HEX Final Decision 2022-25HEX NO. 2022-25
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
April 28, 2022
PETITION.
Petition No. BDE-PL20210002609 - Request for a 20.3-foot boat dock extension from the
maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction
of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 40.3 feet into a waterway that is 156.1 feet
wide. The subject property is located at 5328 Barefoot Bay Court and is further described as
Lot 7, Block A, Barefoot Bay, in Section 06, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The applicant desires to replace an existing single -slip shore parallel boat docking facility with a
shore perpendicular docking facility with two slips; one slip with a boat lift for a 25-foot vessel
and the other with a platform lift for two 11-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. There is a Companion Petition No. VA-PL20210002610 for dock side/riparian a setback
reduction on the east side from 7.5 feet to 6.3 feet.
Page 1 of 6
6. 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.
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
BEENMET. The subject property is located within an RSF-S zoning district for which the
LDC lists private docks and boathouses are an allowable accessory use subject to LDC
Section 5.03.06. Said property is an irregular shaped lot with 51.05± feet of water frontage.
The proposed boat docking facility has two slips, each with a boat lift, one for a 25 foot
vessel and the other to accommodate two 11 foot personal watercraft. The proposed dock
facility will replace an existing dockfacility that required an 8-foot BDE that was approved
by the Collier County Planning Commission in 2003 (CCPC Resolution No. 02-10).
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 existing shallow natural mangrove shoreline, further restricted by a 10-
foot Conservation Easement, make it impossible to moor a vessel at Mean Low Water
without a boat dock extension as is demonstrated in the attached bathymetric survey and
cross-section.
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 Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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
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 156.1± feet wide as measured from MHWL to
MHWL, the requested protrusion is 40.3± feet; therefore, the proposed dock facility will
occupy 25.8 percent of the waterway which leaves 74.2 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 dock extension does not interfere with neighboring docks as
shown in the aerial drawing. The Neighboring dock to the West egress/ingress on their
boatlift is parallel to their shoreline and the neighbor to the east dock and boat lift is
located mainly on the east side of their property allowing easy launching. The claims are
not entirely supported with respect to the property to the west which is also directly
impacted by the companion variance request; however, it is noted that the petitioner has
obtained a "Letter of Concurrence for Setback Waiver" from both adjoining property
owners indicating they are fully aware of and have no objections to the proposed dock
facility; said letters were obtained in response to State of Florida requirements. Given said
letters, I find that this criterion has been satisfied.
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
Page 3 of 6
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 25'
long, which is a typical size boat for the area, so it would protrude past the allowable 20'
when docking perpendicular to the shoreline. The recorded Conservation Easement
extends 10 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.
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 allows reasonable and safe access to the vessel
without excessive deck area as shown in site plan survey. The design of the proposed boat
dock is for one dry slip recreational vessel, and one kayak/PWC lift to be maintained safely
without incidence. The 4-foot walkways are required to transgress that Conservation
Easement; the wider portions of the proposed dock facility are necessary for the staging of
passengers and equipment required for maintenance
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 51.05± feet of water frontage; vessels to be
docked at this facility include a 25 foot vessel and two 11. 7foot personal watercraft with
a combined measurement of 48.4 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
BEENMET. 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
Page 4 of 6
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
not apply to single-family dockfacilities exceptfor 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 5 out of 5 of the primary
criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria with one of the criteria being not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. BDE-PL20210002609, filed by Mark
Oreus of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, Inc. representing Marc J. Rosenberg and Angela M.
Rosenberg, with respect to the property as described as 5328 Barefoot Bay Court and is further
identified as Lot 7, Block A, Barefoot Bay, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 20.3-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 40.3 feet into a waterway
that is 156.1± feet wide, for the benefit of the subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Dock Plans and Cross -Section attached as Exhibit "A" and
the Site Plan Survey attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Dock Plans and Cross -Section
Exhibit B — Site Plan Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
5328 Barefoot Bay Court and is further identified as Lot 7, Block A, Barefoot Bay, in Section 6,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida
Page 5 of 6
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. Companion Petition No. VA-PL20210002610 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.
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.
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
YF
West
kiparian
k
%cullim
'110,4000mew . ftw�
Nw,
East rf
Riparian
,-8.4
Proposed Dock
— 156.11 Water Way Width
400,1'k\410
000
40000f
pa ri
b`Ripari
0 ,r ■ a
1r �
k
if
aSt P
iparian
!d Dock
115.87 From End of Dock to MHVVL
1
Dock Cross Section
40.E
GREG ORICK MARINE
INC.Address:
CONSTRUCTION, C�
(239) 949-5588
Name: Marc Rosenberg
5328 Barefoot Bay Ct
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Date: 2/14/2022
Approved Signature:
M
1
�,
Approved Date:
EXHIBIT "B"
CURVE 1 RADIUS I ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH 1 CHORD BEARING DELTA ANGLE
Cl 1 10.00' 1 18.79' 1 16.15' 1 N 41'03'51" E li 107'39'32"
FOUND PK NAIL
&DISK L85151
SCALE: 1 "= 30'
FOUND PK NAIL
&DISK L87373
/ N 85'06'23' W 32.72'
G�
FOUND IRON ROD
&CAP LB6569
D. E.
P O 4
a00
o� 7
fP � D. E.
S W58
\ ti
O
O
FOUND PK NAIL
&DISK UNKNOWN
`S 5440'12" W
10.06'
N 35'24'36" E
9.76'
REFERENCE LINE
PREPARED FOR: MARC ROSENBERG
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: OCTOBER 28, 2021
AGNOU, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
04U* s*wd by Wayno D. Agnoli, R. S. M.
DN: E-agnoltw®abbft.m . CN- Wayne D.
BY--WayAE D—Agnol m FL-S, M. A9-1J3.1 srsaw LBarbw 6
8lumike, Inc.'. L-Napka, S=F1oAEa• C=US
Date: 2022.02.16 08:54:14-05'00'
WAYNE D. AGNOU. 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.
ADDI TIONS
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.
OGENERAL NOTES:
D.E.I. 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
�j EAST LINE OF LOT 7, BLOCK A, BAREFOOT BAY,
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS BEING NORTH 36' 50' 01" WEST.
10.0' CONSERVATION EASEMENT
3, HORIZONTAL COORDINATES WERE DERIVED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS USING A
TRIMBLE DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER (MODEL R10), RECEIVING CORRECTIONS
N 87'57'11" W FROM TRIMBLE VRS NOW RTN (REAL TIME NETWORK)
7.78 4. VERTICAL: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD 88).ELEVATIONS WERE ESTABUSHED USING LONG TERM
OBSERVATIONS WITH A TRIMBLE (MODEL RIO) DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER GPS
(GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM).
SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY IS TO LOCATE THE SEAWALL
AND THE WATERWARD EXISTING CONDITIONS ONLY. NO UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS
HAVE BEEN LOCATED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
5328 BAREFOOT SAY CT.
4� F
No. 5335
STATE OF
:•
F •'•�Op.. ea
yt,Q al1RVsloP
Oate
1262
FEBRUARY 15 2022
scale'
1'=30'
oDgo Y'
09-0086 1
J7
TOP OF RIP—R
j N
y t
ROPERTY LINE x NO
MLWL - `._ iCND
SCALE: 1 "=10'
PROPERTY LINE x GND
MHWL o
GND y TOE OF RIP —RA
303 ANGROVE LINE 0' CONSERVATION EASEMENT
TOP OF RIP —RA
• �/� ,Y�F
1.68 ��''t3i 6 XISTING NEIGHBORS DOCK
WD '�•
OPOSFA RE —INSTALL
MANGRO LINE .. BOAT LIFT NOTE: MHWL =0.01'
MLWL=-0.80'
x 514\ \ a\ ` WD = WATER DEPTH
\ (WATER DEPTH WAS DETERMINED AS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MLW ELEV. Ac BOTTOM ELEV.)
CENTERLINE OF ROAD=4.52
'CND
1O•
x W5, • ��
� x 7.01 T.32 %•
WD x WD O
x 6.42 x7.15
� 5328 BAREFOOT BAY CT. PROPOSED DOCK
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
for
W/11114' ALUMINUM PLATFORM, MARC ROSENBERG d°s xx
7.05
Wp title: MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT 7, BLOCK drawn:
BAREFOOT BAY Lp
SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH & RANGE 25 EAST checked:
x 6.83 (PLAT BOOK 35 & PAGE 62) WDA
WD PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA aced 0:
W/ PILES ■uu view
mono iiii■A■NOLI LIMITS
P��
imommWARBER &
XISTING NEIGHBORS DOCK MOMMOMIp sheet#•
iiiiiiluRUNDAGE,
0' CONSERVATION EASEMENT Pna wnol Enelneen, Planners, Led Su`wyms&Leese A,.ft a Of
r400m 104e a 200.nw.FLUIW vn..osslsna+n fib#'
CMeetlF MAuegietlbn l la 3W ee 3W&LC200WM F-RSOjSU4M
date:
1262
4
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
stab:
1'=10'
COgO #'
09.0086.7
TOP
U
PROPERTY LINE J
f
g2p
PROPERTY LINES x GND
4.1 x
GND
0' CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1
TOP OF
x GND
x
MLWL
x U4
x W4
x Vg5,
x 7.01
WD
x y042
x W5
x 8.83
WD
`\-EXISTING NEIGHBORS DOCK
TOE OF
LINE
5 g2
x'D
STING DOCK
8y9D5x
�yGG j`S6'
x 1.32
x7.15
� y
N
SCALE: 1 "=10'
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
XISTING NEIGHBORS DOCK
NOTE: MHWL =0.01'
MLWL=-0.80'
WD = WATER DEPTH
(WATER DEPTH WAS DETERMINED AS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MLW ELEV. & BOTTOM ELEV)
CENTERLINE OF ROAD=4.52'
5328 BAREFOOT BAY CT. PROPOSED DOCK
pate:
1262
FEBRUARY 15. 2022
Seale:
1 =1a
cogo B:
Dg-0086.1