HEX Final Decision 2023-23HEX NO. 2023-23
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
July 27, 2023
PVTITI"N
Petition No. BDE-PL20200001107 - 275 3rd Street West - Request for a 40.3-foot boat dock
extension that extends 20.3 feet from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility
with two boatlifts and a boathouse with a 1.3-foot roof overhang that protrudes 41.6 feet into
a waterway that is 872+/- feet wide. The subject property is located at 275 3rd Street West,
in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner desires to replace an existing dock with a dock facility comprising two boat slips
and a boathouse on a razed property of 0.24+ acres located within a Single Family Residential
(RSF-4) zoning district.
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.
Page 1 of 7
6. 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. In accordance with Section
5.03.06.F., the Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boathouse
if it is determined that all criteria have been met.'
Primary Criteria:
Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation
to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property.
Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are
the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be
appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-
family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The property is located within a residential single-family zoning district; the
proposed docking facility with a boathouse will have 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. The petitioner has demonstrated via survey and the provided cross-section,
see attachments, that water depths adjacent to the subject property are too shallow to allow
for the docking of vessels absent a boat dock extension.
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
BEENMET. The proposed dockfacility does not intrude into marked or charted navigable
channel; thus, there will be no adverse impact on navigation. The proposed dock,
boathouse, and lift have been designed not to impede navigation and are consistent with
all the neighboring docks along the shoreline.
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
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the
required percentages.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject BDE request is for 41.6 feet, including the boathouse roof
overhang, as measured from the seawall. As per the attached "Overall Site Plan with
Aerial, " the actual waterway width is 1019. S± feet; The overall protrusion of the proposed
dock facility into the subject waterway is 4.08 percent. The proposed width between dock
facilities will be 872. S± feet.
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 submitted plans reveal no impediments with neighboring dockfacilities.
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
BEEN MET. The subject property and adjacent neighboring properties along this
shoreline all have special conditions that require alternative dock design options; one of
those conditions is that the natural shoreline makes it difficult to dredge the subject
property, which could reduce the overall protrusion out. Seven other properties within
this subdivision that have western waterfronts, six have been approved for boat dock
extensions, and the 7th has an active petition.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not
directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. As shown on the drawings by the petitioner, no excessive deck area is
proposed.
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.)
Page 3 of 7
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property has 80 feet of waterfront. Two vessels are proposed,
one being 30 feet long and the other 10 feet for a total of 40 feet, which is exactly 50 percent
of the width of the waterfront lot.
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 facility will be setbackfrom the riparian lines in accordance
with the requirements of the LDC. The drawing labeled overall site plan with aerial shows
that the proposed facility is comparable to the others along the same waterway.
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 the footprint of the dock. The proposed dock facility will impact no seagrass
beds.
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 individual docks behind individual residences.
Boathouse Criteria:
1. Minimum side setback requirement: Fifteen Feet.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. Asper the submitted site plan, the boathouse will not exceed mandatory side
yard/riparian setback requirements.
2. Maximum protrusion into the waterway: Twenty-five percent of canal width or 20 feet,
whichever is less. The roof alone may overhang no more than 3 feet into the waterway
beyond the maximum protrusion and/or side setbacks.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject boat dock extension request is for 41.6 feet, including the
boathouse roof overhang, as measured from the seawall. The overall site plan with aerial
Page 4 of 7
displays that the actual waterway width is 1019.5± feet; The overall protrusion of the
proposed dock facility into the subject waterway is 4.08 percent.
3. Maximum height: Fifteen feet as measured from the top of the seawall or bank, whichever
is more restrictive, to the peak or highest elevation of the roof.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The proposed height is 15 feet above the seawall.
4. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site: One.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. Only one boathouse is to be built on this property.
5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all four sides.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET The boathouse will be open on all four sides.
6. Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on the
principal structure or may be of a palm frond "chickee" style. A single-family dwelling
unit must be constructed on the subject lot prior to, or simultaneously with, the construction
of any boathouse or covered dock structure.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The roofing material and color of the proposed boathouse will match that
of the existing single-family residence serving as the principal structure at this location.
7. The boathouse or covered structure must be so located as to minimize the impact on the
view of the adjacent neighbors to the greatest extent practical.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The boathouse is located within the required side/riparian setbacks and is
consistent with similar facilities along the subject shoreline.
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
and Section 5.03.06.F of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. The Petition meets
5 out of 5 of the primary criteria and 5 out of 6 secondary criteria, with one criterion being not
applicable. The Petition also meets all criteria as set forth in Section 5.03.06.F.
Page 5 of 7
DF C'ISION_
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20200001107, filed by Bill
Nelson and Sabrina Dobbins of Greg Orick II Marin Construction representing Castelo Morous,
LLC, with respect to the property described as 275 3rd Street West, Lot 2, Block F, Replat of Unit
No. 3, Little Hickory Shores, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, for
the following:
• The applicant is requesting a 40.3-foot boat dock extension that extends 20.3 feet from the
maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to
allow construction of a boat docking facility with two boatlifts and the establishment of a
boathouse with a 1.3-foot roof overhang that protrudes 41.6 feet into a waterway that is
872± feet wide, for the subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Revised Dock and Boathouse Plans attached as Exhibit "A"
and the Revised Survey attached as Exhibit `B" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Revised Dock and Boathouse Plans
Exhibit B — Revised Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
275 3rd Street West, Lot 2, Block F, Replat of Unit No. 3, Little Hickory Shores, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. A building permit for an allowable principal structure must be obtained prior to obtaining
a building permit for the subject dock facility.
3. A Certificate of Completion for the subject dock facility will not be issued until such time
as a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for an allowable principal structure at this location.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
Page 6 of 7
APPF AL S.
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 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
7/7/21 1 of 4
osed Dock
C REG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 949-5588
Name: CASTELO MOUROS LLC
Address: 275 3rd St W
Address:
Springs, FL
Date: 34134 5/24/2021
Approved Signature:
Approved Date:
7/7/21
Proposed Dock and Boathouse Layout
2of4
33'
- Lot Width - 80-feet
Required Side Setbacks- 15-feet
Maximum Protrusion Requested: 40.3-feet,
measured from the Seawall.
Per LDC Section 5.03.06.F.2 a boathouse roof
may overhang no more than 34eet into the
waterway beyond the maximum protrusion and/or
side setbacks. There is no encroachment into
side setback and the boathouse roof alone will
protrude no greater than 41.64eet which is less
than the 42.8 allowable.
South
P/L
3G.
31.2'
Wet Face of Seawall
41.6'
40.3'
Existing Seawall
s0.0'
16.0'
4.
Proposed Dock
489 ft2
33
•
32.5'
31'
Total Over Water Sq Ft 1209
Proposed Boathouse
x 35' 1) 560 ft2
10.0'
Proposed
71000 #
Boat Lift
w/ Thru Flow
I Decked Platfc
i
16.3'
15.3'
North
P.!L
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Property Line (4" waterward of wet face)
CiREC� ORICK 1VIARII�I>~
Name: CASTELO MOUROS LLC
Approved Signature:
COddress:
CONSTRUCTION, INC.INC.Bonita
275 3rd St W
�
(2239) 949pgSv88
Springs, FL
Date: 34134 5/24/2021
Approved Date:
n
7/7/21
Dock Facility — Cross Section
3of4
DREG ORICK 1VIARII`IE
Name: CASTELO MOUROS LLC
Approved Signature:
`
COddress:
CONSTRUCTION, INC.INC.Bonita
275 3rd St W
�
(239) 949)*5588
Springs, FL
Date: 34134 5/24/2021
Approved Date:
V.
Little Hickory Bay
914.1'
872.5'
Available Navigable Channel from Proposed Dock to Existing Dock Across
1019.5'
Total Waterway Width from Closest Point 1019.5'
(MHWL to MHWL as indicated on Survey)
r
Proposed Dock and Boathouse
with a Total Protrusion of 41.6'
North
P/L
South —�
P/L
STRUCT(IRN. NOTES:
1117fR.
ma cumin' n�m). m�o�wno-w. a�w sav,anw
ru.��/t srrk amma oe canra�.
a
TON
min w s.TPY msr (p sTP.y
m it =lrxax wax evxc ryT.vJ
AT mm coracxw (P.TJJIA= Cla MPrnam
tin (v.T): nrwa' a vv IX P.mM axAa. MITT11
.same
.....
m c ......
a P M
MHO
fake IN
IN
' A¢mraTAT T Tam
M Inch: FIAAW � � m
OaZt
m[mMuxs....................... .% aimsm
ean. AsrM Arm ...................... j x,aa M
xA Lww fL� a eamrcascs swu aw
w l exw
¢((M)ru�L mwau�rut)srm a w Gov
A) OATT � DLLtta Am Z ITTT
c -
FASTENING REQUIREMENTS OF MULTIPLE —PIECE
(BUILT—UP) N900 MEMBERS
(a)
.arroac
Tnram
((�n uc ITT)
AT TV o.
P°`i ..........; :Adr xtft=TMMuvm
Ar uAsr a/a
orarrr"
.... a ,n" mtm AT rr o.M
r rn" aan AT rr ac
a /ay vu !uumrri _
vtm
{(V� arn-mtn AT a-aa
n > 7//e•::::ID) NTkTI W i/Y ear-. AT Tr o.a
L 00h) - I (TAN
ATAXt)ITTIVII%a- ryW - r (wq
T varem, W mcnnm MAelva e: maM
ply mvz(;1I SMunm
W :w5T a A MIttY
HmA
TM
AmT:;tAATm (zN.fa]
ux truum' im'ww m[
asm. u(w) .NMI
_ mr.
,WU
mrs 5TICnAtpxID.
J1Lf�
ID
Y6
11 _
<
je TV ma
"T"rAns
mtr rfiv, Am voxmv rxc vaav Am
p Mina t= wsnrcp
x
JXF712f TOP L11L Ale,
ratralamraa
races n
1141,T T
__
mew
xar Aw.O
�/z• (uW - a (wq
lY<f4"vM Y lK
x - z /zJ (wx) - a• fw+)
irit
roerADxnD
�uuMPO"T u�w z�micT
��- -YA• (Mw) ' fMn]
'Prnrm or r/z m+tm AT ?O MM
a/n CAN V DAN
AVD AT mrrpas2 W aAu
m rut min v mars uusr
pvx
Am vx ITT x Aawr n
• a°OLnn . ram..
awx ma m%JN a .mmuMt uTITTA x
iW,. - rMarxes ar txwr3r uurumv
au................o
n.a mmv
FUT RJW'
MP NGtlF ><BSST
i
��300
i-J
erv.
xL�v¢mav,
3 n'
BEAN 1.8E (BEE �
.azviv rss.-y
Q} amru nssarv.
i u rxeiu �
DEiNlS)
Ax[ wsm ox tMC xrnwu win m®.
®
.Ay rar.
-xae
rss.
ROOF PLAN
sCUE t/a"-'-D
PROPERTY DrSCRHmON
Not
v.T. vAvicR—
aPLYVIOOD: s AND BE�INDDRIRE �°DRftIEIOvURIEEoN iaH TO NlNNsECO
DRIP EDGE_
/PP..T. RIDGE 6EAu
aD
s�xvtmx sos'
eoi � ss scxEws (s:)
(1) ZXA s.Y.P. Na.z (T/r Du, SS.
s, cvu DE ROLT6—
SECTION-1
WER 1/2" MINIMUM 1NRINE GRADE
sHUTNiNc Wu 6, WrtH m unD. RANn m M b• D.c.
NEwiM ro oVfsI�DREW.YDCEAr C D.C. AT mcis Aum r
D.c IN nm.
OOF
Is m c.� N MA"uu�Nn
CERtAINrtEp SA GP 160 MIL SELF -ADHERING
UNDERUYMINf O.'FR 1/2' MINIMUM MAPoNE FRADE
sHGTHING NAILED WOH 04 NINC-SHANK tUliS 4' D.C.
Ai EDD6 AND e' D.0 IN Flm. P
TD DVISIDE EDGE OF EOCN T OWES
AND 4
(
T) EACN
P.T. NfTFA
SECTION-2
sate 3/4--t'D'
50N 55. Alb AT
DEEML
TKB SY.P. Ha.2 P.T. UDDER AT te' O.L.
Boathouse Layout
4'
2.6'
10" Pile (typ.)
I
3.0' 17.5' ►!� 11.5' 3.0'
1
i
12.2' 16.0'
35.0'
f
i
I
i
I
�0 4 .
1 '5' 1.5'
i
OREG ORICK iVIARINE
Name: CASTELO MOUROS LLC
Approved Signature:
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 94 )*5588
Address: 275 3rd St W
Address:
Springs, FL
Date: 34134 5/24/2021
Approved Date:
EXHIBIT "B"
3
N
n
0
0
I <PREPARED FOR: STUART WOOD
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: NOVEMBER 11. 2019
AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
Dlgllally slgned by Wayna D. Ag wll, R. S. IA.
r..
DN: E=agndiw@abbi-ca, CN-`Wayno D.
BY 1A/avnaD Annnli R G�Agnoll.R.S.M.',O-Aanoll, B.,w,&B.ndage.
2021.05.208:35Data: 2021.05.26 08:3523D4'OD'4LE:WAYNE D. AGNOLI, R.S.M., NO. 5335 DATETHIS SITE PLAN SURVEY MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTH
BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027. FLORIDA STATUTES.
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE
ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF THE FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER.
N�� ADDITIONS
' OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORTS BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING
PARTIES
- WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS
N* - PROHIBITED BY
ST TE OF i", - CHAPTER 5J-17 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
4
• � c � THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY IS CERTIFIED AS TO THE DATE OF FIELD SURVEY. NOT
• 4 R P • THE SIGNATURE DATE.
1 �. •'
�rOri IRI E.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF,
2. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM
EAST ZONE, NAD 83/90 DATUM AND REFERENCED TO THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT 2, BLOCK F. LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 3,
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS BEING SOUTH 89' 33' 28* EAST.
3. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 198&
4. THE VERTICAL CONTROL ACCURACY FOR THIS SURVEY WAS BASED ON THE
FLORIDA STATE PLAIN
COORDINATE SYSTEM EAST ZONE NAD 83-90 DATUM.
5. THE HORIZONTAL CONTROL ACCURACY FOR THIS SURVEY ACHIEVED THE
COMMERCIAL/HIGH RISK LINEAR: 1 FOOT IN 10,000 FEET.
SURVEYORS NOTE:
C
275 3RD ST. WEST BOUNDARY SURVEY
LITTLE HICKORY SHORES, UNIT NO. 3
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH & RANGE 25 EAST checker
(PLAT BOOK 6 8 PAGE 2) W
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA acatl #:
P9:
date:
Nsm GNOLI
■ umm ARBER 8
■�
■u�o
Pmfosalonal Englnaer, Planner,;, Land S—y— d LaMs apo Archil-ts
i�x rmu mw.. sew xao.Nm.., F>..:w,m rn: lnauoi.ai,..
c.11—A:,�ca rvaa �e aee+. Eoxuc�cew-sex Fn wow =
x -7.80
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS y" WD
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING Q
MLWL(-,80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS Ill x -5.89
r WD x W4*70
N o x
Y
�IJJ,I U
S
JW PROPERTY LINE
F- (80' PER PLAT)
SCALE: 1"=201 J SEE PAGE 1
x -5.05 x _3.33
RIPARIAN LINE WDD _ WD
-8.99
WD
x -9.11
WD
x WS 25 �d x
D x -620 x
WD Zx 1Wp
.3 ryp
D"
A"
1"
EXISTING DOCK
4,8
MHWL=0.07' NAVD86
MLWL=-O,80' NAVD88
SEAWALL
ELEV.�3.70
CONCRETE SLAB
BRICK PAVERS
O
gROPERTY UNE
gx2GND
--- ---------- xGNDxGND
RIPARIAN LINE _
25X WD
wD44 -z,42 63W�9 x334.7_
WD WD GN
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING SEAWAI
ELEV.-3.
SYMBOLS LEGEND O
[i = ELECTRIC BOX
= LIGHT
No = WATER SERVICE
R = PROPERTY LINE
UNE
275 3RD ST. WEST EXISTING CONDITIONS
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS >. MHWL=0.01' NAVD88 u
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING Q MLWL--0.80' NAVD88
MLWL(-.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS m
r
N o
Y
_U
S
LLI PROPERTY LINE
Fj
(80' PER PLAT EXISTING SEAWALL
SCALE: 1"=20' J SEE PAGE 1 ELEV.=3.7'
RIPARIAN LINE
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
PROPOSED t6k'10' BOAT LIFT m EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB
W / DECKED PLATFORM g�
PROPOSED DOCK
W /PILES
2•.
WGE OF
SW CAP
X 9.75'
� NOTE: PROTRUSION
IS MEASURED FROM
n
WETFACE
(WIDTH OF BAY)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
RIPARIAN LINE
SEAWALL
DETAIL
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.-3.T
FENCE
`-PROPERTY LINE
XISTING BRICK PAVERS
vc wnu O
SEAWALL
l'
i PROPERTY LINE
0
275 3RD ST. WEST PROPOSED DOCK
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS >�
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING
MLWL(-.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS 0]
N o
b Y
_U
S
LLI PROPERTY LINE,
F2(80' PER PLAT)
SCALE: 1"=20' J SEE PAGE 1
RIPARIAN LINE
PROPOSED BOAT LIFT
W !DECKEDCKED PLATFORM
T' C6
1.33'
OVERHANG
PROPOSED DOCK _— •�
W f PILES 41.6'
1.33'
OVERHANG c ^ NOTE: PROTRUSION
o IS MEASURED FROM
ro WETFACE
1019,50
(WIDTH OF BAY)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
RIPARIAN LINE
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.s3.7'
SEAWALL
DETAIL
MHWL=0.01' NAVD8NAVDNAVD U
MLWL=-0.80' 88
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.-3.7'
CONCRETE SLAB
�EXIS7ING WALL
EXISTING SEAWALL
FENCE
iiCa•.r��
0
JiL�J
O
LINE
275 3RD ST. WEST PROPOSED BOATHOUSE
275 3RD ST. WEST BAY WIDTH