HEX Final Decision 2022-42HEX NO. 2022-42
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 25, 2022
PVTITI"N
Petition No. BDE-PL20220002144 - 178 Tahiti Circle - Request for a 34-foot boat dock
extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to construct a new dock
facility that will protrude a total of 54 feet into a waterway that is 224f feet wide for the
benefit of property located at 178 Tahiti Circle, also known as Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2,
in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner seeks to construct a 2-slip dock facility, perpendicular to the shoreline, with two
boatlifts; one to accommodate a 50-foot vessel and the other to be decked over to serve two
personal watercrafts (PWCs).
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 objections made at the public hearing by Robert Buckel, the
neighbor at 168 Tahiti, who is also an attorney, and Michael, Jeffrey and Sandra Clark who
Page 1 of 6
are the property owners of both 182 Tahiti and 186 Tahiti. They are concerned regarding the
length of the boat dock extensions that will block the views on their properties. Also, Mr.
Buckel pointed out errors with the Submerged Resource Survey.
6. There is a concurrent land use application of Building Permit Application No.
PRFH20220416412 is under review for a 3-story residential dwelling unit.
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:
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 will be
improved with a single-family dwelling for which the LDC allows two boat slips. The
proposed project consists of a dock facility with two boatlifts, one to accommodate a 50-
foot vessel and the other to be decked over for two personal watercrafts (PWCs). There
will also be a railing installed to inhibit a third unauthorized slip.
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
NOT BEEN MET. The boat dock extension (BDE) is necessary to accommodate the
owners' vessels and due to riprap along the subject seawall; the proposed dock cannot
come any closer to the shoreline. A more shore parallel dock design would not work due
to the riprap and would then also require the vessel to cross over into the adjacent property
owners' riparian area. The reason for this BDE is both the riprap of the shoreline and
vessel size.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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. There are no marked channels within this section of Johnson Bay, therefore
the entire waterway provides safe navigation. As proposed, the dock facility will also
maintain the ingress/egress to both neighboring docks.
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 subject waterway is 224± feet wide at this point. The proposed dock
facility will protrude 54 feet into the subject waterway which is 24.1 % of said waterway.
The distance between the subject dock facility and that on the opposite shore is 137 feet;
given that the total width of the waterway is 224± feet, over 50% (or 112 feet) is open and
available 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 proposed dock facility will exceed the required 15 foot side/riparian
setback and allows for the intended vessel to make a direct approach without crossing the
riparian area of others. The subject dock facility will not inhibit the access of neighboring
dock facilities.
Secondary Criteria:
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
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant states that due to the riprap the dock facility must be 3
feet away to prevent the vessel from striking the riprap while ingress/egressing the boatlift,
and that the 3-foot offset provides sufficient space to protect the vessel but limits the ability
to reduce protrusion. The applicant also states that this part of Johnson Bay is located
within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve which required the applicant to follow the
aquatic preserve dock guidelines which are more restrictive on design options and
Page 3 of 6
location. However, there is no evidence that riprap is an issue, nor are there any other
special conditions pertaining to this criterion.
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 has been designed for routine maintenance, safe
access as well as recreational activities like fishing, plus storage of kayaks and/or
paddleboards.
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 proposed dock facility was designed to accommodate a 50 foot
vessel and two personal watercrafts (PWCs) each approximately 12 feet in length. The
subject shoreline is 70± feet in length; therefore, the vessel size will exceed the 50%
threshold.
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
NOT BEEN MET. As proposed, the dock facility has been designed to be constructed
fully within the required 15 foot side/riparian setbacks. However, the dock facility design
will have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners.
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 4 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 5.03.06.1-1
of the Land Development Code to deny Petition. The Petition meets 4 out of 5 of the primary
criteria and 3 out of 6 secondary criteria.
DECISION.
The applicant has met 4 of 5 primary criteria and 3 of 6 secondary criteria. Therefore, the Hearing
Examiner hereby DENIES Petition Number BDE-PL20220002144, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell,
Hall & Associates, Inc. representing Kenneth J. and Kathleen A. Demaret, Co -Trustees of the
Kenneth and Kathleen Demaret 2009 Family Trust, with respect to the property described as 0.18±
acres located at 178 Tahiti Circle and is legally described as Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2, in
Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following:
A 34-foot boat dock extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1
of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways 100 feet or greater in
width, to construct a new dock facility that will protrude a total of 54 feet into a waterway
that is 224± feet wide for the benefit of the subject property.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Site and Dock Plans
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
0.18± acres located at 178 Tahiti Circle and is legally described as Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2,
in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
Not applicable.
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 5 of 6
APPF.AT,C
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.
September 23, 2022
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT "A"
STATE OF FLORIDA
CITY
TAMPA
11 FT.MYERR0
�MIAMI
D�
I
n1=Y WEST .�
COLLIER COUNTY
SITE ADDRESS:
<> 178 TAHITI CIR <> LATITUDE: N 25.981681
NAPLES, FL 34113 —LONGITUDE: W-81.732712
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY
AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
VICINITY MAP
COUNTY AERIAL
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. DEG"` 'R
Marine & Environmental Consulting 7 % 8 TA H 1 T 1 C 1 FR D^Ew" B.: '
JOB NO: ]„IS 1
3584ExchangeAve. Naples, FL34104-3732 LOCATION MAP SNEETND_ B4OG,D s
El0811: Am8�NRt�-SLSOC181ES.CO mm Am: (239) 643-0166 Fax:(239) 6436632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 61S RANGE-26E
EXHIBIT "A"
11
EXISTING
ADJACENT
BOATHOUSE,
ROOF AND
WALKWAY
ti•
w
VA
i
1
MHW/MLW MOSTLY ABUTS
THE FACE OF THE SEAWALL
70 --�
0 30 60
SCALE 9N'PEET
I
Nov
NOTES:
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND
ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE
ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW
SURVEY COURTESY OF 'COURT GREGORYSURVEYING, NC.-
SURVEYDATED 11-10-1
w APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE(APPX LF)' TO'
EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF). 0
WIDTH OF WATERWAY, M14W TO MHW (APPX). 22C
TIDAL DATUM
MHWINAVDY- MAY
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. DEa1GNED JR 1
Marine & Environmental Consulting 8 TA H 1 T 1 C 1 R CREANMDWN Y 21145 4
JOB HO 211�5 �
IP7�3584ExchangeAve, Naples, FL34104-3732 EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEETN° .—o -
Email:tlma@hmell-asmates.com Phone- (239)643-0166 Fax:(239)643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 51S RANGE- 26E
11
PROPOSED HAND RAILING TO
B PREVENT ADDITIONAL MOORING
PROPOSED
13.5'X12' DECKED
OVER BOATLIFT
I EXISTING ADJACENT
BOATHOUSE,ROOF
AND WALKWAY
zl
a
PROPO
FIXED DC
Z
2
0
ff
0
u,
'z
0
0
I
39'
70•
EXISTING
X, SEAWALL
SUBJECT -
o ra 20 40
SCAeE9xIr
PROPOSED
16'X16'
BOATLIFT
PROPOSED HAND RAILING TO
PREVENT ADDITIONAL MOORING
is.s•
t'� w
z
.J
Z
la
a
ILy
1 2•
PROPOSED
12'X12' DECKED
®
OVER BOATLIFT
MHW/MLW MOSTLY ABUTS
�3• + I
THE FACE OF THE SEAWALL
NOTES:
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND
ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW
SURVEY COURTESY OF: -COURT GREGORY SURVEYDIG, INC.
�.,
_
SURVEY DATED: 11404H
APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE(APPX LF): TO
_
EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE(APPX SFI: D
+�
WIDTH OF WATERWAY. MHW TO MHW (APPX): 224,
'
TIDAL DATUM:
MHW(NAVDp +0A2'
• MLW(NAVDp +I.W
• PROPOSED OVEREATER SF): 957
• TOTAL OVEREATER STRUCTUREERTY U F): I957
STRUCTURE (AP X(APPXSF).
N,
TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY UNE SI'
Wl�Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. DESIGNED: JR
Marine & Environmental Consulting
'i 78 TAHITI CIR - ;
1W ND.: 1
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL34104-3732 PROPOSED DOCK - DIMENSIONS SHEET NO.: WOF,D 1s I- -
Final: �"^^ll•assanal-cam Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 5TS RANGE-26E
EXISTING ADJACENT
BOATHOUSE,ROOF
AND WALKWAY
MARLIN BAY
PROPOSED
FIXED DOCK
w X
Z X -5.0
J
Q X -4.8
In X -4.5
' � yiry
i�
X -3.5
-3.0
X -2.5X -2
-- X-
EXISTING
SEAWALL
0 SUBJECT
N
A
Zxzz - -
L
s
a 1a 20 40
SCA4279N PEZr
PROPOSED 12'X12'
DECKED OVER
BOATLIFT
W/MLW MOSTLY ABUTS
FACE OF THE SEAWALL
ITES:
THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND
ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE
• ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW
• SURVEY COURTESY OF: 'COURT GREGORYSURVEYING. PIC.-
SDRVEY DATED: 11-10.21
.� APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): 70'
EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 0
WIDTH OF WATERWAY. MM TO MHW (APPX): .1
TIDAL DATUM:
MHW(NAVD)= .0.4r
MLw(NAVDp -1Ar
•r PROPOSEDOVERWATERSTRUCTURE(APPXSF): a5T
TOTALOVERWATERSTRUCTURE(APPXSF): 957
TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE: 54'
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc, —1 7 S TA H 1 T 1 C 1 FR DRAWN " 2_u
Marine �& Environmental Consulting
Jon- 21145 14
lv�3584ExchangeAve. Naples,FL34104-3732 PROPOSED DOCK - DEPTHS SHEET NO I 0 OF10 15 1_1 1_
Email: Nna@tmlell4mciale5.00m Phone: (239)643.0166 Fax:(239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 51S F2ANGE-26E
54' PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE
UP PILES (TYP) TO END OF DOCK PILE
�— RAIL 16' BOAT LIFT N.T.E. 10'
_�
1— DECKING r
—MHW = +0.42' NAVD 88
—MLW = -1.63' NAVD 88
CAP STRINGER
TIMBER (TYP)
0 4 (TYP) X X
X X X
ALL PILINGS TO BE WRAPPED
FROM 12" ABOVE MHW TO 6"
BELOW SUBSTRATE
R
X X
a 3 6 +2
SC1[CE7N�EE7
X X
cy
X
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. —1 7 8 TA H 1—T 1 C 1 R -sy a�
Marine & Environmental Consulting `"E" °°°''2 ;
roe Ho.. rws
3584ExchangeAve. Naples, FL34104-3732 CROSS SECTION AA SHREi-- OS°c10 s
Finall: llma�IlIIlell-2550CIaffS.COm Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax:(239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP-51S RANGE-25E
m%,41L, 'k
-4�
4V
V:
7�_ I% t. 11 . I I -
19, N 4�
to
LE
'44
itv
Til
23'
7�
0 30U
4,
ScAagv=
NOTE:
33' THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.
DESIGNED A
Terrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
-1 7 8 _VA "I -F I cl— I FZ
Marine & EnviTomnental Consulting
010 rus
ADJACENT DOCKS -NORTH SHEUNO
V 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732
Lssociates.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S RANGE-26E
Mpg
PROPOSED [Awr- .% 7 -,. . _1M.
It. '4 1 '71 ..rl I Z.
FIXED DOC
I
4.
AA
14-
_7
Y
4t
Z
T—
, N
"N
V
0 +00 200 400 f.
-j
L SCALE 9N
21NO TE
THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE
�'k
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE. 92
JJR
,..Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. B—Nay
0 ....... : -1 714%_3 _Flock" I—T-1 C_',� 1 F:;," C—D: 7
Marine &Environmental Consulting SOB NO.: pi— 14 1 1
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, Fl, 34104-3732 ADJACENT DOCKS -SOUTH SMEUN0_ 1070FID 1s
Email:Nna@tmre0-usociates.com Phone: 239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S RANGE- 26E
_ Y
IEEE TYPICAL DIVE TRANSECT N
A
0 20 40 B1
I 200'
TRANSECTS (TYP)
a
NO SEAGRASSES WERE
OBSERVED GROWING
WITHIN 200 FT OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
-�
W.
PROPERTY .�I NOTES:
O �SEDRAWINGSAREFORPER IMNGPURPOSESONLYAND
Il fl B ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
SURVEY COURTESY OF. 'COURT GREGORY SURVEYING. INC.'
} r SURVEY DATED n 114021
Inc.Turrell, Hall & Associates, nDESIGNED JR
-- Marine & Environmental Consulting 7 7 S TA H 1 T 1 � 1 F;,' ;
I
JOB NO 31,<5 1
3584ExchangeAve. Naples, FL34104-3732 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY sNEF. oeoF,o s
Emal;nma@nnrellassociaes.wm Phane:(239)643-0166 Fm: (239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 51S RANGE- 26E
N
F-
�s�
0 2 50 f00
SC7{CE7N �EE7
x
top
NOTE:
THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.
MARLIN BAY
N
PROPOSED
FIXED DOCK
MOW
fa
_ a
MIR
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. DE -BY J- z
Marine & Environmental Consultingr
TA H 1 T 1 C 1 R '—� D JOBNO 211<93584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732WIDTH O F WATERWAY SHEE NO 990E 10
Email:turaQtune�-aesomates.com Phone: (239J643-U166 Fax:(239)643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 5'15 F2ANOE-25E
4 4 ;
N r. _
0 2� 30 +00 .
scRCE�Nx�r �
MARLIN BAY ST
OVERLAY
PROPOSED
FIXED DOCK
�I
a �
Terrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. `/�- Q DESIGNED JR - -
Marine &Environmental Consulting , 7 8 TA H 1 T 1 V 1\ DRE�DY Z
CREATED' W-02-T2 3
JOB NO. 31,65 0
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 ST OVERLAY SNEETNO.
Emal:twaQtamell•assocaes.com Phone (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTI01 WNSHIP-515 RANGE-26E