HEX Final Decision 2023-01HEX NO. 2023-01
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
December 22, 2022
PETITION.
PETITION NO. BDE-PL20210002681 - Request for a 31.47-foot boat dock extension from
the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 60 feet in width,
to allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 51.47 feet into a
waterway that is 480 feet wide. The subject property is located at 52 Southport Cove also
known as Lot 44, Southport on the Bay Unit Two, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner desires to replace the existing U-shaped dock facility, approved by means of CCPC
Resolution No. 95-40 in 1995 and allowing a 36-foot protrusion, with a dock facility comprising
a walkway leading to an 8-foot by 20-foot terminal platform with a boatlift on either end; the
western lift will accommodate a 30.25-foot vessel and the eastern will accommodate a 23-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. There is a concurrent land use application Building Permit No. PRFH2O220732580 issued on
09/20/2022 for the construction of a 3-story single-family residence, prior dwelling unit razed,
current permit status is "Inspections Commenced."
Page 1 of 6
6. 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.
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:
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 Tract H, a residential component, of
the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD upon which a single-family residence exists. The proposed
boat docking facility will replace the existing dock and comprises two slips, each with a
boat lift.
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. If a dock were to be constructed at this location without the waterward
extension, the water depths at the maximum distance out (20 ) would be -1.8 MLW at the
outermost extent. With a boat lift installed, that depth would not be adequate to launch a
27' boat off the boat lift cradle beams that are typically 10" tall. Even without a boat lift,
the moored boat would be sitting on the bottom at an average low tide based on the
provided cross-section.
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 Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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, thus there will be no adverse impact on navigation. Further, the typical
route of travel for boats is not marked and crosses approximately 258 feet from the
proposed dock's point of maximum protrusion.
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 per the provided Boundary Survey, the subject waterway measures 480
feet, MHW to MHW. The proposed boat dock facility will protrude 51.47 feet into said
waterway as measured from the MHWL which also serves as the platted property line. The
distance between the outermost portions of the proposed dock facility and the facility
existing on the opposite shore is approximately 385 feet. As such, the dock facility will
occupy 10.72 percent of the waterway and 80.47 percent of the waterway is open for
navigational purposes.
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. Use of the proposed dock would not impose on neighbors' use of their legal
docks. Based upon January 2022 aerial available on the Collier County Property
Appraiser's website, the neighbor to the northwest accesses the nearest lift by coming in
straight into the shoreline, while the neighbor to the southwest has a lift that is oriented
parallel to the shoreline and is used by personal watercraft, such as jet skis or kayaks. The
distance between the neighbor's existing lift and the nearest proposed boatlift is over 65',
which is a sufficient distance for ingress/egress into the neighbor's lift. The required side
yard/riparian setback is 15 feet, the provided site plans and survey reveal the proposed
dock facility is setback 36.97 feet from the northwest side/riparian line and 44.18 from the
southeast side/riparian line. See the Boundary Survey for separation between dock
facilities.
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. Mangrove growth is well developed and extensive along the property's
shoreline. The mangroves grow out into the waterway beyond the MHWL, as shown on the
Boundary Survey, filling the area where a dock would be located if the maximum 20'
waterway extension was enforced. The subdivision in which the subject property is located,
has a conservation easement that encumbers the subdivision's water frontage from 20'
landward of the MHWL/property line. The conservation easement at the subject property
contains (and protects) mangroves. This combined with the shallow water depths allows
for constant recruitment of mangroves waterward of the easement as well. A letter of no
objection has been obtained from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida concerning 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
BEENMET. The proposed dockfacility does allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessels
for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive dock area not
related to these functions. The structure is designed with two slips for recreational vessels
to be maintained safely. The terminal platform will be used for loading/unloading and
routine maintenance functions.
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 applicant provided vessel lengths of 27 feet and 20 feet for a total
combination of 47 feet; however, the BD Application, Plans, and Survey all depict vessels
of 30.25 feet and 23 feet LOA. For the purposes of this analysis, the larger vessel sizes
were used. The applicant's shoreline measures 152.59 feet, as determined using the
provided Boundary Survey, and the combined vessel length is 53.25 feet; therefore, the
vessels would only occupy 34.9 percent of the waterfront if stacked end to end.
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 dock has been designed within the designated riparian lines
and is consistent with the existing docks along the subject shoreline. Additionally, as the
subject property is located within the coastal high hazard area, as per the future land use
map (FLUM), most residences are constructed well above grade with the habitable area
being over parking.
Page 4 of 6
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. 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 dockfacilities exceptfor 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 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-PL20210002681, filed by
Michael T. Jones of SteMic Marine Construction representing Robert and Jackie Rapp, with
respect to the property described as 52 Southport Cove, also known as Lot 44, Southport on the
Bay, Unit Two, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida, for the
following:
• A 31.47-foot boat dock extension over the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude
a total of 51.47 feet into a waterway that is 480± feet wide for the benefit of the subject
property.
Said changes are fully described in the Site and Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and the
Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Site and Dock Plans
Exhibit B — Boundary Survey
Page 5 of 6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
52 Southport Cove, also known as Lot 44, Southport on the Bay, Unit Two, in Section 6, Township
48 South, Range 25 East
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. The restoration plantings must be installed and inspected by Collier County staff prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the boat dock.
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.
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"
RIPARIAN LINE EXHIBIT 8
EXISTING DOCK AND -4 MLW
WALKWAY TO BE REMOVED
258 +/- TO THE TYPICAL ROUTE OF BOAT TRAFFIC
.7-3 MLW / (DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A MARKED CHANNEL)
-2 MLW.'.. • "' •.
36.97 ft
-1 MLW
14.0 ft
�l MHW .24. ft
lQ1
iz, d ft
PROPOSED
( P/L)
NEW DOCK AND LIFTS
A
ROVES
\MAN
c'0
3
20.0
\32 ft
5147ft
�ti� Rio
\ 4.5
ft '• %�
ft
\
�1
\/ 0
\
,MANGROVES 8. b,ft
4.0 ft pp ft \
44.18 ft
DISTANCE FROM MHW TO '' i R / 17 00t ., -
EXTENT OF THE BOAT. TO. RIPARI4N
POUTER
NEW WALKWAY CONSTRUCTED \
IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS
MANGROVES
THE EXISTING WALKWAY.
RIPARIAN- LINE
\
?p.
SQUARE FOOTAGE
F o�'SFR�
gsFMFNgTioN
� 1
- DOCK (TERMINAL PLATFORM) 160 SO. FT.
\ MHW
- WALKWAY BEYOND MHW 252 SO. FT.
\ t(P/L)
- WALKWAY IN THE CE 80 SO. FT.
\
- WALKWAY LANDWARD OF CE 6 SO. FT.
\
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 498 SO. FT.
MATERIALS TO BE USED:
- 8" ROUND MARINE PILING WITH 2.5 C.C.A. TREATMENT
Q�OPE
N
- 2" X 8" ROUGH SAWN SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE WITH
.60 C.C.A. TREATMENT
- 2" X 6" PT DECKING OR I" X 6" WEAR DECK DECKING
RAPP DOCK AND LIFTS
- FRAMING WILL BE SECURED USING 5/8" 305
NAME
STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS
52 SQUTHPQRT COVE
- DECKING WILL BE SECURED USING *10 X 3" 305
` /
]OBADDRESS.
STAINLESS STEEL SCREWS
Scope of Work:
REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING DOCK
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 8' X 20'
Office 239-481-7143
Fax 239-481-3563
DOCK WITH A 4' x 84.5' WALKWAY.
EXHIBIT 8
www.stemicmarine.com
INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF TWO BOAT
BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
LIFTS.
PL20210002681
CGC 1527841
Date 7-22-22 Scale-1 "=20' Dwg# 2
RAPP DOCK AND LIFTS 52 SOUTHPORT CV (BD)
SQ FT over water 412 Total SQ FT 498
SIDE VIEW A -A
TYPICAL SPACING
RAPP DOCK AND LIFTS
TO OUTER LIMIT OF BOAT OUTBOARD
i
8" PILING FOR DOCK
(MIN. 40% PENETRATION 0' MLW
ON EACH PILING) MHW (-.58 NAVD88)
2" X 8" ROUGH SAWN LUMBER (-0.02 NAVD88) 1' MLW
USED FOR STRINGERS AND CAP BEAMS.
STRINGERS SPACED AT 20" O.C. MAX.
CAP BOARDS SECURED WITH 5/8" SS BOLTS.
MATER ALS TO BE USED:
- 8" ROUND MARINE PILING WITH 2.5 C.C.A. TREATMENT FOR THE DOCK
- 0" ROUND MARINE PILING WITH 2.5 C.C.A. TREATMENT FOR THE LIFT
- 2" X 8" ROUGH SAWN SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE WITH .60 C.C.A.
TREATMENT
X 6" WEAR DECK DECKING
- FRAMING WILL BE SECURED USING 5/8" 305 STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS
- DECKING WILL BE SECURED USING #10 X 2.5" 305 STAINLESS STEEL
SCREWS
EXHIBIT 5
BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
PL20210002681
RAPP DOCK AND LIFTS 52 SOUTHPORT CV (BD)
EXHIBIT 5
27' BOAT SHOWN ON THE LIFT WITH
MAX EXTENSION INTO THE WATERWAY
10" PILING USED
00 T FOR BOAT LIFTS
18.1 FT 8.00 F (MIN. 40%
PENETRATION
ON EACH PILING)
MHW (-0.02 FT)
MLW (-0.58 FT)
I" X 6" WEAR u
DECK DECKING
DECKING SECURED 2' MLW
WITH #10 x 2.5"
STAINLESS STEEL
SCREWS.
POOR molol-jot1
Office 239-481-7143
Fax 239-481-3563
www.stemicmarine.com
CGC 1527841
3' MLW
4'MLW
NAME RAPP
JOB ADDRESS 52 SOUTHPORT COVE
Scope of Work:
CONSTRUCTION OF A 8' X 20' TIMBER DOCK
WITH A 4' WIDE WALKWAY AND INSTALLATION
OF A 16,000# ALUMINUM AND A 10,000#
LIFT.
Date 7-22-22 Scale I"=10' Dwg# 2
SQ FT over water 412 Total SQ FT 499
.. p
.:..axe--��-=�---_�-_:;c``:•:=-=-�, --
Bar oot tB
r
HW TO MHW
DISTANCE
.• �, rF
480'
— DISTANCE FROM PROPOSED
DOCK TO EXISTING DOCK
OF PROPOSED DOCK
{
N1aI:NE CONSTRUCTION
�- �- Y EXHIBIT 6
Club
PL 7
Ty
TR4 �� ti ROUT
pH4 NA,�/�� 7-F OF
T yF MQ R FD R7Ny R MT TT Rq FFi
CygNNF<T Tp � F 4,VDFD
SOOT HFq ST
Google Ea
IKa.r �
• w ,+hrY.Pr 4.' rN �•nr•. t.m
- `rs-........'r— _.
.moo• ....• 1s. ...,• r..............
•'Y` mif6 W
. i .umaaroo
y acrns
..... _ _...�.....«. >r.» .. ter.
...nw....»r t.. r ww�i.rw�r'YOMM...Y rr•w.J... 1J
GAP ROCK 5OULDERS LAYOUT PLAN
i
tf
00
OleMCri1.01e]Da® f0 aOaT1
�CpLW IiT1hTe\Q�f1 rR MD
• 'I �—....—_— u I`�• _-� �1U06SYIIlI ICIICRA'• TYL
�®_ 11 maw.auwn.sa.®no e�o..�
� �' eeuoowma: rotnrx wrv.Au
LtlOafJf! A1SJ0lA ot. AaeAe
_ _ isferaaT enm�was i.
eoar�erole m rnD :aw -- , .un.m na euaw.
1 MACNG . FIML ara»na 1 ^ M L40eGYR.arOa16:T 1®Y•b
na me re ae0er n.T.new aw.oe
•.�_.} MYYaR ORM WD.CAr•. — i. � OR TdYOLf wQYOO YTir�TM
MOY1Ci /re0rt io .lO0�101e�1
. � eeTAlLAT1�1 � . -R pT1l Qew?O011I•IOw!
g� � ,, tA.MC/Pe 00114.Crow tO.OIK M
�.__.' il® 1.__. fA1T'�AO Klemm DCO•
� .Im.Yr M ee4 mlmsne
- -
. _ _.
•• sil M &Y TQ LIrDeLAm
�e:we ale.cwnrAer Au
!!I•YLlR 6!m ruwc m m .a.LuaD
IaM Q✓IbD IIpR drLrlllll
TYPICAL GARAC-iE ESPALIER DETA L%
••ODRAGT 9►]G13L0
TD1T �
L_I W.Am V!••ro•
fOeeM friAL LATOYi G111 LAIDeGIfe
AatANTlGr.ppR To NfULLAT
Ili�g sr. t� rwll�� ru�ii ` d
10, row
n �i rA
•'^"'� �E... i, .. '.Kt��•m.-:fe',•al.. ' v.� �li,�'"gg
I��NT/�!^ 7 ASK '•� .1 �rtf .� .n�
="t;�� (g..d✓ '��'A^krfG'' P..a��Q.9 :"•;.•��.�`�••i-+H'R
��rrii —rat»
�II
PLANT Nt5 PLAN
eCJ.Ll. r . lee
LIMSCAM
•.
CIM
"Y=1wral"L ATw e O to
•• e lnFWU M►oaA
-7waC,104 "cAeYaw.
CI
wooA u w. 6lwjareD To
ocswMM LMOppI
OTeTO1 T4T eC►ARATCe e.ICG LAID1 ANo
ANiW. Da' !e 1•L'It M L4m.r.V•. P'LIYI
IaOtle eCatDOI
ya_v_�,ro_�e• r1aw n..wcrABt.G ru
" P. BOULDER PLANTING DETAIL
eeAl.a MT&
WINDHAN
studio Inc
n��w tm
r. n+rugl
I im •. oa5.71 10
EXHIBIT "B"
FIELDBOOK 191 PAGE 10 DATE 4-5-06 SECTION 6 ,TlNP 48 S, RGE 25 E
NORTH ARROW FOUNDATION LOCATION FIELDBOOK PAGE LEGEND
■ Wn
SETcohr MON WCA I.Df35"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SE T IRON RNwGRIDt 553
a FD cc MON WOAP
O FD c AION
[ AS PROVIDED BY CLIENT) Oy FD IRON RN
A� ASSUMEDEIEVATION
This is a boundary survey of the following: Lot 44, Southport on R RECOR D
the Bay, Unit Two as recorded in Plat Book 16, Pages 100-101 M MERED
Y 9 CON'T REVERSE SIDE
SCALE of the public records of Collier County, Florida. FINAL SURVEY DATE
1 "=30'
Mean High Water Line 1
ig
per Plat Book 16, Pgs. - 9
100 & 101, Collier Co., LP o y
dated 4/16/1990
Exis ng Little Hickory Bay
Wo d Dock
Lot 45 - Occupied 5/8" & L t
No Ld
Set 1R" LP ti ��e •.`l, �90
's\�a Proposed
Dock & Lifts
72
' s\pb rl`y. S7
/ 5/8"
ti
/ #6611 89°$ '3` 4x4 '` To 44 7
/ � � 'M M n <gope �nB
Benchmark
is lop of conc. Set
slab, El. 4.40' 1(b A CantleMered 20' Conservation Easement
NAVD88 alum. decker Landward of Mean High
Water Typical
#52
2 Story S. a5 97��'oe a
Elevated Set 12" 1 P
4 wood deck 8
Lot 44 518"
�l Spiral
21 Spiral
L( staircase Set 1/2"I P No l d
Generator
1 P C. platform
/ Nr, Ld '' hn,3 13613R 136
If
/ o N66 Pool v
Equip.
T13 r0` Cantilevered Lot 43 - Occupied
/ / 5/8"
7 A/C platform
CData / / / Dame ed Ca LO
/ / U date boundary survey and = '"F yRT11 IL, ^'
/ show proposed dock & lifts
Arc=36.92 / / ha. at k
8/6/21, see tiles for fieldwork. TATr Or
CH=36.90'R 36.85'M ` ^' '
CB=N27°06'23"W
Located elevated decks
12126/18, see files for fieldwork. StArA
Update survey and locate MHW line, 8/8/18,
see files for fieldwork Staked Conservation Easement Additional information added 12/17/21.
Added Detail 8/14118 8/22118, see files for fieldwork see sheet 2 of 2
NOTES CERTIFICATE
1 REPRODUCTION OF THIS SKETCH IS NOT VALID UNLESS SEALED I hereby certify that the above described property was surveyed
WITH AN EMBOSSED SURVEYOR'S SEAL. under my direction and the sketch of survey is We and correct
2 NO INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD REFLECTING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS- to the best of my knowledge This survey meets or exceeds
OF -WAY. AND OR OWNERSHIP WERE FURNISHED THIS SURVEYOR the standards of practice set forth by the Florida Board of Land
EXCEPT AS SHOWN Surveyors, pursuant to Rule 5J-17 Florida Administrative
3 NO UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS HAVE Code, and pursuant to Section 472.027 Florida Statutes There
BEEN LOCATED EXCEPT AS NOTED. are no visible encroachments other than those shown hereon
4 BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON
Centerline Southport Cove being N30°53'03"W
5 THIS PROPERTY LIES IN FLOOD ZONE AE EL 9 NAVD88 PER F I R M
PANEL NO 12021C 0179H , DATED 5/16/2012 P L S
6 LAST DATE OF FIELDWORK 4.4.06.8/8/18,8/22/1812/26118 816/21 MARK 0 ALLEN P.L.S #3553
7 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF LB #6558
FAX: (239) 992-6070 MARK O. ALLEN, INC. 10602 WOODS CIRCLE
TELE: (239) 992-8900 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
OWN BY CHICO BY ORDERED BY SHEET 1 OF 2
SMA I I Robert & Jackie Rapp DWG. NO. 2006-127
�I
IMean Hi
I ` per Plat
R1g S it
I\ datetl 41
5/6
NoI
Set 12'rP /
i
m�
\'rareKoi
o Little Hickory Bay \
Proposed
?p Dock 8 Ufts
O
O
O'
Six f71P NO Ld\ \\
\
\
SCALE \�
V=49
F-MM PIt]EL1
A= Arc
EOW- Edge of Water
P.O.8= Point of 8egininng
APPROX= Approximate
FB= Fieldbook
P.O.C= Point of Commencement
ASPH= Asphalt
FD- Found
P.O.L= Point on Line
AVE= Avenue
FLA= Florida
PROP= Property
BLVD= Boulevard
IP= Iron Pin
P.T= Point or Tangency
B.M= Benchmark
LN= Lane
PUE= Public Utility Easement
¢,=Centerline
M= Measured
R= Record or Radh,s
CH= Chord
M.E= Maintenance Easement
RAD= Radius
CALC= Calculated
MH= Manhole
RCP= Reinforced Concrete Pipe
C.B= Chord Bearing
MHW= Mean High Water
RD= Road
CBS- Concrete Block Stiuct. a
MON- Monument
RDL= Radial
CdGS Coastal and Geodetic Survey
N/A- Not Applicable
RES= Residence
CHK'D- Checked
NGVD= National Geodetic Vertical Datum
RLS= Registered Land Surveyor
CMP= Con gated Metal Pipe
NO= Number
R.O.W= Right of Way
CO. County
O.R Book= Official Record Book
R ar RGE= Range
CONC= Concrete
ORIG= Original
SEC= Section
CDR=Garner
OfS= Offset
ST= Street
CT= Court
P.B= Plat Book
STY= Story
D.E- Drainage Easement
P.C= Point or Curvature
TOB= Top of Bank
Des- Description
PG.Page
T U.E. - Technology Utiliry Easement
D.H= Dorrf Hole
P.1= Point or Intersection
TYP- Typical
DVM. Drawn
PLS= Professional Land Surveyor
Tor TWP= Township
EL or ELEV- Elevation
R= Property Line
UE= Utility Easement
EDP- Edge of Pavement
PLS= Professional Land Surveyor
WI- With
�= Delta or Benchmark
Dgd= Fire Hydrant
SHEET 2 OF 2
DWG. NO 2006-127