 (n i o�.Qg z
/
W 0 5 4
a } �— -
I c�W > 3
am „.......................4,: 34' �� ��
, h
in
N di.
4
1
ihili 1 I "11\ ]
p:121081.00 mddbben-280 canners aw1CA01PERMIT COUNTA21M1-BDE.dwp PROPOSED DOCK 1 WOr2021
Ur
Z -J
QW N
w CO W
2
g
7 .
I
t i
d
w N
i 2
CZ
wJ 1.- Nn .n P.
a 7 .ams1
0
cc
a.
s N
K it oi 1a i
0
w
z m
b WaY
reO
a .-. .-1 01
o } LL Z
W ° =.
U
ZN61.2 Zw
g g mpo $ Z c
I- u. > m WOIJ 0 O
w I
( _ § 0 _I
0
./.> (0 i
OD M N
co) li
a (�, o 3 ii
x� w o 0 � _1
Qm amQo i r=. c-, /r
III
1z
I
I
r, A
0:121081.00 mcWb0.n-260 cancan Svi1CADWERMIT•COUMY1210E143DEAwo CROSS SECTION M 10102021
in
. N
U1
U
A
W
11:11
Je l�t W ow
H u. '''s a
11, 000
w _
N el N W VP - ri,6
F
to W � 4 s o
IrcZO and 0
cnw c. z < s m
12
2 O o. F- v '•1 0
k U
a , > >.
ce
.. taw
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 (r .
4-1—)
I I i l l I I l l l l l I l I l l I l illp
�,; I— — Z W
W m 01 I , Z o -
l' t...1•••. OL(19j
U. ct wA - I I I oZ
, ' I I IN U m
N°
v, ! .i
NOUN
-t , t- 4 ' I- -. _
I I I I I I I I I I I Alc.1 �v
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �
eI $ E.
,cam U r1
wG cp3 i z -
IL Z O = asw > ZS
IF,f sliiii. : _ , ..:, , E...4 2t
Y!
5,
p:121081.00 mddbb.n-260 comma ava1CADiPERMTT-COUNTV121Oe1.BDE An SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY 10162021
\�_'L. r'•.i a'-, •`r" •
r �•'�
.
z I • .
� t.y
Nw
,UY ,, Z I Illm
=—.' =-,sz kA. ; F i
,to
t, 10z - aHIH
I
;a la I
•
1111
•
-g g, - ;ti : o -aa000
re CI AMIN! 12
i +r • ig x a
1*
w H'
18s +� 1144 r HwY61 IIIII1 W
i k 1 1{ W
aIli 1
It 4
A :u1J
!I II . ' .
.. \.t. P. 14i 4rks;''.:11C,..1.r,XL ,.. . ' 4*. ''''' .1, ""t‘ • , F
k4, J ,bz _ 4 W o -
0
,,,,... ._
Z Q
ib£ p
tr 'glif 1 0
o _ _ (0 i
4. N
oe. , 144 4, -.1 l ' rn
.OM.'r, i .•
...iiiik.k. a E $.
I A. • v1w
a
I ''4 < w
Yf, r - ic. 4
iikt
•
4i) v{,
--! ,ez r
p121081.00 mddbbwr280 canners mre1CADDPERMIT COUNTV1210818DE.dwg ADJACENT DOCKS 10/W2021
.:.1•.
ID
o. 1� ., yam ' Z W N
I 1 L r ` li, g W
ll;
v
'' . *II I, • 1 q 10 14.1 1 z.to ( -s11.
��//��r * NI".-•r'6(1 :I a
Ain A
i
Ili ;it
; .....t.4", 1....lii iu xW -‘ i 8.-t vco
' • Iv Ili. - . : lif t'-'
j ' 1-
3
!Re'ss- 1.4i li. f„. til
4X. Ir firtki% .N 1 >
L.. it- b' • . wzip g ; -,., J.4:41. 6 " , if i .1 .V"\41‘,P <le •
L
` s U Li' r Zle I A ` ' \ _
• s -. ,,,Iirolikillistw. 4' < -
i i i ,
. r40 4 I . .
r ilit t. ' .
` J 268'
Z
k I 0 —C/I-- :
i1 638' r
''r. 0
�':':.`\ \ t
t 1,,• , 1 0
ti re < ,i'''
�,y:yy� %Fjy, N
ar
tfit.
; o
u I ;t'1 litlAk\ ° 4; G x S
F - i ..... VI ..,.". ..=.4 p 6, ,,
' yip, ' • ,
"16° ' / 7 .A.' lic ' * , 'IP ,41,
'ttiiii‘ 6,. "-"‘'#4 ' '• ' .--1".1) 1 Et
i t - 1- ;11 . ,ott;',11,...7, ."i . --,,.. .- ,• 5 2 4
,,,,,,,")4t.,'.. ;„:-.', : . .., p_. .n;3.1
. ... ....,,...f,
.r i 4., , __
4► 4 CAlk-v,
t
pi21081.00 makIbbsn-280 camas eve CADiPERMITCOUNTY1210Bi-0DE dwg WIDTH OF WATERWAY 101&2021
Z d
C y � o pa ur hb
}Y{ a
VI 0 F n O O< W R g i r Y C p i N /-� C - o Yf
=1�by(�vJ,JQQag µZn1 0 = �LyQgj rrC�p Rye '�Y •\ § p�
..O o lct H.LL yP., Aixo 1 . Oso l7 ' = a W N • 'aQ O �aLL
O a _41 i ce 0PIU P F S "O p g. y V
ZZ Y y O y - n o
e 1
w
O -F W W U oc F.4 0N<O 6U w 0 yOwr m
N H Q W C F� IL `^i br
O 4j a F K � � 3 �4 u.
D i. 0 F J = o 5 YZi Ig.io 2 j w W �� `+�V ! �g �� o o a a in
y�C O iu
8 Wvz4
i ih ? Li! i 11 a t'-11
1 i
1 4 gals < 11 s 1 gay [It g i lier a•Eri 1
.� : 8b IAA o XZ :/ Q g y — _ �11-guilli i
t<s t., i I jai goh 41 g'� t 8i o z � lisp611a1 lig1 Eli 1 1<5 s2 ; ic itoa f 6 1
:3Y a s1F �pr ,� � Cfs wh 8 tSy 4 Lila; Dili!
014 .11r
i . rirS ai.gpoi. aSigaills t1 ; is :ii g. ff<g , > a
z �i �qq} g �}qwi
W INJ F c Io kli E1Mix ihb ` 1N iso Cit a ii � itl a
tg !-.9 2t ;.r $ tl a
_ €ors N h a Mat a Agai os m !la 95 o1 �X '®:o i t ' 'W i
O �04I % .�� �tg�� 189��3u
Cl VANDERBILT DR
I
I
,_,,,le•
gl > o8 Mgi8 1 ■ �6 a�
1n i, �o N00'14'40'W II _
4 I W oa t ,2,5r(� ` ,
Ruii Na � _
� _ J
i i ; O '
F I
:.. g lit
ill �°
_ _ S00'14'40'El N
h. 121.52(P) e @ I R
IIg�l- I..
to le
i !ig 11" ;
m 1
I
i F- § r 4:1;. 91.-;*1),
1 Ill
o
W tj 1/1
d.
r to
Ok. A .
, 3 6 k
, . 0
OM
m Z Z L V'" _ s m
o U . J V� Q
> .$,' .1 •)
lad %I
t �ej.T4wt. tI
. ,0 .. i 7.
r J
in W —
WW
Na rX Q
} WZ• cil N Z 7 g
UQ N it CDW h V
t
a. L ' • ' ' N v—
fY Z O •
O Z3 nO O
a.1-
• .,r } U d
Zce0
O Y F� o
J s0 WC) 0
11. JCL
J 00 CLo
0
LL
III J
O 0
lin
o N
U � Z q
Q Z A `"
IllQ O y
YID Z W LC Z �U e.A M
1- ,, polilinleil Ili
�02 IF
0� -Ellaw
Wiz =o §
y V V 4
-
1.11N .r =.'U
iifl
k:e— t=" 8
ELI ;fit�i,isura ,A. iiiIr•il"�`r,yr 0 H
11
M Aa
p 12108I.00 m l a0.n-280 mnnen avatCADIPERMIT.000N IY121081-8DE.dxp LOCATION MAP 10/8/2021
v :,
�. 3 W
.% ID
� N,
o
r°
,,40.4,
1 qr
,,tectik 1 p Q1eXC7-�
1,1 ; iy i Ai
c< gg SN ¢S t Wz
- ill Rs 10,,i
i
op Ai.
la
:i 141:11411 i° "
+ 1< g a 0
'� _ . . . = . . . . i2 / gill na VI
, +; W
M h
>
AP t lariljr111"6.4114 7 Q
41( ) (I) 2
122. f'`- ' 1
. oc 0
W
>
o a Z U
1 } Z Z w wco
z � 0WA a - , ZU w IZ U
co ' vi a Z o QZz _, co aPJ U� 8
' �i, d m con
1111
�. r.
—1 ) (0 i
. ille .*. \
En
/fir V �M M
41
4w,+ ,__ ________ __ __ __ __
s� ',
fn
122' 4
...� o'3 w W
— Q 4
4 1\jratior
cc liii
E. a
11#01...„4„._ i 1 I
*0.14
. -,,,.. .. i AI,
4ri.. .
46 ,.. Y , . „6,„VlifiV6H-t
Z.
0:1210e1.00,, LL,.,-280conn.na orADIPERMIT•COUN1V12101114DE.dwo EXISTING COMMONS 10/0/2021