HEX Final Decision 2022-47HEX NO. 2022-47
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
October 13, 2022
PF.TTTInN
Petition No. BDE-PL20220001299 — 260 Connors Ave - Request for a 25-foot boat dock
extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100
feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into
a waterway that is 268f feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06. The subject property is
located at 260 Conners Avenue and is further described as Lot 14, Block R, Conner's
Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
Petitioner is requesting to remove and replace the existing boat docking facility with a larger dock
facility designed to accommodate a single 40-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. Pursuant to Land Development Code Section 10.03.06.H this petition was advertised for a
public hearing by the Hearing Examiner for the regularly scheduled meeting conducted on
September 22, 2022. Both the Property Owner Notification Letter and the Newspaper ad were
scheduled for mailing/publication on September 2, 2022, and a Public Hearing Sign was posted
Page 1 of 6
by staff on September 6, 2022. The subject petition was then continued to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on October 13, 2022, at the request of the Hearing Examiner. As the second
hearing is within 5 weeks of the initially advertised meeting no further advertising is required.
Staff did, however, post a new public hearing sign at the subject location, displaying the second
hearing date, on October 3, 2022.
6. The purpose of the continuance was to allow Petitioner to submit alternative dock plans for
review; Options 1 — 5. Of these, Option 4 has less adverse impact on local views, protrudes
31 feet rather than the requested 45 feet, has less decking, and orients the ingress/egress onto
the boat lift from the west, which is closer to Petitioner's dock at 246 Conners rather than
Petitioner's neighbor on the east side. Option 4 will be evaluated below.
7. 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 numerous letters of objection submitted prior to the hearings and
there were objections made at the public hearings held on September 22, 2022 and October 13,
2022, regarding the blockage of neighboring views due to the size and location of the boat
dock extension by Steven Buonopane at 338 Emerald Bay Circle, Michael Dravitz at 395
Seabee Avenue, and Pat Rosmonowski at 324 Seabee Avenue, and Robert Kisch and Evelyn
Kisch at 274 Conners Avenue (abutting neighbor on the east). Petitioner owns 246 Conners
Ave (the abutting property on the west).
8. 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-3 Zoning District and supports
a single-family dwelling for which the LDC allows two boat slips. The proposed boat
docking facility is for a single boat slip designed to accommodate a 40 foot LOA 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
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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 BEENMET. The reason for this BDE request is due to the applicant's vessel size.
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 docking facility design does have the dock extending 31 feet
into the subject waterway. However, the subject waterway width does allow for the dock
to extend out as proposed and still be within the allowed 25% width of the waterway. There
are no marked channels within this area of Vanderbilt Lagoon and the overall width of the
waterway is approximately 268 feet across from the proposed facility.
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 268 feet wide. The proposed dock
protrusion of Option 4 is 31 feet which leaves more than SO percent of the waterway 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 proposed docking facility Option 4 is within the Vanderbilt Lagoon
waterway which services a very large boating community. Both neighboring properties
have docking facilities which will not be impacted by this proposed dock design. The
Option 4 design orients ingress/egress of Petitioner's vessel from the west. Since
Petitioner owns the abutting west property, Petitioner assumes the interference, if any.
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.)
Page 3 of 6
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property has special conditions that have been factored in the
overall proposed dock layout are the existing width of waterway, adjacent docking
facilities, and the applicant -owned shoreline length. The property to the west is owned by
the applicant. The entire waterway is open to navigation and therefore the proposed Option
4 extension request will not interfere with the everyday normal navigation boaters
currently experience on the subject waterway.
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
BEENMET. The proposed Option 4 docking facility has been minimized and still provides
deck area 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
BEEN MET The subject property has 80 feet of water frontage and the proposed vessel
to be docked at this location is 40 feet long; the vessel size does not exceed the 50 percent
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
BEEN MET. The Option 4 dock facility reduces the protrusion from 45 to 31 feet to
minimize any view obstruction from the neighboring properties.
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)(I1) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
Page 4 of 6
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is
NOT APPLICABLE. The proposed project is for a single-family residential boat dock
facility. Section 5.03. 06.E. I], Manatee Protection Plan, is not applicable for this boat dock
proposal.
ANALYSTS.
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 5.03.06.11
of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. The Petition meets 4 out of 5 of the primary
criteria and 5 out of 6 secondary criteria, with one criterion being not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20220001299, filed by Jeff
Rogers, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. representing Douglas G. and Christine E. McKibben, with
respect to the property described as 260 Conners Avenue, further described as Lot 14, Block R,
Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 11-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility
protruding a total of 31 feet into a waterway that is 268± feet wide, as illustrated by Option
4 boat dock facility plan on file.
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Dock Plans (Option 4) attached as Exhibit "A"
and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Proposed Dock Plans (Option 4).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
260 Conners Avenue, further described as Lot 14, Block R, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates
Unit No. 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
Page 5 of 6
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.
APPF, AI N.
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"
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY — _•- ;x =�- -:�
SITE ADDRESS-
EXISTING 260 CONNERS AVE
1 SEAWALL NAPLES, FL 34108
6111
Ch CV
PROPOSED
DOCK
N
15' —
RIPARIAN RIPARIAN SETBACK LINE
LINE
PA1%
R
C
o ro 20
SCA4Z9N r
M I
RIPARIAN
LINE
15
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: 05.22-21
• • APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): w
• EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 481
WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): M.
TIDAL DATUM:
.. M. (--)= +0.30,
MLW(NAVD)= AM,
••• PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF)' 652
• TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 652
• TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE: 31,
DESIGNED. JR
Tunell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 260 C O N N E FR S A\/ E CREATED B &�
Marine &Environmental Consulting
JOB NO 21081 4.
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 OPTION 4 SMEETNO.. 01 5.
Email: tuna C'.thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239)643.6632 RYNO. S97S SECTION-29 TOWNSHIP-48S RANGE-25E