HEX Final Decision 2022-30 (Amendment #2)Page 1 of 7
HEX NO. 2022-30
AMENDED HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
(Deleting necessity for revised plans)
DATE OF HEARING.
June 23, 2022
PETITION.
Petition No. BDE PL20210002628 - 96 Southport Cove Chaffe - Request for a 42-foot boat
dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section
5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100
feet in width, to allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 62 feet into a waterway
that is 184± feet wide. The subject property is located at 96 Southport Cove and is further
described as Lot 2, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, in Section 06, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner desires to construct a new boat dock facility with two boat slips, each with a boat
lift, one for a 25.1-foot vessel and the other a 41.9-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. Mr. Robert Feisberg, the neighbor located at 94 Southport Cove provided a
Page 2 of 7
letter of objection and voiced his objection at the public hearing as to the size of the requested
boat dock extension and its impact to the surrounding neighbors. The neighbor at 98 Southport
Cove provided a letter of objection and the neighbor at 92 Southport Cove provided a letter of
no objection, however expressed some concerns in the letter regarding the requested boat dock
extension.
6. Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting
of this request. The shoreline for this property contains mangroves. The proposed dock will be
constructed waterward through the mangrove fringe. The access walkway will be 4 feet wide
and constructed beyond the mangrove fringe parallel to the shoreline. Any additional impacts
to mangroves will require written approval from Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no
submerged resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility. The
Submerged Resource Survey sheet page 5 of 8 indicates no seagrass have been observed within
200 feet of the proposed docking structure. The property contains a conservation easement just
landward of mean highwater line (OR Book 1756 PG 1358). A site visit revealed a portion of
the conservation easement has been impacted; therefore, the applicant has provided a
restoration plan to restore the area with native plant species.
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.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 improved with a single-family residence within a
residential component of a PUD. The petitioner desires to construct a dock facility with
two boat slips, each with a boat lift, one for a 25.1-foot vessel and the other for a 41.9- 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
1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized.
Page 3 of 7
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 natural mangrove shoreline notwithstanding, a vessel could not be
moored or launched at the subject location as the water depth at Mean Low Tide within
the 20-foot protrusion limit is only 1.2 feet. Given the bathymetric survey and cross-section
contained this is shown to be true.
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 intrude into any marked or charted
navigable channel and is near the terminus end of the bay, shaped similar to a cove, with
little navigation other than for neighboring properties. That being said, the dock facilities
across the waterway consists of numerous slips with lifts, making the cove a potentially
crowded waterway, even though it is not a “marked or charted” channel.
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
NOT BEEN MET. The applicable waterway is 184± feet wide as measured from MHWL
to MHWL, the requested protrusion is 62 feet; therefore, the proposed dock facility will
occupy 33.7 percent of the width of said waterway. The width between dock facilities on
either shore is 78 feet; therefore, only 42.39 percent of the total waterway width is
maintained for navigation. The dock facilities across the waterway consists of numerous
slips with lifts, making the cove a potentially crowded waterway, particularly for
petitioner’s 42-foot vessel.
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 facility has been designed not to interfere with
neighboring dock facilities. As depicted upon the Proposed Dock Plan, the proposed dock
facility satisfies setback requirements. The neighboring dock facility to the north uses a
shore parallel design and the dock to the south is perpendicular to the shore.
Page 4 of 7
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 subject property has a natural mangrove shoreline that cannot be
impacted or removed due to it being recorded as a Conservation Easement which requires
the dock to be on the waterward side of the mangrove fringe; the dock has been designed
with a 4-foot-wide walkway to transverse the conservation easement.
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 proposed boat dock facility has been designed to moor two marine
vessels; said design includes two 5-foot catwalks on both sides of the 42-foot slip and one-
sided access to the smaller vessel from the main deck area. Reducing the 5-foot catwalks
to 4 feet would provide reasonable, safe, access to the vessels for loading/unloading and
routine maintenance of said vessels. The reduction will eliminate excessive decking and
reduce the protrusion into the waterway.
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 93.23± feet of water frontage and the two
vessels combined (41.9 feet plus 25.1 feet) total 67 feet; therefore, they will account for
71.87 percent of the waterfront value.
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.
Additionally, the natural mangrove shoreline serves as a visual buffer of the waterway.
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.)
Page 5 of 7
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
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 this Petition with conditions. Because the Petition
meets 4 out of 5 of the primary criteria and only 3 out of 6 secondary criteria (with the sixth
criterion being not applicable), the Petition is conditionally approved if the Petitioner meets
secondary criteria #2 through compliance with condition #3 below.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby conditionally APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20210002628,
filed by Bill Nelson of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, Inc. representing 96 Southport Realty,
LLC, with respect to the property described as 96 Southport Cove and is formally identified as Lot
2, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, in Section 06, Township 48 South, Range 25 East , Collier
County, Florida, for the following:
• A 42-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed
by the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in
width, to allow a new boat dock facility that will protrude a total of 62 feet into a waterway
that is 184± feet wide, for the benefit of the subject property.2
Said changes are fully described in the Boundary Survey with Proposed Dock and Bathometric
attached as Exhibit "A", Aerial Site Plan and Cross-Section attached as Exhibit “B”, and the
Restoration Plan attached as Exhibit “C” and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
2 The total protrusion shall be reduced based on the width reduction of catwalks from 5-feet to 4-
feet (see condition #3 below).
Page 6 of 7
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A – Boundary Survey with Proposed Dock and Bathometric
Exhibit B – Aerial Site Plan and Cross-Section
Exhibit C – Restoration Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
96 Southport Cove and is formally identified as Lot 2, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, in Section
06, 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. The restoration plantings described within the Restoration Plan, Exhibit “C”, must be
installed and inspected by Collier County staff prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Completion for the boat dock.
3. The 5-foot catwalks shall be reduced to 4-foot catwalks for the 42-foot slip, reducing the
overall decking and the total protrusion into the waterway, pursuant to the analysis of
secondary criteria #2 above. Revised plans are not necessary if this condition is strictly
adhered to.
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 7 of 7
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
EXHIBIT “A”
PREPARED FOR:SCOTT CHAFFEE
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY:JANUARY 8,2022
106
N
1
WAYNE D.AGNOLI,R.S.M..NO.5335 DATE
SCALE:1”=4O’
w-
2
10.0’U.E.
GENERAL NOTES:
3 DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
2.
4
5
20.0’CONSERVATION EASEMENT
C.E.C TRAV.LINE
96 SOUTHPORT COVE
for SCOTT CHAFFEE
title.
>NOL1
3 HORIZONTAL COORDINATES WERE DERIVED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS USING A
TRIMBLE DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER (MODEL RIO),RECEIVING CORRECTIONS
FROM TRIMBLE VRS NOW RTN (REAL TIME NETWORK)
4.VERTICAL:ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM
OF 1988 (NAVD 88).ELEVATI0NS WERE ESTABLISHED USING LONG TERM
OBSERVATIONS WITH A TRIMBLE (MODEL RIO)DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER CPS
(GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM).
FOUND 5/8"
IRON ROD
FOUND 5/8"
IRON ROD
\
AGNOLI,BARBER &BRUNDAGE,INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,PLANNERS &SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
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 CERTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF FIELD SURVEY,NOT
THE SIGNATURE DATE.
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.
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM .
EAST ZONE.NAD 83/90 DATUM AND REFERENCED TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2,SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY.UNIT 1.
SECTION 6,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST.
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.AS BEING NORTH 43’42*32"EAST.FOUND 1/2"
IRON ROD
Resign:
XXX
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
txc
1262
MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT 2
SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY,UNIT NO.1
SECTION 6.TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH &RANGE 25 EAST
(PLAT BOOK 15 &PAGE 52)
COLLIER COUNTY.FLORIDA
mF
72
iyno
Bondage
EXHIBIT "A"
ELEV—0.02’
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
CHAPTER 5J-17 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
CTgiaBy lignod by Wayrw D AgnoU.R S M
ON Esa9n0UwQabblnc.com.CN«*Wa>
BY _Wfeyfle4J.^gBe)i,^._S.M.
Dale 2022 02 14 06 51 O&^JSOO
*/
•*:No.5335 :*
=STATE OF /£
DbIB RUNDAGE,«
Professional Engineers,Planners,Land Surveyors &Landscape Architects
7400TralBML,5ie»Kn.NV4M.R.34100 Ph..(XBJM7J111
Carffceta of MMaOon Mm LB 3004 E8 3804 4 1X20000620 Fa*.(239WW-2203
LD
checked:
WDA
J ecad#:
3 13005-SP
]task#:
•XXXX-XX
project #:
09-0086-1
J sheet#-
$1 Of 3
file ft
JI 13005 -
%
%
date:
FEBRUARY 11,2022
scale:
r =40’
cogo#
Q&-0086-1
SURVEYOR’S NOTEr THE MEAN HIGH WATER
UNE AS SHOWN IS THE LEGAL BOUNDARY
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND STATE OWNERSHIP
(REFER TO P 0.15.PG.51)
.4/
FOUND IRON'ROD-
&CAP LB2464
FOUND IRON ROD
CAP LB3527
4K
N
SCALE:r'=20‘
’ROPER TY LINE
2
X
’ROPERTY LINE
-TOP OF BANK
BOT
PROPOSED BOAT L1FT-
x
3
PROPOSED BOAT UFT-BOT
kNGROVE \
96 SOUTHPORT COVE PROPOSED DOCK
SCOTT CHAFFEE
title:
=20'
A 13005 >
PROPOSED DOCK-
W/PILES
-APPRX.
LINE /
C.E.C TRAVERSE
LINE
-20’CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LINE
-TOE OF
SLOPE
cogo #:
09-0086-1
x 3.0
GND
-MHWL
ELEV.=-0.58'
GND
-MHWL
ELEV.=-0.02*
4.2
GND
~blc~
1262
date:
FEBRUARY 11,2022
scale:
MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT 2
SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY,UNIT NO.1
SECTION 6.TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH &RANGE 25 EAST
(PLAT BOOK 15 &PAGE 52)
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
W
72
SURVEYOR’S NOTE:THE MEAN HIGH WATER
LINE AS SHOWN IS THE LEGAL BOUNDARY
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND STATE OWNERSHIP
(REFER TO P.B.15,PG.51)
-2.0*
BOT
|S5\gnoli
HfcJ
Prufesaional Engtnwra,Plarwwrs,Lund Surveyors &Landscape Architacte
7400 TnlBM^Sdta 200,MptM,FLUIDS Ph.:(238)587-3111
CsrtEta*at txolfon Nos.L6 3884 60 3884 *1X26000620 Fsc (239)588-2203
Z \
V
/tiesign:
XXX
drawn:
LD
checked:
WDA
acad #:
130Q5-SP
task #:
XXXX-XX
project #:
09-0086-1
sheet #:
2 of 3
file#:
4.4
x GND
%%
O-
co,
z
x 4.4
GND
\C
z
-9 3 x
BOT
\
N
SCALE:l”=20'
’ROPERTY LINE
2
X
X
’ROPERTY LINEx411
5.42
WO
X
-TOP OF BANK
X
7.56
WO
x
35.01
WO
X
96 SOUTHPORT COVE PROPOSED DREDGE
/for”
title;
x 6 48
n
&
6.07
WD
2.97
x WD
NOTE:MHWL =0.02’
MLWL =-0.58'
WD =WATER DEPTH
(WATER DEPTH WAS DETERMINED AS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MLW ELEV <k BOTTOM ELEV.)
CENTERLINE OF R0AD=5.0l'
6 64
WD
-APPRX.MANGRO’1
LINE
-C.E.C TRAVERSE
LINE
-TOE OF
SLOPE
x 3.91
WD
WD
5.65
WD
6 58
WD
6.37
WD
7.08
WD
fe2°
SCOTT CHAFFEE
MAP OF SITE PLAN SURVEY OF LOT 2
SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY.UNIT NO.1
SECTION 6.TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH &RANGE 25 EAST
(PLAT BOOK 15 &PAGE 52)
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA
1262;
-20'CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LINE
SURVEYOR’S NOTE:THE MEAN HIGH WATER
LINE AS SHOWN IS THE LEGAL BOUNDARY
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND STATE OWNERSHIP
(REFER TO P.B.15.PG.51)
x 7.19
WD
4.72
WD
4.4
x GND
gSSKsNOLI
IiHIDrundage.^
Profasatonal Engkware,Ptannara.Land Survayora &Landscapa Archltacto
TWO Tta BM1.site Fl 3410a PH.(239)597 -3111
C*rti0c*t»of Authortraaon No*.LB 3004 EB 3004 4 LC20000020 Fbc (233J6eS-22OT
°O
°o
Q>.
date:
FEBRUARY 11.2022
scale:
r °20'
cogo#
09-0066-1
-MHWL
ELEV.=-0.58’
x &5o
.x-MHWL
ELEV.=-0.02’
x 4.2
GND
A
V
X 3.0
GND
'Z&esign:
XXX
drawn:
LO
checked:
WDA
j acad#:
3 13005-SP
task ft
1 xxxx-xx
project #:
“09-0086-1
x sheet#:
>3 of 3
file#:
A 13QQ5_y
^9-
'''/$
x 4 4
GND
6$x
XV/x
/7.46
WD
EXHIBIT “B”
rGF
<•
<r.4
k 1
.r-
i
a a r4
X
I
=Approved Signature:
Approved Date:
Date:
>
*
V
Name:
Address:
Greg Orick Marine
Construction,Inc.
(239)949-5588
Scott Chaffee
96 Southport Cove
Bonita Springs,FL 34134
4/29/2022
!f
I
EXHIBIT "B"
4
JttT*-A'd
Varies 46.5'to 62'
18,5'5.0
5.0'15.7'
1 TOBMLWL—
4.5'NAVD
nrII
cc)L1J
MHWL -0.02 NAVD
2.9'
6.2
Approved Signature:
02
Approved Date:
Date:
MLWL a--0.58'NAVD__
Name:
Address:
f -Mangrove
Line
MHWL
P/L
Greg Orick Marine
Construction,Inc.
(239)949-5588
Scott Chaffee
96 Southport Cove
Bonita Springs,FL 34134
2/11/2022
TIT nr
EXHIBIT “C”
RestorationPlan96SouthportCoveFolio#74435000504Section6/Township48/Range25,CollierCounty,FLIntroductionThisdocumentoutlinestherestorationplanfortheonsiteConservationEasementarea.EXISTINGCONDITIONS:HABITAT&SOILDESCRIPTIONSPROPOSEDPLANTINGSEXHIBIT"CnTheownerisbeingrequiredtorestoretheconservationeasementareabyremovinganyfillthatwasplacedtheretocreateaconsistentslope,fromtheremaininguplandareatotheexistingnaturalshorelineelevationandplantingnativevegetation.Thiswillallowforaverygradualslopeandoncethefillisremovedtheproposedplantingsoutlinedbelowwillbeinstalledthroughoutthearea.ThegroundcoverwillconsistofSeveralplantson3'centersintheConservationEasementincludingSeaOxeye(AsteraceaeCompositae),BayCedar(Surianamaritima)andGiantLeatherFern(Acrostichumdanaeifolium).Allspecieslistedwillbedistributedinanevenspreadingthroughouttheeasement.SeaOxeyegroundcoverplantingswillbeaminimum1gallonpotcontainerswhilsttheBayCedarandGiantLeatherFernwillbeinminimum3gallonpotcontainers.Existingsoilisfillwhichwasplacedonthepropertyatthebeginningoftheresidentialconstructionorduringconstructionofpooland/orscreenenclosure.Anyadditionalfillwillberemovedfromtheeasementareaaspartofthisrestorationplan.CollierCountyEnvironmentalstaffarecurrentlyreviewinganapplicationforasingle-familyresidentialdockingfacilitylocatedat96SouthportCove.TheCounty'sreviewdeterminedthattheexistingConservationEasement(CE)areaalongthepropertyshorelinewillrequiresomerestorationplantingsduetoopenareasthathavehistoricallybeenimpactedwithfilland/orclearedallowingsodtogrow.ThisworkwithintheeasementareawasnotauthorizedthereforeCollierCountystaffisrequiringthattheCEareaberestoredtoitsnaturalconditionbyremovinganyfillplacedwithinandplantingtheareawithnativetrees,shrubs,andgroundcover.Thesubjectsiteconsistsof0.24acrededicatedtoasingle-familyresidentialdwellingwithaconservationeasementareaalongtheentireshoreline.Theconservationeasementareawashistoricallyimpactedbyminorclearingofvegetationandtheplacementoffillmaterialoutsidetheauthorizedarea.TheconservationeasementareawillhavetoberestoredasrequiredbyCollierCountyEnvironmentalStaff.
Irrigationisalreadyset-upforthetophalfoftheeasementarea.Forthelowerhalfoftheeasementnoirrigationisneededduetotheelevationofthisportionoftheconservationeasementbeingclosertothetidalwatertablewhichshouldhelpkeeptheplantingshydratednaturally.
96SouthportCvConservationRestorationPlanGiantLeatherFern-PteridaceaeBay-cedar-urianaceae-Sea-oxeyeDaisy-Asteraceae(Compositae)cA-‘x•TftX.’r4"-W’X)XT**•.Ufc'-vS<r=2o*jrx-7-$•mf/SCAljbX.ajXaXsXnx5-Myr•—C.EXTRAV,1$V.X,Q)k>•*"1I