HEX Final Decision 2022-52HEX NO. 2022-52
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
October 27, 2022
PF.TITI"N
Petition No. BDE-PL20220004181 - 406 Cristobel Street - Request for a 6-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 26 feet into a waterway
that is 358f feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06. The subject property is located at
406 Cristobal Street and is further described as Lot 579, Isles of Capri No. 3, in Section 32,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner seeks to modify an existing dock facility for which the County's Hearing Examiner
previously issued a formal decision, HEX No. 2021-29, allowing for a 40-foot protrusion. The
new dock design will be setback 15-feet to the west side and only 5 feet from the east side;
therefore, a companion variance must also be approved to allow for the proposed dock facility.
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 made at the public hearing. There were two (2)
Page 1 of 6
letters of concurrence for the setback waiver from adjacent property owners, Robert Heisel and
Denise S. Caterini-Heisel, 404 Cristobal Street and Daniel C. Ward, Trustee of the Harlan R
Ward Trust, 408 Cristobal Street.
6. There is a companion Petition No. VA-PL20220004839, to modify an existing dock facility
to allow for a second boat slip with a boatlift and vessel.
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
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 project
consists of removing the existing dock facility but keeping the boatlift and pilings that were
constructed by means of Permit No. PRBD20160205777. The replacement dock, as well
as a second lift for a second vessel, will be constructed within 26 feet of the
MHWL/property line as required by DEP to be in compliance with the State's Aquatic
Preserve rules.
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
BEENMET. The proposed dock is limited by the State (DEP) to only protrude out to the
-4' MLW contour line. The depths landward of the proposed dock and associated boatlifts
are too shallow to moor the vessels and provide sufficient depths for the boatlifts to fully
function at a low tide elevation. Additionally, due to the subject property and surrounding
waterway being within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve dredging is not an option
therefore pushing the proposed dock outpast the 20- foot protrusion point is the only option
and still provides enough area for the two vessels.
'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.
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 As proposed, the subject dock will protrude less than the two adjacent docks
and many of the surrounding docks on the subject waterway. The proposed dock facility
does not protrude into any marked or charted navigable channel and will not impede any
vessel traffic.
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
BEENMET. The proposed docking facility will maintain its current setback from the east
riparian line which is 1 S feet. The proposed western setback is only 5-feet as proposed but
the owner has signed a setback letter indicating they do not object and as proposed the
boat will {sic) encroach or block their access or current utilization of their shoreline.
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
BEENMET. The subject property is located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve and
therefore is restricted/limited to the DEP (state's) aquatic preserve dock design criteria.
The two most restrictive design criteria are the overall allowed protrusion out into the
waterway and the total over -water square footage. Additionally, another design issue, in
this case, is the applicant's vessel size being 38 feet LOA and designing a dock
configuration that meets the aquatic preserve rules as well as the county LDC rules. As
currently proposed the dock protrudes out past the allowed 20- feet per the LDC but is
within the allowed protrusion per the aquatic preserve rules being 26 feet from the MHWL.
Page 3 of 6
Due to all of these limitations mostly being implemented by the state the proposed dock
configuration is really the only option the applicant has to accommodate the two vessels
they currently own. As proposed the vessel will encroach into the required side yard
setback which is why a variance application has also been submitted as a companion to
this BDE request. The State's aquatic preserve rules are more restrictive than the County's
dock requirements and therefore finds the argument to be treated as a special condition is
compelling.
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 project consists of minimizing the existing docking facility from
781-square feet down to 284-square feet over -water structure. The proposed project is
being driven by the applicant's new vessel and the proposed dock modifications will
minimize the decking area due to the aquatic preserve rules. However, as designed the
proposed dock will still provide adequate deck area for safe access to the vessels as well
as still provide enough deck area for maintenance and recreational activities like fishing,
kayaking, and paddle boarding
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 BEENMET. The proposed docking facility has been designed to moor two vessels,
one being 38 feet LOA and the other being 30 feet LOA, totaling 68 feet; the total shoreline
width is 85 feet, thus the 50 percent limitation is exceeded, with the total length of the two
vessels representing 80 percent of the total length of the frontage.
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. As proposed the dock has been minimized regarding the overall protrusion
out into the waterway. Additionally, the dock will now not extend out as far into the
waterway as the two adjacent docking facilities. The one major issue is on the west side
the proposed vessel slip will encroach into the required yard setback of 15 feet, but the
owner of that property supplied a letter of no objection which is in the record.
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 4 of 6
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. There are no seagrass beds present within 200 feet of the existing or
proposed 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 dockfacilities exceptfor those within the seawalled basin of Port
of the Islands; the subject property is not located within Port of the Islands.
ANAr,VCrC_
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 5 out of 5 of the primary
criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria, with one criterion being not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20220004181, filed by Jeff
Rogers, Turrell Hall & Associates, Inc., representing Beau Middlebrook, with respect to the
property described as 406 Cristobal Street, on the south side of Cristobal Street approximately
225-feet west of Capri Boulevard and is legally described as Isles of Capri Number 3, Lot 579, in
Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 6-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 26 feet into a waterway that is 358± feet wide.
Said changes are fully described in the 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
Page 5 of 6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
406 Cristobal Street, on the south side of Cristobal Street approximately 225-feet west of Capri
Boulevard and is legally described as Isles of Capri Number 3, Lot 579, in Section 32, Township
51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. This Boat Dock Extension (BDE) is subject to the approval of companion variance Petition
No. VA-PL20220004839. Should the companion variance not be approved, the subject
BDE shall become 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.
APPF,ATA—
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"
N
ox Y T
s
NAPLESy
!I
0
ISLAND
GULF OF MEXICO
Q 11 TAMPA
1,
lj,FT-MYER
o'
s
KEY WEST "'ell;4
COLLIER COUNTY
SITE ADDRESS:
<> 406 CRISTOBAL ST <> LATITUDE: N 2!
NAPLES, FL 34113 <> LONGITUDE: W -E
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPI
AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION l
IV
VICINITY MAP
COUNTY i AERIAL
Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc.
Marine HallEnvironmentalociateMIDDLEBROOK
Consulting
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732
Email: tuna@thanaples.c omm Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643fi632
— 406 CRISTOBAL ST.
LOCATION MAP
DRAWNB°
'RNIJ
_
CREATED:
OMI-�
,
JOB NO.:
21011
a
SHEET NO.
01 OF 08
151
1
1_
SECTION- 32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S FLANGE- 26 E
85' -
I I
SITE ADDRESS:
406 CRISTOBAL ST
NAPLES, FL 34113
I�
�Ib
SUBJECT PROPERTY
I I
- 85'
4',
x -1.77 193q ■ U" '�', x -1.27 i{ -1.57
x-2.57 27 -1.97 _
z15
x3
3.77: rNi z.n 15�.3?i
APPROXIMATE 4.07 x x-4.o
RIPARIAN LINE x-3.87
x -4.87 26' x .4.z7 34
I I
x 4.77 x -4 57
EXISTING
DOCK
APPROXIMATE
RIPARIAN LINE
o 30 60
SC9{429N7EET
EXISTING
SEAWALL
x -1.47
x -2.37 x -2.17
EXISTING
12' X 12'
LIFT
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: -MARCO SURVEYING & MAPPING'
• SURVEY DATED: 03.2015
• APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): SS
EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 781
• WIDTH OF WATERWAY, MHW TO MHW (APPX): 358'
• TIDAL DATUM:
» MHW (NAVD)= +OA2'
MLw NAVD - -1.93'
DESIGNED! JR 1.
Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. MIDDLEBROOK - 406 CRISTOBAL ST. DRAWN BY: � 1.22
Marine & Environmental Consulting
J00 NO: 21071 a,
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 EXISTING CONDITIONS SHEET NO. oz of 08 s,
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S RANGE-26E
a
I
I
I
SUBJECT PROPERTY
5'
x-1.77 ■
PROPOSED
(2) FEND x -2.57
OFF PILES x -3.37'
-- x-3.77
x -4.87
IPROPOSED
12' X 12'
LIFT
RIPARIAN LINE
SITE ADDRESS:
406 CRISTOBAL ST
NAPLES, FL 34113
PROPOSED
RAIL
36'
9.
1�
^�' • �Oq.
-4.07
x -4.77
EXISTING
CANOPY
TO REMAIN
1 7 x .27 x -1.57
72,
1.
3 x CID
N
15 3.37 AA
04
-3.67
x .27
PROPOSED
N
AL
�tl��xO�E
r
S
0 fo 20 40
.9CXfZ9NTZTT
— EXISTING
SEAWALL
x -1.47
r x -2.17
x -2.37
EXISTING 12' X 12'
LIFT TO BE
RELOCATED
DOCK
x -4.57 44,/
EXISTING RIPARIAN LINE
DOCK TO BE
REMOVED
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: 'MARCO SURVEYING 6 MAPPING"
SURVEY DATED: 03-2018
« APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE (APPX LF): as,
EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 781
WIDTH OF WATERWAY. MHW TO MHW (APPX): 958'
TIDAL DATUM:
« MHW (--)= WA2'
• MLW (NAVD)= 4.87'
• PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF): 187
TOTAL OVERWATER STRUCTURE (APPX SF) 167
TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE. 28'
DESIGNED! JR
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. M IDDLEBROOK - 406 CRISTOBAL ST. �R CREATED: BJ,42 3
Marine & Environmental Consulting
JOB NO.: 21011 4.
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples,FL34104-3732 PROPOSED DOCK SHEET NO 03OF08 15.
Email: tuna(thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S RANGE- 26 E
14' BOAT I.
CROSS SECTION AA
SCALE* 1" = 6'
EXISTING
CANOPY TO
REMAIN
MHW (++0.42' NAVD)
$MLW (-1.63' NAVD)
Y
L WOOD PILES TO BE WRAPPED FROM
ABOVE MHWL TO 6" BELOW SUBSTRATE
DESIGNED: JR 1,
Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. MIDDLEBROOK - 406 CRISTOBAL ST. C�,TEM 0RMJ
8.31-22
Marine & Environmental Consulting
JOB NO.: 21011 14,
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 CROSS SECTION AA SHEET NO.: 06OF08 15,
Email: tuna()thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S FLANGE- 26 E
--1 32 r--
NOTE:
THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.
Terrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. M IDDLEBROOK - 406 CRISTOBAL ST.
Marine & Environmental Consulting
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 ADJACENT DOCKS
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632
N
0 50 roo 200
SC?tCE9N�EE7
i
DESIGNED- JR 1,
DRAWN BY RMJ 2.
CREATED- 08-31-22 3.
JOB NO.' 21011 14.
SHEET NO.: 05 OF 08 15.
SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 51S RANGE-26E
I I N
4410
0 20 40 80
— — — — — — — — —� TRANSECT
1 — — — — — — — — NO SEAGRASSES WERE
CD — — — — — — — — OBSERVED GROWING
WITHIN 200 FT OF THE
200' - I PROPOSED PROJECT
� 172' — � .
ti
TYPICAL DIVE TRANSECT
DESIGNED: JR 7,-- - _ -
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. MIDDLEBROOK - 406 CRISTOBAL ST. DRAWN BY:
OBJ,-22 3:
Marine & Environmental Consulting
y JOB NO.: 21011 4.
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL34104-3732 SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY SHEET NO,: 06OF06 6. _
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION- 32 TOWNSHIP- 51 S RANGE- 26 E
I
P
All
f- F%%-,P r- %-$12
DOCK ST
OVERLAY
qft
N
'r
S
0 2 go foo
SMS 9N7:EET
DESIGNED: JR
Terrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. MIDDLEBROOK — 406 CRISTOBAL ST. EATEo ,_,�
L Marine & Environmental Consulting
JOB NO.: 21011 0.
3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732 ST OVERLAY SHEET NO.: 07OF0e 15.
Email: tuna@thanap
les.comm Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239)643fi632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP- 5IS RANGE-26E
S
a 50 foo 200
SCAa9N9:EE?
NOTE:
THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE
AND ARE TAKEN FROM THE AERIAL IMAGE.
co
M
A"
Terrell Hall & Associates Inc DESIGNED JR
RAWN
MIDDLEBROOK - 406 CRISTOBAL ST. CR
EATED: 0831.22 3
Marine & Environmental Consulting _
JOB NO.: 27071 4.
3584ExchangeAve. Naples, FL34104-3732 WIDTH OF WATERWAY SHEET NO: OAMnA 5.
Email: tuna@thanaples.com Phone: (239) 643-0166 Fax: (239) 643-6632 SECTION-32 TOWNSHIP— 51 S RANGE— 26 E