HEX Final Decision 2022-13HEX NO. 2022-13
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
February 24, 2022
PVTTTInN
Petition No. BDE-PL20210000155 - Request for a 31.1-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 51.1 feet into a waterway
that is 125.1 feet wide. The subject property is located at 177 Topanga Drive and is further
described as Lot 86, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 06, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner desires to construct a new dock facility with two boat lifts, one for a 32.7-foot vessel
and the other for two 11.7-foot personal watercraft.
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 1 of 6
6. There is a companion Petition No. VA-PL20210001516 for dock side/riparian setback
reduction.
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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property is located within Tract H, a residential component,
within the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD for which a Building Permit has been issued for a
single-family residence; No. PRBD20210208241, as of this date said permit is in "inspect"
status and inspections are being performed as construction progresses. Said property is an
irregular shaped lot with 63.2 feet of water frontage. The proposed boat docking facility
has two slips, each with a boat lift, one for a 32.7 foot vessel and the other which will be
segmented to accommodate two 11. 7foot personal watercraft.
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
BEENMET. The existing shallow natural mangrove shoreline, further restricted by a 20-
foot Conservation Easement, make it impossible to moor a vessel at Mean Low Water
without a boat dock extension.
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 and lifts have been designed not to impede navigation
and that protrusions are consistent with neighboring docks along the shoreline. Said boat
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
dock facility does not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel, thus there
will be no adverse impact on 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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicable waterway is 125.1± feet wide as measured from MHWL to
MHWL, the requested protrusion is 51.1 feet; therefore, the proposed dock facility will
occupy 40.8 percent of the width of said waterway which leaves 59.2 percent of the
waterway open for navigation. The residence on the opposite shoreline is allowed a single
dock facility; said facility is located at a location that will not further decrease the
available thread of 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 proposed boat dock facility will not interfere with neighboring dock
facilities. The dock to the west has a perpendicular orientation to the shoreline and the
dock to the east has its boat slips ingress/egress aligned from the east.
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 proposed dock facility is in an area of Little Hickory Bay that has well
developed mangroves that extend many feet beyond the county allowed dock protrusion of
20'. Also, due to the narrow shoreline configuration and presence of existing neighboring
docks, a boat can only come in perpendicular to the shoreline. The proposed boat is 32.7'
long, which is a typical size boat for the area, so it would protrude past the allowable 20'
when docking perpendicular to the shoreline. Criteria met due to the size of the proposed
boat and by extending the dock beyond the reach of the mangroves to navigable water. The
recorded Conservation Easement extends 20 feet landward of the MHWL and requires the
docking facility to be waterward of the mangrove fringe; together with the shape of the
property's shoreline qualify as special conditions not related to water depth.
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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The subject docking facility is comprised of a 4 foot -wide finger pier with a
10 foot by 16 foot terminal platform. The 4-foot pier is adequate for safe access and that
the terminal platform is required for reasonable loading/unloading and routine
maintenance of the vessels to be moored at this facility; therefore, any excessive decking
is minimal at best.
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 63.2± feet of water frontage; vessels to be
docked at this facility include a 32.7 foot vessel and two 11. 7foot personal watercraft with
a combined measurement of 56.1 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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The proposed dock has been designed within the designated riparian lines
and is consistent with the existing docks along the subject shoreline. Additionally, as the
subject property is located within the coast high hazard area, as per the future land use
map (FLUM), most residences are constructed well above grade with the habitable area
being over parking.
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. The submerged resources survey provided indicates that no seagrass beds
exist within 200 feet of the proposed 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 evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is
NOT APPLICABLE. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do
Page 4 of 6
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
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, with the sixth criterion being not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20210000155, filed by
Mark Oreus of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, Inc. representing Timothy W. Paul, with
respect to the property described as 177 Topanga Drive and is further identified as Lot 86,
Southport on the Bay Unit One, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
• A 31.1-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width, for a total protrusion of 5 1. 1 feet into a waterway
that is 125.1± feet wide, for the benefit of the subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Site Plan and Proposed Dock Survey attached as Exhibit
"A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Site Plan and Proposed Dock Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
177 Topanga Drive and is further identified as Lot 86, Southport on the Bay Unit One, in Section
6, 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. Companion Petition No. VA-PL20210001516 must be approved for the subject dock
facility to be constructed within the setbacks provided herein; absent such approval, this
BDE is rendered null and void.
Page 5 of 6
3. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued for a principal structure, a single-family
residence, at this location prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for an
accessory structure; to Wit: the proposed dock facility
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.
March 25, 2022
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
PREPARED FOR: TIM PAUL
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: DECEM13ER 4, 2020
ACNOLI, BARBER k BRUNDAGE. INC
PRDFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
N LITTLE HICKORY BAY
BY____ VYByFle-B-A§ReIF�S. M. awomiS-F-
La.1—
ILJJ`I
Lu.'
1-4
��,.,,�., i,P,a., s•rwa.aus
WAYNE D. AGNOLI• R.S.M.. NO. 5335 DATE ------------ —___—
SCALE: 1' = 30'
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH
BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER SJ-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
FOUND IRON R
LINE/MHWL
CHAPTER 5J-17 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
@ CAP 'UNKNOWN'
LEV.
ELEV.=0.01'
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY IS CERTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF FIELD SURVEY, NOT
TiE SIGNATURE DATE.
OUND 5/8-IRON ROD
/�]
FOUND X4 CONCRETE)
CENERAI NOTES:
MONUMENT
Q F '
(, J
1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
^
2. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM
(l•`J
8
EAST ZONE. HAD 83/90 DATUM AND REFERENCED TO THE
2
EAST UNE OF LOT 96. SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY, UNIT 1,
SECTION 6. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AS BEING NORTH 13' 57' 54' WEST.
3.HORIZONTAL COORDINATES WERE DERIVED BY CPS OBSERVATIONS USING A
a
TRIMBLE DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER (MODEL RIO). RECEIVING CORRECTIONS
o
-
f
FROM TRIMBLE VRS NOW RTN (REAL TIME NETWORK)
Z
4-VERTICAL: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM
"�•\
OF 1988 (NAVD 88).ELEVATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED USING LONG TERM
OBSERVATIONS WITH A TRIMBLE (MODEL RIO) DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER CPS
.- •
(GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM).
SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY IS TO LOCATE THE SEAWALL
10 U.E.
, '
AND THE WATERWARD EXISTING CONDITIONS ONLY. NO UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS
HAVE BEEN LOCATED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
\'OUND
�
o;1s26'29•'
103.50.
177 TOPANGA DR.
� TINT PAUL °esl°"'
IRON ROD—�—
@ CAP L.B.5896
A�103.50
A
OUND 5/8' IRON ROD
'- IBk: MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT ISa—
N11OUND
SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY, UNIT N0.1
IRON ROD
SECTION B, TOWNS HIP 4850U1NAMNGE25EAST 11a d:
& CAP L.B.2503
,. --"
(PUT BOOK 15 B PAGE 52)
COWER COUNTY, FLORIN BCaE N:
1
r
D9 EMe: TpA.,
TOPANGA DRIVE
1TB. 2021
■ IN 1—SB
'C
. ,..-
I.:
wb: gajaCa:
ARBER 8 1 09-0086
co90 a:
Whent III:
EXHIBIT "A"
f � NW'L
IJUI"I ELEV =0 O7'
SCALE: 1"=20'
MANGROVE DRIP UNE
LITTLE HICKORY BAY x 8.4
WD
x
x BwdT
YWD
x 8WD 8.6.9
x MO zWD
x
8 x So
x WO
WD
WD gg
WO x W9
WD z
WD xwD
x
x,9 x US
xWO z1Bw2 WU
x vYI}�
x
7�9 x I
x N97,6 x
x
WD WD
WO
x WD
WD
z
WD WD
x z
x 7.3
yp 1
x WD
W�D1
8 x 47
x 3Yro0
xaC xU
MANGROVE DRIP
/ EXISTING FED
RVEYOR'S NOTE: THE MEAN HIGH
INE AS SHOWN IS THE LEGAL BOUT'
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND STATE OWNE
(REFER TO P.B.15, PG.51)
yxpx
GNU GN4 ONO
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
20' LANDWARD OF MHWL
'GAL BOUNDARY LINE k MHWL
(SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE)
ROPERTY UNE PROPERTY
RF
DOCK
z GND
NOTE: MHWL -0.01'
MLWL=-0.80'
WD = WATER DEPTH
(WATER DEPTH WAS DETERMINED AS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MLW ELEV. h BOTTOM ELEV.)
CENTERLINE OF ROAD-4.73'
177 TOPANGA DR. EXISTING CONDITIONS
...':----PROP. LINE/MHWL rar. TIMPAUL
ELEV.=0.01' .o x
SCALE: 1"=20'
MANGROVE DRIP LINE
LITTLE HICKORY BAY
its
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
WIlSlX12'1 ALUM. WALK PLANK
F
MANGROVE DRIP LINE
MLW
SO'
I
f
J
/ EXISTING F
r
RVEYOR'S NOTE: THE MEAN HIGF
INE AS SHOWN IS THE LEGAL BOL
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND STATE OWN
(REFER TO P.B.15, PG.51)
ELEV -0 01'
:OPOSED DOCK
XISTINC DOCK
5.�•
2
p
A NOTE TOTAL DISTANCE
PROPOSED \y OF PROP. LINE AT
10' WOOD PRE �% L1HWL-63.2'
(TVP.7 `m
.Lp 5
ROP. LINE/MHWL
ELEV.=0.01'
CONSERVATION EASEMEN
20' LANDWARD OF MHWL
AL BOUNDARY LINE & MHWL
SURVEYOR'S NOTE)
PROPERTY
LINE
TG g
177 TOPANGA DR. PROPOSED DOCK
3AJ
N
ROPOSED DOCK
SCALE: 1-10'
L6
(V
XISTING DOCK
� 151'
16.0'
5• 1
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
o
W116"X12'1 ALUM. WALK PLANK
o
r`
12.2'
11.3'
NOTE: TOTAL DISTANCE
OF PROP. LINE AT
ANGROVE DRIP LINE
ROPOSED
MHWL=63.2'
MLWL
10" WOOD PILE
E LE V. - - . 80'
(TYP.)
177 TOPANGA DR. PROPOSED DOCK
.7�
TIM PAUL
SOe: MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT SS
SOUHPORT ON THE SAY, UNIT NO.1
d-
1S ]f
26 �'
20 �1
J
SECTION
NS.TOWNSHIP /S SOUS RANGE25EAST
M
(PLAT BOOK 15 S PAGE 52)
COW ER COUNTY. FLORIN
PQ Eab:
WDA
eCetl k:
Wwv:
O8JUNE21.2021
—
P jd III:RBER
8 T.10'Tgn E:.c
LR...E.
C.
4.0'
Ae raMYEp6"rt.PWrn. sM at .an6 WtltepaMh
"ram. rlsta,vv ":fmr�111
C�NYSNpvlom�lb Nae".OKMalcAnmm faP M�
anwl
Me lk