HEX Backup Documents 02/09/2023 Collier County (HEX)
Hearing Examiner
Hearing
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
February 9, 2023
z •
0 Ce
z W •
Q
z _Z z
I w g us
„ F- W I-
o0 w O
m � Z Q Ll
_ cc Q
Q z
O
wW
r
J c=i) P, _ ¢ F-
4 ~ n W Ow
S2 � _ z ¢
,' > 0 ►— w
r 1 p � J OO
-P•
¢ Q O Wo
i_ co co QSP
�4 r. _. I .W W 4440 .d-W
W
* ¢ O � z
m 1— o 0
i Q O �,
i4 ti � Q m0
411 CV Z a- u.
• C < zii� - Z oo
0 0 41 W 9 cLu
m Z W o Oo
cf)
O n- OwE WO a
Q cw
E zw� Ce _
ilimmi 0 v S o U = o ~
U cn DCw0 LLO
co W
UV W W W HQ � ( _ o. Z o --'a
cl ozo%' wz _n
> W—4: 1 • 1 . -' zWa
.. Nw
ct
CI Z -
z cmz =
mm W wm
o >- ic• o =
_ ,/ Q J U1—
43 z W U
cn OS ;I; II C L Q U
V C ( c = a
.. .
0
d) d -j
01) T E a.d U
ICIC a) Ca
M Z Ce •
z '
z W
O Z
¢ "
coz
w cn
f, - W
o w 0 > _
w � Z o
°° 1- - ¢ o
N r _1- < Q zw
, ¢ w W w w
in � CIW ( w
NS2 = LT, ¢
% >-- O 1- w
O o � - oz0
z � ~
� ( ¢ Q O Wo
N f� Y Y
- - - S CJ)z p- I__ .i
w 0 z J
`Y{ - 0 Q w Zi
V aQ O z
f• m ~ o(4. ._ 0
U
CI
1 N- ~ < FO
--
o ¢
` o
" °'Z ti
.mooC� v _ o CL Q z w
�a ¢ ¢ u) 0u)
0.Q w om 'z 00
z
Cl) % WO a. o
F-
< r OO w13-1
E ii oo = 1 �
oO
it U m n= w O w
3 " m ~ O
N = d -o p I--- 0 0 U
U
�� ww W WF=
.0 ¢ ui Z p Q
w
co - z
N u) o
oFw--- we
(`( cc.i > W z w I
4� ) a
N. p U L? O vn
•
¢ cn
C\ - w
. O O zw
Uz 1.._ cnz
IZ
NA
t ¢ >- F-
•
Ozm W Lii m
C O1_ f
O
= 0 >- O =
d -}, U d.
13 V C w 0
CD c cp E.D. o ›-
a)
liCt a)
z Ce
I
z
O z u
W
�q Q Z_
z M z
- w X s
ow 0 > �
K. anZ ¢ 0
.Q ce zO
a
- w W w w
NJ 1- 0 c o x
W � W
0 ( co � _ Z >
8rO w
o �
O J z 0 Et W
Ni ' < < CI) L-1
Q W Q Q
F- W w
CI t— _ °- 02
J W
Q� 0 z
(Id . � 0 0 O -
ce U
• 1 E- < - O
(NI Z °' u.
=MINN
V u i'l ¢ Q co o
a W om
O = OO
o l""" o = W F- O �
w GNI
CW a a> ¢ i O w CL'
1 o 5. 0 =p N W' 1—
� O O
U N w 0
m = W P O
C a -a cn w 0 O z
a Q u. U- "2
01'-- U
W W W
Q � W m -i
C -
_� Z
co m w
co - W
ccV > W z W..` rj O Oz ¢ L OC
6,5
O , N Uz_ 0 z
Z < > o
zm W Lai co
Er p rO I_- c:C
1 ¢ J U }—
z W
w 1.1 O
a) . a• C) >-
01 E CL o
Q = C
z
z W
< z
z
z
w F
Ow 0 w �
3 w � z o _
Co
�< < zo
. 6. = o =
Ul Q
ui
cn w _ � >
1-
fil '., z J
J oW z o
� z
O � n
..� ¢ W CO < CO
--- 0 i __....) 2 }- "'",,,,. ci_ ILI
- 3w � ° z ='
_ � Q
Sc: 0
wo I-- O —
...,, . .(.:
Q mO
N < Z a_a.
on
.• � • 'ca Q ¢ N o cwII
0
O 5 W om z 00
o .1- w cn
wILD
0
QW ODJ
CtS U Cl) aD 0ix_ 00
a .a a a 1-- O O z
o "-
z � N Q —
Q.� "' Fw- w m �
< - - 0 —
`n w Z
¢ cr -J
o ¢
co _ 00
> ow—. w /26
�/n' N > w Z
, \ d o 1--• cn
('" wU O c/,Z
O , Cis 0 z F-
Z -
_) • m zm W wm
Ol - c6 ~ w
E4 O >- O 1
d zz J O 1-
+1a tl. z w —
as ,` � c 0 Q
.0 i ;'
w
O
CD
.
Q M z Cc •
�tz
:t.r•N
� z �
`1 l Z
z Qz
w X -
` A . � w O > �
�U m1 Z ¢ -
a 0
I Q w
co - Q i-
co
� ¢
CO 0 �. p J
co
\_ OQ Z � p O o\ ¢ ¢ (I) WQ W U) ¢ Q_ ~ W LU
Ct a- Ill
--„.....f
c',/ L.L.C. CI
wm 0 Ozp
tiF Q cc'
=V f MINE • . a w
O. ili «f .¢ ¢ [n
QW o co1--z 0 0
I-
N N o ec
°
cuLI-
W r LO
cu
aoi Q w O w
z _' v" , t-
z
Cl)
o U U = p
U to w O E'
173 E 'V m I- O
a C -t3 0 O O z
CD o Q 1-1-1u. u_ Y
o
U
Q _
W I- ui in1-
1- m al
W
co¢ � _ O- °p-
'¢ w Z
W
a 41
k.., :4: v_,_
w - O
p H W 1
n ks4 j
z Q u. O u)
C)--- "\
vz O0 cnz
Z L zm z =
E
p CO
ct O LLI l'-' ICY_
O >- * O =
1- Q J UF-
immmi O z W 0
_ °-
ca m al 0
(1) c' 0 Q o
* Z °C
•qi
C z� WZ
•
i -
O
w a c
+� z
`L
w , w
O ffi>
� Z Ds km < Q
.4 z O
`s
k = p = o
' CD
w C— o W w
_k. K co O I - w ow
N /J o -I z
O
4. J 0 0 a
_ � W � ¢
' I-- Ce a w —_
m— ---
LUI
-- ,� : 0 Q
LIJZ 5 !I
c0 ¢ 0 z
rTh
1 m F- O
< U
CC
• N � °-Zu.C� _ o. alQ ¢ n
o ~
O a W o Z OO
o 'r cn=-- mto N
w0 _ � O
vY 0 IIltL
A". E zW � _
o • t/j CS =cvs
p0
v i O H ›
a o ~ 0 Oz
Q v z � co ¢ U
� I- W m _
Q 3 = O O
Qw Z ~ -
C]
co * wz
N v nli
<� O 1 � I- °
l z < LL. 0 �
• z
O c� z cnz
°' zm W wm
c io F- cr
ie Or * o =
a >- z J 0 F-
O_ z ¢ w 0
a
U) = O
CD �, - a) O
-J >-
E CI..
a)
cC * z Ce
1r
z
0 Et
z w
0 Z
z z_
wCLI E
r- W F-
J L Ow > -,
• w
Z o —
Q zap..
• ¢ w W ww
N R coc x < �
,- o w 0 w
� � o I-• W ¢
co y. O '
• o I-K4 QZ
O � n
_Iz
rJ ¢ W o) Q �
= t- W w ¢
c 5- o <Ci w -§
-� c, 0 ¢ 0 z
it w EI
0
• "-6 N= U �I
n N. I-- < m O
S-1 ct
o Q ci R
on Z �- LL
r mum� .- z f < Z J
` Q I W o m ~ 0 0
Z
o = W cn
cNI
CD CD
H
W.�� co ►il—, P cu0N = 6 0
00
s cn
45 cn O I-' 0 O
CO
z
C a 'a ° I- 0 0 Z
G) o a p O � Y
�, z cc to < U
Q 2cn F— m �
•
¢ - n OO
`' < w Z -
o
'� '9 c1 o z
` N > W zw
. .T N 1\1 . q3
O Q LL- O u)
0 C� c� zzz
l v
E t1 a � o H � �cu
as
irtr .
0) -a E a. 0
M
co
Lo
O
O
i
M
O
n
II
CJ N co
•' W Y > CI rn
l e. oif W (n N in
II WEC H ` Lo,Nor Z
4•,_
t . . l Z O60.00 co
} Q Z� cisCIV
W — o� Z a o
.. ¢• W �O N OWUW
':f , J ^ ^ N c N N
r- Vim == O W
..-LP, ',
P , r _ . s a 7 •
C u No a) 00M, Qxi E am ,c X
al
Limill
.;. t �� Z 1- Ik�W O j a 05
ri El EW a>= p�Z co
p <a2.�.. dQO 3 ao
LLZl4fnmJ>_1
S �. c
O
4........ ......„ , •.... _Van derMlOR �� L, E o
ii
-:,,.. ....i:..-'. to t., i.,4 4 14..._::-" .T.._..,„,"', „..,,-5,..pr*";
z - - - im..: .y c
44
o_ 1...:7.::#.,.' ••`' ...m. - -....'a 7-7 , .-, a -tv.„,..- IIII Qi . "taw 06
• 101111.. ��- . -
w ..� � co
oSlialuiliell.
II 0 co
•
E .= 1:rw
, ,..: 0 XI I
• .. 1 yW =c,.. Z, O J
- ` r `III I`
o
' rl E m
E-c S
am
.F2,,_- ii=s1
�I_. _- -' . N� _•. . • -fir 'ItY.• •• • a)
S / /- Y C II
• yt ' r T a C U .5
v
cm
x
f, Q
to
r�J �.�
di:: a E
t' \ f+
_ i, _ ~:n a
�1• w' — qn O (0
i ` _• „ a` a
` � ' • ci N a
in
__L9:5")
CO
O
11)411 X
03
co
a
co
J 2 N
op_ i1 W V)N CO
z . n W it H I NI-
rn= Oppo
W z ooU ��UW `o co
M
Jy $ a)— c2 n
a. O m ,ai �v V N N Gi 030
y X
Z a ~ pd m
rr cn
a co
o•
-' ,7 W m I. -Q Z*E V J X
t, o N �S
f N a Q Q u° 7YJaff� y� aN
Z ��k ❑W f� c O
' 431 .
or,
-• El d 9 R Y- m r-
pmIr5wa0
N.
LLZU)V)mJ>J
I
oi
CO
o
L
° r i i E cof CNI
fi•e 06
‘110 a)
,j.,_1, - ' ' 17r,. 1 0
,[ ,, 0
C It /� N
co
Cr_ �, 4
1 r 7 C
LL Ucu O IA co
i icv reN i ,X, r g me- X
_ j 4 , :..)... ,_ ..1 .7i, .
. iit :..4.
........... . ..,.. _ __ . Lrj.,.
ct
Lii
ii
• R' O N J
II •
".. U 0.1
a.
at.
cl
iiti
i' a ! '' o
.114 Q J
\ ti -' - - " r I.�
N C
y , , o a'
ks
ii
'6' '' ,;“I7:1111W4t,i r....-...:•:i.': 28_80c: .ez........--
co
- It' iti.t..t4. ,,„eh E!:191'\.\ '''st,:f 1 -# P6.
eL
I
(.7
co
ba a co
71
lr N at
r x, ocn
g.
-� - D(rr�, C NpII ( � _• . ' O� h tf' .r CIS a Ud 4 -f
as
cNi
so
tn
co
'7 `p, t + yy 1
N L
•L...0
Imoo°
�_. .• W Y -o N
> J o
m O. M
C[W U)N d CO
C o�m W Z 'o - 4
�„ Z _ Ojo W Z= a cMo
W Z �J CO O - E co
R I I
co
•:,Y' s ,r _ +•r d 0O O O N m •zr- O U y X
* Q K 2 N� U +•co
a. m2 m .0. a E
O % v W w _ 2 J Z C p J y co
cors-
y..dill Y::}}�' �• i1J 0. Q Q 11 O a Q _ M
1 U Ed5o,z I-
I a 03� 0Q0 3 00
LLZV)mJ>J
0
7 —— it r. cCPI M
f}} rn
. '. 's 4112 11111:M1111111111111111r.-
I
co
. 14 ,'•,•.; „ • l' '....1. — -,t e. '. : ...... '..I"
7.--14. i .: •' kr - ..- t VIM* E
• CCI O CO
al. oo
. _ 4),,4k,,-!-?„-,...0..‘.,7...1.%-•••.—•-• 5•*•^1..
C 1 Y N j
d :.+W+.i�.. i` .. �.. 1+� ter.w.. ` -
_ a� � `. er �7�, .: - _ _ E hi X
06
� .1.• d a
1� co
It a •. •. .; .t' o:° W
fiEL
t' , co
N
o
^gi IMP. r•'" '�.- 1 - .f ,Z' oa N
a.
U
q-id. 7, „..,7,-,.,,..,-,1 74';‘:;"": 1- L.., fe.+1
co
co
co
jj Y} • 4: it- .... -.
d
r I _,,, 11111H...
al
} 'F.. R a I
a`
v ca
(N._.`'-' IS E.r ,
, ..... _ 4t3 b• tit I,-.. 4 E
N l _c
1J\)
o
\\i;
J ii
t��; ;;
ry.
r'� ' co
ii
as
Cr E
Y
J O co
Ili Q coa N
(n N 2
•'
V
O> W ECH co Q ?Z QZow aco
W �
Ili
a N O)Qcr,NaWCO.I- W o co
oo
• ,{••►..^~t a y N N p N c m '6 O 0 U N co
Q Y Z A A A V g C O.m N X
ii
d �p I- a x
i� O t •-, — •o -0 J Z E N cox c=
�-' Z * W
. ❑ = �ZH N-
O m.. 5 a>QO 3 0
LLZfnmJ>J,
J' ..I or - l t „j j. t� • ' t al } I
....
� 1, r? ;i1E117 •I'
o
r:il • .. .... z
I I
fr •, ' co
r , t- c
_ 6-. A N M
C Vanderbilt DR — '•iR' ' cco
o
co
-. ' '`
_ - _�, is —_-- gym
U
`. � , . C
•
5
1 Y• 1 �_ 05
ii AP� ! d
0.
T X'4'- I — 1 Ii
OP J
r `Il a
+:
�' '` ' � 2 m ot5
�" 3 r t �/ .r• cpi m W
a
i. ..... 1 -- �o a
- a Z
<Q.
(., ..,
.. ,
•3, :.
....
,. ..40.. .f. ..v
>,
_ ; - -r w .5
M �� • - m
I ..,,,......., _ 1 '- g.1 - 1 it
co
-) \' '' it - L `m
„�'i• =�1,- 'till ' . a a v,
•N :,' i?�., - o a„ a a
•
g r y , ' ., ' `` . a a o
:� `m_
'r' • i T'^' _ 3 o a
LC) .
CO
co
, _,,
>_
,„
a3
E
ed
Q a) co
W Y > co
> J O
¢ m a CV
W W N Nf
1., 0 ,o N COco wzoO¢ z Q Nv
co E o cw O�j co
^ am = Y Oin�O)UW ` )-.. {� rc eo _
•i• � ~
d IJ o o c n 2 -- _I� y Ni N _ jO9O a m..I. ,
.I.-• L. • , a ,o ce u E�_ .am
-Jr 'Q = 2 y dL 16 •�� ay 06, • g V A LL Z C V J
• _� • Z. E¢,n ym N Mr : f . a m G -
cn
• LLZfgmJ>J
cco
4 all o:i
I c coI t. 4 1 , ...13
-� O
, 1,,,,,
�� p II
C
ots
e. : -__--Ili-- . .. ,It'iikl,,.., ...,1 7
ate. .•�� co
a co•
a cow r' N co•'C.
0,� N M
a @ri
co
ii
d-E.y � r" _,4
11 ■ t o rw
- I / • .> a cc
ers
I`
c
0 co
t 1 ' '
a@ w
a
ti,
J
• f� 24
_....„.
, v ,
r j y ..
. ., . •
.NN p
a<$NE
QJ'Co
.a)II1r ' - a)aj
II
o
U
U X
1, C. yj
L
03
•
o
a a
a
a U 0
N
N U to
v
N 1 it • ,_ \ .._ $\ V (NIO 2
N •) 1. \ -.:w..�-- L
•
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS APPLYING LDC Section 5.03.06.
DOCK FACILITIES- CRITERIA
OBJECTORS' EXHIBIT 1
LDC Section 5.03.06. - DOCK FACILITIES- (text may be bolded and/or in ALLCAPS for emphasis)
A. Generally. Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and
provide safe access for routine maintenance and use, while minimally impacting navigation within
any adjacent navigable channel, the use of the waterway, the use of neighboring docks, the native
marine habitat, manatees, and the view of the waterway by the neighboring property owners.
H. Dock facility extension. Additional protrusion of a dock facility into any waterway beyond the
limits established in LDC subsection 5.03.06 E. may be considered appropriate under certain
circumstances. In order for the [Hearing Examiner] to approve the boat dock extension request, it
must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary
criteria, have been met. These criteria are as follows:
1. Primary Criteria:
a. 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. (The
number should be APPROPRIATE; typical, single-family use should be no more than 2
slips; typical multi-family use should be 1 slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged
barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate).
As to the first primary criterion, although we agree that the LOW DENSITY,
RESIDENTIAL upland land use, and RSF-3 zoning of the subject property may ALLOW for a
32 FOOT BDE to be granted where APPROPRIATE, there is no express right to such principal
uses having two boat slips for two vessels! That's especially the case where, as here, they are
proposed to be longer and larger in length. Simply put, our position is that as to the number
of boat slips, proposing two (2) longer, large boats is NOT appropriate in relation to the
Vanderbilt-Conners Lagoon area LOCATION, NOR as to the subject lot's 80' WATERFRONT
LENGTH.
In that regard, MOORING TWO LARGER LENGTH VESSELS IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE GENERAL AND LONG-STANDING PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT AND
Page 1 of 15
APPROVAL OF DOCK FACILITIES IN THE Vanderbilt Connors lagoon area neighborhoods.
Two longer, larger vessel boat slips are not the "TYPICAL" intensity of accessory use for the
"TYPICAL"lots in the Lagoon area's straight-zoned residential districts. IN RELATION TO THE
Subject Lot's INDIVIDUAL AND MORE GENERALIZED Vanderbilt-Conners Lagoon area
LOCATION, based upon my detailed review of the Property Appraiser's website's official
aerials circa 2022, and all prior HEX BDE approvals in the Lagoon area (identified in the table
found in Attachment "A," incorporated by reference as if set forth here) I have been unable to
locate or determine the existence of any other lot with an 80' waterfront width that has two
large vessels moored in a canal. Although narrower lots in the Lagoon area LOCATION have
allowed for one larger vessel and multiple jet skis on a smaller lift or pre-existing dock and
smaller watercraft, those have typically been designed with a perpendicular dock arrangement,
especially where the adjacent water-way widths are three (3) or more times wider than here.
(See, BDE HEX Decisions 20-17 & 22-36).
Factually, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER DOCK FACILITIES WITH TWO LARGER
VESSELS MOORED in this LOCATION and finding it is APPROPRIATE under the
circumstances here, as proposed, has not been supported by either petitioners' or staffs ipse
dixit conclusions. Neither petitioner nor staff has provided any meaningful analysis to reach
the circular conclusion that simply because typically a single-family residence MAY be allowed
two slips, therefore, a priori, two boat slips at this LOCATION is somehow magically
appropriate without any more considered. The argument appears to be that simply because
you could have two regardless of whether you met the requisite circumstances or not, you are
entitled to have two boat slips.
Page 2 of 15
Further, by seeking two boat slips for longer, larger vessels the petitioners' number of
vessels is inappropriate in relation to the waterfront lot width/linear length of the subject
as evidenced by their combined vessel LOA's being 27' more than the third Secondary criterion
(2.c.) allows. Stated differently that's more than 67% greater than allowable. I'd ask the HEX
to note that the LDC expressly states that the maximum 50% percentage allowable length of
ALL vessels "should be maintained," and is a factor properly applied here in evaluating this
criterion because if not considered as an applicable circumstance here AS TO the LDC's
expressly stated LOT WATERFRONT LENGTH, then there is no other place in the overall
analysis of whether the number of boat slips in relation to waterfront length is considered to be
appropriate or not. To suggest that the third Secondary criterion fully addresses this
consideration regarding MAINTAINING THE TOTAL allowable length requires the HEX to
ignore the above-quoted LDC text. We believe doing so by simply finding the third Secondary
criterion would not be met is an incomplete and inadequate analysis. We believe the HEX
ought to find this criterion has not been met because in relation to the lot's waterfront length
two boat slips for longer, larger vessels is NOT APPROPRIATE AND in relation to this
LOCATION proposing two longer, larger vessels is also NOT APPROPRIATE!
To the extent petitioners' may already own the two vessels proposed to be moored at
the requested dock facility and they argue that acts as a compelling rationale for mooring both
vessels at this site allowing them to do so as a matter of right legitimizes vessel owners to
inappropriately use the BDE process as a substitute for keeping their second vessels at a more
hurricane-safe marina or boat storage house. In more stark terms, "wanting" to moor two
longer, larger vessels does not establish and demonstrate why two boat slips under a BDE
petition are "needed."
Page 3 of 15
Finally, Petitioner's spare, self-serving conclusion of meeting this criterion without any
substantive analysis of the facts or applicable law is neither competent NOR substantial
evidence, and we therefore respectfully ask that the HEX find this criterion has NOT BEEN
MET.
b. 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).
STAFF RIGHTLY STATES THIS CRITERION HAS NOT BEEN MET and we therefore
respectfully ask that the HEX SO find.
c. 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). MET
d. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the
waterway, and whether a minimum of 50% of the waterway width between dock facilities on either
side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required
percentages).
Although asserted by petitioner and staff to have been MET, and not to disagree and argue
they have not been met, we strongly suggest that if the parenthetical mandatory text for 25 and 50
percentage waterway widths are EVER NOT maintained, and a design for a dock facility that does
not maintain the required percentages is APPROVED, then that mandatory portion of the LDC
provision has not been applied or properly considered. That would render it impermissible mere
surplusage. Accordingly, our position is that under those clearly inappropriate circumstances, the
HEX WOULD THEN BE compelled to DENY such a request regardless of whether the required
number of Primary and Secondary criteria are otherwise met!!
Page 4 of 15
e. 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).
We cannot agree, and believe this criterion has NOT BEEN MET, notwithstanding petitioners'
three paragraph, quoted text from their agent, which has been relied upon by staff for its positive
recommendation without any meaningful analysis. None of that discussion addresses how proposing
two boat slips does NOT interfere with both DeSoto's and Dunns' use of their legally permitted dock
facilities. In fact, petitioner asserts that, "[i]n terms of specifics, the docking facility to the east[Dunns']
is oriented so that ingress/egress occurs from the east(away from the subject property). This property
should therefore not be affected by the project at all[.]" As is evident, that assertion and conclusion
BOTH totally ignore and fail to consider that there is also a westerly facing dock for watercraft.
Similarly, their agent offers photo imagery illustrating backing distances and vessel lengths in the
Lagoon area while ignoring that none of those proffered and then included in the original staff report
demonstrate such longer vessels doing such backing maneuvers and distances where, like that being
proposed here, there is a second lift and longer boat moored waterward of the legally permitted boat
slip.
Staff asserts that it is only the otherwise conforming now fixed dock that would cause any
interference. To the contrary, it is the petitioners' own desire to add their second, more water-ward,
longer and larger boat and lift that clearly increases the angle of approach to the neighboring western
dock! Stated differently, both the proposed boat lift and its pilings as well as the beam and length of
a second, 36' vessel will increase the interference with use of both neighboring docks.
At this point I'd ask the HEX to consider the supporting sworn testimony of Ms. DeSoto, Mr. Dunn,
and Mr. Kravitz in this regard, in particular as to the preclusive impact of approving a waterward
Page 5 of 15
protrusion on use and requiring adjacent property owners to then seek similar BDE approvals to
maintain their customary usage in a safe manner.
2. Secondary criteria:
a. Whether there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to [either] the
subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the
proposed dock facility. (There must be at least 1 special condition related to the property;
these may include type of shoreline reinforcement (N/A, standard concrete sea wall with
cap), shoreline configuration (N/A-linear shoreline), mangrove growth (N/A-none), or
seagrass beds (N/A-none) ).
We contend that this criterion has NOT BEEN MET, because as stated above none of
the listed circumstances (describing examples of what may qualify as a Special Condition for
the PROPERTY) exist here. Petitioners' agent's analysis concludes that the platted canals and
lots in the Lagoon area are what necessitates the nearly uniform shore-parallel docking
facilities found throughout the Lagoon area. A candid evaluation of that conclusion leads
inexorably to our position that, as petitioners otherwise state and acknowledge, there is
nothing unique or SPECIAL about the subject waterway or lot. The stated basis for
considering it to be a special aspect of the waterway or property is argued by petitioners' agent
as having resulted from complying with the required 15' side setbacks of the two adjacent,
neighboring lots, which limits the dock facility's location and dimensions to the remaining 50'
waterfront length. Somehow, following the LDC requirements is suggested to justify that
required compliant circumstance is a Special Condition. Reduced to its logical core the
argument being made appears to be that because the existing "standard" lots and canal are
"uniform" and almost all the same those conditions somehow act to transform this otherwise
unremarkable lot and waterway into being a "special condition."
Page 6 of 15
The staff report states that the criterion has met been because; 1) "neighboring dock
facilities must be taken into account," and 2) "that the actual length of shoreline factors into the
proposed dock design." Both of these are statements made in agreement with the petitioners'
analysis. However, both the petitioners' rationale and staffs assertions are nothing more than
a restatement of an analytical methodology, at best. It's patently obvious these should be a
required part of the analytical framework and an actual analysis reaching a reasoned
conclusion to support finding the criterion has been met. However, what they are NOT, is an
actual substantive analysis of the applicable facts that would demonstrate what or how the
proposed dimensions and location of the two-boat slip dock facility is justified. This is especially
hard to accept as competent evidence by what is acknowledged by both to be the
circumstances found in/at almost every other location in the Lagoon area, i.e., the Subject
property has the exact same shoreline configuration and shoreline reinforcement as that
of almost every other "more or less uniform" lot and canal in the Lagoon area.
Similarly, petitioners state that, ". . . this shore-parallel configuration makes full use of
the riparian area difficult or not possible should the applicant want to moor a boat that is
larger than the combined 15' side setbacks of the applicant and their neighbor . . .". This
point ignores completely that only certain, uncharacteristic shoreline configurations (not an as
stated rather uniform and standard shoreline length as is found here) may justify a proposal's
size and location as a Special Condition.
Neither the applicant nor staff have provided a substantial analysis or any evidence in
the record to support the conclusion that this criterion is being met for the subject property. At
best staff reiterates the agent's positions. Most compellingly, however, the applicant appears
to argue that because there are two 15' side setbacks leaving only 50' for a shore parallel dock
Page 7 of 15
on the 80' linear waterfront, that by desiring to have a second vessel larger than the combined
15' setbacks between two adjacent lots, i.e., 30' of navigable water, that this self-created "want"
justifies consideration as a Special Condition. To borrow a phrase, these supporting arguments
to find a Special Condition are nothing more than stating, "the ends [two longer, larger boat
slips]justify the means [being construed as a Special Condition to garner approval of its BDE]!"
There is nothing distinguishable about petitioners' lot or adjacent waterway that gives or makes
it a Special Condition. Only the request itself for a second shore parallel boat slip pushing the
balance of the docking facility to waterward past the 20' maximum protrusion from shoreline
limit is any different! Again, somehow the "want" is argued to justify the sought "need!"
Before concluding argument on this criterion, we ask the HEX to take judicial notice of
the HEX's denial of a BDE petition in Decision # 2022-42. On page three thereof this criterion
was found to have been NOT MET due to the absence of any other Special Condition existing
on an otherwise indistinguishable 70' width lot with a near identical straight shoreline
configuration and seawall reinforcement, as exists here for the Subject property and waterway.
Lastly, we assert that none of what petitioners and staff base their shared finding that
this criterion has been met constitutes substantial evidence, and thus, in the absence of any
supporting evidence and in consideration of our foregoing points we respectfully ask that the
HEX find this criterion has NOT BEEN MET.
b. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading and/or 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).
We would simply point out that this criterion has NOT BEEN MET TO THE EXTENT
THAT A NARROWER FINGER DOCK THAN THE FOUR FOOT SOUGHT COULD SAFELY
PROVIDE THOSE FUNCTIONS ALLOWING THE PROTRUSION TO BE REDUCED.
Page 8 of 15
c. 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 petitioner and staff appear to recognize the third Secondary criterion has NOT
BEEN MET, as the 50% maximum percentage of this 80' waterfront lot frontage, i.e., a
maximum of 40' - cannot and will NOT be maintained if both vessels with a 67' total LOA are
allowed to be moored in the proposed two boat slip docking facility! We agree-
However, as was noted above in the first Primary Criteria (1.a)., and emphasized in
more detail for the fourth Primary Criteria (1.d.), we strongly suggest that if the parenthetical
mandatory text above pertaining to the maximum percentage of any property's linear waterfront
footage in relation to the LOA of the number of combined vessels is EVER NOT maintained -
such that IF a design for a dock facility that does not maintain the required percentages is
ever APPROVED - THEN that mandatory portion of the LDC provision would not have been
applied or properly considered. Such a result would render the mandatory requirement
meaningless; treating those words in more legalistic terms as mere surplusage. Accordingly,
our position is that under those clearly inappropriate circumstances, the HEX is compelled
to DENY such requests where, as here, this criterion has NOT BEEN MET.
d. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring waterfront property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact
on the view of a neighboring property owner).
Our strong position is that as proposed this criterion has NOT BEEN MET because
INITIALLY if one takes staff's acceptance of the petitioners'agent's position of what constitutes
the "waterfront view" to mean only a property owner's rights of view along their riparian lines
out to a waterway, then theoretically an otherwise compliant dock facility that extended out to
the horizon across an open waterway would not be seen as imposing a "major impact" on the
Page 9 of 15
waterfront view of a neighbor! Under the petitioners' analysis so long as the structure remained
within the lot's riparian lines it WOULD NEVER HAVE a major impact.
That position clearly contradicts the also applicable provision in LDC Sec. 5.03.06. A.,
which states, dock facilities should be only "minimally impacting . . . [on] the view of the
waterway by the neighboring property owners." That provision seeks to balance the needs
of adjacent property owners such that the intentions of an applicant do not create a major
impact on their neighbor's waterfront view of the shared waterway. We believe the most well-
reasoned application of these provisions is clearly intended to mean and be applied to more
than just the constrained waterway view only visible within the adjacent neighbors' properties
riparian lines. To apply the provision in this manner would result in finding this criterion would
be met in almost each and every case where, like here, there are hundreds of standard and
uniform lots and canals of various widths platted in a rectilinear pattern. Our position is that the
LDC should not be interpreted in a manner where there is never any circumstance where it
would apply. If as petitioner's riparian line position argues an adjacent neighbor's waterfront
view would never be minimally impacted or suffer a major impact from an otherwise approvable
BDE, then we assert that position effectively removes all discretion from the HEX's requisite
consideration of the actual circumstances. That result is not only untenable, but contrary to the
express intent of these provisions. Again, if applied as petitioners suggested, the criterion
itself effectively becomes a nullity in almost every circumstance.
A more practical and pragmatic approach is to apply these LDC provisions in a manner
that evaluates more than whether a dock facility lies between an applicant's riparian lines or
not. Accordingly, the degree to which a neighbor's pre-existing waterfront view of the shared
waterway is reduced by a proposed dock facility should be evaluated as quantitatively as is
Page 10 of 15
possible. To that end, a significant aspect of how a neighbor's waterfront view may be impacted
has to do with what are the neighbor's traditional waterfront locations for viewing the shared
waterway. In relation to those observation points, what are the relative heights above the
waterway of the proposed obstructing object(s). For example, is their view to be considered
from only a more waterward existing dock facility, or also from a pool or patio area on the land
in the rear yard. If neither of these apply, consideration should be given to an observer's
vantage point from their residential structure weighing the setback distances, number of
habitable stories, and corresponding elevation above the waterway relative to the proposed
obstructing objects. Also, the location of the proposed dock facility and neighboring properties
relative to their position in or along a canal's or waterway's end and opening should be given
weight, as well as the distance to the opposing shoreline(s).
In the previously noted HEX Decisions 20-17 & 22-36, the opposing shoreline was well
over three times that here for this unnamed canal, such that the adjacent neighbors' waterway
views were not substantially diminished by the slight longer, perpendicular dock protrusions
that were approved. Here, both adjacent neighbors have existing dock facilities with deck areas
suitable for waterway viewing. Additionally, each has a traditional viewing space from their
upland rear yard. The DeSoto residence is two-stories over a garage and other non-habitable
space. The De Soto effected view is to the east and is only six lots from the end of the canal
waterway. In stark contrast the effected waterway view from the Dunns' residence is primarily
a westerly waterway canal view being only the fourth residence from the easterly canal end
and it is only from an at grade, one-story dwelling unit that is setback slightly farther than its
westerly neighbors. Qualitatively, taken together the factors above tend to show the overall
view impact to the De Soto residence is lesser than that of the Dunns'. One can see clearly
from a bird's eye view above that there is a greater impact on waterway view for the eastern
Page 11 of 15
property than that to west of the Subject property. Additionally, the lower elevation of
observation from the Dunn's on-grade residence is impacted much more than DeSoto. As can
be seen from above there is a substantial loss of view of the waterway from both sides that in
each instance is more than "minimal." But certainly, far more so from the Dunns' view and
vantage points.
More quantitatively the various points of waterway view for both adjacent neighbors are
shown by what is depicted on what we are asking to have submitted into the record as
"Objectors' Exhibit 2;" that being a copy of petitioners' dock facility location & dimensions
drawings from their resubmitted application materials. Drawn thereon are corresponding
sightline angles of view from selected perspectives. In contrast to petitioners' purely qualitative
considerations, we have and are presenting evidence of approximately how many degrees of
view of the adjacent waterway would be lost by each adjacent neighbor if the proposal would
be approved without conditions. In addition, we're offering actual photo-imagery of the view
impacts from the Dunn's property.
[if not already done introduce the Dunn photometric images as "Objectors' Composite
Exhibit 3," asking Mr. Dunn to describe when, by whom, & how those images were made, 9if
necessary to overcome nay objection, ask Mr. Dunn if was present when the photos were
taken YES, in his opinion do the photos portray a fair and accurate representation of
condition then present) and then have him describe the impact if not done before].
In this case, neither the applicant nor the staff have offered more than subjective
opinions and conclusions to support finding this criterion has been met. On the other side of
the coin, we have presented competent and substantial evidence of a quantitative and
observable nature to support our position that the HEX should find this criterion has NOT BEEN
MET.
Page 12 of 15
e. Whether seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass
beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(H)(2) of this LDC must be
demonstrated).N/A
f. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of
subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this LDC. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11)
must be demonstrated). N/A
g. If deemed necessary based upon review of the above criteria, the [HEX] may impose such
conditions upon the approval of an extension request that it deems necessary to accomplish
the purposes of this Code and to protect the safety and welfare of the public. Such
conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, greater side setback(s), and provision of
light(s), additional reflectors, or reflectors larger than four (4) inches.
We are proffering to the HEX, that IF at the end of his analysis considering all of the
foregoing points that the BDE should be APPROVED, we ask that the HEX respectfully
consider the following conditions be imposed on any such approval:
1. that the addition of a boat canopy or boathouse be prohibited,
2. that the finger decking be reduced to minimize the waterward protrusion of the second
boat slip,
3. that in lieu of a boat lift as proposed that the second, more waterward boat only be
moored and secured to the fixed dock using available technologies and hardware, such
as "sliders."
IN CONCLUSION, IF THE PETITIONERS ARE UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONDITION MY
CLIENTS ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH AS A COMPROMISE, AND AGREE TO ONLY MOOR
THE SECOND LARGER VESSEL IN THE WATERWAY USING A SUITABLE MEANS TO SECURE
THE VESSEL TO THE FIXED DOCK, THEN WE BELIEVE THEY SHOULD LOOK ELSEWHERE
TO FIND PROPER DOCKAGE THAT DOES NOT:
1) MORE THAN MINIMALLY IMPACT ADJACENT NEIGHBORS' WATERWAY VIEWS,
Page 13 of 15
2) HAS A LESSER IMPACT ON SAFE NAVIGATION OF THEIR NEIGHBORS' VESSELS TO
AND FROM THEIR DOCKS,
3) HAS A TRUE SPECIAL CONDITION, AND
4) MAINTAINS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGE FOR COMBINED VESSEL
LENGTHS!
MR. HEX, THE FOREGOING TESTIMONY AND RECORD EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES
THAT UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU SHOULD FIND THAT
SUFFICIENT CRITERIA WERE NOT MET AND THAT AS PROPOSED THE TWO BOAT SLIP
DOCK FACILITY PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED! THANK YOU, AND WE ARE AVAILABLE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
Page 14 of 15
PRIOR BDE APPROVALS IN THE VANDERBILT-CONNERS AREA LAGOON
HEX BDE REPORT# APPVL DATE LOCATION REQUEST APPROVED
19-50 12/18/19 116 Heron 1 vessel & slip + 1.9' extension w/
boathouse
20-08 10/06/20 250 Egret 1 vessel & slip +1.1' extension for after-
the-fact BDE
20-17 10/23/20 300 Oak 1 boat & slip & 2 jet skis, + 24' 90°
dock,75' lot, on 750' waterway
22-02 09/23/21** 10091 Gulf Shore 1 48' boat & 2 jet skis +24' irregular end
of canal separated small lot w/VAR's
22-36 08/11/22** 336 Oak add 1vessel +23'-75' lot to 1 pre-existing
dock, 90° dock on -700' waterway
22-43 09/08/22** 152 Heron 1 40' angled boat & slip + 2.6' for
boathouse overhang
22-47 12/12/19** 260 Conners 1 40' boat & slip, angled dock,+11
undated;
hearing date
ATTACHMENT "A"
Page 15 of 15
47' BDE-PL20210002320
415 Seabee Avenue
Attachment I—Additional Public Correspondence,
received after first hearing on October 13, 2022, and After Publication
ems" l A `". -rn* lc' �;it"
I• c1 g1 1 vio , \343 1: 13: 375 . I. 391 :p .t t::er 424 40.7 453 467• J ,4g; , 4
1, t I-L -� 1
x •
4 46. 4" a i , i. �� ram, •
ii,
4` `41 Conners AVE
•
?.7g4 ' ; 364 I 11 r
a@ p. 4 13 • 80 ' 396 404 418 F 4.14 450 54 490
r ...�..# .._ .' .tom ^'
us1
_ji _8,Tql. r. L., , .. , , ,.. ,i,.[.. ..
____ : , .4
11 . 403 Ilk. ON k
34•9 %lb, 7 383 H i 415 il P • iI
i L - t II
a ` NM i' -• Seabee AVE
TA vii. irtiri,
> ' '� e
366 378 39.1 '406 418 430 I /452. '478:
. 342 354 4
11\ Excp:V ;j� '•I' 4 - r� t •
Ks 497
1I .157 375 WO L ?5C ;er Q• + "" r
Collier County GIS
Applicant/Petitioner— 415 Seabee Avenue
Letters of Objection — 449 Seabee Avenue (S. Palumbo)
From: Interstate Properties<interprop33@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:47 AM
To: KellyJohn
Subject: Objection letter for pre-application 20210002320
Attachments: Boat dock extension objection.docx
EXTERNAL EMAIL:This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use
extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Hello Mr. Kelly,
Please find attached My letter for the Boat dock extension at 415 Seabee Ave. Naples Fl 34108
Best Regards,
Salvatore Palumbo
A Company Managed for Your Needs.
Interstate Properties
999 Broadway Suite 400
Saugus, Massachusetts 01906
Office: 781 231-6800
Fax: 781 233-1176
Re: 415 Seabee Ave
Pre-Application Number: 20210002320
From: Salvatore Palumbo
449 Seabee Ave
Naples Fl 34108 February 8, 2023
Mr. Kelly,
My name is Salvatore Palumbo and I have resided at 449 Seabee Ave Naples Florida for the last
30 Years. It has come to my attention that the resident at 415 Seabee Ave has filed an
application for a boat dock extension.
I would like to state that I adamantly reject the proposal for the boat dock extension at 415
Seabee Ave. I am located 2 houses down from this location and this would prohibit my visibility
and enjoyment of my current view. This proposal would also cause my property value to
decline, causing financial hardship.
I would like you to accept this letter as my objection to pre-application number 20210002320.
Best Regards,
Salvatore
z
CD W
z W
a ¢
Z
h A W Z
a R
irz W c
W
o O > �
I-Um � _z o �
e ¢ 0
® A ¢ w < W u
0 , a = QI-
- �
p 't • >- o H w ¢
o �l 1 Cco O > o -J
( =
q JQ Zo
d J Q Q w
Cl)
_ F- W w ¢
►-� D
N co 0- c m _---
-.. .1 4'.. tL 5
1 1 ino �o 0 °
f� m U H
4+.., W NI- I- < o
C. ,? oo Z
Q0 •. •
�
JE ¢ o C O
® a ILI '
o ma.. w ZpO n % CD 1- W �O �
.; w o II-n- O
U
„� E ¢ � O wix
.�rn U t/i LLI
0 = E--
0 U o = O 00
13
13
CDo Q ° t O oZ
p � U. ILY
CD Q ._ ul ¢ U
¢ m H m �
< O b O a
Li0 `M v--
_ 0 z
or W zw
N i
`V CO
zz F COZ
as zm 0 zT
J o oo Am
- a N 4 0 - o =
Ga c 6 m o O�
z
O IY
z_ W .
O Z
\'
,� z M z
W
i— L!J
O al Z o
In 2
m p
, QZ
WQ W W W
•
q
F- o W O W
CO L, >- O I _ W
d mW >,.. == �
OC[ O
_, o Z co coF-
Cf = f .ww ¢
t- = IX 0-W _-
COz- -C1) mCC
E.A 0 < O z
• `4 , _ Ce 0"
Q -0
� Q 0 ja co i.
•• Q Z °_ U-
N
- -J .c� z a w
CI. L/ ¢ p to O cn
O .o W o w Z ~O 0
w w t=— W co
N N LL'
O
C U W ti
Q cc 0 Lw
IIIIIMMII a... Z --I _
coo a) 0 W O o 0
L >- F- >" O
= per. � -a~ O CD =
ce
o < o � 0 ooz
�LL zW co W1-
w< Z 1-
O
-% o ¢
/� Lc, uS o
, /� ` �" o FW-- w Oi
1 F-� 't . k cam" > W z w
d5 > °-
z ¢ OCO\ CO
� WV z � zZ lJ mw' W co
E O F— cc
0 z .__I O F-
z
a" ¢ u j U
Ca
a; ,' 2 O 8 ix =
13 U Q
CO 7-1
0 a) W = a_
d Q 0 O
01 j E Q. 0
z •
O Ce
z W
Q
Z
c� fl
Ow• w C7 > �
mI- Z_CC IX Qo O
= Q W 0 _
/� m 2
--..
c 1- p W CDW
z
'2'4 - �mW ==O OQZ a
W w
111 I- Et _a .W-
— --- --- -z- 0 CO-m
5ra Q w .
,� wo O� 00
II m i.
: d=_ Ul v o,
,,, F Q -Jo
. t) H o• o z � �
II
zf Q zw
�� E QOp t/) Ov)
0 .o V_ W o m I - h- W
�.� , w Z O 0
ck
o F- W
1 to o O
cC
WW tL
E ¢ � 00 we
ervV N w Di- 0 = 0 Cr 0
0 4 O = O
CC
Q 0 = O ix � z
o -§ LL. �oY
Qv z � y ¢ �
'" ¢ W z O °O-
!^ ( 2 o z
W co w �j z0
1 N > W z w
F- > E-
0 , Oa tL OV)
Z Zz O C� Z
' ,c Z
zm 0 =
c MI wm
O a0 m h- � �
co Z J O I--
a � a W U
Cti 0)
co as13
CO OIP U Q
= o C W O
C) -J >
E Q. OU
IICC
C z W
•
U z ce
6 W
Z
o M O
z z
c w
= z W
c, ow O LU
> �
m Z o
ce Qo
-P¢ z O
\ , ¢ w W ww
I- o W Ow
>- O E-. w ¢
mw >- =o -'
O � o
J
CO
�1 - O � �
w
_ � .W w <
-1---=.--- rt .Ca w-
- — --- - --44 N - W-z-----0—C m
—
5 a < w -
N= Et v 0,
Q mp
fl _ LL
52,0 E ¢ o � zoo
O '�. V•) w o m f-- 0 0
� 2 �- w Z
v CD =- W Om
a) E• �, za 0 w �
o zj � m =
0 N 0 0 = I_
0 a) 0 = O D O
a -a }- I- > (Es
0 y ' Q w ~ O 6 Z
LL 0 - U. Ow Y
-- ( zcr ¢ cam
c~n 1W- m �
Cl)votill 3I-U = o2_
N ila_
NI cJ z < ILL 0US.
m
Z
r z z Off , z
c��., aD zm 0 zcn
i = \\t 0
0 o m0 I w m
cIli 0fx
o w r ; r
L o
Z
3-
BDE-PL20220002146
167 Sunset Cay
Attachment G—Public Correspondence Received after Publication of Staff Report
• ' ..� Stella Marls DR S ""W-M"
•
Zoning:C-1 ' •.•t N. /w �� r y t'i `{, i i ►YI1
31-9-` 30.:3.2 gr24 2. 286 ` 274, 270 i 2.2 258 2.54 250 24,• _ `,
` ` �" 4
t , 46
`-17 ...sift N,• .yt2p"•fl r[', •• 'lreF...'• . / '�.':: :.p A,
. _.- ____ 235 C,ai,.
1731 jot
j 227,2 if
. o
R:28
it:6_ 2G9.- -._. S:09 RI•l � i216 ZR
r •
':.', t , 4. ; - ,
'I i • .
� h •
thin,2ixi
�
,I,.:. . '' •
• Zont g RSF.4
• ,
4.
.► sunset r +S..
, . .i _ _
i1 / ,.
9u, , ,4 82 ,
. . 174 r 9l'
14,' • i ,.- S.. .., t 1
. , .4,;... ,---
a/ �_ j_. �_ ..-,--s_ --_ - .. •
_.
t� T ...
�y , 1.74 1 I
Collier County GIS
Applicant/Petitioner— 167 Sunset Cay
Letters of Objection — 290 Stella Maris Drive (D. and C. Heffelmire)
From: Dan Heffelmire<dan@hbspecialties.com>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 10:03 AM
To: KellyJohn
Cc: Connie Heffelmire
Subject: RE: Collier County, FL-The Hearing Examiner will be meeting on February 9,
2023 at 9:00 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL:This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use
extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Mr.John Kelly,
I am writing you in regards to, BDE-PL20220002146—167 Sunset Cay— Request for a 35-foot boat dock
extension.
1. My wife, Connie, and myself are opposed to the this dock extension request. This 35 foot
extension onto the 20 foot normal dock is over the top excessive in our common water canal.
2. Connie and I own the property 290 Stella Maris Drive South, which is a little East and across the
canal of this property.
3. We purchased this property to retire at and we have just completed a total remodel. One of the
reasons we selected this location was for the amazing view of the open water canal.
4. Having a dock extending 55 feet out into the canal will largely negatively block our view of the
canal to the west, which is the most desired view for everyone on this canal.
a. A 55 ft boat/yacht most likely will be 20ft above the water and this is just building a wall
20' x 55' and it blocks the view for everyone east of this dock.
b. This is an infringement on the beauty of this canal,that we paid extra for.
This dock extension is very excessive and it will negatively impact all of us who live east of this property.
There is a marina 500' (estimated)from this property and they are designed to handle yachts of this
size. He should rent a spot in the marina.
Sincerely,
Dan &Connie Heffelmire
290 Stella Maris Dr. South.
From: KellyJohn <John.Kelly@colliercountyfl.gov>
Date: February 2, 2023 at 2:33:13 PM EST
Subject: Collier County, FL-The Hearing Examiner will be meeting on February 9, 2023
at 9:00 AM
Good afternoon,
Collier County's Hearing Examiner will be meeting on February 9'2023, at 9:00 AM.The
meeting will be at held at the County's Growth Management Building, Conference
Rooms 609+/610, located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive which is immediately north of
the Naples Municipal Airport (there is a large RaceTrac gas station at the corner on
Airport Rd.).
You are receiving this e-mail as you had previously expressed an interest in one or more
of the following zoning petitions:
1. BDE-PL20210002320—415 Seabee Ave—Second Hearing, request for a 12-foot
boat dock extension;
2. BDE-PL20220002146— 167 Sunset Cay— Request for a 35-foot boat dock
extension;
3. BDE-PL20220000501—231 Dolphin Cove Ct—Request for a 2.75-foot boat dock
extension; and/or
4. NUA-PL20220004583—326 Alachua St—Request for a non-conforming use
alteration to allow the replacement of a carport.
Each of the aforementioned items was continued to the February 9th meeting as a result
of a previously scheduled meeting having been cancelled. The electronic Agenda for this
meeting is available at:
http://colliercountyfl.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2103.The electronic
agenda includes all materials, including the Staff Report and public correspondence,that
have been provided to the Hearing Examiner for the purpose of conducting this meeting
and evaluation of the subject petitions.
Meetings of the Hearing Examiner are public meetings and the public is invited to
attend, in-person or remotely via Zoom. Persons interested in either participating or
monitoring the meeting via Zoom must register via the following URL:
https://bit.ly/2923HEX. Feel free to provide this link to any persons expressing a desire
to attend this meeting remotely. Please note that the County will do its best to avoid
any complications involved with remote participation; however, issues due occur from
time to time. You are asked to not wait until the last minute to test your connectivity to
Zoom.
As always,you're welcome to contact me in the event you have questions or concerns
not previously addressed. Please, be certain to note which of the four projects you are
writing or calling about. As always,thank you for taking an active role in your
community.
Respectfully,
John Kerry
Planner II
Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section
2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples Florida 34104
Phone:239.252.5719 Fax:239.252.6363
Email:John.Kellv4colliercountvfl.gov
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at
http://bit.ly/Col I ierZon i ng
aj
COY County
Growth Management Department
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail
address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to
this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
V
'1) Golden Gate Water Reclamation Facility (CU) (PL20210001657)
V �r r-.. M p,
ap
t r PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE tee". , ` .., ' •
GOLDEN GATE WATER RECLAMATION •8}� 'r ''�,� �.4,..,,,.+
4vs...94,1000� : FACILITY(CU);PETITION NO. PL20210001657 .� . , #��!*o� ;r*ILI''��*�1j��ae e �.��e .•40. HEX: FEBRUARY 9.2023-9:00 A.M. ..+_ w
-__ GROWTH MANAGEMENT BUILDING,210
HORSESHOE DR.N.,ROOM.60gf&gl'
NAPLES.FL3110A
rt
y'. }. TIMOTHY FINN:239-2 X 4
,e �"..
N .. y r - '�
•
•
, i .. , ISe'��'y a P `/ ;'. ..P /6,••, 4Z",.. 4 :1 W Z w yijo,...40,......m..0-1- ,
e. c sibs'! ! r e r' s"' . "
' 'Vit'- '.I '. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE •
• GOLDEN GATE WATER RECLAMATION '9
• FACILITY (CU); PETITION NO. PL20210001657 , j' ' C2 :
HEX:FEBRUARY 9, 2023 -9:00 A.M.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT BUILDING, 2800 •' "
�t = � HORSESHOE DR. N., ROOM 609/610, ce
- - NAPLES, FL 34104 g`
r A TIMOTHY FINN: 239-252-4312 ;' 'i, E. .* ° '>
Y•, g
_S<<1 '"Alt'
3� 4r�'K'\^ try' ;r,^i! 1' 3.P 0:i -•t �'[ .�1 � 3 3^' .y�r . „ 'k
•
...; 9''.i } ;...yam y• < .V y '* x-i', • +5P•, ../ ( P''`' ,4.' ar'�\ fit.d%`›;BX
1.
r.
1"iF. . .f•,. r ,P:- .4 `• Y t'Y 1 f, S �A a r=v�•' .'—'. ;�a 'J W: ' ,Ak,...t:
Updated January 25, 2023
Golden Gate Water Reclamation Facility (CU) (PL20210001657)
' ,kt,jal.t. , .'. .4\
pn:
''''': ' " -41 11 .) ''
A .. �' x �:',. . P 'Tom[ t'.S+ •f.a,... �.
;i, ,,, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 'i _ b ,;'.
t = f .�
GOLDEN GATE WATER RECLAMATION Tor w .v."-• +
:. FACILITY(Cu)-PETITION NO. PL20210001657 .r 4�k v kI,
_1r4 ♦.v,�IN 4 . HEX: FEBRUARY 9.2023-9:00 A.N. '!t*V._ E.
'• GROWTH MANAGEMENT BUILDING IRO
HORSESHOE DR.N.,ROOM.-60k6,4i
NAPLES.FL 3410A �t -`'
1,.
TIMOTHY FINN:239-25X � 3 T4- i
at f
��y. w y/ yy
fit �„. �~iy
K• • �,,�� rr J' , ' r �.r •
a ,•.(4: a rt,i 3pr .��,�A'4,-,, ,, it ;.. } off;. 0 i"AS'a �ilvY3 4
:'-- 4-c•t' 1.-. , el ,,Q r,. 40,.. ,� 1 ., Ra 's,.' " , l�t��t t^v3 F�- .a:y. ,'•,r ei-
, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE414 'I nimm.iiiii Ali. -_*.'-„I‘--:-.76-.
-4 GOLDEN GATE WATER RECLAMATION ," Fr °Il y�
FACILITY (CU); PETITION NO. PL20210001657 , ,r
HEX: FEBRUARY 9, 2023 -9:00 A.M.
.-it a GROWTH MANAGEMENT BUILDING, 2800 , '`', .: .'
* F HORSESHOE DR. N., ROOM 609/610, a .,-4 . ,T -
NAPLES, FL 34104 .4 .
(', �= TIMOTHY FINN: 239-252-4312 ;f,: °1,'�'yT
1F ;:'/ 4.' :. , ,r 'fit Jam=' •x.
•
fik
a.. *-.
ti • a ��,�p a' a 'AP,, �,�� y'S t r .T < r r
,.,",V.
k. i f. 'n/a... . '�+ \i K +.. I .3 7 S '. OFty'.k'!'�.i" .y} -. I R
5 0' a: J r'. ; 't: �,,.,-2 f.�,tn' J' 1��5�q W 1. 4 .. .�+ 4'S .wow'•-t-1. P' -74 J/
itti
Updated January 25, 2023
co
3
CROWN OF ROAD
ELEV.+32.94'
N.A.V.D 1988
ALACHUA ST.
N
n'a, /
Y s
80'R/W
o4
tie ±20.10'ASPHALT PAVIMENT
°. _ __ __.___ - _ 0)(I)
A A.
7 AA A A•0...
0 0
A o o mm..i N
M gg D 0 0
n g °I s ). N4 ° 05' 1 ►"E75.00'(P)m f i wz moo€£ o mzm AA N4a° 05' 11"E75.01'(P)
0 0 le0
g &' 0,i $ 'vl F 3 m Az Ai
f, a mg 7.. 8 i26
D 9l F R G r'
=g z E 2 D A
,. 8.ggP t ! .8 4 E ;fi;8; A 0
I.
fara # $ rn mrg cn A - •1 >. t m
w
U
gr. xs 5 ' ;Z 0
mo_z < lccm
AOZ3 -
i T.
1 H O S.'. O
Um
m
e Vi
T
A A 32.56' / .
1 1
o
2 3.0' a .1,..1!=$fi :
g.
R K 9La I 3950' A ncoV 4 I, Am �g �' D Z CD"B i A(r I ' ;'1Df I77'1_ m ' •.asm ,r. � ogg Z WO 00
a' Yp 8$8888 -< mm woAX MZ mm
a ss . 0800g0 07 0-<i
aa� A 0TT~J~" r 0'0* pz 'wg1 A�o0 O �O I oti pC CO.0
mmo ; >P n -I -tOp0 D m
o � v 32.56' $ w1$ 10.28'D Asam7w l L 1950 eso e •
g o" _c U CO
pAu 7 % OC..) O 4
CA
T8 . oO oA8
T r-
l1 m •
X' nng p °cis p 0 c n
5 i € ' DSx Y e c W 3 12.05 10.31'
eg• ° i Z ogc O6 =�A Zs °>A �k 6 t-y 7 n• 33 • CO 1 IncI
?g v y� m
0 0 °om r 0 1— ji
rn o
N IV RI J I
o cn• w U nN
�j 8 D•. 32.38' 1090 910 _ 22.43' Co •I Y
1 .`" �4 P" g P 95 CO O ® t o? j
VV 01
---iiiN777
. o r m 0
m §4 O -1,
0 9.to • N
kit
-11 VA
���t Ay . 8F $ m4Q z
z ,rn rig l N • m Y C € __.___... n 1 C • o
y o N 44° 05'10" E 75.00'(P) 2 0 1
'iiti�� E9 N44° 05' 10" E74.82'(M) be ap
o
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2020.TTH EDITION
Jaime R. Gutierrez I., A.I.A. P.A. & Associates Paa1.MAAfe.NEW ALUMINUM CARPORT THE CONTRACTOR,
Q
, • XI _ ac.L
P.o BOA Isea Architect - Planner
NAPLES,FL 34108-1588 P Iz )ezf ufe ADDRESS: cm[aaaePwncasm+� wwrr. Nj N uc.Izzos
—0 4 . ;n 3880 u m ST.H. 326 ALACHUA ST,IMMOKALEE,FLORIDA 34142 M q z
m Q NAPLES,FL Sat O3 E-MAIL JAIMEARCHITECTIOOMAILCON
OZ DESCRIPTION^ A.... ._-_--- ------- --------------- ris