Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2022-11Page 1 of 6 HEX NO. 2022-11 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. February 24, 2022 PETITION. Petition No. BDE-PL20210000104 - Request for a 21-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 41 feet into a waterway that is 121.6± feet wide for the benefit of property located at 1680 Vinland Way, also described as Lot 19, Landing at Bear’s Paw, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner is proposing to construct a dock facility with a single slip, with boatlift, to moor a vessel of up to 36 feet in overall length. 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 representative. There were no objections at the public hearing. Page 2 of 6 6. 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 (BDE) 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 the residential development area of a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for which the RPUD document specifically allows each platted single-family lot located along the Golden Gate Canal two boat slips. The petitioner desires to construct a dock facility with a single slip with boatlift to accommodate a vessel of up to 36 feet in overall length. 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 BEEN MET. There is insufficient water depth at the 20-foot protrusion line as measured from the property line, the most restrictive point of measure. 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. The proposed dock facility will only protrude 30.4 feet from the MHWL into the subject waterway that is approximately 121.6 feet wide from MHWL to MHWL. The entire waterway is used for navigation as there are no navigational markers indicating the exact thread of navigation. The residences on the opposite shore have their docks on a different canal/waterway. 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 1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized. Page 3 of 6 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 121.6 feet, MHWL to MHWL. The requested total dock protrusion is 30.4 feet from the MHWL which is 25 percent of the width of the waterway; therefore, more than 50 percent of the waterway is open for navigation. 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 BEEN MET. The new dock facility incorporates a shore parallel design and will not exceed the 7.5-foot side setback requirements from both property/riparian lines. The dock facility and location have been designed to satisfy required setbacks, provide safe access to/from a vessel, and not to interfere with any future neighboring dock facilities that may be constructed. 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 BEEN MET. The design of the proposed dock facility is greatly influenced by a property line that was pushed back during the design phase of the development to allow for the canals shoreline to be stabilized using rip-rap. At this location the property line is 11± feet landward of the MHWL. Due to this condition the existing dock protrudes further out into the waterway in order to decrease the access walkway’s slope and to reach out to adequate water depths to safely moor the vessel and allow the boatlift to function properly as well as the dock as it is an existing floating dock. 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 BEEN MET. The proposed dock facility has been minimized in order to meet the County dock building guidelines, the approved PUD, and be constructed within the 25% width of waterway. The proposed protrusion is consistent with the other dock designs that have been approved within this same development along subject shoreline. The design also Page 4 of 6 provides adequate and safe access to and from the vessel while still allowing room for other recreational use like fishing and kayak/paddle board storage on the dock. 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 67 feet of water/canal frontage, and the proposed dock facility has been designed to moor a single 36-foot vessel which equates to 53.73 percent of said waterfrontage. 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 BEEN MET. The proposed dock facility is one of potentially 14 other single-family docking facilities to be constructed along the subject shoreline not including the HOA’s docking facility. The proposed dock facility uses a shore parallel design and will satisfy the required 7.5-foot side/riparian setbacks applicable to this RPUD. All waterfront homes desiring a dock facility along this shoreline will have similar challenges and no one homeowner should be impacted more than another. 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 provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to single-family dock facilities except for those within the seawalled basin of Port of the Islands; the subject property is not located within Port of the Islands. 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 Page 5 of 6 of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. The Petition meets 5 out of 5 of the primary criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria, with the sixth criterion being not applicable. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20210000104, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. representing David Sherrill, Trustee of the C. David Sherrill Trust, with respect to the property described as 1680 Vinland Way, further described as Lot 19, Landings at Bear’s Paw, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following: x A 21-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude a total of 41 feet into a waterway that is 121.6± feet wide, pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for the benefit of the subject property. Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Site and Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A – Proposed Site and Dock Plans LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 1680 Vinland Way, further described as Lot 19, Landings at Bear’s Paw, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida CONDITIONS. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 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. Page 6 of 6 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 March 25, 2022 EXHIBIT “A”  <> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY <> LATITUDE: N 26.166989 <> LONGITUDE: W -81.781228  <> 1680 VINLAND WAY NAPLES, FL 34108 REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg LOCATION MAP 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - LOCATION MAP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -01 OF 07  858 82 886 41 MARCO ISLAND EVERGLADES CITY 93 29 846 NAPLES 90 90 839 94 837837 841 29 29 29 839 839 92 887 846 951 862 I-75 84864 31 856 850 846890 896 N E S W SUBJECT PROPERTY KEY WEST TAMPA FT.MYERS MIAMINAPLES EXHIBIT "A" N E S W 01020 40 SCALE IN FEET  , 1680 VINLAND WAY NAPLES FL 34108 REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - EXISTING CONDITIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -02 OF 07 MHW = 0.44' (NAVD '88)EXISTING TOP OF BANK AND RIP RAP RIPARIAN LINE RIPARIAN LINE EXISTING RIP RAP PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE TOE OF RIP RAP 7.5' SE T B A C K 7.5' SE T B A C K APPROX MLW -1.53' (NAVD '88) x SURVEY COURTESY OF: xx SURVEY DATED: x THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. x ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW x APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): x EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): x WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): x TIDAL DATUM: xx MHW (NAVD)= xx MLW (NAVD)= NOTES: "COURT GREGORY SURVEYING, INC." 05-10-21 -1.53' +0.44' 67' 0 121.6' RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE ADJACENT EXISTING DOCK AND LIFT ADJACENT EXISTING DOCK AND LIFT N E S W 0510 20 SCALE IN FEET  , 1680 VINLAND WAY NAPLES FL 34108 REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg DOCK PLAN 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - DOCK PLAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -03 OF 07 MHW 0.44' (NAVD '88) EXISTING TOP OF BANK AND RIP RAP RIPARIAN LINE RIPARIAN LINE TOE OF RIP RAP 6'20' RAMP DOWN 6' OPTIONAL BOAT LIFT FIXED DOCK PROPOSED HAND RAIL 10' AA 04 7.5' 7.5' PROPERTY LINE 10'51' 18' APPROX MlW -1.53' (NAVD '88) PROPOSED HAND RAIL 27' 4'X4' FLARE (TYP) 18'15.5 '30.4 ' MHWL PROTRUS ION41' x SURVEY COURTESY OF: xx SURVEY DATED: x THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. x ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW x APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): x EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): x WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): x TIDAL DATUM: xx MHW (NAVD)= xx MLW (NAVD)= NOTES: x PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): x TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): x TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: "COURT GREGORY SURVEYING, INC." 05-10-21 -1.53' +0.44' 67' 0 121.6' 542 542 30.4'11' RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE41' REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg CROSS SECTION 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - CROSS SECTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -04 OF 07 MHW 0.44' (NAVD '88) EXISTING RIP RAP TOE OF RIP RAP FIXED DOCK PROPOSED HAND RAIL MLW -1.53' (NAVD '88) 15.5' BOAT LIFT 3'EXISTING TOP OF RIPRAP 20'6' ALL PILES TO BE WRAPPED FROM 6" BELOW SUBSTRATE TO 12" ABOVE MHW 30.4'11' 41' PROTRUSION 03612 SCALE IN FEET DEPTHS VARY PROPERTY LINE 30'20'32' N E S W 050100 200 SCALE IN FEET  , 1680 VINLAND WAY NAPLES FL 34108 REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg ADJACENT DOCKS 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - ADJACENT DOCKS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -05 OF 07 MHWL PROPERTY LINEVINLA N D W A Y 41'42'34'34'36'47'46'44'43' NOTE: THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.60'± THREAD OF NAVIGATION N E S W 050100 200 SCALE IN FEET  , 1680 VINLAND WAY NAPLES FL 34108 REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -06 OF 07 PROPERTY LINE NO SEAGRASSES WERE OBSERVED GROWING WITHIN 200 FT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 200'121.6 '10' TRANSECTS N E S W 050100 200 SCALE IN FEET  , 1680 VINLAND WAY NAPLES FL 34108 REV#: CREATED: DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:p:\20000 garland jobs 2020\20000.29 sherrill-1680 vinland way\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\20000.29-BDE.dwg WIDTH OF WATERWAY 1/10/2022THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.S E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. REV BY:DATE:CHK BY: CHANGED: SHEET NO.: JR RMJ 01-10-22 20000.29 - WIDTH OF WATERWAY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -07 OF 07 PROPERTY LINE 25% WIDTH OF WATERWAY121.6 ' W IDTH OF WATERWAY30.4 '41'