HEX Final Decision 2022-39HEX NO. 2022-39
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 11, 2022
PETTTInN
Petition No. BDE PL20220001854 - 1668 Vinland Way Wortzman - Request for a 23-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 43 feet
into a waterway that is 126.8f feet wide for the benefit of property located at 1668 Vinland
Way, further described as Lot 16, 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 requesting to replace the existing dock facility with a dock facility with a single
slip and boatlift to moor a 39-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. David Gilmour at 1664
Vinland Way submitted a letter in objection to the proposed size of the dock and stated the
design was inconsistent with all others in the neighborhood.
Page 1 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.'
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.
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 attached survey and plans demonstrate that 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
BEENMET. The proposed dock facility will only protrude 31.74 feet from the Mean High -
Water Line (MHWL) into the subject waterway that is approximately 126.8± 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.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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 approximate waterway width is 126 8± feet, MHWL to MHWL. The
requested total dock protrusion is 31.7 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 dockfacility 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 riprap. At this location the property line is 11.3±
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.
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 dockfacility 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
Page 3 of 6
been approved within this same development along subject shoreline. The design also
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 39 foot vessel which equates to
58.21 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
BEENMET. The proposed dockfacility uses ashore parallel design and will satisfy the
required 7.5 foot side/riparian setbacks applicable to this RPUD.
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.
ANAl,VClC
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 criterion being found not applicable.
Page 4 of 6
nF C'ISION_
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20220001854, filed by Jeff
Rogers of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. representing Alan Wortzman, with respect to the
property described as 1668 Vinland Way, further described as Lot 16, Landings at Bear's Paw, in
Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 23-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 43 feet into a waterway that is 126.8± 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 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.
1668 Vinland Way, further described as Lot 16, 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 5 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
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
LN
� 4X'*Z
s
.. FT.MYERS
°NAPL MI I
O
i
KEY WEST s �,
,.eelu3
CITY
COLLIER COUNTY
SITE ADDRESS:
<> 1668 VINLAND WAY <> LATITUDE: N 26.166608
NAPLES, FL 34105 <> LONGITUDE: W-81.782162
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY
AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
Terrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
Marine &Environmental Consulting
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632
1< J
• x J
• If ...,
A
rA
'' � "•� TM�bs OrM � llml LTwwQn.l
bald. `0 r �, )�'"^L�' 1} s•��.1
VICINITY MAP
COUNTY AERIAL
16 6 8 \/ I N LA N �
LOCATIONMAP
VV^IY
DESIGNED
JR
1.
"
o �22
3.
JOB NO.
20000.46
4.
SHEET NO.:
01 OF 07
5.
SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP- 49S RANGE-25E
EA
.AL
r,
SITE ADDRESS:
1668 VINLAND WAY
NAPLES, FL 34105
P _r,�:.
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING
EASEMENT
EXISTING RIPRAP
A
.S'
)L-
0 +0 20 40
SC1{CE 9N7:E'E'?
— RIPARIAN
SETBACK
LINE
a
woAP007'
�
��
I E
MHW= �0.44' �� PILESXISTING �
(NAVD 88)
i
NOTES:
• THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT
RIPARIAN E.
4'PARIAN AINTENDED
TL WAFTER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW
SETBACK LINE It= SURVEY COURTESY OF: *COURT GREGORY SURVEYING, wC-
� • TIDAL DATUM:
CENTERLINE 0; CANAL ,� MHW(NAw)= .a•�e'
.00, MLW (NAVD) 4.5J'
--
Terrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. DRAWN BDY 'Rw 2: _
Marine & Environmental Consulting 16 6 8 N/ I N LA N E) WAY CREATED 03-09.22 3
JOB EXISITNG CONDITIONS SHEET 02 OF 07 4
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 SHEET NO. 020F07 5 _
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 RYNO. U75 SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP-49S RANGE-25E
EXISTING RIPRAP 6
PROPERTY LINE
V T
3
EXISTING
EASEMENT Y.
i PROPOSED RAIL5.
M
"4 '
/
MHW = 0.44'
(NAVD '88)
1�
RIPARIAN —may
LINE ,
RIPARIAN
SETBACK �5
LINE
m
25 f
PROPOSED
LIFT
M
�0
GNP
o ro 20
SCA-PE9)V7-=
Q RIPARIAN
LINE
�O
X0%O;A0
6 �0 <2�
}
5C 11,
PROPOSED
FIXED
DOCK
0
RIPARIAN
SETBACK
LINE
NOTES:
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT
INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE
ALL WATER DEPTHS AND DREDGE ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO MLW
SURVEY COURTESY OF: -COURT GREGORY SURVEYING, INC.-
SURVEY DATED: 02.17.2022
APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): 8T
EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): I"
WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): 128.8'
TIDAL DATUM:
.. MHW (NAVD) +0."
• MLW(NAVD)- "I M,
• • PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 670
• TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF) 670
• TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL 31.7'
DESIGNED JR
Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. 1668 N/ I N LA N � WAY FATED
Marine & Environmental Consulting
JOB No z0000 ae e
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 PROPOSED DOCK & LIFT SHEET NO 03OF07 11 _
Email: tuna@thanaplescom Phone (239)643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 RYno. w, SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP-49S RAN GE-25E
s
3
PROPOSED
HAND RAIL
EXISTING
RIP RAP
43'
31.7' PROTRUSION FROM MHWL
15' BOAT LIFT
(NOT TO SCALE
PROPOSED BECAUSE OF ANGLE)
FIXED DOCK Inl II II rL
VIHW 0.44' (NAVD
-1.53' (NAVD
I I
TOE OF RIP RAP
ALL PILES TO BE WRAPPED
FROM 6" BELOW SUBSTRATE
TO 12" ABOVE MHW
0 3 ro
SC.'+[CE9N�EET
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. DESIGNED JR
6 6 E �/ I N D WAYOPAWN
Marine & Environmental Consulting 1 LA N CREATED Y 03.0942 3
JOB NO. 20000.48 14.
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 CROSS SECTION SHEET NO 04 OF 07 15
Email: tun&@thanaples.com Phone; (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 RYNo. 5875 SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP-49S RANGE- 25E
8 SITE ADDRESS: `
` 1666 VINLAND WAY
NAPLES, FL 34105 PROPOSED / 'IV pxp E
4 DOCK / /
N
8 /
30 60
PROPERTY LINE J �' �/ /
/ /[[
` � / SC�CE 9N FEE?
/0.0
/
o / / /
.01
/ TRANSECT
loop .00
0010-1
m / / /
.01
m0 / / / / / / /
/
/ .01 /
0 / / /
0 /
.00
/
/ NO SEAGRASSES WERE OBSERVED GROWINGFE7�1-rypicAL
DIVE TRANSECT
/ WITHIN 200 FT OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
DESIGNED JR
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 16 6 8 V 1 N LA N ED WAY ��oY N1j ;
T'w.. Marine & Environmental Consulting
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY JOe No z0000.,e a.
SHEE7 NO OS OF 07 5.
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phow (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 RrNo.587s SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP-49S RANGE-25E
0
G
$ SITE ADDRESS:
1668 VINLAND WAY p�
NAPLES, FL 34105
a
PROPOSED a
` DOCK
PROPERTY LINE
d cr.
z�
N
a
N
A
w � V �' �• SC�{CE 9N FEE7
NOTE:
THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE AP -PROXIMATE
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.
Terrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. DESIGNED: R ,
Marine &Environmental Consulting 1 6 6 8 �/ I N LA N � WAY CREATED. ;
AOa NO.. 20000.40 4.
3584ExchangeAve. Naples, FL34104-3732 ADJACENT DOCKS SHEE7N0.. OS OF07 s.
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone (239)643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 RrNO.se75 SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP-49S RANGE-25E
SITE ADDRESS:
1668 VINLAND WAY
NAPLES, FL 34105
PROPERTY LINE J 00,
1
PROPOSED
N
17
S
30 6o
SCAa9NMET
DESIGNED JR I
.. _... ._..... __......
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 16 6 8 V i N LAND WAY AWN BYCREATED o M 3_
Marine & Environmental Consulting JOB
WIDTH OF WATERWAY SHE T 07 OF 07
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 SHEET NO oT of oT 5
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 RrNo.seTs SECTION-35 TOWNSHIP-49S RANGE-25E