HEX Final Decision 2022-19Page 1 of 6
HEX NO. 2022-19
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
April 14, 2022
PETITION.
Petition No. BDE-PL20210001685 - Request for a 17-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 that will protrude a total of 37 feet into a waterway that is 1,311±
feet wide, pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for the benefit of
property located at 109 Pago Pago Drive West, also described as Lot 217, Isles of Capri No.
2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The Petitioner requests to remove and replace an existing shore parallel dock facility with a shore
perpendicular dock facility comprising a single boat lift for a 35-foot vessel.
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 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-4 zoning district and is
improved with a single-family dwelling for which the LDC allows two boat slips. The
proposed project consists of a single dock that will be used to moor a single 35-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
BEEN MET. The water depths at the subject property do not permit the existing lift to be
utilized at low tide. The existing lift is utilized to moor an approximately 31-foot vessel
(with motors included) in a shore parallel configuration. Mooring a larger vessel at this
location in the same configuration would therefore stand to have equal or bigger issues at
low tide. Additionally, the designation of this area of Isles of Capri as part of the Rookery
Bay aquatic preserve prevents dredging from ever occurring.
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 does not protrude into any marked or charted
navigable channel and will not impede any vessel traffic as it is in a portion of the Bay that
naturally restricts through-traffic.
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 waterway width from the subject property to the nearest landmass is
1,311 feet. The proposed dock protrusion will inhibit less than five percent of this distance.
However, we also acknowledge that there is a fire department pier that parallels the subject
property that is much closer than the opposite landmass. There will still be approximately
189 feet of navigable space between the end of the proposed dock and the fire department’s
pier. The proposed dock would therefore protrude less than 20 percent of the distance
between the subject property and the fire department’s pier. Furthermore, following
construction of the proposed dock, 50 percent of the width of waterway will remain 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 will satisfy side setback requirements and will not
interfere with public navigability or with ingress/egress to any of 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
BEEN MET. The main obstacle surrounding this property are the required setbacks, the
neighboring properties, and the aquatic preserve. Configuring a dock that can
permanently moor a 35-foot vessel inside of the standard 20- foot protrusion limit and 15-
foot setbacks, and that also allows for ingress/egress without conflict from structures on
neighboring properties is difficult or not possible to do in many cases. This is especially
true considering that the aquatic preserve prevents dredging from occurring at this
location. The simple solution is to provide mooring in a shore perpendicular configuration.
This avoids conflict with neighboring docks and allows for hassle-free mooring with easy
access to the deepest water depths at the subject property.
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.)
Page 4 of 6
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The typical buildable zone within the subject property’s riparian area (that
does not require a BDE or side setback variance) is an approximately 35-foot by 20-foot
box (or 700 square feet). The proposed docking facility will cover only about 221 square
feet. Furthermore, the proposed dock is small enough to be considered exempt from
needing a permit at the state level and is a reduction from the size of the existing facility.
Staff does not disagree and further finds that the 4-foot walkway is the minimum width for
safe access and that the 12-foot by 14-foot terminal platform is not determined to be
excessive for the placement and staging of materials used for routine maintenance and/or
the staging of embarking and disembarking passengers and gear.
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 approximately 65 feet of shoreline and the
applicant’s vessel is 35 feet, length overall; thus, the length of the vessel will exceed 50
percent of the property’s linear water frontage by 3.85 percent.
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 existing dock facility consists of a canopy and dock which collectively
cover approximately 604 square feet of area. The new dock will not have a canopy and will
cover about 221 square feet of area. The new structure should therefore provide a net
improvement to the views of the neighbors
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.
Page 5 of 6
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 5 out of 5 of the primary
criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria, one of the criteria found is found to be not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20210001685, filed by Nick
Pearson of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. representing George J. Merkling, III, with respect to
the property described as 109 Pago Pago Drive West, further described as Lot 217, Isles of Capri
No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida, for the
following:
x A 17-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 37 feet into a waterway that is 1,311± feet wide.
Said changes are fully described in the Dock and Site Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject
to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A – Dock and Site Plans
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
109 Pago Pago Drive West, further described as Lot 217, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32,
Township 51 South, Range 26 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.
Page 6 of 6
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
May 12, 2022
EXHIBIT “A”
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY
AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
<> LATITUDE: N 25.9703694
<> LONGITUDE: W -81.6978927
<> 109 W. PAGO PAGO
NAPLES, FL 34113
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg LOCATION MAP 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
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
KEY WEST
TAMPA
FT.MYERS
MIAMINAPLES
EXHIBIT "A"
N
E
S
W
01020 40
SCALE IN FEET
,
109 W. PAGO PAGO
NAPLES FL 34113
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg EXISTING AERIAL 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
EXISTING AERIAL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-02 OF 07
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:
"BENCHMARK LAND SERVICES"
MM-DD-YYYY
-1.63'
0.42'
65'
600
1,311
35'19'4'4'EXISTING
COVERED BOAT LIFT
EXISTING
DOCK
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RIPARIAN LINE
EXISTING
SEAWALL
65'110'65'
RIPARIAN LINE
110'
P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg 1/31/2022N
E
S
W
0 5 10 20
SCALE IN FEET
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg PROPOSED DOCK 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
PROPOSED DOCK
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-03 OF 07
4'
PROPOSED
DOCK
EXISTING
SEAWALL
PROPOSED
LIFT
AA
04
SUBJECT PROPERTY
12'14'8'
12'13'37'15'22'
20'
BB
04
30'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 PROPERTY LINE:
"BENCHMARK LAND SERVICES"
MM-DD-YYYY
-1.63'
0.42'
65'
600
1,311
221
221
37'
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg CROSS SECTIONS 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
CROSS SECTIONS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-04 OF 07
SECTION AA
SCALE: 1" = 6'
ALL PILES TO BE
WRAPPED FROM 12"
ABOVE MHWL TO 6"
BELOW SUBSTRATE.
MHW = 0.42' NAVD 88
MLW = -1.63' NAVD 88
PROPOSED LIFT
PROPOSED DOCK
SECTION BB
SCALE: 1" = 8'
PROPOSED DOCK
ALL PILES TO BE
WRAPPED FROM 12"
ABOVE MHWL TO 6"
BELOW SUBSTRATE.
MHW = 0.42' NAVD 88
MLW = -1.63' NAVD 88
12'
PROPOSED LIFT
29'
37' PROTRUSION
12'
7'13'17'
EXISTING
SEAWALL
P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg 1/31/2022N
E
S
W
0 30 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-05 OF 07
TYPICAL DIVE TRANSECT
NO SEAGRASSES WERE
OBSERVED GROWING
WITHIN 200 FT OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
TRANSECT
200'10'20
0
'
SUBJECT PROPERTY
P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg 1/31/2022N
E
S
W
0 50 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg ADJACENT DOCKS AND WIDTH OF WATERWAY 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
ADJACENT DOCKS AND WIDTH OF WATERWAY
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-06 OF 07186'140'20'19'20'20'18'25'
NOTE:
THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY37'
P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg 1/31/2022N
E
S
W
0 30 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
REV#:
CREATED:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO.:
DESIGNED:P:\21016.00 Merkling-109 Pago Pago Dr. W\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21016-BDE.dwg ST OVERLAY 1/31/2022THESE 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.:
NP
RMJ
01-31-22
21016
-
ST OVERLAY
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-07 OF 07
ST
OVERLAY
SUBJECT
PROPERTY