HEX Agenda 10/26/2023COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Hearing Examiner
AGENDA
Growth Management Department
Conference Rooms 609/610
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
October 26, 2023
9: 00 AM
Andrew W. J. Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes unless otherwise waived by the Hearing
Examiner. Persons Wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the hearing report
packets must have that material submitted to County staff at Ailyn.Padron(a)CollierCount 7FL.gov
10 days prior to the Hearing. All materials used during presentation at the hearing will become a
permanent part of the record.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Hearing Examiner will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to
be based. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner are final unless appealed to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Hearing Procedures will provide for presentation by the Applicant, presentation by staff, public
comment and applicant rebuttal. The Hearing Examiner will render a decision within 30 days.
Persons wishing to receive a copy of the decision by mail may supply County staff with their name,
address, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope for that purpose. Persons wishing to receive an
electronic copy of the decision may supply their email address.
Collier County Hearing Examiner Page I Printed 1011912023
October 2023
Pledge of Allegiance
2. Review of Agenda
3. Advertised Public Hearing
A. Petition No. BDE-PL20230006459 -178 Tahiti Circle (BDE)— Request for a 27-foot boat
dock extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier
County Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to construct a
new dock facility that will protrude a total of 47 feet into a waterway that is 219f feet wide
for the benefit of property located at 178 Tahiti Circle, also known as Lot 155, Isles of Capri
No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: John Kelly, Planner III] Commission District 1
4. Other Business
5. Public Comments
6. Adjourn
Collier County Hearing Examiner Page 2 Printed 1011912023
3.A
10/26/2023
COLLIER COUNTY
Collier County Hearing Examiner
Item Number: 3.A
Doc ID: 26817
Item Summary: Petition No. BDE-PL20230006459 - 178 Tahiti Circle (BDE)— Request for a 27-foot boat dock
extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development
Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to construct a new dock facility that will protrude a total of 47 feet
into a waterway that is 219f feet wide for the benefit of property located at 178 Tahiti Circle, also known as Lot
155, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:
John Kelly, Planner 111] Commission District 1
Meeting Date: 10/26/2023
Prepared by:
Title: Planner — Zoning
Name: John Kelly
10/04/2023 4:25 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Zoning Director — Zoning
Name: Mike Bosi
10/04/2023 4:25 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Hearing Examiner (GMD Approvers) Diane Lynch Review Item Completed 10/05/2023 6:41 PM
Operations & Regulatory Management Michael Stark Review Item Completed 10/09/2023 12:54 PM
Zoning
Zoning
Zoning
Hearing Examiner
James Sabo Review Item
Ray Bellows Review Item
Mike Bosi Division Director
Andrew Dickman Meeting Pending
Skipped 10/09/2023 2:22 PM
Completed 10/09/2023 4:11 PM
Completed 10/09/2023 4:25 PM
10/26/2023 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 3
3.A.a
Co er County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2023
SUBJECT: BD-PL20230006459, 178 TAHITI CIRCLE — DEMARET DOCK
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
Kenneth J. and Kathleen A. Demaret, Co -Trustees,
Kenneth and Kathleen Demaret 2009 Family Trust
192 Tahiti Cir
Naples, FL 34113
REQUESTED ACTION:
AGENT:
Jeff Rogers
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
3584 Exchange Ave.
Naples, FL 34104
The petitioner requests a 27-foot boat dock extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by
Section 5.03.06.E. I of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways 100 feet
or greater in width, to construct a new dock facility that will protrude a total of 47 feet into a
waterway that is 219± feet wide for the benefit of the subject property.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property comprises 0.18± acres located at 178 Tahiti Circle and is legally described as
Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County,
Florida. (See location map on the following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The subject property is within a Residential Single-Family-4 (RSF-4) zoning district and enjoys
102± feet of waterfrontage on Johnson Bay. At present, Building Permit application No.
PRFH2O220416412 has been issued for a 3-story single-family dwelling that is presently in
"inspect" status. The petitioner seeks to construct a 2-slip dock facility perpendicular to the
shoreline, with two boatlifts; one to accommodate a 44-foot vessel and the other to be decked over
to serve two personal watercrafts (PWCs). The primary slip and lift have been designed to be at a
601 degree angle to the shoreline, and the PWC lift has been placed on the west side of the facility
to limit any impacts to properties to the east. A prior BD, HEX Decision No. 2022-42, to allow a
54-foot protrusion for a 50-foot vessel was previously denied; see Attachment C.
BDE-PL20230006459 — 178 Tahiti Cir Page 1 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 4
(Iaaeuaa(3 GI3JI3 1114e18L4 (38 65ti9000£ZOZ-ld : LW9Z) £ZOZO£60 :podGU IIeIS :ju9w4oejjv
W)
Cb
a
m
no
3Al��eweg _
3AV
Reuel
3A uornl Q�
'L_.�o��
o�
--
cr tic*,ac t Kerra Ea le DR
pe
� ¢ a`°tan
PL
Y . gdin
a� ---
Z �
7i 76
w
p cai
oe G
L
BDE-PL20230006459 — 178 Tahiti Cir
September 30, 2023
OL
M
Q]
.0
N
rn
u7
CD
O
O
O
co
N
O
N
J
fl
^L'
W
E
M
C
O
N
a
C�
C
U
O
J
Page 2 of 8
a
3.A.a
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North: Johnson Bay (waterway located within an Agricultural zoning with a Special
Treatment overlay (A-ST))
East: Single-family residence located within a Residential Single-Family-4 (RSF-4)
zoning district
South: Tahiti Circle (Right -of -Way) then a Residential Single-Family-4 (RSF-4) zoning
district
West: Single-family residence located within a Residential Single-Family-4 (RSF-4)
Aerial — Collier County GIs
Aerial — Collier County Property Appraiser
BDE-PL20230006459 —178 Tahiti Cir Page 3 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 6
3.A.a
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this
request. The property is located adjacent to an ST overlay zone (Marlin Bay), which will require
an ST-permit for the proposed docking facilities prior to the issuance of the building permits. The
proposed docking facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing sea walled shoreline. The
shoreline does not contain vegetation. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant
found no submerged resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility. Exhibit
sheet page 8 of 10 provides an aerial with a note stating that no seagrasses were observed within
200 feet.
This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review because
this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in
Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws, and
Ordinances.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
In accordance with LDC Section 5.03.06.H., the Collier County Hearing Examiner shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny a dock facility extension request based on certain criteria. In
order for the Hearing Examiner to approve this request, at least four of the five primary criteria
and four of the six secondary criteria must be 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.)
Criterion met. The subject property comprises 0.18 acres located within an RSF-4 zoning
district upon which a single-family dwelling is presently being constructed by means of
Building Permit No. PRFH2O220416412 and the proposed project consists of a dock
facility with two boatlifts, one to accommodate a 44-foot vessel and the other to be decked
over for two personal watercrafts (PWCs).
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general
length, type, and draft as described in the petitioner's application cannot 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.)
Criterion met. The applicant's agent states: "The boat dock extension is necessary to
accommodate the owners' vessels due to the existing on -site water depths being too
shallow within the allowed 20 feet. The subject shoreline consists of a seawall with no rip-
BDE-PL20230006459 — 178 Tahiti Cir Page 4 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 7
rap out in front. Still, the existing on -site water depths indicated on the attached survey are
too shallow for any vessel with a 3-foot draft to be properly moored within the allowed 20
feet, as indicated on sheets 13 & 14 of 14.
The proposed 44-foot vessel is advertised as having a 3-foot draft with a boatlift and the
cross -support beams being at least 12". The overall depth of water needed to float this
vessel on and off the boatlift is at least 4.5 feet. Based on those facts and the existing on -
site water depths, the BDE is needed to reach sufficient water depths, as shown in the
attached BDE exhibits. Also, with the adjacent dock and boathouse being within the
applicant's riparian area, which is considered grandfathered structures, and with no
docking facility on the east side, it was determined the best option was to angle the dock
towards the west to allow more flexibility for the owners or future owners to the east on a
dock design if one was ever proposed as well as be as lease impactful to their current view
of the subject waterway.
Additionally, on sheets 13 & 14 of 14, I have included these two exhibits to show the
maximum sized vessel being 40 feet that can fit within the required 15-foot setbacks and
20 feet of protrusion. The issue is the fact that the water depths are still too shallow for any
vessel with a 3-foot or greater draft to be moored within the allowable area, especially
when a boatlift is proposed." Based upon the provided exhibits, see Attachment A, staff
concurs.
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.)
Criterion met. The applicant's agent states that there are no marked channels within this
section of Johnson Bay. Therefore, the entire waterway provides safe navigation. It is
further noted that there is a natural shoal area to the NW as a vessel exits Marlin Bay out
to Johnson Bay. However, it's a local knowledge channel that one navigates parallel to the
shoreline to reach the nearest marked channel. As proposed, the dock facility will also
maintain the ingress/egress to neighboring docks. Staff concurs.
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.)
Criterion met. The subject waterway is 219± feet wide at this point, and the proposed
dock protrusion is 47 feet or 21.46 percent of the waterway. The distance between dock
facilities is 146 feet; 66.67 percent of the waterway remains clear for navigation.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility
would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not
interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
BDE-PL20230006459 —178 Tahiti Cir Page 5 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 8
3.A.a
Criterion met. The applicant's agent states: "The proposed docking facility is consistent
with the other docks within this bay and the adjacent bay on the Isles of Capri. The dock
design ensures that the vessel and dock are all within the required setbacks, puts the stern
of the vessel in the deeper water, maintains access to the existing dock immediately
adjacent to the west property line, and ensures any future dock constructed on the eastern
adjacent property will have unobstructed access." Staff concurs.
Secondary Criteria:
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject
property or waterway that justify the proposed dock facility's proposed dimensions
and location. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property,
including type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth,
or seagrass beds.)
Criterion met. The applicant's agent states: "Riprap is not a factor as it was previously
determined that there is no riprap along the subject property shoreline. The one special
condition that was taken into consideration is the existing neighboring dock, which is
partially within the applicant's riparian area, with no setback provided. This was the most
restrictive existing condition design factor considered in that we could design the
ingress/egress of our proposed slips to avoid conflict. This was the driving factor behind
putting our vessel ingress/egress to come/cross over the western riparian line, as there is
no telling what the adjacent property with no existing dock could or would propose in the
future. Additionally, the subject property location on a wider waterway allows the proposed
dock to protrude further out into the waterway without impacting navigation." Provided
exhibits, see Attachment A, give credence to the applicant's statement; therefore, staff
concurs.
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.)
Criterion met. The applicant states the proposed dock facility has been minimized to the
fullest extent possible and provides deck area for routine maintenance, safe access,
recreational activities like fishing, and storage of kayaks and/or paddleboards. Staff
concurs.
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.)
Criterion not met. The proposed dock facility has been redesigned to accommodate a 44-
foot vessel and two personal watercrafts (PWCs), each approximately 12 feet long. The
subject shoreline is 70� feet long; therefore, the vessel size will exceed the 50% threshold.
The prior design, denied by HEX Decision No. 2022-42, was for a 50-foot vessel that also
reduces the requested protrusion. Staff concurs.
BDE-PL20230006459 — 178 Tahiti Cir Page 6 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 9
3.A.a
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.)
Criterion met. The applicant's agent states: "As proposed, the dock has been designed
within the designated setbacks and is consistent with the other previously approved BDE
boat docks perpendicular to the shoreline. This allows you to design within the allowed
riparian area and avoid ingress/egressing over either of the shared riparian lines. Based on
our analysis, as shown on the BDE exhibits (sheet 12 of 13), the overall impacts to each
adjacent property owner are indicated. It is our position that the proposed dock will NOT
have a MAJOR impact on their views of the waterway. As indicated in the exhibit, at 20-
feet, the eastern property owner's view would be open to 99-degrees, and the proposed
dock would be reduced to 93-degrees. Therefore, based on this analysis, their view is only
slightly obstructed and should not have a MAJOR impact on anyone's view." Based upon
the plans provided within Attachment A, staff concurs.
5. Whether the proposed dock facility will impact seagrass beds. (If seagrass beds are
present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.)
Criterion met. No seagrass beds are present on the property nor the neighboring properties
within 200-feet of the existing dock structure.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements
of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
Criterion is not applicable. Criterion is not applicable. The provisions of the Collier
County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to single-family dock facilities except for
those within the sea -walled basin of Port of the Islands; the subject property is not located
within Port of the Islands.
Staff analysis finds this request complies with all five primary criteria. With respect to the six
secondary criteria, one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, and the request satisfies four of
the remaining five secondary criteria.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS:
Building Permit Application No. PRFH2O220416412 has been issued for a 3-story single-family
dwelling, and construction has commenced; the permit is currently in "inspect" status.
APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION:
As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the Hearing Examiner takes action, an
aggrieved petitioner may appeal such final action. Such appeal shall be filed per Section 2-88 of
the Collier County Code of Ordinances within 30 days of the Decision by the Hearing Examiner.
An aggrieved non-party may appeal a decision of the Hearing Examiner to the Circuit Court of
Collier County within 30 days of the decision. If the Hearing Examiner approves the petition, the
BDE-PL20230006459 — 178 Tahiti Cir Page 7 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 10
3.A.a
applicant shall be advised that they proceed with construction at their own risk during this 30-day
period. Any construction work completed ahead of the approval authorization shall be at their own
risk.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE Petition
BDE-PL20230006459 to allow for the construction of the proposed dock facility that will
protrude 47 feet into the waterway as depicted within the plans contained within Attachment A,
subject to the following condition:
1. A Certificate of Completion can not be approved for the subject dock facility until such
time as a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the principal structure, to wit, a
single-family dwelling.
Attachments:
A. Site and Dock Plans
B. Building Permit No. PRFH2O220416412
C. HEX Decision No. 2022-42
D. Applicant's Backup and Supporting Documents
E. Public Hearing Sign Posting
BDE-PL20230006459 —178 Tahiti Cir Page 8 of 8
September 30, 2023
Packet Pg. 11
Ivi
(;aaeuaa(3 813MO MLIBI 8L� (38 65ti9000£ZOZ-ld : LMZ) sueld MOoa pue 01IS - d;uauay3e;;d :;uOwt43e;;y
ha
Q
ry
0
J
LL
LL
0
LW
r
}
W
Y
r
D
0
U
W
J
0
U
41
,In
N
z
�
O
w a
p00j
LU W
N 00
d =
D a
Z
Z
O
LL
LU
U
W ❑
Z ❑
❑ �
H
~ U
z
Z
�
i-i
O
U
aQ
v v
0' O
O LL
LL ❑
Of
Qz
M
(n LU
C7
Z
z—
� M
> H
J
LL
W
A
H
Q W
Clw
A
W Q
W�z
W C
W ❑
�W"HQ
VA
v
O
v
J
Irr�
W
Q
z
D
0
U
N
a
i
tU
m
a
a
x
N
p:\21145.00 demaret-178 tahiti cir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwg LOCATION MAP 8/4/2023
_
�
n
(aeWeQ 813J|g 11114B.L M (386-P900ZZ d:M Z md11300PUB8lS.¥ eLUq3B n¥:ueLULj3e n¥
J� 7
U)
4
<
\L
U) :
2 h
L
/LL �
I w
]Nn Nd �]vdN
]NI-1 N+I:]vdm
"IF
� y¥
wn,__m_AD\PERMIT-COUN,mEXISTING CONDITIONS m
�
e
|_
�
|
(IGJeuaaa 813JID I1I4el M (38 69b9000£Z0ZId : M9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V juaua40e;;d :;uaua40ejjb
in J
Q
m Q
Q lLlu^
VJ
J W
OLL
0
LL
W
2=
AN
Ur J
Z J
Q L
rr^^ r
vJ WW (i
W C/) co a-
:) 0N
VJ a_
d
3 N Il M II:]Vd R:l
w
r
A=LL
w
Z
0
v
p121145.00 demaret-178 tahiti cir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH DEPTHS 8/4/2023
(IGJBWG(3 810J13 1114el M (38 69b9000£Z0ZId : LW9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V juaua40e;;d :;uaua40ejjV
I I I
`/
Lq
F4
r
z
(D
� Q
z z
7 coQLLJ
Q �
cQc
G
a
o O Q
w F— Z
V) (D Q
z F-
X 2lL
a_
CflQ
J 0
0
CLW Q
J L\u
^p
a- /
d m
;m
17
1�
0 Y
w U
C/)O
0
O w
X
0- �
3NIl M IR:]Vdl�:l
J
U) J
Q
in Q
Q w
2
Q � II�
0w
O
w
CJ U
G ILL
c= w
G
U
z
O
a z
z � nor nna
O 3 S.
N
00 0 4
a , 0010
K N o 0 U' a x
a �cwirc0 a ' Nx E
ar z
a�z
Zow� aa3 wa�
02Rw.0 O ¢I-gg ae?¢w
w0
W NtA WI-0
0 +'>>w
K
o00 ouww- rva
0 ,wY �y�
a a
�Ow Ww°w
z w w90 0 w~ >°>>>3�
gazMowt-o3�zzowo
wzo>j7F=O��aOa
W I=K�� aX�� woo
H �aam aw3� a��
2 ..
1 M
U �
mw
a ,l
V)cr
oa � w
v �
J �
"9 Z
Q
C/)Q
I W w,
b
.Lb f
irr
r
0H(D
Q W z
U>
Q
w
�
J
LL
N w N
}
zQ
OOJ
o�Q
= m
O
d~ Z
w w
O z 0
O 0
del-
�Y
U
Q
d p
P:\21145.00demaret-178tahiticir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwq RRf2R83ED DOCK -DIMENSIONS 8/4/2023
-=- - illi j � —
z0Q
O�
Q W J
0
Q D
0
ZOQ
U)Q
w 00
0
w
z
a
d
0
m
a
(IGJeuaaa GI3JI3 11I4B.L M (38 69b9000£Z0ZId : M9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V juaua40e;;d :;uaua40ejjV
-06 P•f. � � N
cc��
0
0101m10SA ap,ira
RA
J �
2 co
X =
CO �
� J
0 w
wcn
cl)
OJw
0- >
0- coOJ
i X
0 Y
w U
U)O
0
O�
X
w LL
rw J
U J
Q
m Q
Q w
>- U)
~2
LL
O
2,w
.r
-
Z
z 3
z W n n
z K nor a
O f�
N fN
0 O L r N
d F .. LL
a �(wi z' Na aiiw
z4zo Jaa ¢xJ
a— 3 wa�
k �w0 aas
0 ¢j0 o� Ewa
azN ZUP-
WO vxiwQ QN�
Wo':WW-3 , u COO
oa¢>?Nu�Oa33oo� x3�vwaO>
w.0oiO�JFa
O
NoZ❑z=
Lij
mx a00
Z �KJQ
=w
I
Lq � LI
to M N
v Ni X
X X X
U) O N
Lr) M O M M N
X X X X X X
o f
X N I w �
X X vN X X m a
O
r` Lr o G�
ITITco a_
LQ
X
+
X X X
o � �
� X
X X
d
O 00 (n O ('7 N
L? O O
X X X X X N�
3NI-1 N 118V RJ
rl I.
iz0Q
O�
LL I
J
Q D
N_w
(D0o
Z
p0 0
z Q Q
0
m
d
W
Ov
w
W
0
w
z
w
oN
w
i fL
d
I
U)
Z
0
o co
i
0
wzz zy wWw ¢ x NN
U�
— Q
U�
Io
Lu
a
m O
CV fV
COD
cj
un
con
CG
o w
CGW
00
E- v
�� w
021145.00 demaret-178 tahiti cir\CAD\PERMIT
RRf2R2)SED DOCK -
M
(IGJeuaa(3 GIOJIO 1114B.L M (38 69b9000£ZOZId M9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V juaua40e;;d :;uaua40ejjV
IF
�. _
Lu
z
LUw
W
LL J
O LL
dY
U
0 0
LL
LLO
Z0
O z
�w
O
a
O'8-
CJ c-
(�
T d L'4
,U�
6'b- X
Z
O
U
w
U)
m 0
O g F- ly-
V LL = m
Z 0 D
JwwC/)
Q O w
m
r`
a
Y
V
a
a
In
OOJB O(3 813a13 MLIBI 8L(38 65ti9000£Z0Z_1d LMZ) sueld 1300 pue OPS - V 1UGWy3e11d :WOW43e;;b
00
M a
LU ++
uj
QLU UJ
ce
< W
i A _ A: FV
,`Z
! _ 0
'sl9'� t er/,LL N
Z Z 2po co
17' rX r`v a 0 LU46
6 0
21 i5• (n Q m o z F
'a.. Z z z r pz W U
ZO W w�
LULu Q
0 I Z
mow 7
11
NIS
�\ U)
AIR
Y
,oz
,Z£ A,
W
sz
.bZ
ro
h III Lb LIP _ .-o
W U 6
14
00
0 T } "
d(G c
Aq
oa
lie
M
no T
PA21145.00 demaret-178 tahiti cir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwq &9 2MENT DOCKS -NORTH 8/4/2023
(IOJBWO(3 813MO MLIBI SL (39 65iV9000CZOZ-ld L MZ) SuBld MOOO Pue 01!S V lUGWLl3ellV :luOwt43ellV
AA17
jp.
A;
4v
619'
'AIL,
43
LJ L 9z
L.9t,
'14A
�71t,
a.
(D
-�c
L)
m
a.
LU
w
2 (D
x <
02
as
LU
It
LLJ
t X,
<
<
Lu
0
0'
U)
LL
U)
zZ� Ewa
w
U) <
z
00
LU LLJ
6
0 <
�-
Lu 0
0
= z
(aeWeQ 813J13 mLIBI @L�Q86 iV9 000 Z Z d:LMZ mdM3 (3pue01S-V luGWLl3ellV ]uemt4,e■�V
� � 4
±
m « \ / / \ .
® \ $ O O /
222 &
Rw / ƒ LL ƒ
* 5
ERE
o>®m
« L 2 O
/ U)U%0 .
w k?%ƒ
m
Z
. ƒ .-
@
§
k
�
q
j
)
(
,_,_ m _ »PER ,. , w _ENERGED RESOURCE SURVEY »
(IGJBWG(3 GIOJIO 11I4B.L M (38 69b9000£ZOZId : M9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V luaua40e;;d :;uaua40elld
i.
— 62 —
'96L —
C fD
X Q
02
LN.1_
J
d Q
o
Q r'
ry Q
Qw
LL
v'
Z
.' T�.. >4
Z Z
OY
O>
v
cn
Z<
<
=a
N
c
O
r
w
0 Q
Iwo
O
z
L=
Z r Q
021145.00 demaret-178 tahiti
cir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwq BM =DF WATERWAY 8/4/2023
0
z
I ww
N
Cb
a
m
Y
V
M
IL
d
I
U)
z
0
F
o M
o
N
w
z
m o
z w
0
z
o
O
U
N
U
-
� Q
I
ILL
O
-
Q o
3
777
I
t
-
CV M
V Y M
V
1 ...
U M N
z�
�00
00
'n o
22
C
a
I
� W
(IGJBWG(3 GIOJIO 11I4B.L M (38 69b9000£ZOZId : LW9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V Iuaua40e;;d :;uaua40BIIV
N
• ` N
a
r
m
0 IL
` t4 +
0
z
J �
2 m
F
� J
Q!
w
0
-A
NJ
z
y
Z Q
v l
O
N
O
"31?IIIIIIL
IhIIIIIIIIIIII�
11111111
■■■■■ �.
I■■■■■
F
o M
o z
16--m0 O
1. N U tq
il �
U
I>
0
•
�
1t
3
F
M
Lu U
00
�y M
oXfitw
w
z�
N bq v
=
� UEj
00
'n o
C
a
I
� W
P:\21145.00 demaret-178 tahiti cir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwq 6M/OY23RLAY 8/4/2023
(IGJBWG(3 810J!D 1114el M (38 69b9000£ZOZId : M9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V juaua40e;;d :;uaua40ejjV
Q
M
op
W
H
1y
~
W
w
-
cQ
G
U
-
O
W
O
N
Z
U >
a Q
o
m�
'4 WW
W
W Q W
.�
O
LL ,
iM+
z Z14
\
OW
\
cn
Z
W W
z
m
z F
w
Q 3: O Z
dLu ZHQ
0
3: LLJ
Lu LLJ J
UIL
> Q
� O
J
J
Q
S
z W
u -
NLL >
LL
D
U
p'\21145.00 demaret-178 tahitl cir\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\21145-BDE.dwg VIEW EXHIBIT 8/4/2023
(IGJeuaaa GIOJIO 1114B.L M (38 69b9000£ZOZId : M9Z) sueld 11000 pue 811S - V juaua40e;;d :;uaua40ejjV
d o
M
V
V
M
c
W
Z
J
n,
UJ W
W
a J
O a
dY
U
0 0
0 a I--
a O
J
Z p
Oz o
W 0
O
O
a
0
N
Y
U
0
0
Z
0
U)
�D
LL
0
GL
a_
p
N
�
1Ncfl W � F-
�lU)
LL
i �.�..� w
< m
m
LO
N
6)
a
r
a�
Y
V
M
a
3.A.c
PRFH2O22041641201
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PERMIT
PERMIT #: PRFH2O22041641201 PERMIT TYPE: Building
DATE ISSUED: August 26, 2022
BUILDING CODE IN EFFECT: FBC 7th Edition 2020
JOB ADDRESS: 178 Tahiti CIR, Unit, Naples, Single Family
FOLIO #:
JOB DESCRIPTION: New Single Family Residence
178 Tahiti CIR
4 bed / 5 bath (5wc) rm
OWNER INFORMATION:
K & K DEMARET 2009 FAM TRUST
192 TAHITI CIR
NAPLES, FL 34113
AREA OF WORK (SOFT). 7598
SETBACKS:
FRONT: 25' REAR. 20' P / 10' A LEFT: 7.5' RIGHT: 7.5'
FLOOD ZONE: AE
SEWER: Septic
WATER: New
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: CERTIFICATE #:
STILES SOWERS CONSTRUCTION INC C21679
3050 N HORSESHOE DR BLDG B UNIT 290
NAPLES, FL 34104
(239) 213-1222
SUB CONTRACTOR INFORMATION:
WORLD PLUMBING, LLC (DBA) ACE PLUMBING OF NAPLES
3050 HORSESHOE DR. N. STE 290
NAPLES, FL 34104
(239) 692-9746
ROMEO AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
1852 E 40TH TERRACE SW
NAPLES, FL 34116
(239) 348-8999
PROFESSIONAL ELECTRIC OF SW FLORIDA, LLC
5490 YAHL ST UNIT #20
NAPLES, FL 34109
(239)919-6595
Packet Pg. 26
3.A.c
PRFH2022041641201
I Z, RU x411 111 [a]► Mile] -[N_1zip]
To schedule inspections call 239-252-3726
or visit https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb
25' REAR:
n
INSPECTIONOUTCOME
102 - Grade Beam
20' P / LEFT: 7.5'
10' A
RIGHT: 7.5' SPECIAL: FLOOD FZAE
FZONE:
COMMENTS
103 - Floating Slab
104 - Tie Beam
105 - Shearwall
cast in place wall
106 - Columns
107 -
Truss/Sheathing/Bucks
108 - Framing
109 - Insulation
111 - Dry-in/Flashing
115 - Building Final
119 - Fill Cells
120 - Flood Vent Relief
121- Elevated Structural
Deck
124 - Steel In Stairs
125 - Elevator Pit
134 - Roofing Final
135 - Shutters Final
136 - Impact Glass
151- Shearwall/Nailing
152 - Shearwall/Water
Barrier
153 - Shea rwall/Stucco Lath
154 - Soffit Coverings In
progress
Please do NOT complete Soffit installation prior to inspection.
200 - Plumbing
Underground
201- Plumbing Rough -in
Packet Pg. 27
3.A.c
PRFH2O22041641201
202 - Plumbing Stack
203 -
Sewer Tap
204 -
Plumbing Final
300 -
A/C Rough
301-
A/C Final
501-
Electrical Rough
502 -
Electrical Final
505 -
Temporary Power
Residential
508 -
TV/Telephone Rough
509 -
TV/Telephone Final
801-
Site Drainage
Type I Stormwater Plan, signed and sealed by a PE. DiazDidier
04/15/2022 8:48 AM
Discharging into the ocean, therefore a Type I Stormwater Plan is
needed.
802 -
Landscaping
805 -
Septic in Progress
810 -
Exotic Vegetation
Removal
813 -
Final Septic
814 -
Erosion/Silt
The 814 - Erosion/Silt must be passed before any other inspections
are scheduled.
OPEN
CONDITIONS
Condition
Type:
Condition Description:
NOTICE OF CLEARING RESTRICTIONS: The issuance of a building permit for a single-family dwelling allows up
Informational
to one (1) acre of native vegetation to be cleared. Clearing more than one (1) acre may be allowed for
accessory structures
and requires a separate Vegetation Removal Permit. Properties located in the following zoning district overlays
may not be
allowed to clear one (1) acre: Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMU), Big Cypress Area of Concern (ACSC), and
Special
Treatment Overlay (ST). There may be additional restrictions related to clearing native vegetation and impacts
to wetlands
or protected species found on the property. State and Federal agency permits may be required. Contact the
Growth
Management Department?s Environmental Services at (239) 252-2400 for additional information.
Inspection Hold
Notice of Commencement: Upload to the condition on the portal.
CO Hold
Waiting for Blower Door Test documentation. Upload to the condition on the portal.
ti
0
W
N
N
r
co
v
0
N
N
O
N
2
u_
d
E
L
d
Im
r__
m
m
r
Q
Packet Pg. 28
3.A.c
PRFH2O22041641201
Per plans not greater than 5.0 ACH50
CO Hold
Waiting for Final Energy Calc Summary Sheet. Send document to EnergyCalc@CollierCountyFl.gov and include
your permit number in the emails subject line.
Informational
FEMA - All equipment must be above flood plus one foot. Any materials used below flood level must comply
with FEMA regulations
CO Hold
A Spot Survey will be required within ten days of passing a 704 shell reinforcement or 103/133 inspection of
slab. Prior to obtaining County approval of the Spot Survey, the permit holder?s construction activities are at
his/her own risk. After 10 days an "Inspection HOLD" will be placed on this Permit for survey review. NOTE: A
Spot Survey must verify slab meets setbacks and minimum elevation per Chapter 62, Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, e.g., 18? above the crown of the road or the elevation established by the SFWMD
permit.
Informational
New Future generator and New Seawall mentioned on the plans require seperate permits.
CO Hold
> Elevation Certificate
Flood zone AE 8' NAVD; Prop living=16.25' NAVD; COR=3.32' NAVD; Garage (LP) 4.83' NAVD; Lower level to be
vented by (16) Smart Vent Model 1540-520 (200SF/ea) & two (2) 1540-530 (fire damper (fire rated) units
CO Hold
At the time of permit application, the permitted structure is in the special flood hazard area. An Under
Construction Elevation Certificate is required within 10 days of passing a 103 or 133 inspection of slab or other
foundation system. Prior to obtaining County approval of the Under Construction Elevation Certificate, the
permit holder?s construction activities are at his/her own risk. Under Construction Elevation Certificates must
verify the slab meets minimum elevations per the Florida Building Code and Chapter 62, Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances (e.g., BFE +1 or 18? above the crown of the road, whichever is higher, and the elevation
established by the SFWMD permit).
Flood zone AE 8' NAVD; Prop living=16.25' NAVD; COR=3.32' NAVD; Garage (LP) 4.83' NAVD; Lower level to be
vented by (16) Smart Vent Model 1540-520 (200SF/ea) & two (2) 1540-530 (fire damper (fire rated) units f
CO Hold
Pursuant to the Floodplain Management Ordinance 2019-01 a Non -conversion Agreement shall be recorded in
the public records of Collier County, FL prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or certificate of
completion for this permit. Once the Non -Conversion Agreement is recorded, upload to the condition on the
portal.
For questions, contact the Floodplain Management section at 239-252-2942 or email
BuildingFloodDocs@colliercountyfl.gov.
The form can be downloaded here: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=84981
Inspection Hold
Permit is on inspection hold until the following deferred items are submitted as a revision: truss
CO Hold
Waiting for Duct Leakage Test documentation. Upload test documentation to the condition on the portal.
Per plans not greater than .000 QN
CO Hold
Any required County impact fees will be due prior to issuance of a temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy
CO Hold
Engineering Certificate/Letter (Structural). Upload to the condition on the portal.
Engineers Letter/Certificate of Compliance and Inspection Reports required for pilings. CO Hold until receipt of
Engineers Report.
Inspection Hold
Sub Contractor (Roofing) Upload to the condition on portal.
Inspection Hold
Sub Contractor (Septic) Upload to the condition on portal. Owner can not act as the septic sub, must be a
licensed plumber or registered septic contractor.
CO Hold
Please contact the Inspection/CO section at 239-252-2406 or email us at inspections@colliercountyfl.gov to
have this condition resolved prior to paying CO fees. This will generate the Mandatory Curbside Solid Waste
Collection fee based on the total permit fees due.
NOTE: If you are unable to schedule your inspection, please contact the inspection desk at 252-2400.
NOISE ORDINANCE: Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances 54-92(f) Construction Sound. NOISE LIMITATIONS are
in effect at all times. Work permitted, RESIDENTIAL Areas — 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thru Saturday; NON-RESIDENTIA
Packet Pg. 29
3.A.c
PRFH2O22041641201
Areas (more than 500 feet from Residential Area) 6:OOAM to 8:OOPM Monday thru Saturday. No Work on Sundays or Holidays.
RADIOS, LOUDSPEAKERS, ETC. — Must not disturb peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring inhabitants. FREE CABLE
LOCATIONS — Call 48 Hours prior to digging/FPL 434-1222/UTS 1-800-542-0088/PalmerCATV 783-0638 and all other applicabl
utilities.
Per currently adopted building code ordinance, as it may be amended, all work must comply with all applicable laws, codes,
ordinances, and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit. This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is nc
commenced within six (6) months from the date of issuance of the permit. Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the
commencement of construction may be imposed. Permittee(s) further understands that any contractor that may be employed mus
be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
NOTICE: PRIOR TO THE REM AL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEM ITION OF A STRUCTURE, FEDERAI
AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE (EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR) TO SUBMIT A NOTICE Ol
THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP). FOR M E
INFORMATION, CONTACT DEP AT (239) 344-5600.
NOTICE: In addition to the conditions of this permit, there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be
found in the public records of this county, and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as
water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies.
WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF
COM NCEMENT MAY RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS
TO YOUR PROPERTY. A NOTICE OF COM NCEMENT MUST BE RECORDED
AND POSTED ON THE JOB SITE BEFORE THE FIRST INSPECTION. IF YOU INTENT
TO OBTAIN FINANCING, CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY
BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COM NCEMENT.
Packet Pg. 30
3.A.d
HEX NO. 2022-42
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 25, 2022
PVTiTI"N
Petition No. BDE-PL20220002144 - 178 Tahiti Circle - Request for a 34-foot boat dock
extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County
Land Development Code for waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to construct a new dock
facility that will protrude a total of 54 feet into a waterway that is 224f feet wide for the
benefit of property located at 178 Tahiti Circle, also known as Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2,
in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner seeks to construct a 2-slip dock facility, perpendicular to the shoreline, with two
boatlifts; one to accommodate a 50-foot vessel and the other to be decked over to serve two
personal watercrafts (PWCs).
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 objections made at the public hearing by Robert Buckel, the
neighbor at 168 Tahiti, who is also an attorney, and Michael, Jeffrey and Sandra Clark who
Page 1 of 6
Packet Pg. 31
3.A.d
are the property owners of both 182 Tahiti and 186 Tahiti. They are concerned regarding the
length of the boat dock extensions that will block the views on their properties. Also, Mr.
Buckel pointed out errors with the Submerged Resource Survey.
6. There is a concurrent land use application of Building Permit Application No.
PRFH20220416412 is under review for a 3-story residential dwelling unit.
7. The County's Land Development Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility
extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boat dock
extension request if it is determined that at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria, and at
least four (4) of the six (6) secondary criteria have been met.'
Primary Criteria:
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation
to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property.
Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are
the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be
appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-
family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property is located within an RSF-4 zoning district and will be
improved with a single-family dwelling for which the LDC allows two boat slips. The
proposed project consists of a dock facility with two boatlifts, one to accommodate a 50-
foot vessel and the other to be decked over for two personal watercrafts (PWCs). There
will also be a railing installed to inhibit a third unauthorized slip.
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
NOT BEEN MET. The boat dock extension (BDE) is necessary to accommodate the
owners' vessels and due to riprap along the subject seawall; the proposed dock cannot
come any closer to the shoreline. A more shore parallel dock design would not work due
to the riprap and would then also require the vessel to cross over into the adjacent property
owners' riparian area. The reason for this BDE is both the riprap of the shoreline and
vessel size.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 32
3.A.d
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. There are no marked channels within this section of Johnson Bay, therefore
the entire waterway provides safe navigation. As proposed, the dock facility will also
maintain the ingress/egress to both neighboring docks.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the
waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock
facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the
required percentages.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject waterway is 224± feet wide at this point. The proposed dock
facility will protrude 54 feet into the subject waterway which is 24.1 % of said waterway.
The distance between the subject dock facility and that on the opposite shore is 137 feet;
given that the total width of the waterway is 224± feet, over 50% (or 112 feet) is open and
available for navigation.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would
not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the
use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The proposed dock facility will exceed the required 15 foot side/riparian
setback and allows for the intended vessel to make a direct approach without crossing the
riparian area of others. The subject dock facility will not inhibit the access of neighboring
dock facilities.
Secondary Criteria:
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
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant states that due to the riprap the dock facility must be 3
feet away to prevent the vessel from striking the riprap while ingress/egressing the boatlift,
and that the 3-foot offset provides sufficient space to protect the vessel but limits the ability
to reduce protrusion. The applicant also states that this part of Johnson Bay is located
within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve which required the applicant to follow the
aquatic preserve dock guidelines which are more restrictive on design options and
Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 33
3.A.d
location. However, there is no evidence that riprap is an issue, nor are there any other
special conditions pertaining to this criterion.
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. The proposed dock facility has been designed for routine maintenance, safe
access as well as recreational activities like fishing, plus storage of kayaks and/or
paddleboards.
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's
linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The proposed dock facility was designed to accommodate a 50 foot
vessel and two personal watercrafts (PWCs) each approximately 12 feet in length. The
subject shoreline is 70± feet in length; therefore, the vessel size will exceed the 50%
threshold.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of
a neighboring property owner.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. As proposed, the dock facility has been designed to be constructed
fully within the required 15 foot side/riparian setbacks. However, the dock facility design
will have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds
are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor the neighboring
properties within 200 feet of the existing dock structure.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of
subsection 5.03.06(E)(I1) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
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 dock facilities except for those within the seawalled basin of Port
of the Islands; the subject property is not located within Port of the Islands.
Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 34
3.A.d
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 5.03.06.1-1
of the Land Development Code to deny Petition. The Petition meets 4 out of 5 of the primary
criteria and 3 out of 6 secondary criteria.
DECISION.
The applicant has met 4 of 5 primary criteria and 3 of 6 secondary criteria. Therefore, the Hearing
Examiner hereby DENIES Petition Number BDE-PL20220002144, filed by Jeff Rogers of Turrell,
Hall & Associates, Inc. representing Kenneth J. and Kathleen A. Demaret, Co -Trustees of the
Kenneth and Kathleen Demaret 2009 Family Trust, with respect to the property described as 0.18±
acres located at 178 Tahiti Circle and is legally described as Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2, in
Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida, for the following:
A 34-foot boat dock extension, over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.I
of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways 100 feet or greater in
width, to construct a new dock facility that will protrude a total of 54 feet into a waterway
that is 224± feet wide for the benefit of the subject property.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Site and Dock Plans
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
0.18± acres located at 178 Tahiti Circle and is legally described as Lot 155, Isles of Capri No. 2,
in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
Not applicable.
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 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 35
3.A.d
APPF ALL.
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.
September 23, 2022
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 36
3.A.d
EXHIBIT "A"
Packet Pg. 37
813MO MLIBI UL (38 65b9000£ZOZld : LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ uOis138d X3H - 3;u8wgoelly :;u8wg3ejjv
co
CM
Wf
I, G
r el • A
- — a.
17
r �01
m
_ > I0 N
wa _
m K
0. Q
2
0
J
W
U.
0
pui
'1
d
t
W
'S
ILJ
c
N
z
c�O n
cli
O
0)
Wwar
to �
ui
N
5N
az
cj
a z
�O
a.
Lij
W
zlw
F-3
�U)
�z
g
z
a0
c�
i
v v
w
a
it p
01.
LL d
xd
< w
(Dz
zz
a cl)
ILL.
z
WHJ
a=vi
A¢w
�W
wW.
��W.
Wiz
(L
�w0
FWHQ
(A
v
z
v
p \21145.00 demamt-178 tah.0 r ACAD\PERMIT-COUNTYt21145-SOE.dwg LOCATION MAP 6/2/2022
Q
M
813MO MLIel 8L4 (38 65b9000£ZOZld : LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ uois138(3 X3H - 0 lu8wgc)elly :;u8wg3ejjv
i
r N
A
z• X7t
�,►�
llI `4
� r
0
J
� J
Q
VJ
O~
2O
W
3NI I NVWVdW w
3NIl MdWVdW
0
w -
rlr
an=
o
i 3 no
N .,
W I
g pg�
w x
RR K xa
uz o �LL°d
zF
LL r
OLL = 0 N � Q
Zon
0
W�auZ0
z
ra Rpm
Ilk
M �
H
LL
W �atn
DO°�°a
U) af `A
lot L
N
d
W
z
0
�s z
0
3�^Otzppz 0
O O U i N N
U
U)
Z
O
z
I°
z
X
M w
W
!?Q N N
M M
N
V M
As
un
o z
c cs pw� >
N M
00
�i
C
o.
H v
�+ e
M
2
0)
Cl)
6
IL
a
a
ran u
BI2/2022
813MO RILIBI 8L6 08 69V9000£Z0Zld : LM6 ZZ-SZ-S `Zti-ZZOZ UOISPO(3 X3H - 0 lugwt43ePv :;u8wtj3ejjv
m-_-u t
A..
1Z144
Wv
o
(L
00
w
d U_
J
� J
a
z
Qw
J
O O
w
z�
(n E-
0W
20
�_J[[ Q
IYZ
_jU
og
�!-
LL
Z O
ap
Y _
DU~'
W
Da
f1)Qen
2H
wF-
ON
dZ
w
X w
Ow
>
a10
a
Nb'IN`ddl2i
0-3NIl
( _V
00
I- Z
(D 2
z0
DO
J
oa
zz
O
_F-
U)Q
O�_
Z
aw
ly
d.
7 I 9/
o 3N11 Al2OdOad WOHJ NOismiOW ,09 —
fn YLL
J
000
aXw
>
co 0
Nil NVINVdl
$&o cN+I
0
I
Uo
fA
Z
W
I16
0
W
wu O
c�Q mw a
z 00 W O
` X w n ate. W a
w W
ra
6 Wp"za
"
.� M M
c. � - c•"d U M N
�z
•5 4
` ►y�y wy
Kgo
oo
H oo
'^ 6
- M
T �
0
v
a
r
a�
V
a
0:121145.00 demamt-170 tehl0 ciACAD1PERMIT-COUNTY121145-BDE.dwa 68agMED DOCK -DIMENSIONS W12022
Q
ri
813MO MLIBI 8L4 (38 65b9000£ZOZld : LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ UOISlOad X3H - 0 lu8wgoelly :;u8wg3ejjv
44
A
z1yx�►� N
y
0
O
0
U) LL
O�J
(L I—
d :° m
w 0
00
� O
uX—_
J
C/) J
Q
04 m Q W
CV W -j _
CO F—
cnou' g0
d�0 �W
0 0 < - C)
dom -LL
rW
Lon
U� (V
� r X
X X
3 NII N1IHVdIH
r
LO M
X Y q
X X X
o
a
� � map fax
Non
cwio�� f°a xid
MCI
�yz
zF'� aaa.., x
i
emu¢! O wW¢O
yo OUR
<�z
Q� z0¢'SJ rWnOu
Z
W o��0
0�
OIL 2a ad�gF a0
0
O to N
Crj (V '
X X X
X N
X
O cq to 0 M (V
X X X X X ri X Nc
r
3NIl NVWV&'
W 0 Q
Q W
0
p:zQ <
co
w m
�s�o frl
�a
z
0
3�zG=i u
0 o°U°v uw)
Ucn
� d
W
� Y
I"
0
o
w
U)
w
d
0J
w
nW
O
DO
CL
���
Q
w
A-
fn
r
on cv
M
_
M
co•
Wy > $
4d
M
N
'`
0000
M
r -
P 121145.00 demaret-170 tahid ar%CADIPERMIT-COUNTYt2114"DE.dwo BROMED DOCK- DEPTHS 6=022
0
813.1I0 W4818L6 08 6SV9000£ZOZld LM6 ZZ-SZ-8 `Zti-ZZOZ uOlsl:)aa X3H - 0 Iu8w43MIV :;u8ua43eIIV
w
Z
w
z
J
W
W
W
J
CL
00-
aY
ip
LLo
Oz
w
LL
O
-1
0
it H
Z
W
m
Y
d
&O
w
L
Ll
vJ
w
J
a.
6'41
w to
\��\\
U>'
°0 o
\\\/\
\mil\
Z Q fn
N
alp
\\\\
Q LL m
M 602022
813MO MLIBI 8L4 (38 65b9000£ZOZld LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ UOIS138d X3H - 3;u8wgoelly :;u8wg3ejjv
w
62' lfi�a" 1f �'r WAl
02
�� sz a'� �� �, •� � it � ��,� � d �
W W
� ' HRH"
`�
2a yt k{]]� = O
OW �g Z
z z o z U
Z ~3uQlmw W
I -A ` e g LU W� N
-Wi
HWO�
r/ .6 L; Q
°' SL ' •� • ?f. - `PLC`1
11oZf1 U
—A3V-'L—
�y 'T
wU
a�
oW
aLL
a \21145.00 demami-178 tahi0 ciACAD\PERMIT-COUNT1121145•BDE.dwe SAIMMNT DOCKS -NORTH 602022
813MO MLIBI 8L4 a8 65b9000£ZOZld LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ u0isi3ad X3H - 3;uewgc)elly :;uauaI
.f 7 '7ea c.-`� . •.its r � -. w 4,�
It
mot. � ; _.�,. •� t #„� �',.'-�;;,� - �_� a
o can
i� IN i
� o
a;x p <
74 r- m o . F
- ,� �
S
1 m w
■ $ ��. y aril �_ r Je� L.sz (,
4z H
4s z
zs W
WU .t ,a • i S" L M a
� O
00uj
LLI
U-
�-
C9
X Q
ti °q M e
Q w -
U v
yp
.^f
O y iL
Q♦
W�.; �
C4
z=
�: ~.
b
pew01*
0
z
LL't
W`-'
K a
Yr
z
Q
_z
- Ni'•�t=
a-
o�
a
a
Y
tJ
a
0121145.00 demaret-178 tah-b ciACAD1PERMIT-COUN7Y121145-BDE.dwe 60 =2NT OOCK"OUTH 6t1J2022
813MO MLIBI 8L4 (38 69V9000£ZOZ1d : LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ U01SION3 X3H - 31u8wgoe11v :;u8wq
I
w
w _
N,l �i
W O O O
co ui o-
LL conUJ
n
N UJ
N (J)
aCrz0
U CL
m � F- 0
Om
—�
O w z 0 CL
mI
ul)
a
a�
Y
R
a
P:121145.00 demamt•178 tahib dr\CADIPERMIT-COUNTY121145-BDE.dwo SQBNMGED RESOURCE SURVEY 8PL2022
813MO WLIBI 8L4 (38 65b9000£ZOZld LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ uOis138d X3H - 3;uewyOelly :;uawyoe;;d
cs r
w
H
,wn
V
w
J
as
o
Q �
� Q
aw
z=
3:~
02
O
r
O w
ti
UY
Z
N
w w
2w
W
0 Q
Hw0
O
Z
Q
T
z
0
2
0
U
N
= W
0 o
O
u
y N
Arm".
li
I
w
I-
1
LL
O
W
I,
' w
Q .?
'lop!
6
1
S-1 •--. t�l
Y
_ O a.
CLS'un
w
� u
oz�
�w a�
a
H 00
00
en E
M
"I
P 121145.00 demere4178 tehi0 ar1CAMPERMIT-COUNTMI145-B
,t
813MO MLIBI 8L4 (38 65b9000£ZOZld LMZ) ZZ-5Z-8 `Ztl-ZZOZ uois138d X3H - 3;u8wgoelly :;u8wg3ejjv
ti
t N a
oWY
ZQa V
LL
a
•1 - N
d
rn
3
0
A&
T m
O D U d N V%
fir
r W
®r'A'
,
irl
I JZ
/P4
A
�4
z•�XET�
b
b
WU
Op
o c
OW
aX
LL
0121145.00 dem-1-178 teh 0 dr\CADIPERMIT-COUNTY12114"DE.dwo fiRA)OMtAY 812/2022
BD-PL20230006459- 178 Tahiti Circle
3.A.e
HEARING PACKAGE CHECKLIST
A. Backup provided by the County Planner
The agent is responsible for all required data included in the digital file of information for the Hearing Examiner
(Hex) or the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). DO ACCEPT DUPLICATES OF ANY DOCUMENTS. MAKE
SURE ONLY THE LATEST, ACCEPTED/APPROVED COPY OF THE BELOW DOCUMENTATION. PLEASE CONFIRM THE
DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE ORDER DESCRIBED IN "BACKUP PROVIDED BY APPLICANT."
Planner responsible for providing the County Attorney -drafted Ordinance for PUDs and placing in backup
materials. AGENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE PUD DOCUMENT — STAFF PROVIDES THIS TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED FOR A PUD. THE FINAL PUD ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION IS THE FIRST ITEM
AFTER THE STAFF REPORT. [FOR HEX, THE REQUESTED LANGUAGE/ PROPOSED PLAN IS THE FIRST ITEM AFTER THE
STAFF REPORT]
B. Backuo provided by Aoolicant:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS IN THE ORDER DESCRIBED BELOW. DO NOT PROVIDE DUPLICATES OF ANY
DOCUMENTS. PROVIDE ONLY THE LATEST, ACCEPTED/APPROVED COPY OF THE BELOW DOCUMENTATION. IF THE
BACKUP PROVIDED BY APPLICANT IS IN DISARRAY -MEANING IT IS NOT IN THE PROPER ORDER AND/OR THE
APPLICANT PROVIDES MULTIPLE DUPLICATES -THE APPLICANT COULD LOSE ITS HEARING DATE.
X Application, to include but not limited to the following:
X Narrative of request
X Property Information
X Property Ownership Disclosure Form
X Any other documents required by the specific petition type; such as a variance, a boat
dock extension; PUD amendment, rezone request, etc.
Disclosure of Property Ownership Interest (if there is additional documentation aside from
disclosure form)
Affidavit of Unified Control
X Affidavit of Representation
X Drawings (may include Cross -Section (for BDEs generally), proposed Boat Dock(s) with
Water depth, location maps etc.)
NIM Information (Sign in sheet, notes, minutes and transcript/or summary)
✓ Include 3 thumbnail drives of video and/or audio
Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
Environmental Data
Historical/Archeological Survey or Waiver
Utility Letter
X Deviation Justifications
Revised5/18/2018 Provide to Agents G:\CDESPlanningServices\Current\Zoning Staff Information\Job Aides or Help Guides
Packet Pg. 48
3.A.e
X Boundary Survey
X Other documents, as needed, on a case -by -case basis such as relevant prior Ordinances,
Conditional Uses, historical documents, any "private or legal" agreements affecting the PUD etc.
X Submerged Resource Surveys may be included here if required.
X flash drive with only one pdf file for all documents or E-mailed .pdf file
I understand that by submitting the above materials, it is the agent's/applicant's responsibility to ensure all materials are in the same
order for flash d 've must contain the documents in one pdf file. It is the agent's responsibility to ensure no documentation is left out.
10/2/2023
Signa ur of Agent Representative Date
Jeff Rogers
Printed Name of Signing Agent Representative
Revised5/18/2018 Provide to Agents G:\CDESPlanningServices\Current\Zoning Staff Information\lobAides orHelp Guides
Packet Pg. 49
Co*eY Cau-Int
y
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
Boat Dock Facility Extension OR Boathouse Establishment Petition
Land Development Code Section 5.03.06
Chapter 3 B of the Administrative Code
THIS PETITION IS FOR (check one): �✓ DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name of Property Owner(s): Kenneth & Kathleen Demaret 2009 Family Trust Dated January 13, 2009
Name of Applicant if different than owner: Ken Demaret
Address: 192 Tahiti Cir
Telephone:
E-Mail Address: kjd5358@gmail.com
Name of Agent: Jeff Rogers
Firm: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
3.A.e
City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34104
Cell: 239-302-9770
Address: 3584 Exchange Ave City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34104
Telephone: 239-643-0166
E-Mail Address: Jeff@thanaples.com
Section/Township/Range: 32 51 26
Cell: 239-784-0081
PROPERTY LOCATION
Property I.D. Number: 52390840009
Subdivision: Isles of Capri Unit: 2 Lot: 155 Block:
Address/ General Location of Subject Property:
178 Tahiti Circle, Naples, FL 34113
Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property:
RSF-4 Single -Family Residential
03/2023 Pa
Packet Pg. 50
Co*er Cou-int
y
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY
AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning
Land Use
N
A-ST
Johnson Bay
S
RSF-4
Tahiti Cir
E
RSF-4
Residential Single -Family
W
RSF-4
Residential Single -Family
3.A.e
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other
pertinent information):
See attached
SITE INFORMATION
1. Water Width: 219 ft. Measurement from
ft. other (specify)
2. Total Property Water Frontage:
70 ft.
3. Setbacks: Provided: 15 ft.
Required: 15 ft.
4. Total Protrusion of Proposed Facility into Water:
47
5. Number and Lengths of Vessels to Use Facitlity:
1. 44 ft.
2. 2 PWC ft.
❑ plat Z survey ❑ visual estimate
6. If applicable, the distance between dock facilities per the Land Development Code section 5.03.06 H.1.d.
146 ft.
7. List any additional dock facilities inclose proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion
into the waterway of each:
There are a few other dock facilities on the subject waterway that extend out past 42-feet from the MHWL/property
line. Additionally, there are also a handful of other docks that extend even further than what is being proposed on the
orlionnnf how onrl ci irrni inrlinn orno Icloc of (`onri is o hno#inn nnmmi inifv fhof is nrnmann Qnn o#fonhorl Rr)r: ovhihifc
03/2023 Pa
Packet Pg. 51
Cott ier COUVIty
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
8. Signs are required to be posted for all petitions. On properties that are one (1) acre or larger in size, the applicant
shall be responsible for erecting the required sign. What is the size of the petitioned property?
18 Acres
9. Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications:
To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property
Yes No (If yes, please provide copies.)
within the last year? ❑
I DOCK EXTENSION PRIMARY CRITERIA I
The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in
determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will utilize
the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request.
In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of
the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets,
please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions.
1. Whether or not 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.)
2. Whether or not 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 show that the water depth is too shallow to alloy
launch and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.)
3. Whether or not 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.)
4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25% of the width of the waterway,
and whether or not 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.)
5. Whether or not 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 permitter
neighboring docks.)
03/2023 Pa
Packet Pg. 52
•
Co er County
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
DOCK EXTENSION SECONDARY CRITERIA
1. Whether or not 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.)
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.)
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not 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.)
4. Whether or not 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 either property owner.)
5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are
present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 J must be demonstrated.)
6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of LDC subsection
5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.)
BOATHOUSE CRITERIA
The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06 F, shall be used as a guide by staff in
determining its recommendation to the decision maker. The decision maker will utilize the following
criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a particular Boathouse request. In order for the
request to be approved, all of the criteria must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a
narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions.
1. Minimum side setback requirement: Fifteen feet.
2. Maximum protrusion into 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.
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.
4. Maximum number of boathouses and covered structures per site: One.
5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all 4 sides.
6. Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on principal structure or may be a
palm frond "chickee" style. A single-family dwelling unit must ve constructed on the subject lot prior to, or
simultaneously with, the construction of any boathouse or covered dock structure.
7. The boathouse or covered structure must be so located as to minimize the impact on the view of the adjacent
neighbors to the gratest extent practical.
03/2023 Pa
Packet Pg. 53
Co*er Count
y
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
ASSOCIATIONS
3.A.e
Complete the following for all registered Home Owner / Civic Association(s) that could be affected by this
petition and located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Provide additional sheets if necessary.
Information can be found on the Civic Associations and Communities page on the Board of County
Commissioner's website. Applicant is responsible for and shall confirm the current mailing addresses for each
association as registered by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations.
Name of Homeowner / Civic Association:
Mailing Address:
Name of Homeowner / Civic Association:
Mailing Address:
Name of Homeowner / Civic Association:
Mailing Address:
Name of Homeowner / Civic Association:
Mailing Address:
Name of Homeowner / Civic Association:
Mailing Address:
City: State: ZIP:
City: State: ZIP:
City:
City:
State: ZIP:
State: ZIP:
City: State: ZIP:
03/2023 Pa
Packet Pg. 54
CU*Y CO-941 .t 3.A.e
y
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for:
�✓ Dock Extension
❑ Boathouse
Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code
The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at
time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the
application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets
attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted or processed.
REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
Completed Application (download current form from County website)
✓�
Property Ownership Disclosure Form
�✓
Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized
Q
Completed Addressing Checklist
Site plan illustration with the following:
• Lot dimensions;
• Required setbacks for the dock facility;
• Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline
(bank, seawall, or rip -rap revetment);
• Configuration, location, and dimensions of existing and proposed facility;
• Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located;
• Distance of navigable channel;
• Illustration of the contour of the property; and
• Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view.
Signed and sealed survey
✓�
❑
Chart of site waterway
❑
❑✓
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS:
• Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all
materials electronically to the designated project manager.
• Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required.
03/2023 Pa
Packet Pg. 55
Co*er CDu14t
y
3.A.e
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS:
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment:
Executive Director
❑
Historical Review:
❑
Addressing:
Parks and Recreation:
❑
City of Naples Planning Director
❑
School District (Residential Components):
❑
Conservancy of SWFL:
❑
Other:
Emergency Management:
Other:
❑
❑
FEE REQUIREMENTS:
�✓ Boat Dock Extension / Boathouse Petition fee: $1,500.00
�✓ Pre -Application Meeting fee $500.00
❑� Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $1,125.00
❑� If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing
Examiner hearing date. (Variable)
Fire Planning Review fee: $100.00
All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, if required by The Land Development Code, will be
invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners.
As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this
submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this
petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee.
*The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to:
Growth Management Community Development Department I GMD Portal:
https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb
Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov
Signature of Petitioner or Agent
Printed Name
Date
03/2023
Pa
Packet Pg. 56
Co 8Y County
3.A.e
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400
Zoning Pre -Application Meeting Notes
Petition Type: Boat Dock Extension (BD)
Date and Time: Wednesday 4/19/23 at 1 : 00 PM - ZOOM
Assigned Planner: John Kelly
Engineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's):
Project Information
Project Name: 178 Tahiti Circle (BD)
PL#: 20230006459
PropertylD#: 52390840009 Current Zoning: RSF-4
ProjectAddress:178 Tahiti CircleityNaples State:FL
Applicant: Jeff Rogers, Turrell Hall & Associates
Zip: 34113
Agent Name: Jeff Rogers Phone: 239-643-0166
Agent/Firm Address: 3584 Exchange Ave City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34104
Property Owner: K&K Demaret 2009 Fam Trust
Please provide the following, if applicable:
i. Total Acreage: 0.18
ii. Proposed # of Residential Units:
iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage:
iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number:
V. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the
type and number:
vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#:
Updated 03/14/2023
Page 1 1 of 5
Packet Pg. 57
e
Co er County
3.A.e
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400
Meeting Notes
As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated
Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure
Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app
Note — link is https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093
2.�..-.,✓cam. _ //�� /
�cE.9SEf iv L��7�.fi4ic Gi���F�..✓FS �,� '%�99£ :3
�3cr�i✓fi2w�1J �5 7i i�,e�.fG �oxA..yrNF2' �-
fft3c 7re,��
Ir
If Site is within the City of Naples Water Service Area please send to Naples Utilities and Planning Departments. Then, if the
petition is submitted, we are to send it (by email) to the four persons below in their Utilities and Planning Depts. - along with
a request that they send us a letter or email of "no objection" to the petition. Bob Middleton RMiddleton(aDnaplesgov.com
Allyson Holland AMHolland annaplesgov.com Robin Singer RSinger(a7naplesgoy.com Erica Martin
emartin(@naplesgov.com
Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is based on the best available
data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process.
The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided
of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide all
required data.
Updated 03/14/2023
Page 1 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 58
3.A.e
Pre -Application Meeting Notes
GMD - Zoning Services
Planner: John Kelly
(239)252-5719
John. kel lygcol l iercouno . gov
Boat Dock Extension
• Complete the required application; respond to each question and sign
• Refer to the Final Submittal Requirement Checklist and provide/submit required documents
o All submitted plans must be legible when duplicated on 8.5" X 11" standard paper
o The final recording of documents is in black & white; minimize the use of color
• Provide a Boundary Survey to demonstrate lot dimensions, water frontage, and riparian lines as
well as the principal use of the subject property
• Either as part of the application, or on a separate sheet, provide a detailed Narrative Statement
fully describing the project and what is being requested
• On a sheet separate from the application, please provide persuasive and convincing responses to
each of the Primary and Secondary Criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.H
o state if each criterion has been satisfied or not satisfied
o provide sufficient evidence to support any claims such as insufficient water depth, unique
characteristics of the property or waterfront, width of waterway and/or canal
• Site/Dock Plans
o Site Plans should be measured in feet
o Note that the dock facility includes any docked vessel(s); show any vessel(s) on plan
o Demonstrate width of property and/or the total property water frontage
o Demonstrate side and/or riparian setbacks for the dock facility
o Demonstrate amount of dock protrusion using such points of measure as are contained
within LDC Section 5.03.06.C.1, Measurement of Dock Protrusion
o Demonstrate width of waterway (MHWL to MHWL) and the width between the most
waterward point of dock facilities if a dock facility is located on the opposite shore
Note that dock facilities should be minimized to allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel(s) for
loading, unloading, and routine maintenance without the use of excessive deck area
Boathouse
• See above for general information
• On a sheet separate from the application, please provide persuasive and convincing responses to
each of the Boathouse Criteria contained within LDC Section 5.03.06.F
o state if each criterion has been satisfied or not satisfied
o provide sufficient evidence to support any claims such as insufficient water depth, unique
characteristics of the property or waterfront, width of waterway and/or canal
• Site Plans
o Demonstrate setback requirements from property and riparian lines, demonstrate the
separation from other structures on the site, Demonstrate height of boathouse and type of
roof; note that the roof alone may overhang up to 3 feet into the waterway beyond the
maximum protrusion and/or setback (plans must show the amount of roof overhang)
7 .3 as "
Packet Pg. 59
Co er County
3.A.e
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliercountvfl.gov (239) 252-2400
Meeting Notes
Fi�!/!/Lvw rtit�c.vT►iL — L'/L/f1C� (�lLu w �•.� — �¢.�. �¢il-/�a�,✓D � [t�t/i [ L rVoTi S
Note: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate oj'Occupancy to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identif ed
in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as needed to maintain the
adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Other fees collected prior to the issuance of a building
permit include building permit review fees. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not
included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition.
Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre -Application Meeting is
based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the
applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC
dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required
data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant's responsibility to
provide all required data.
Updated 03/14/2023
3Li
Page I Xof 5
Packet Pg. 60
3.A.e
ThomasClarkeVEN
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Thomas,
Here are my notes for this one:
BrownCraig
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:09 PM
ThomasClarkeVEN
PL20230006459 178 Tahiti Cir
Boat Dock Extension Checklist 2017 for customer.doc
Here are my notes for this BDE request.
Please provide a ben thic survey with an exhibit to indicate the location of seagrasses or oyster beds within 200 feet of the
proposed docking facility. LDC Section 5.03.06.J
Please provide a description of the shoreline and any native vegetation present. Indicate any proposed impacts to the natil
shoreline vegetation (approximate area in square feet to be impacted).
Please provide complete answers to Secondary Criteria #5 and #6 See LDC section 5.03.06. H.2
If lighting is proposed, please provide a description of the type and locations on the docking facility.
Please provide any written authorization from any state and federal agencies if any approvals have been obtained.
Label the name of any natural waterbody in close proximity to the proposed docking facility. (as applicable).
Is Dredging proposed? Additional Lighting? Please provide illustrations/ descriptions.
Please label the name of the waterbody the project will occur in and indicate typical navigation
Routes
Craig Brown
Environmental Supervisor
Development Review Division
(239) 252-2548.
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.
1
I A- Packet Pg. 61
3.A.e
Residential Boat Dock Extension Checklist FOR APPLICANTS
Submerged Resources Survey Checklist
1. Is there an overlay? ST overlay needs an ST permit (much of Isle of Capri & Keewaydin has an ST
Overlay over the water)
2. Include an aerial with a note indicating whether seagrass beds exist within 200 feet of the proposed
dock facility. (LDC 5.03.06 J)
Provide a submerged resources survey from an Environmental Consultant done between April and
October.
3. All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least ten feet from any existing
seagrass beds, or meet restrictions for continuous beds. (LDC 5.03.06 J.)
4. Provide complete answers to Secondary Criteria #5 & #6.
5. Demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and other native shoreline vegetation and hard
bottom communities have been minimized. (LDC 5.03.06 J .4)
6. Provide a clearing plan for removal of any vegetation related to the boat dock. This is simply an
information exhibit being requested.
7. Are there any draft restrictions? Look at the MPP.
Note: Draft restrictions exist for Wiggins Pass.
Keewaydin: BDE not required for Keewaydin
- Most always need an ST permit related to a Building Permit— water and land have ST Overlay
SUGGESTED FORMAT AND INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN
SUBMERGED RESOURCES SURVEY
➢ Location of survey — property address and folio#
o The survey shall indicate any seagrass or seagrass beds located within 200 feet on any proposed
dock facility (5.03.06.J). In order for this to be accomplished, any within 200 feet of the
proposed dock (within the riparian lines of the property and adjacent to the property) shall be
surveyed.
➢ Who did the survey — which firm and their contact information including name, address, phone #, email
➢ What date was the survey conducted? Guidance from FWC is to do between April and October
o Weather conditions, water temperature, low tide & high tide times
➢ Objective of Survey & Work done on the site
o Was the site snorkeled?
o What methodologies were used?
o Was a GPS used?
o Was an aerial photograph reviewed and used to establish survey transect lines?
➢ Results
o What was found? Substrate and what kind? Seagrass, shell, oysters?
o What was along the shoreline? Mangroves, seawall, etc?
Packet Pg. 62
3.A.e
o Why does the consultant think no submergerd resources were found?
o Other observations
➢ When seagrass is found, include all requirements of LDC section 5.03.06. J.
➢ Conclusions
o Were any submerged resources found? If yes, what?
o Are any impacts to submerged resources expected or proposed?
➢ Pictures (suggested angles)
o Looking toward and away from the shoreline
o The proposed location of the boat access
o Observations in the water - Any oyster debris, shell, seagrass
➢ Aerial photograph
o Where new docking facilities or boat dock extensions are proposed, the location and presence of
seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an
aerial photograph having a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet when available from the County, or a scale
of 1 inch to 400 feet when such photographs are not available from the County. (LDC 5.03.06.J)
o An aerial is required even when seagrasses are not found. The aerial shall indicate whether
seagrasses were found within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility.
5.03.06. J. (LDC section up to date as of 2017)
Protection of seagrass beds. Seagrass or seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed docks, dock facilities, or
boathouses shall be protected through the following standards:
Where new docking facilities or boat dock extensions are proposed, the location and presence of seagrass or
seagrass beds within 200 feet of any proposed dock facility shall be identified on an aerial photograph having a
scale of 1 inch to 200 feet when available from the County, or a scale of 1 inch to 400 feet when such
photographs are not available from the County. The location of seagrass beds shall be verified by the County
Manager or designee prior to issuance of any project approval or permit.
All proposed dock facilities shall be located and aligned to stay at least 10 feet from any existing seagrass beds,
except where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property,
and to minimize negative impacts to seagrasses and other native shoreline, emergent and submerged
vegetation, and hard bottom communities.
Where a continuous bed of seagrasses exists off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the
applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across the seagrass beds, or a docking facility within 10 feet of
seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions:
a. The dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD.
b. The terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet.
c. The access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet.
d. The access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds
possible.
4. The petitioner shall be required to demonstrate how negative impacts to seagrass beds and other native
shoreline vegetation and hard bottom communities have been minimized prior to any project approval or permit
issuance.
Packet Pg. 63
3.A.e
Co eY County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliercountvfi.gov (239) 252-2400
Zoning Pre -Application Meeting Sign -in Sheet
PL# 20230006459
Collier County Contact Information:
Name
Review Discipline
Phone
Email
❑ Laura DeJohn
Zoning - Vendor
252-5587
Laura.dejohn@colliercountyfl.gov
V John Kelly
Zoning -Planner III
252-5719
john.kelly@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Richard Henderlong
Zoning -Planner III
252-2464
richard.henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov
w' Ray Bellows
Zoning & Planning Manager
252-2463
raymond.bellows@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Mike Bosi
Zoning & Planning Director
252-1061
Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Nancy Gundlach, AICP
Zoning — Planner 111
252-2484
nancy.gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Eric Ortman
Zoning— Planner III
252-1032
Eric.Ortman@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Sean Sammon
Zoning— Planner III
252-8422
Sean.sammon@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Tim Finn, AICP
Zoning - Planner III
252-4312
timothy.finn@colliercountyfl.gov
Thomas Clarke
Zoning - Operations Analyst
252-2584
thomas.clarke@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Anthony Stoltz
Utility Planning - Supervisor
252-5835
Anthony. stoltz@col IiercountyfLgov
❑ Drew Cody
Utility Planning — Project Mgr III
252-2917
Drew.cody@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Brandi Pollard
Utility Impact fees
252-6237
brandi.pollard@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Shon Fandrich
Utilities -Project Mgt -Supervisor
252-8835
Shon.fandrich @colliercountyfLgov
❑ Steve Baluch
Transportation Planning
252-2361
stephen.baluch@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Michael Sawyer
Transportation Planning
252-2926
michael.sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Michael Gibbons
Structural/Residential Plan
Review
252-2426
michael.gibbons@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Richard Orth
Stormwater Planning
252-5092
richard.orth@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Alicia Humphries
Right -Of -Way Permitting
252-2326
alicia.humphries@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Laurie Beard
PUD Monitoring -Project Mgr II
252-5782
laurie.beard@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Sean Lintz
North Collier Fire -Batallion Chief
597-9227
slintz@northcollierfire.com
❑ Maggie Acevedo
North Collier Fire
252-2309
macevedo@northcollierfire.com
Daniel Zunzunegui
North Collier Fire
252-2310
Daniel.Zunzunegui@colliercountyfl.gov
I I Linda Simmons
North Collier Fire
252-2311
Linda.Simmons@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Shar A.Beddow
MSM/Deputy Fire Marshal -
Greater Naples Fire
241-1422
sbeddow@gnfire.org
Heidi Ashton Cicko
Managing Asst. County Attorney
252-8773
heidi.ashton@colliercountyfl.gov
1 Diane Lynch
Management Analyst 1
252-4283
diane.lynch@colliercountyfl.gov
j Mark Templeton
Landscape Review
252-2475
mark.templeton@colliercountyfl.gov
I I Gino Santabarbara
Impact Fees — Planner 111
252-2925 1
Gino.santabarbara@colliercountyfl.gov
Updated 03/14/2023 Page 1 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 64
Co*,r County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400
3.A.e
❑ Thomas
Mastroberto
Greater Naples Fire —Site Plans
Reviewer III
252-7348
thomas.mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov
Sue Faulkner
GMP-Comp Planning -Planner III
252-5715
sue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov
1 Parker Klopf
GMP—Comp Planning — Planner II
252-2471
Parker.klopf@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Rachel Hansen
GMP—Comp Planning — Planner III
252-1142
Rachel.hansen@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Kathy Eastley
GMP-Comp Planning -Planner III
252-2834
Kathy Eastley@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ James Sabo, AICP
GMP, Comp Planning Manager
252-2708
james.sabo@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Alexandra Mitchel
Environmental Specialist
252-2907
Alexandra.Mitchel@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ David Roe
Environmental Specialist
252-2915
David. Roe @colIiercountyfLgov
❑ Craig Brown
Environmental Review Supervisor
252-2548
craig.brown@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Sarah Harrington
Environmental Review Manager
252-4211
Sarah. Harrington @colliercountyfLgov
❑ John Houldsworth
Engineering Subdivision
252-5757
john.houldsworth@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Jocelyn Nageon De
Lestang, P.E.
Engineering Stormwater
252-2434
Jocelyn.NageondeLestang@colliercountyfl.gov
LE Jack McKenna, P.E.
Engineering Services
252-2911
jack. mckenna@colIiercountyfLgov
❑ Matt McLean, P.E.
Division Director - IF, CPP & PM
252-8279
matthew.mclean@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Cormac Giblin, AICP
Director— Econ. Dev. & Housing
252-2460
Cormac.giblin@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Jamie Cook
Development Review Director
252-6290
Jaime.cook@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Christine Willoughby
Development Review - Zoning
252-5748
christine.willoughby@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Brett Rosenblum-P.E
Dev. Review -Supervisor Proj. Mgt
252-2905
brett.rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Michele Mosca, AICP
Community Develop. — Planner III
252-2466
michele.mosca@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Connie Thomas
Client Services Supervisor
252-6369
1 Cons uela.thomas@colIiercountyfLgov
❑ Renald Paul
Client Services
252-2443
Renald.paul@colliercountyfl.gov
❑ Lisa Blacklidge
Building Review
252-2758
Lisa. blacklidge@colliercountyfLgov
❑ Derek Perry
Assistant County Attorney
252-8066
Derek. perry@colIiercountyfLgov
L_I Peter Shawinsky
Architectural Review
1 252-8523
peter.shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov
Additional Attendee Contact Information:
Name
Representing
Phone
Email
F fivG,e�5
6uew t, . d iu.4- ASSoc,
Updated 03/14/2023 Page 1 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 65
3.A.e
178 Tahiti Cir(BD) — PL20230006459 — John Kelly / Applicant: Jeff Rogers
0 participant_
thomas clarke (Host, me) 0a
Jeff Rogers # 0--1
kellyjohn CYO
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Cry
Packet Pg. 66
3.A.e
Applicant/Agent may also send site
plans or conceptual plans for
review in advance if desired.
PL20230006459 - 178 Tahiti Circle (BD) Planner: John Kellv
Assigned Ops Staff: Thomas Clarke
STAFF FORM FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PRE -APPLICATION MEETING INFORMATION
• Name and Number of who submitted pre-app request
Jeff Rogers - Turrell Hall & Assoc.
239-643-0166
Jeff@thanaples.com
• Agent to list for PL#
Jeff Rogers - Turrell Hall & Assoc.
• Owner of property (all owners for all parcels)
K&K Demaret 2009 Fam Trust
• Confirm Purpose of Pre-App: Boat Dock Extension
• Please list the density request of the project if applicable and number of homes/units/offices/docks (any that
apply
N/A
• Details about Project:
The proposed dock is very similar to the previous proposed dock which was
denied a BDE approval per Resolution # 2022-42. As proposed the dock protrusion has
been reduced to 47-feet from the previous request of 54-feet which is a 7-foot less. The
dock design was able to be reduced as the applicant has decided not to purchase the
larger boat and just keep their current boat being a 45-foot LOA vessel. As proposed the
dock will have two boatlifts one for the 45-foot LOA vessel and the other being decked
over for three PWC's.
REQUIRED Supplemental Information provided by:
Name:
Title:
Email:
Phone:
Cancellation/Reschedule Requests: Contact Connie Thomas- Supervisor — Permitting
Consuela.thomas@colliercountvfl.gov - Phone: 239-252-2473
Created April 5, 2017
Location: K:\CDES Planning Services\Current\Zoning Staff Information
Packet Pg. 67
3.A.e
CO( li'�er County
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for:
❑ Dock Extension
❑ Boathouse
Chapter 3 B. of the Administrative Code
The following Submittal Requirement Checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting, and at
time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the
application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets
attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted or processed.
REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
Completed Application (download current form from County website)
✓
Property Ownership Disclosure Form
❑✓
Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized
❑✓
Completed Addressing Checklist
Site plan illustration with the following:
• Lot dimensions;
• Required setbacks for the dock facility;
• Cross section showing relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline
❑
(bank, seawall, or rip -rap revetment);
• Configuration, location, and dimensions of existing and proposed facility;
• Water depth where proposed dock facility is to be located;
• Distance of navigable channel;
• Illustration of the contour of the property; and
• Illustration of dock facility from both an aerial and side view.
Signed and sealed survey
Q'
❑
Chart of site waterway, �t �iw9�C'
E�-
❑
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS:
• Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all
materials electronically to the designated project manager.
• Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required.
08/2022 Pa Packet Pg. 68
Coitier County
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Phone: (239) 252-1036 1 Email: GMDClientServices@colliercountyfl.gov
www.colliercountyfl.gov
PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS:
Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment:
Executive Director
❑
Historical Review:
❑
Addressing:
Parks and Recreation:
❑
City of Naples Planning Director
❑
School District (Residential Components):
❑
Conservancy of SWFL:
❑
Other:
Emergency Management:
Other:
❑
❑
FEE REQUIREMENTS:
❑✓ Boat Dock Extension / Boathouse Petition fee: $1,500.00
�✓ Pre -Application Meeting fee $500.00
Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $1,125.00
If applicable, an additional fee for Property Owner Notifications will be billed to the applicant after Hearing
Examiner hearing date. (Variable)
Fire Planning Review fee: $100.00
All fees are collected at the time of application. Property Notification Letters, if required by The Land Development Code, will be
invoiced after the petition is heard by the Board of County Commissioners.
As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, 1 attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this
submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this
petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re -submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee.
*The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to:
Growth Management Community Development Department I GMD Portal:
https://cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/cityviewweb
Questions? Email: GMDclientservices@colliercountyfl.gov
Signature of Petitioner or Agent
Printed Name
Date
08/2022 Pa Packet Pg. 69
3.A.e
colfler county
Growth Management
Community Development Department
ADDRESSING CHECKLIST
Please complete the following and upload via the CityView Portal with your submittal. Items marked with (*) are required for
every application, other items are optional and may not apply to every project.
Forms are valid for 6 months following their submittal; an updated form will be required for a new submittal after that timeframe
and any time the properties within the project boundary are modified.
Additional documents may be attached to this form and can include:
- * LOCATION MAP and/or SURVEY showing the proposed project boundary.
- List of additional folio numbers and associated legal descriptions.
- E-mail from Addressing Official for any pre -approved project and/or street names.
LOCATION INFORMATION
*FOLIO (Property ID) Number(s) of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary]
52390840009
*LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties. [Attach list if necessary]
ISLES OF CAPRI NO 2 LOT 155
STREET ADDRESS(ES) where applicable, if already assigned.
178 Tahiti Circle, Naples, FL 34113
PROJECT INFORMATION
Acceptance of this form does not constitute project and/or street name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing
Official. Pre -Approval may be requested by contacting us at GMD_Add ressing@colliercountyfLgov or 239-252-2482 prior to your
submittal.
CURRENT PROJECT NAME
PROPOSED PROJECT NAME
PROPOSED STREET NAME(s)
LATEST APPROVED PROJECT NUMBER [e.g., SDP-94-##, PPL-2002-AR-####, PL2017000####]
Addressing Checklist (Rev 10/2022) Page 1 of 1
Operations & Regulatory Management Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400
www.coll iercountyfl.gov
Packet Pg. 70
N
(LaJewaapMU
ana RI BLL ae 6S49000EZOZlL99
d : LZ) a6e�aed dnjae8 s,Lueailddy - a Luawyaegy:luewgaegy
Z
C
U.
W
WW
J
d
M r
IL
O
q
N N
p
O
Q x
Z
N N
U
:E
a
m
o
c
d
v
m
Q
f
Lnn
a
a
u
l
u
11
a
a
a
0
C, _ (°)
LLJ
uj ~ N
01 too- LA —
N�yJ
V)
E ain
Y Z C cCi�
pa=
2YF-it 0
O D N *N
o� b�4)0
LL.Z�(AmJZ
O
C
r�
.. :h o
is
R
0
a
v
- a
a
_) 0
u p
U
rq io
Ea
as
L
L �
0 O
a
n 3
S .9
E a
o M
u m
w v
a
a L
ut ''
T�Q
L
O
a`
c
0
U
41
O
U
a
a
y
u,
n
n
Q
Q
a
3.A.e
Cottier County
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
'ROPFRTY n%AiKirRc41ia nISCLOc-1 iRF FnRnn
This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification
Letters.
Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the
date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the
applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form.
Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary.
a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in
common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the
percentage of such interest:
C
Name and Address I % of Ownership
If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the
percentage of stock owned by each:
Name and Address I % of Ownership
If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest:
Name and Address
% of Ownership
Kenneth and Kathleen Demaret 2009 Family Trust Dated January 13, 2009
Kenneth Demaret
50
Kathleen Demaret
50
Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3
Packet Pg. 72
Cottier County
3.A.e
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the
general and/or limited partners:
e
f
f.
Name and Address I % of Ownership
If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation,
Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the
'I I IL.CI J, a L U L.RI IUIUIn J, UCI ICI luau ICJ, UI f CII LI ICI J.
Name and Address % of Ownership
Date of Contract:
If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or
officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust:
Date subject property acquired
❑ Leased: Term of lease
Name and Address
years /months
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Created 9/28/2017
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 73
Cottier County
3.A.e
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
Date of option:
Date option terminates: , or
Anticipated closing date:
AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form.
Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether
individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest -holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County
immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition's final public hearing.
As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is
included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result
in the delay of processing this petition.
The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to:
Growth Management Department
ATTN: Business Center
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Age nt/OwA er ignature Date
Jeff Rogers
Agent/Owner Name (please print)
Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 74
3.A.e
AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION
FOR PETITlUM NUMBERS(S) —1-00459
t, ISaMmi Derived _ (print name), as TM (Ne, if
applicable) of K 6 x DWmW'1 2M F—_ li ICbi or affirm
FY
under oath. Hat i am the (choose one} ownerF-71applicant[ontract purchaser and trtat:
�
t I have full authority to secure the approvals) reguostod and to impose covenants and restrictions on
is
E
the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this
0
application and the Land Devekaprnenl Code,
T
2, All answers to the questions in Lhis application and any sketches, Baia or other supplementary matter
atlhed hereto and made a perk of thrs application are honest and true:
V
3. l have autt,onxc# the staff of Collier t;ouTnty to onter upon the property during nofm► working hours
�=
for the purpose of imrestigatirig and evaluating Ifte request made through this application; and that
4. The property weiH be transferred. conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the renditions and
~
m%tridians imposed by'[ a approved action
I-
5. Well authorize .inF'F". T—H.Hat.&AW[AM&kW. to act as oudmy rgpdesentative
Q
in any matters regarding this pobWn indudmirlg 1 through 2 above.
op
'Notes:
rn
`O
v
• if tho applicant is a corpomlmn, thorn rt is Tasually ex&;uTed by the core- Arcs. or v- pres-
o
. ff the apprrcanl is a Lim tgd f_tabihty Company (L-L. C. ) or T knifed Company (L. C. ), then the doctimernts should
o
typically be signed by Ure Coffnlrany's Wanagmg M rriber. "
N
■ if the appiiaanf is a partFnershrp, their typically a padrior can sign on behalf of the partnership
CD
04
. It INapplicant is a thrilled padnvr$ho, then the gerleraf parfaer must sign and be idenfipied as the "general
a
paltrier' of Me nanwd parfrmrship-
r if the Ppplicant is a trustr Cher, they most imiude the tnisfee s name and the words as 1rustr,e'
■ In ouch instance, lees? dotormone the apprrCarit's statt,s, e.g.. ir&viduat, corporato, (rust, partnership, and there
00
use The appropnote formal fcrr that ownership.
r1L
Under penalties of perjury. I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that
the fa" stated in it are true-
071
Signature -
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF GODLIER
The olrk] i mBr7l way .3rkn before rrllft by merans at [ 1 ywml pr€rscnc:rr w ❑ontirie nuter¢ation the;
Zra6, 70 by (printed Warne of nvvra6r -or qualifier) _--
Such ppersorn(s) Notary PuhIH: midst chock appaicable box
VD v4re (.- -iumily known to me
❑ Has prudurFA a cuTranl dFhmm license
❑ Has pmduced: as iderfificaban.
Not.nry nYatuFFr: er .01—�
C'r C ❑A-M r r'W T SS
REV 3l4M26
•iNYJ�ra/f RANDALl. A+NHtTSON
�NvtxrY f uUu�5tite of flarade
- Cammission ! HH 277129
h MY Comrrn!kSior< Expires
++i+FfN11�45 June 16. 2029
Packet Pg. 75
3.A.e
AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION
FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S)
I. ISunr7nryrgl (print name), as f- (tile, if
applicable) of K wu a 1c nrwEr two ium TRusr (com�lny. If licab6e), swear or affirrrx
render aathr that t am the (choose one) oywner�appiicant� ntract purctlaser and thaV
m
1. I have full authority to secure the approvai(s) requested and to impose covenants and restfictions on
the referenced property as a result of any action approved by tare County irr accordance with this
E
application and the Land Development Code;
Z All answers to the r#I,restions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter
0
attached hereto and made a part of this applicatimmi are honest and true;
U
3. 1 have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working !~ours
y
for the purpose of invesIigating and evalwling the request made through this application; and that
4. The property will he transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the oondilions and
F-
re strictions imposed by the a
approved action.
00
�
5- WWI allthohZe Terrell I W A Ir— grid _I.rrr RcgNrs _ to act as ou rimy representative
0
in any matters regarding this petition including 'I through 2 above_
co
"Noyes:
0
v
• fl the applicard is a corpora Fran, them it is usually executed by the carp. Ares_ or v. pres_
cc
c
■ #f the applicant is a t.Yanted Ltabddy Company (L.L.C_) or Limited Company (L.C.), them the documents shiouki
M
typically be sign&d by the Company's Wanagirlg Winber. `
c
• if the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behaff of the parfnarstrrp
C14
• if the applicafd is a limited rrrmrrshl then tiro neraf Partner must
� P, 5e P si9� and be identified as the ;lerrsral
a
partner" of the named partnership.
r`
If the app#icant os a trust_ then they must inc?ude the trrrStee's name and #ha ►yards "as lrrrstee"_
00
In each instance, first deterrrlir,e lfae applicant's sfalus, e.
PPl g_. individual, corporate, trust. partnership, arrd !beta
cc
use the appropnale format for that o4wveisfup.
�
Under penalties ui perjury. I declare that I have matt the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that
the facts stated in it are true.
�--
Signature o�t4
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLiiaR
Th f regolrrg PrislymeflLwas swarm to (or rrmed) and subscr7bed before me on } (date) by
a of person providing oath or umatlan). as
who i rsonally known to or wflo has produced
(tYpe of rden frratmicn) as identi#icaatidn, f'j'`r
sT'wP FAI
Slgnature of Notary Pubtle
AANDAI.t A WHITSON
Hatgry Pubris•Stete or Florld■
s" +r Cornrnliaion ! HK 277129
MY Commi34ion Exi)06e
June 16. 2026
l'rr4dgl ()A-W J Sll SS
REV 3n*14
Packet Pg. 76
3.A.e
STATE OF FLORIDA §
COUNTY OF COLLIER §
WE, the undersigned, being the Settlors, the Trustees, and the witnesses, respectively,
whose names are signed to the attached or foregoing instrument, having been sworn, declared to
the undersigned officer that the Settlors and the Trustees, in the presence of witnesses, signed the
instrument as their revocable trust, that such Settlors and Trustees signed such instrument, that
the Settlors and the Trustees signed such instrument willingly, and that each of the witnesses, in
the presence of the Settlors and the Trustees and in the presence of each other, signed the
revocable trust as a witness.
ALI
I15VMNsi 1/ffm
'L, A.
KAT LEEN A. DEMARET, Settlor and Co-
Trustee
Witness
Witness
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me by KENNETH J. DEMARET, Settlor and
Cp--Trustee, who is personally known to me or who has produced
/'-._ P—>/Z1cAftt5 (type of identification) as identification proving him to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument as Settlor and as Co -Trustee, by
KATHLEEN A. DEMARET, Settlor and Co -Trustee, who is personally known to me or who has
produced )C2� _ 4 2ccjte4QS 11 (type of identification) as identification proving her
to be the per n whose name s subscribe�to the foregoing instrument as Settlor and as Co-
rustee, by 0 witness who is personally known to me, and by
Vrr
a witness who is personally known to me on November 7, 2019.
•xP�,IDEBRA A. SEYMOUR
commission # GG 035803
Expires October 21, 2020 ebra A. Seymour
'•;FOF��o gp�edT!ruToyFain Irsuranmgoo38`r70i9 Notary Public, State of Florida
GRANT
LAW, P.A.
21
Packet Pg. 77
3.A.e
Narrative Description: The proposed Boat Dock Extension request is to construct a new single-
family docking facility with two boatlifts,1 being for a 44-foot vessel and the other for a decked
over for 2 PWC's, located at 178 Tahiti Circle on Isles of Capri. The subject waterway is
considered Johnson Bay along the north side of Isles of Capri just outside the surrounding
Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. The subject property has a seawall that is located on the
property/Mean High Water line which is the most restrictive point. There is no riprap in front
of the seawall as was previously stated. Additionally, the applicant is currently constructing a
new single-family residence on the upland portion of the property.
As proposed the dock will have two boatlifts, one for the 44-foot LOA vessel and the other for
two PWC's. The proposed dock will protrude approximately 47-feet from the
MHWL/ seawall/ property line and therefore we are requesting a 27-foot extension over the
allowed 20-feet. This is approximately 7-feet less than the previous request.
The subject waterway is approximately 219-feet wide and as proposed the dock and boat lift
would protrude just under 22% into the subject waterway. The subject waterway is an
unmarked waterway and completely open to navigation but as previously discussed in the last
hearing there is a shoal area close by but again there is no marked channel and therefore no
impacts to navigation within the area will result from the proposed dock.
The previous BDE was submitted and denied (HEX 2022-42) for a 34-foot dock extension over
the allowed 204eet for a total of 54-feet. The reason for the denial was mostly due to the vessel
size and overall impacts to adjacent(eastern) neighbor's view of the subject waterway. Based on
this denial and the existing on -site conditions which consist of the adjacent neighbor's dock and
boathouse being partial within our riparian area limited our design options to further reduce
the proposed overall protrusion. The applicant has also made some changes to their overall
plans which include keeping their existing vessel instead of upgrading to the larger vessel,
agreed to angle the dock as much as possible and remain within the allowed 15-foot setbacks,
and the proposed plan has moved the proposed boatlift closer to the seawall in order for the
vessel to maintain only 1-foot off the seawall. All these design factors were taken into
consideration to reduce the overall protrusion request as well as to minimize impacts to
adjacent neighboring property owners.
The proposed dock will provide 15-foot setbacks which is equivalent to what is required for lots
with 60-feet of shoreline or greater. There are no impacts to any submerged resources, the
decking area has been minimized and still provides sufficient surface area for recreational
activities, routine maintenance, and associated storage.
Also, the applicant has had some communication with the adjacent property owners to discuss
gaining their support for the newly proposed dock design. Both parties have reviewed the
currently proposed design, but no letters of No Objection have been received to date.
Packet Pg. 78
3.A.e
PRIMARY CRITERIA
The following criteria, pursuant to LDC section 5.03.06, shall be used as a guide by staff in
determining its recommendation to the Office of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner will utilize the following criteria as a guide in the decision to approve or deny a
particular Dock Extension request. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve the
request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the
6 secondary criteria, must be met. On separate sheets, please provide a narrative response
to the listed criteria and/or questions.
Whether or not 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 subject property is zoned for a single-family residential unit which warrants no
more than 2 slips per the CC-LDC. The proposed docking facility consists of
installing two boatlifts one to accommodate a 44-foot LOA vessel and the other is a
decked over boatlift for two PWC's. The proposed dock will extend out 47-feet
from the seawall/plotted property line which is 27-feet of protrusion past the
allowed 20-feet. Additionally, the proposed dock will provide 15-foot setbacks from
both riparian lines and therefore will not interfere with the adjacent properties as
the vessels ingress/egress the proposed boatlifts.
Criterion Met
2. Whether or not 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
show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s)
described without an extension.)
The boat dock extension is necessary to accommodate the owners' vessels due to the
existing on -site water depths being too shallow within the allowed 20-feet. The
subject shoreline consists just of a seawall with no rip -rap out in front but the
existing on -site water depths as indicated on the attached survey are too shallow for
any vessel with a 3-foot draft to be properly moored within the allowed 20-feet, as
indicated on sheet 13 & 14 of 14.
The proposed 44-foot vessel is advertised as having a 3-foot draft then with a boatlift
and the cross -support beams being at least 12" the overall depth of water needed to
float this vessel on and off the boatlift is at least 4.5-feet. Based on those facts and
the existing on -site water depths the BDE is needed to reach sufficient water depths
as shown on the attached BDE exhibits. Also, with the adjacent dock and boathouse
Packet Pg. 79
3.A.e
being within the applicant's riparian area which are considered grandfathered
structures and with no docking facility on the east side it was determined the best
option was to angle the dock towards the west in order to allow more flexibility for
the owners or future owners to the east on a dock design if one was ever proposed as
well as be as lease impactful to their current view of the subject waterway.
Additionally, on sheet 13 & 14 of 14 I have included these two exhibits to show the
maximum sized vessel being 40-feet that can fit within the required 15-foot setbacks
and 20-foot of protrusion. The issue is the fact that the water depths are still too
shallow for any vessel with a 3-foot or greater draft to be moored within the
allowable area especially when a boatlift is proposed.
Criterion Met
3. Whether or not 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 proposed docking facility design is consistent with numerous other docks along
the subject and adjacent waterways as well as the overall protrusion. As proposed
the dock and boatlift will not impact navigation as there is no marked channel
within this section of Johnson Bay. Therefore, the entire waterway provides safe
navigation and no impacts to any navigation will result from the proposed project.
There is a natural shoal area to the NW as a vessel exits Marlin Bay out to Johnson
Bay but it's a local knowledge channel that one navigates parallel to the shoreline to
reach the closest marked channel.
Criterion Met
4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width
of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width
between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. (The
facility should maintain the required percentages.)
The approximate waterway width is 219-feet wide. The proposed dock protrusion is
47-feet which is under 22% width of the waterway.
Criterion Met
5. Whether or not 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.)
Packet Pg. 80
3.A.e
The proposed docking facility is consistent with the other docks within this bay and
the adjacent bay on the Isles of Capri. The dock design ensures that the vessel and
dock are all within the required setbacks, puts the stern of the vessel in the deeper
water, maintains access to the existing dock immediately adjacent on the west
property line and ensures any future dock constructed on the eastern adjacent
property will have unobstructed access.
Criterion Met
Packet Pg. 81
3.A.e
SECONDARY CRITERIA
1. Whether or not 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.)
Riprap is not a factor as it was previously determined that there is no riprap along
the subject property shoreline. The one special condition that was taken into
consideration is the existing neighboring dock, which is partially within the
applicant's riparian area, with no setback provided. This was the most restrictive
existing condition design factor that was considered in that if we could design the
ingress/egress of our proposed slips to avoid conflict. This was the driving factor
behind putting our vessel ingress/egress to come/cross over the western riparian line
as there is no telling what the other adjacent property with no existing dock could or
would propose in the future.
Additionally, the subject property location being on a wider waterway does allow
the proposed dock to protrude further out into the waterway without impacting
navigation.
Criterion Met
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 proposed docking facility has been minimized to the fullest extent possible and
still provides sufficient deck area for routine maintenance, safe access as well as
recreational activities like fishing plus storage of kayaks or paddleboards. The total
over -water square footage is 747 square feet.
Criterion Met
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not 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 existing docking facility has been designed to moor one vessel 44-feet in length
as well as two 12-foot PWC's. The subject property's shoreline length is
approximately 70-feet and therefore this criterion is NOT met.
In the previous BDE which was denied per HEX Decision #2022-42 this criterion
was not met then but the applicant has reduced the overall proposed vessel size and
reduced the overall proposed protrusion by 7-feet.
Packet Pg. 82
3.A.e
4. Whether or not 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 either property owner.)
As proposed the dock has been designed within the designated setbacks and is
consistent with the other previously approved BDE boat docks being perpendicular
to the shoreline. This allows you to design within the allowed riparian area as well
as avoid ingress/egressing over either of the shared riparian lines. Based off our
analysis as shown on the BDE exhibits (sheet 12 of 13) the overall impacts to each
adjacent property owner are indicated. It is our position that the proposed dock will
NOT have a MAJOR impact on their views of the waterway. As indicated on the
exhibit at 20-feet the eastern property owners view would be open to 99-degrees and
with the proposed dock would be reduced to 93-degrees. Therefore, based off this
analysis their view is only slightly obstructed and should not have a MAJOR impact
on anyone's view.
Criterion Met
5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If
seagrass beds are present, compliance with LDC subsection 5.03.06 I must be
demonstrated.)
There are no seagrass beds present on the property nor the neighboring properties
within 200' of the existing dock structure.
Criterion Met
6. Whether or not the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of LDC subsection 5.03.06 E.11. (If applicable, compliance with subsection
5.03.06.E.11 must be demonstrated.)
The proposed work is a single-family dock facility and therefore not subject to
Manatee Protection Requirements.
N/A
Packet Pg. 83
813Jl3 MLle1 8LL ag 6SV9000EZOZld LMZ) a6e)13ed dn4oeg s,;ueollddy- p;uowLloe;;y :;uawLioe;;y
00
Q Of0o 0 0 v
M w g2corw
w WLLNW w V O O N !L Y
N N N
W H N LL w o U z�(Lwo w m o_ C w 'T m
OQ Ir w W »wFZ ¢ Z IL
Q co ��-' w�OQQ w '� W v
CC 04 z p U U w Q 0 0 x of 0 � Qi c at w
y,3 ?inwo wQ w U z�wazw z a } i _o m
16 pw0LL UU a OQSm-a O to N j i p 0w
O Z r W� �a�Z SZ d UWWraO Fw O o� � H a
L CC w O 0c)Uz H} w>w}6UW!=U (0 N q# o o
�0 U) J UmaI > NQo¢a4�o� LL d _3 aico a uo E
U] iIi Q w W 0_ J 22wNH�F2 2 o LL ci ^ m v o 0
Z J gF� w �owOzo10 W O ��iRR Z � U M
CZ IA LL LL 0 (A Of S Q VJ u� K w w z F- V M,f N
F- U U = p F- LOD �O �= O Q Q a.. N
m N F w O ()f =) o o fn U p p i m CD rn
x 1-Uz �_NUp = M M
v W Zz -ow .N.. U v
OnOw
r y
Z w I- F-� mm U7
WRw�F¢w-
daaa
�mUwiaitnr Y�Qaa
I�mW
wZwonjgm
w
�Oz¢ wz¢w� o oQ Um
m w2w �-w �zpr�oagzw_0d11wW WOWY
wC9yww>Z z¢i¢wZ2 UwwoOin O Oo.¢ w�mz¢11 uwa¢ zH of x yaF-
ww�m JnQ'mxOoz
�ofz 0C)OZ¢ Owl LLOwWY.0QFO�Zd.0ww, 'OmaO zwQOmZ. WzwQ �woo-o NoZCWz z>>"WOoo Ozw N "O
QO 'O kz_0zZ Z,w�mmwauwU 00 m� f m¢ jgU
w0K dy OF 2v=2 o Z 2F w0 0 w w ¢OHW¢a ~� zQaW- Io-Fm ozK z.w2 ZO w mzw.'wwo
¢wm�w,vLo w� ¢ w w �Wc oww o 5 p oamawoa "I
waoz on zz z�¢ z�wwow�0Na >m 0wo om Z,6 m �-.¢o w O
a=w- zo �r¢ow mew ~Uw>F�,.0o wy
SYmmd w O U~�wuW
Zox 2wm<m0o> Q:mz Q� W 2 Z z mzOW yo wOO zw
ZW OOf WzZ vOwa momomQtww> zw ow waOpT=m � ZzHz0 wOQaxZcZwpOoQZc}
wZOZ ZZWOW�wO y2Zwm< ZpF2= OWapom0N�Z o 0w0 Q Op0 �0� w
mlra0 w0>- U¢¢WU= wOm waLLZ,C3: ' Z
(9wo z O 0O O a0Fosl o w�(DUO Z -O ¢ QZ¢rQ0 w¢0
NaRZZ3>4wz0dwo0aW ZzYwOW
wz00O
3(r 2� V0v COww pzC,
wv�>< ¢¢zD5rO z 5 z¢z
0-�O �w OG�zw zUz
w w.Qw m mw MW0L¢E~w�wm mtC0
WFNO j= �0W wCLi mFwWciwww O
UzdmFQp~_w0z2mw ] aZ mw� o�zzoa�Ow
¢o w ¢aoozo� ww OO O
n9
b b H
Y x x
X x X
3NIl NHRNdIM
0
X Y Y v X X X x
X X X
J
(ALL W
ZWQ
�UIL
3w
I�
b 5 Q =
X
Y
Y X X
x x
O N b
co �? x of
X �t x X
x
x
_x b
}
b
x X
X X X
X
v X x N
x
X X
X XOD
Q
v v v
X
X c.
v
Z
x x x
o�cr
x "jx X?
7 Y
X
X X X q N q
Q
x x
H x k
X
7 v
v -f X X r
X x
x x_:`ia
F
3NIl NtlRItldR!
z
w
U
G
w
wUYz F•y
w
_z
UUQUJ WO
Go
rc
oQ3�0 aF
aw
z
0
Q
O
P1
?
W
L)
a
y
Lo
O
J
(d),00.0lL
3..00317.00N
E
z
w 0 O- ^
(w).W6M
3.L9MOON
_
F-<D tq
0�—
Z
3
LL
0
owj3
=
w n
X�a
w J
aIL
o to
�
l�q
z V7
w0
w
�co
F-
z
zLLI
Fz
g
��•.
a
0
HaH
e a
M.991".00s
c
(d),00'OLL
n ag
M.00.lti,00S
¢0wo
Oj
�0wp
zz
Qgmw
Tz
Wa
0E-z_z
F-wJW
r
i3�zx
z�
a z=
ME
U w'-ir
wa,
OR
mcoir0
2QU z
y Z
�o
E
aU bolvmvr
0-
a
C0 '^ w
N
oa
�Uwa
Zo
Z
J
�U
U
(d),00"0B
3.00311.00N
z
0
O
m
I Ike I
178 TAHITI CIRCLE
NAPLES, FL 34113
FOLIO #52395960007
SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT
MARCH 2O23
PREPARED BY:
TURRELL, HALL &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Marine & Environmental Consulting
PHONE:239-643-0166 WWW.THANAPLES-COM
Packet Pg. 85
I 3.A.e I
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1
2 Objective.............................................................................................................................................2
3 Methodology......................................................................................................................................3
4 Results.................................................................................................................................................4
5 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................5
6 Photos.................................................................................................................................................. 6
Packet Pg. 86
I 3.A.e I
178 Tahiti Circle
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
1 INTRODUCTION
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (THA) has been contracted to provide environmental permitting
services which includes completing an onsite Submerged Resource Survey (SRS) at the subject
property 178 Tahiti Circle in Naples, FL 34113 that can be identified by folio #52390840009. This
resource survey will provide planning assistance to both the property owner and regulating
agencies during the review process for the proposed project.
The subject property consists of a 0.18-acre single-family parcel that can be found on the
southwest side of Isle of Capri just off Johnson Bay/ Capri Pass. The subject waterway is
considered man-made and connects directly to the Gulf of Mexico through Capri Pass and the
Big Marco River. The upland parcel currently consists of a single-family residence currently
under construction which has an existing concrete seawall shoreline. The property is neighbored
to the north and south by single family residences, to the east by the subject waterway, and to the
southwest by Tahiti Circle.
The SRS was conducted on March 25, 2023, between approximately 2:30p.m. and 3:15 p.m. Site
conditions on that day consisted of mostly sunny skies with a southwest breeze approximately
10-15mph. Water clarity was good to fair which allowed for approximately 12-18 inches of
visibility. The ambient air temperature was approximately 76 degrees Fahrenheit with an
incoming tide. Low tide occurred before the site visit at approximately 10:04 a.m. and reached
approximately 0.8' feet above the Mean Low Water Mark. High tide was achieved after the site
visit at approximately 3:52 p.m., reaching approximately 2.70 feet above the Mean Low Water
Mark.
1
Packet Pg. 87
I 3.A.e I
178 Tahiti Circle
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
2 OBJECTIVE
The objective of the SRS was to identify and locate any existing submerged resources within 200
feet of the proposed dock project. Ordinarily, if seagrasses are present within the vicinity of a
project area, an analysis will be required regarding species, percent coverage, and impacts
projected by the proposed project. The presence of seagrasses may be ample cause for re-
configuration of the design for projects over surface waters in order to minimize impacts. The
general scope of work performed during a typical submerged resource survey is summarized
below:
• THA personnel will conduct a site visit and swim a series of transects within the project
site in order to verify the location of any submerged resources.
• THA personnel will identify submerged resources within the vicinity of the site and
produce an estimate of the percent coverage of any resources found.
• THA personnel will delineate the approximate limits of any submerged resources
observed via a handheld GPS device.
2
Packet Pg. 88
178 Tahiti Circle
I 3.A.e I
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
3 METHODOLOGY
THA biologists intentionally designed the methodology of the SRS to cover not only the entire
subject property shoreline for the proposed dock but also the area within 200 ft. of the proposed
site as required by the Collier County LDC. The components utilized for this survey included:
• Reviewing aerial photography of the surveyed area.
• Establishing survey transect lines (spaced approximately 10 feet apart) overlaid onto
aerials. (See attached Exhibits)
• Physically swimming the transects, GPS locating the limits of any submerged resources
found, and determining the percent coverage within the area.
• Documenting and photographing all findings
The surveyed area was evaluated systematically by following the established transect lines
throughout the project site as shown on the attached exhibit. Neighboring properties, adjacent
docking facilities, and other landmarks provided reference markers which assisted in
maintaining correct positioning over each transect.
During this SRS, one THA staff member swam the transect lines using snorkel equipment while
a second remained on the boat taking notes and compiling findings on an aerial of the project site.
Ordinarily, if any resources are found, they are photographed, GPS located, delineated, and
analyzed for percent coverage within the area via a half meter square quadrat.
3
Packet Pg. 89
178 Tahiti Circle
I 3.A.e I
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
4 RESULTS
The substrate found within the surveyed area consists of silty sand material and shell debris.
Depths increased gradually with distance from the shoreline to the middle of the waterway from
approximately four to eight feet.
During the submerged portion of the survey, no seagrasses, oysters, or other resources were
observed in any capacity. Accordingly, no impacts to submerged resources are expected to occur
as the result of the proposed project. A list of species observed during the SRS can be seen below
in Table 1.
Table 1: Observed species of wildlife and vegetation within the vicinity of the project site
Common Name
Scientific Name
Eastern mudminnow
Umbra pygmaea
Shee shead
Archosargus probatocephalus
Bottle -nosed dolphin
Tursio s truncatus
Common Snook
Centro omus undecimalis
Gray Snapper
Lut'anus griseus
Greenback
Oncorh nchus clarkii stomias
H
Packet Pg. 90
178 Tahiti Circle
I 3.A.e I
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
5 CONCLUSION
The submerged resource survey was conducted and completed throughout a 200-foot radius
surrounding the project site and yielded few results. An existing concrete seawall is present along
the shoreline with part of the immediately adjacent dock and boathouse partial within the subject
property's riparian area. There were no seagrasses or other marine resources that were observed
anywhere within the vicinity of the project site. There were significant amounts of barnacles
observed on the face of seawall shoreline. Based off these observations it is THA opinion that the
proposed project will not have any negative impacts to any submerged resources nor the subject
waterway water quality.
5
Packet Pg. 91 1
178 Tahiti Circle
I 3.A.e I
6 PHOTOS
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
Photo 1: Existing property shoreline and adjacent dock.
Photo 2: View of subject waterway.
6
Packet Pg. 92
178 Tahiti Circle
I 3.A.e I
Submerged Resource Survey
March 2023
Photo 3: Existing Seawall and Dock piles with Barnacle growth.
Photo 4: Typical sediment observed in survey area.
FA
Packet Pg. 93
3.A.f
From: John Kelly
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 9:14 PM
To: John Kelly
Subject: BD-PL20230006459 - 178 Tahiti Cir - Sign Posting for 10/26/2023 HEX
Attachments: IMG_1590.jpeg; IMG_1591.jpeg
I, John Kelly, herewith affirm that I posted a Public Hearing Sign for the 10/26/2023 Meeting of the
Hearing Examiner to the front of the subject property at approximately 1:55 PM on Tuesday, October
10, 2023, as evidenced by the attached photos.
Respectfully,
John Keffy
Planner III
Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section
Growth Management Community Development Department
2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104
Phone: 239.252.5719 Fax: 239.252.6363
Email: John.Kelly@colliercountyfl.gov
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning
Cots County
Growth Management
Community Development Department
Zoning Division
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
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.
Packet Pg. 94
FOR
178 Tahiti Circle
130AT 'DOCK EXTENSION
® To Allow a 47-foot Protrusion
Petition No. PL20230006459
HEX: October 216, 2023, at 9 a.m.
D�
Growth Management Building
2900 North Horseshoe Drive, 609/610
John Kelly, Planner 111: (239) 252-5719
Co
D
Cif �
Attachment: Attachment E - PL20230006459 - Sign Posting 10102023 (26817 : PL20230006459 BD 178
M
74 4t�
rim&
X4 A,
sv
44
4t
co
NAP
3.A.g
From: Kathleen Demaret<kathleen.demaret@demaretconsulting.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:28 PM
To: John Kelly
Cc: Ken Demaret; Jeff
Subject: Letters in Support of 178 Tahiti Circle Boat Dock Extension Petition #:
PL20230006459
Attachments: Letters of Support for 178 Tahiti Circle.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.
Attn: John Kelly
Attached are letters of support from bay and street neighbors in support of our petition for a
boat dock extension per concept 5 drawing.
A few support letters have been emailed directly to your attention.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kathleen & Kenneth Demaret
Property Owners: 178 Tahiti Circle, Naples, FL 34113
Packet Pg. 97
3.A.g
Date —
To Whom 11 May Concern,
.-�
live at 6 Fez t3
which i o lnearladjacent to the subject waterway as he proposed
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fuller reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL208000459-
BDE Application and fuller support this dock extension request.
incerel -
r
aD
L
E
0
U
s
m
CO
LO
m
0
0
0
M
N
O
N
J
IL
ti
T
CO
N
C
O
r
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
N
L
d
V.d
id
d
J
LL
C
O
E
s
V
10
Q
a+
C
d
s
R
El
Packet Pg. 98
3.A.g
Date o - 1
4- 93
To Whom It May Concern,
Ir �"
, - ' !/ live at PA , Rma 6,
which is oy /nearladjacent to the subject waterway as the ropose
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL20 3000 4 9-
DDE Application and fully support this dock extension request_
Sincerely,
Z
aD
R
E
0
U
00
I -
CD
m
LO
to
0
0
Cl)
N
O
N
J
IL
ti
00
to
c
O
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
y
i
d
r
a�
d
J
LL
C
N
E
L
U
R
Q
C
d
E
t
U
R
El
Packet Pg. 99
3.A.g
Date_
To Whom If May Concern,
I, r � live at ) _ W. 4 o -
which Is onlneartadjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL000884-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request.
Sincerel ,
Z
aD
R
E
0
U
00
I -
CD
m
LO
to
0
0
Cl)
N
O
N
J
IL
ti
00
to
N
C
O
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
y
i
d
r
a�
d
J
LL
C
N
E
L
U
R
Q
C
d
E
t
U
R
El
Packet Pg. 100
3.A.g
Date'
To Whom It May Concern.
�, .�rT.►cc�,�u live at / c- r
which is onlnearladjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle_ I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL20 30003450-
BDE Application and fuller support this dock extension request_
rel J
r
aD
L
E
0
s
M
CO
LO
m
0
0
0
Cl)
N
O
N
J
IL
ti
T
CO
N
C
O
r
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
N
L
d
V.d
id
d
J
LL
C
O
E
s
V
10
Q
a+
C
d
s
R
El
Packet Pg. 101
3.A.g
Date V- 3
To thorn It May Concern,
(�lAMIAC live at 1 � , P4& 466 4e
which is on/near/adjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL2023000 4 g-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request.
Sincerely,
i
.' A
aD
L
E
0
U
s
M
CO
LO
m
0
0
0
Cl)
N
O
N
J
IL
CO
ca
N
C
O
r
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
N
L
d
V.d
id
d
J
LL
C
O
E
s
V
10
Q
a+
C
d
s
R
El
Packet Pg. 102
3.A.g
Date (r'
4 z 3
To thorn It May Concern,
I r� IF€e at fr 7-k C- = i`I IV
which is on/near/adjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle_ I have fuller reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL20230003459-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request -
Sincerely,
L Ze
Z
E
0
U
00
I -
CD
m
LO
to
0
0
M
N
O
N
J
IL
ti
00
to
N
C
O
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
y
i
d
r
a�
d
J
LL
C
N
E
L
U
R
Q
C
d
E
t
U
R
El
Packet Pg. 103
3.A.g
Date 1 1 1 ZI 2"-s
To Whom It May Concern,
1%
,a five at ) E--
which is onlnearladjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed
docking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PI-20230003459-
B€3E Application and fully support this dock extension request.
Sincerely,
r
L
E
0
U
CO
LO
m
0
0
0
M
N
O
N
J
a
ti
oo
ca
N
C
O
t.
V
N
O
O
Z
4-
0
N
L
d
V.d
id
d
J
LL
C
O
E
t
V
R
Q
a+
C
d
t
V
R
r+
Q
Packet Pg. 104
3.A.g
Date_
To Whom It Ma
Whi his on
docking facil
nee rn ,
'}dive at_� f
r{adjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed
located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL00003459-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request.
Sincerely,
L
E
d
0
U
M
CO
LO
m
0
0
0
Cl)
N
O
N
J
IL
ti
T
CO
N
C
O
r
U
d
0
O
Z
4-
0
N
L
d
V.d
id
d
J
LL
C
O
E
s
V
10
Q
a+
C
d
s
R
El
Packet Pg. 105
3.A.g
Date / e'— - -2P
To Whom It May Concern,
five at �r� ,
which is onlnearladjacent to the subject waterway as the proposed -� f
cocking facility located 178 Tahiti Circle. I have fully reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PI-20230003459-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request_
U l
ti
T
CO
W
N
C
O
LL
El
Packet Pg. 106