HEX Minutes 10/26/2023October 26, 2023
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples, Florida
October 26, 2023
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hearing Examiner, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION at 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive, Room 609/610, Naples, Florida, with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER ANDREW DICKMAN
ALSO PRESENT:
Michael Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director
Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager
John Kelly, Planner III
Ailyn Padron, Management Analyst I
Page 1 of 22
October 26, 2023
PROCEEDINGS
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome. Today is
October 26th, 2023.
Let's all rise to the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Good.
My name is Andrew Dickman. I'm the hearing examiner for Collier County. I was appointed by
the Board of County Commissioners, and I am not a County employee. I'm an attorney in private practice
in the area of land use zoning, local government.
I was retained by the County to conduct these hearings in a quasi-judicial manner. I am not -- I
have not had any outside conversations about the item that's on the agenda today.
My job is to be here, be a neutral, unbiased decision maker. What I will be doing here today is
essentially taking the criteria for what's in the code in order to evaluate the petition and listening for
evidence that comes to me either from the County or from the applicant or from the public, and I will take
all that information, and I will evaluate it, and I have 30 days to render a decision, a written decision.
I will not be making a ruling here today. It will be issued within 30 days, as I said.
If anyone is -- in a few minutes or in seconds, anyone that's going to testify here today will have to
be sworn in and I will ask the court reporter to administer the oath in a second.
Try to keep your comments, as I said, comments focused on issues, the issue related to the item
and to -- related to the criteria that's in the code because that's really what I have to evaluate.
I want everyone to relax. Okay? This is an informal setting. I want you to -- whoever is going
to speak, just to -- you know, it's more important for me to get the information out, get it on the record so
that I can evaluate everything and produce a fair and just written decision.
So the way that we conduct this is, first of all, the County will start off with the item here in this
center podium, tell me a little bit about their evaluation, about the petition, about the -- about any other
issues, any conditions, recommendations, so forth and so on.
Then we'll have the applicant or the applicant's representative over here on this podium. Then
we'll open it up for public comment.
This is a hybrid meeting, meaning that we have folks here in the audience that can speak here.
And if you are going to speak, please get a speaker card and hand it to this young lady over here.
And then there may be some people who are attending virtually, and then will -- we will see about
that, be able to participate that way.
So with that why don't we go ahead. If anyone is going to speak today at the hearing, please
stand and the court reporter is going to administer the oath.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Great. All right. Why don't we get started. We
have one item on the agenda today. That's 3A. John, I think this is yours.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Dickman.
Okay. Before you is Agenda Item 3A. It's BDE-PL20230006459. The petitioner requests the
hearing examiner approve 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 allow a dock facility that will protrude 47 feet into a waterway that is 219 plus or minus feet
wide, for the benefit of the subject property located at 178 Tahiti Circle, also known as Lot 155, Isles of
Capri Number 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range -- I believe it's 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
The property is located within a residential Single -Family 4 Zoning District. The subject property
comprises 0.18 acres with 102 feet of water frontage on Johnson Bay.
The petitioner desires to construct a two -slip dock facility perpendicular to the shoreline with two
boat lifts, one for a 44-foot vessel, and the other to be decked over to serve two personal watercraft.
The primary slip and lift have been designed to be at a 60-degree angle more or less to the
Page 2 of 22
October 26, 2023
shoreline and the PWC -- the personal watercraft lift has been placed on the west side to limit impacts to
the property to the east.
The principal structure is under construction by means of Permit Number PRFH-20220416412,
and it's in the inspect status.
A prior boat dock petition for this location requesting a 54-foot protrusion was heard by the
hearing examiner on August 25, 2022, which resulted in a denial by means of HEX Decision Number
2022-42.
Public notice requirements were satisfied per LDC Section 10.03.06.H, specifically a property
owner notification letter and newspaper ad were satisfied by the County on October 6th, 2023, and a
public hearing sign was posted by me on October 26th, 2023, to the front of the property.
This petition was reviewed by staff based on the review criteria contained within LDC Section
5.03.06.H. Of the primary criteria, staff found it satisfied five of five; of the secondary criteria, satisfies
five of six, with the sixth being not applicable, the Manatee Protection Plan, and has been found to be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
With respect to public comment, nine letters of no objection were provided by the Demarets,
which is the property owner, after the staff report was completed but not yet disseminated, which resulted
in Attachment F that did make it into the agenda packet that you received previously.
Between Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, six emailed letters of objection were received, all
of which are believed to be on the behalf of 182 and/or 186 Tahiti Circle, which is owned by the Clarks,
and that resulted in the creation of an Attachment G, which was provided to the hearing examiner near the
close of business yesterday.
You also have a copy in front of you, and a copy has been provided to the court reporter.
Another neighbor, Mr. Robert Buckel of 168 Tahiti Circle, has made it known that he is opposed
and will be in attendance at today's meeting.
This morning I received an email from the Demarets, again, the property owner, advising of three
additional letters of support, one provided within the email from Ms. Schmidt and two additional that I did
not receive. They -- she tells me they were mailed to me directly. I will need to look further into it and
provide the copies when I find them.
It's staffs recommendation that the hearing examiner approve this petition as described in
accordance with the proposed dock plans provided within Attachment A subject to the following condition
of approval, and that is that a certificate of completion for the dock cannot be approved until a certificate
of occupancy has been issued for the residence.
That concludes staffs presentation.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks, John. Appreciate it.
Okay. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Great. Good morning, Jeff.
MR. ROGERS: Good morning. How are you?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Fine. Thanks.
MR. ROGERS: For the record, Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates here today
representing the applicants, Kenneth and Kathleen Demaret, who currently reside on this bay on Isles of
Capri located at 192 Tahiti Circle, which is east --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right.
MR. ROGERS: -- southeast of our current subject property. Yes, sir.
So go to the next slide, please.
These are existing condition photos from the previous petition, which showed the vacant lot, but
the subject waterway is what we are here to discuss and shoreline and the associated proposed dock, but
these are preconstruction photos of a single-family residence currently going up.
Next slide, please.
Again, here's some more existing onsite photos just for reference and visualizations for everybody.
I wish the bottom left one was a little bit cleaner, but that shows the old existing home that was
there. You can maybe see it a little bit better there.
Page 3 of 22
October 26, 2023
Look at this. I have learned over the years to come prepared. I have a fancy-dancy pointer.
So this photo right here, this is the old home that was on the subject property that we're discussing,
but you can see the adjacent property and their associated docking facility, which is also here.
Next slide.
So as required and as Turrell, Hall makes it a practice, we always get an existing condition survey,
which is what is here on your screen, which shows the property boundary, associated riparian lines, which
provide you rights to build a dock of some sort out into the waterway.
In the waterway depths that you see in the top part, these right here represented with Xs are depths
collected by a certified surveyor, which are referenced to mean low water. So on average low tide, those
are the depths that you would have at your facility.
Next slide.
Here we'll just dive right into it. Basically the proposed dock is to accommodate a 44-foot LOA
vessel, which is kept currently on the subject waterway down at the existing residence that they reside on
at 192 Tahiti.
So as proposed, as John previously stated, we are here today requesting a 27-foot boat dock
extension from the allowed 20 feet for an overall protrusion of 47 feet out into the waterway.
The subject property shoreline is approximately 102 linear feet; therefore, we're required to have
15-foot setbacks.
If this -- I don't need to get into it, but if this were State lands, we would have to accommodate
25-foot setbacks, but this has been determined to be a man-made waterway, historical aerials and such.
So the State does not classify this as State lands, nor part of the Aquatic Preserve.
Why do I bring that up? Because that is a unique feature for Isles of Capri. A lot of Isles of
Capri is actually in the Aquatic Preserve, and, therefore, docks like this would not be allowed anywhere
else on the island, except for in certain water bodies, just due to the square footage as proposed.
So running through the criteria -- let's go to the next slide, please.
Here is just another overview. You can see the protrusion written down on the right-hand side
right here, 47 feet.
Why did we go with this design? Because as existing, there's a dock hereon this adjacent
property, and we felt ingressing and egressing this direction would be consistent use with what's currently
going on here, and the view is not really hampered for this individual of the -- you know, of the waterway.
So that's why we went with this angle and also to reduce overall protrusion as much as possible to
minimize our projection out into the waterway.
As you can see here, I have also brought the vessel as close as I can. Right here is a one -foot
dimension that you can see that the dock extends out past the seawall. So we are right up against the
seawall as much as we possibly can with the vessel to safely moor it here and to utilize the boat lift.
Moving forward. Here is a quick little cross-section view of the boat on the lift, as well as the jet
skis and the associated water depths.
Moving forward, please. Here's an overview of the bay and the subject waterway that we're
discussing.
I'm going to go ahead and jump into the criteria, basically primary criteria. I want to run through
all these.
Basically Primary Criteria Number 1, whether the number of the dock facility and/or boat slips
proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the
subject property.
And basically the answer to that is yes. This is a single-family residentially zoned lot, and per the
Land Development Code, we are allowed two boat slips. We're allowed to propose two boat slips, and
that is what the project is proposing. So that criteria is met.
Number 2 of the primary, 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 petitioners' application cannot launch or moor at
mean low tide.
Page 4 of 22
October 26, 2023
As I have previously stated and showed, we got a water depth survey. The depths are shallow
along the seawall shoreline, which is typical for all single -families mostly, except for really the Marco
River where it's really deep on the -- outside of the seawall.
So bringing the vessel in, I did do some images to show you. If you could pan forward. Keep
going if you would.
There. There's -- I did a cross-section, too, I think. It's hard to see on this, but basically what
this visualization does is show you -- this is the 20-foot protrusion mark right there, and that box is what
we would be allowed basically.
And based off that, you can see the depths in there. There's a negative 2-1/2, negative 3, negative
2.4, and also you will notice how does one ingress and egress to this without potentially impacting an
existing dock that's here and/or any proposed dock that might future be constructed on this property.
Whether it's 20 feet out or greater, it still would be problematic for everybody.
So with looking at this, you know, the best decision here is to isolate the boat and us from, you
know, issues and future potential docks over here and go with something that's more perpendicular,
whether it's on an angle or straight in to the shoreline, versus a parallel mooring.
So this shows that the vessels -- you know, the depths along the shoreline are shallow at a mean
low tide, and the vessel itself -- a vessel this size and what the manufacturer advertises the draft is
approximately 3-foot draft.
It is outboards. So you do have the ability to raise and lower those, which the vessel itself takes a
3-foot draft. Let's just say that. When you have your outboards down, it might be a little bit greater than
that.
So with that, plus a boat lift, you know, the boat lift itself and the support beams, you need about 4
to 4-1/2 feet of water on average to float a vessel with the 3-foot draft.
So, again, referring to water depths and why Turrell and staff agree that we don't -- you know,
they're not sufficient is because of those reasons I just mentioned. So that criteria is also met then.
Primary Criteria Number 3 talks about adverse navigation, whether the proposed dock facility may
have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or chartered navigable channel.
I want to stress that this -- there's been some things brought up through letters and myself, local
knowledge, being born and raised here and boating my whole life. I am a licensed captain. I know this
waterway is a local knowledge channel.
There is -- historically there's been some County markers to locate, you know, the shoal that is in
the adjacent bay immediately to our north, but in this case it's an open, navigable waterway, and you
can -- it's a local knowledge area, so to speak, is the best way to put it. It's not a federal channel.
So we are not impacting that. We are inside the allowed 25 percent width of the waterway,
leaving plenty of room for navigation through the waterway.
And I don't know which aerial it is, but I do have some aerials to show where that shoal is outside
of where we're actually proposing. So it's further back and -- there, that's a good one.
So you can see, here's the open waterway width between the existing docking facility -- actually
it's the vessel that's sticking out probably past 20 feet as well, but there's more than 25 percent open
for -- or, excuse me, more than 50 percent open for navigation.
I believe we calculated 66 percent is open for navigation, which the criteria is 50 percent open.
You have 25; I have 25, leaving through traffic 25 each for navigation purposes.
So as you come out of this bay and you're heading northwest, here's the compass, basically. This
is the way out, and to the Gulf is this way.
Boats come out and go to the north and go around the shoal to a marked channel out here.
I stress the marked channel is a private channel that is owned by -- it's maintained. I won't say it's
owned. It's maintained by a development further up the creek, so to speak, that provides them access, and
they are in charge of maintaining the signage and the navigational channels of that channel.
So from here, you go out of Marlin Bay, go out and you connect to that channel to ingress/egress
out to the Gulf of Mexico. That's Criteria Number 3.
Page 5 of 22
October 26, 2023
And I touched on part of Number 4. Number 4 of the primary is whether the proposed dock
facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway.
As previously stated as shown on the screen, we are inside 25 percent. I believe we're right under
22 percent. Yes, we're right at 21.46 percent with the waterway, which is greater than the previously
proposed docking facility that was here.
We are proposing a 54-foot protrusion. So we are 7 feet less than that. So we provided more
area for navigation in -- with this current design in front of you.
Number 5 of the primary is whether the proposed location and the design of the dock facility is
such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks.
I touched on this a little bit earlier, and this aerial is a good -- a good image to look at. As
designed and as John Kelly stated, we are on approximately a 60-degree angle; and we also are ingressing
and egressing on the side that our neighbor currently does too, so that it's a common use and common
practice for that side of the property, also reduces your protrusion, and it also does not interfere with any
potential future dock that could be built on adjacent property next to us.
So that was taken into consideration from day one, was trying to avoid -- we don't know what they
want to do in the future, if anything, or the next owner. So we always try to design where we're isolated.
The first petition that we brought to you was a straight -in perpendicular, and we have since gone at
an angle to reduce protrusion and provide, you know, additional navigation for the area based on
comments received in the past, as well as ultimately to reduce visual impacts for neighbors as well, which
reducing the protrusion increases the visual -- current visualization of the bay that they have.
Moving on to the secondary criteria, basically Number 1 on that is whether there are special
conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property or waterway that justified the proposed
dock facilities, proposed dimensions and location.
In this case, there is no riprap there. So basically the waterway -- the location of this property is
unique to Isles of Capri in regards to width of waterways and not being within the surrounding Aquatic
Preserve, which allows for docks like this to be proposed or -- and/or constructed on a waterway, Marlin
Bay basically.
Every other bay on -- within Isles of Capri, Pompano Bay, Snook Bay, those are all natural bays
and are part of the Aquatic Preserve.
So if you go -- go back on my -- on my -- yeah, there you go.
So this bay, which is immediately to our, I guess, west towards the Gulf, so there's the subject
property come out. Here is the shoal. You can see that shoal on this one.
So most of the docks down here are in the Aquatic Preserve, so, therefore, you end up with long,
straight finger docks out to a boat lift, which is common practice. You can see these in the corner.
Some of these docks that are larger are classified as grandfathered structures. So if they change
those footprints, they would have to come into code today.
Sothis just gives you a generalization. This bay over here is also a natural bay subject to the
Aquatic Preserve rules. So, again, this particular bay is unique in that it's not part of the Aquatic Preserve.
Number 2 of the secondary criteria, 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.
Go forward, if you would. Go a little bit. Keep going. Let's get a bigger, zoomed -in one of our
dock, if there is -- it might be -- that's a little better.
Yes, we do have some large sections of decking; however, in our opinion, it's not excessive in that
there is other purposes that this decking provides, like recreational access, storage for kayaks, things like
that, would most likely happen over here, as well as this finger out here is more for routine maintenance
and cleaning purposes, as well as if the, you know, individual needs to temporarily tie up a boat here,
temporarily. He's not allowed to keep it there any long periods of time, but he can technically temporarily
put a vessel there and then pull it on the lift.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I wanted to ask you about that. On the east -- I guess it's
Page 6 of 22
October 26, 2023
the east side of the --
MR. ROGERS: Right here?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. I mean getting out there seems pretty dangerous
with a two -foot walkway. I mean, is that even necessary to have any decking on that side because I get
concerned about the safety issue. You know what I mean?
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, totally, understand.
So the 2-foot section you're discussing -- let's find the -- can you zoom through here and look for a
different aerial for me that shows the dimensions. We might have to go backwards on this. Keep going
back, yeah. Keep going. There you go.
Okay. Sothis 2-foot section that you're referring to, what that --it just provides access out to the
larger 4-foot. So we're pinched right here with the setback line, right?
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: So I would love to see that be 3, 4 feet. I just can't --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Can you eliminate all of that decking on that side?
MR. ROGERS: I mean, of course, we can; however, for routine maintenance of the vessel, it is
nice to be able to put the boat up on a lift and be able to, you know, wash and clean off your boat on the
side without having to lean over your vessel. I've --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand.
MR. ROGERS: That's realistically what that section is for.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I guess without -- if you didn't have -- absent decking
on that side, there really would be no concern about having another boat tied up --
MR. ROGERS: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- moored on that side?
MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir. Yup. I understand where you're going, and it would reduce
our protrusion slightly --
HEARING OFFICER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: -- as well. I don't know how much, but I would say at least 2 feet. So that
would bring the 47 down to 45.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: So there is --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Something to think about.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, exactly.
So, yeah, moving forward. And staff agreed that it's not excessive decking. I want to get that on
the record. The criteria was met for Number 2 of secondary.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand.
MR. ROGERS: Secondary Criteria Number 3, for single-family dock facilities, whether the
length of vessel or vessels in combination described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject
property's linear footage of shoreline -- water frontage. Excuse me.
This is not met. The vessel is greater than 50 percent of our existing linear footage of shoreline.
So this is the -- one of the secondary criteria that we do not meet.
The next one is Number 4 on the secondary, whether the proposed facility would have a major
impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring property owners. This one I want to go to a
visualization that we created.
Could you go forward, please. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. One more, I think.
No. Keep going. Here we go.
So what we have done here is, you know, I want to stress in previous petitions in front of the
County we have talked about this because what is major, what is not? And why do I bring up major is
because in the actual question, it says: Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the
waterfront view of the neighbor -- of neighboring property owners.
So what does this visualization do for you? So what we tried to do here is create an existing
Page 7 of 22
October 26, 2023
condition line of sight, so to speak, from each adjacent property and show what the impact to their current
existing view would be and determine whether we feel it is a major impact or not.
And what this does is this Wine here goes from their pool deck area -- I believe this is 182 Tahiti
Circle. They have a dock, basically. They're a neighboring property, so their view is not a 100-percent
degree angle this way.
So it's about 99 degrees this way to -- why did I stop here? Because that's the 20-foot mark. I
want it because we could build a dock inside of this point without being in front of you today to request for
the extension.
So that's what the neighbor could do. So that would keep their view at about a 90 percent or a
99-degree angle they could see throughout.
What does the proposed dock do and how does it limit their potential view impacts? And it was
about a 6-degree difference that we, you know, have shown here and calculated. So in our opinion, this is
not a major impact to their view, leaving more than 90 percent of their current view open to the subject
waterway.
And this gentleman over here, you know, he's looking out his back door to his existing dock and
boathouse with a roof. So that is also up in the air.
And then his neighbor currently has a dock as well that -- this is State lands. So I want to stress
the difference of where the State lands line is versus not here. So we're right on the border. So people
out here would have to adhere to a 25-foot setback per the State. So in this case the State is more
restrictive.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right.
MR. ROGERS: Therefore, that's why that vessel is further into the riparian area --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right.
MR. ROGERS: -- than some others are.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. And I appreciate you doing this. I know a few
years ago when I started, the methodology was let's look straight out, and that's the view, and I disagreed
with that. I know you disagreed with me on that, but I see that you've -- you're definitely amending the
analysis and giving me your opinion on that view corridor. So I appreciate you listening and thinking
about that --
MR. ROGERS: Of course.
MR. DICKMAN: -- so --
MR. ROGERS: Hey, I'm in front of you often, so I want to work with the County. I love
working with the County. So if things like this help to prove how we determine an impact or not --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: -- you know, that's what we wanted to show as a firm to you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And at the end of the day, I guess I have to determine
what's major and what's not major --
MR. ROGERS: Correct, yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- based on the evidence that I hear at the hearing and so
forth.
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. Yup. All's I can do is show to you how we determined major or not,
and that's what this does for you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: And just, you know, moving forward when we do these in front of you, we will
be doing these on every single one.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate it.
MR. ROGERS: Yup.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MR. ROGERS: Okay. Moving forward, let's wrap this up. Secondary Criteria Number 5,
whether the proposed dock facility will impact seagrass beds.
Page 8 of 22
October 26, 2023
In this case, no. I dove the facility -- the site -- excuse me -- prior to the previous petition,
updated it twice since.
I dove it at the beginning of the growing season. There's months that you're allowed to do these
surveys based on water temperature, right? So it's from March to October.
So I dove it at the beginning of or middle of May and dove it at the end of, like, August. So I got
the pre- and post growing seasons.
No seagrasses were observed in this particular area. There are grasses in the area for sure, but,
however, there's not any within 200 feet of this subject property, so therefore this criteria is met.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is that due to what, like turbulence from boat traffic or
what do you think it's from?
MR. ROGERS: Water depths play a major role in it. Boats ingressing, yes, of course, in
shallow areas.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So deeper water, sunlight doesn't get to the bottom and,
therefore, grass --
MR. ROGERS: It's like your yard and you're at your house; if the sun is not hitting it, it has a
harder time to grow.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Got it.
MR. ROGERS: But also affecting seagrass is not just sunlight, is the overall water quality as
well.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
Number 6 is -- pertains to the Manatee Protection Plan requirements, and this is a single-family.
We're not subject to the MPP. I like to say we meet the MPP criteria because we have two vessels
proposed, which we're allowed, so -- but technically speaking, this is not applicable to this.
So just as an overview, we were previously in front of you with a 54-boat dock extension request
and had that denied, had some feedback and comments that were given to us by yourself, as well as the
public; and we tried to listen to those points and incorporate changes to our design.
One big change I would like to stress to you, that since the last petition, the owners have canceled
their purchase of the larger vessel, and they're keeping -- they basically backed out their order and got
their -- I don't know if they got their deposit back, but most likely got their deposit back and have decided
to keep the vessel that they currently have and just relocate that boat onto their new property here, new
house.
So it's on this bay. It currently navigates the bay. There's no change there other than what
property they're keeping it at.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. I'm going to let -- I'm going to let you have some
time for rebuttal because I know there's going to be some comments.
MR. ROGERS: Oh. Here's a -- sorry, here's a good visualization that staff asked me to put
together just for reference for everybody.
So the one on the left is the previously designed dock that we presented to you almost a year ago.
And then the one on the right is obviously what we are here today showing the difference.
Also, another big difference you can see is we moved the jet skis off of the adjacent property to
the south because there was some comments about us going into their riparian area, and we felt it would be
better on the north side based off that feedback, as well as the encroachment of the existing dock onto our
property from that side. Just isolate everything over to that corner is what we did.
So that's just a visual reference for you guys.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
So please take notes. There's going to be some comments, I'm sure, from the public, and, again, I
want to give you an opportunity to rebut or address any of those issues again.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good job.
Page 9 of 22
October 26, 2023
MR. KELLY: Mr. Dickman, I just needed to correct my project summary from earlier.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Your staff report is correct; however, of the primary criteria, they satisfied
four -- I'm sorry -- satisfied all five of the second criteria. They only satisfied four of the six, not five, as
Jeff pointed out with the width of the waterway -- I'm sorry -- the width of the lot, as well as the size of the
boat. They failed on that one.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I got you, but the staff report is correct?
MR. KELLY: Yes, it is.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
Thanks a lot, John.
Okay. Why don't we open up for public comment. Who do we have?
MS. PADON: Good morning, all. Our first speaker is Robert Buckel.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Sir, if you like to use this podium, in case I need to have
someone come up and not have the battle of the podiums.
MR. BUCKEL: Good morning. It's good to see you again.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good to see you again.
MR. BUCKEL: I'm Robert Buckel. I am -- my wife and I own the residence at 168 Tahiti
Circle, and just for the record, I am a lawyer.
So my presentation today is going to address two points.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. BUCKEL: The first is on the secondary -- actually, they're both on the secondary criteria.
Second page, please.
The first one dealing with what constitutes a special condition and then the second point will deal
with the Subsection D on the view.
From the special condition -- if I could have a picture of my next slide, please. Keep it there,
please. Could you go -- take it back, please.
When the -- Mr. Rogers is speaking of this special condition of this property, he was speaking of
the riparian line on the side and saying that that constitutes a special condition.
I would point out that that is insufficient in itself to satisfy Section A, because if you read the
statute that's up on the screen, it talks about whether there's a special -- there are special conditions not
involving water depth related to the property or subject waterway which justify the proposed dimension
and location of the proposed dock facility. It then gives some examples.
It has -- so there needs to be not just a special condition, but it has to be a special condition that
justifies the request, the relief sought for.
So to put it differently, the special condition has to be one that creates a need or a problem that the
relief, the variance, is going to satisfy and correct; and that does not exist here.
The next.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Understood.
MR. BUCKEL: As I mentioned, the proposed -- they're saying -- stating that this riparian line is
the special condition that makes this property passes -- meets this criteria, which is not correct.
A standard dock, as you well know, is 20 feet out, okay, with setbacks on both sides.
As you can see here, it's quite easy to put in a standard dock. Now, I would agree that you cannot
access that dock from the west, but there's no reason you can't access the dock from the east.
It's a 15-foot setback to the property line, and it was a 15 setback to the other property, the
neighbor's property.
I enter my boat dock from the east. Most of the boat docks along this portion of Marlin Bay enter
their property from the east.
If I can have my next slide, please.
Here is the property. It's hard to see, but this property over here is one of the docks that Mike
Evans is my neighbor. It's a long story.
Page 10 of 22
October 26, 2023
My dock is not on the picture here because it wasn't built when the County was doing the point,
and the point is you enter it from the east. I enter mine. Everybody else enters theirs from the east.
So if you could go back to the prior. Sorry.
So there's no reason why this boat can't -- this dock can't be built, and because this dock can be
built, there's no justification for a 47-foot extension this way when you can just drive in this way.
So why is it -- what was the reason given by petitioners for why they can't access the property
from the east? And I believe that could be found. It was provided to the County by, I believe it was,
Mr. Rogers, and it states -- and this -- it could be provided by Mr. Rogers to the staff and it can be found in
the staff report under the Secondary Criteria Number 1.
When he talks about this being the driving force for the design for ingress and egress, he then
says: But we didn't look at this area because, quote, there's no telling what the adjacent property with no
existing dock could or would propose.
Well, if I'm reading that correctly, it basically is saying there's nothing out here, and because
there's nothing out here, we can't use that space because we don't know what's going to happen in the
future.
So instead of being a plus, which it should be because there's nothing there, and they can build
basically anything they want within the envelope, they're saying they can't because they don't know what
the future is going to hold.
Well --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you a quick question.
MR. BUCKEL: Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So under your analysis, and I totally understand the
argument you're making, but you're still assuming the same size vessel that they're proposing can come in
from the east like that?
MR. BUCKEL: Well, I mean, I -- okay. I'm simply saying a boat --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: A boat.
MR. BUCKEL: -- can come in here. I mean, if they have a 24-foot boat, it can fit in there.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: But the vessel they're -- they have is not 24 feet.
MR. BUCKEL: Understood. And that's exactly the point. Having a big boat is not a special
condition. Okay? A special condition is a permanent structure in the waterway or the seawall. It is
not -- just because you have a big boat doesn't mean that you've satisfied this criteria.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I got it.
MR. BUCKEL: And I understand your point also.
So -- so in this, going back to this staff report, there's no reason why as to the idea that there's
nothing here and we don't know what Mick and Lynn Clark will do in the future. We do know. We
know, if they put a dock up, they're going to have a 15-foot setback that they can't go over.
So we know that petitioners will have 30 feet to back their boat out and into the Gulf, just like the
rest of us, so...
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right, understand.
MR. BUCKEL: My next exhibit, please. So I would take the -- the next one, please.
So what's happening here, I would submit, is that the petitioners are basically trying to bootstrap
themselves into this, satisfying the first criteria under the secondary criteria.
And not only that, I would submit to you that by using the riparian line, rather than the regular
20-foot setback coming in from the other way, they basically are trying to boot -strap themselves into a
47-foot dock when clearly they could get away with something far, far less than that, such as a 30-foot
dock, such as the one it's on now.
So with that I will turn to my second point.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
Do you have the timing going?
MS. PADON: No.
Page 11 of 22
October 26, 2023
MR. BUCKEL: I will just be brief.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
MR. BUCKEL: My second point has to do with the view on the property.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MR. BUCKEL: I will make it quick.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MR. BUCKEL: The view here, as you can see, is to the northwest. This is the view that
everybody enjoys, and you can't necessary -- right there is the Clarks'. You can see that their house has an
opening oriented this way. Petitioners' have an opening oriented that way.
The view on Marlin Bay is to the northwest outside the -- to the bay.
Next, please.
And this point can be brought home by the next slide, which is hard to see the lines, and maybe if
you could turn the lights off.
But what I'm showing here is the view is out this way, and this is the petitioners' current house.
Now, they are going out this way, and they have about a 9-degree angle out Marlin Bay. They currently
are now taking this spot, and this is a 45-degree.
Everybody wants this view. So here's the point. Mr. Rogers says it's only 6 degrees, but there's
6 degrees of what? If you take 6 degrees on this side of someone's view, it's not such a big deal, but if
you take 6 degrees out to the Gulf, that is a big deal because that's their premium view. That's their sunset
view.
People stand on their docks at sunset, and they look out this way. You'll never see them with a
drink in their hand looking out this way.
Next slide, please.
So the impact of this boat lift is going to impact the sunset view that the Clarks have on their view,
so it's their quality view. If it had been impacted over here, it wouldn't be as big a deal, but this is their
view out the bay.
And while 6 degrees doesn't sound like much, if it was 240 degrees, it wouldn't be much, but in
this particular case, they only have 36 total degrees of their sunset view, their primary view; and by taking
this 6 percent is 17 percent of their view is going to be taken away from them.
Next slide, please.
The same analysis with the -- Jeff and Sandy Clark. They have 44 degrees. They are going to
have 10 percent of their view taken away. 10 percent equals -- that's 23 percent of their total sunset view
is going to be taken away.
So I think that's pretty significant, both in terms of quality and quantity, which I think an analysis
has to be done.
And the final point I'd like to make is this. When you get a bigger dock -- and he pointed out that
6 percent makes it a longer boat, but that's -- big docks beget big boats. And in this particular case, it's
not just that the view is wiped out horizontally. The boat is significantly bigger, which makes it vertically
blocking their view.
And because it has a hull shape with a larger freeboard, you can't -- they won't be able to see
around it; they won't be able to see over it; and they're not going to be able to see through it, and the
through it makes -- is important.
The petitioners have a three-story house. The bottom is a washout. The second two they live on.
They will be able to look out over their boat and not be obscured at all.
These people are in single-family homes, and as a result, they're going to be looking up into the
boat. They are going to have to try to see over it, around it.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: They're single -story homes, right? That's what you're
saying, they're single -story, the neighbors?
MR. BUCKEL: They are a single-family home.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah. You said single-family. I know they're
Page 12 of 22
October 26, 2023
single-family.
MR. BUCKEL: I mean single story.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Just wanted to make sure.
MR. BUCKEL: Yeah. Excuse me.
So I pointed that out because the only thing that the Clarks are going to be able to do to retain this
view that they have is to tear their house down and build something up that looks out over the top of the
boat lift.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BUCKEL: Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: By the way, when folks are speaking, just so you know,
I'm writing notes. So don't be offended if I look down or look away or anything like that. I'm listening
to what you're saying. I just wanted to make sure I get some notes down. Okay?
MR. BUCKEL: Fine.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks. Nice presentation.
Who do we have next?
MS. PADON: Our next speaker is Sandra Clark.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning.
MS. CLARK: Good morning. My name is Sandra Clark, and my husband, Jeff Clark, own the
properties at 182 and 186 Tahiti Circle with Jeffs brother, Michael Clark, known as Mick, and his wife,
Lynn.
The home at 186 Tahiti Circle has been in our family for 47 years. We have appreciated and
celebrated our gorgeous views looking northwest out to the entrance of Marlin Bay towards Johnson
Island.
If you could put up Picture 1.
This is the picture of the view I was describing to you. The Isles of Capri is a beautiful residential
community, and Collier County has set limits in place to regulate and control the size of boat docks that
were allowed. This was to preserve, I believe, the natural and pristine waterways and ecosystems that are
around us.
And back in 2014, the property known as 182 Tahiti Circle became available for purchase to us.
This is the view we're looking at now. We knew at some point on 178 Tahiti Circle they could have a
dock, but we assumed it would be the normal 20-foot dock size built there.
This is a stunning view from our residence.
Picture 2, please.
Could my husband speak with me at the same time or is that --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let's just do one at a time --
MS. CLARK: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- if you don't mind.
MS. CLARK: All right. This is a picture here from our property of 186 Tahiti Circle, and this is
the view we have, which would be two houses down from the property that's being built at 178.
And Picture 4, please.
This is a photo that Jeff took last Monday night. And they say a picture can speak 1,000 words.
This is the reason we purchased the property. This is the reason our parents loved living down here.
This is the reason our neighbors are building and moving four houses down to get a better view.
Most importantly, we object to the larger dock boat size obstructing our view from our properties
just adjacent and east of us. With the larger dock and a larger boat, we will have to look into it and up at
it because we are the original ranch homes that were built on the Isles, and we cannot see around it. We
don't have the privilege of having two or three stories to see over it, and it will block a lot of this view
we're looking at.
Picture 3, please.
This is a picture of the boat that will be housed at the proposed variance request location at 178
Page 13 of 22
October 26, 2023
Tahiti Circle. The proposal for the variance state it will have minimal impact on the view adjacent
east -side neighbor's property that's determined by their lines of sight.
As you can see in this photo, this boat is more than just obstructing. It's horizontal and vertical,
and you can't really see around it.
Our neighbors at 194 Tahiti Circle that are just east of this boat dock had no knowledge of the
proposed dock variance being applied for and granted at the time this was built. They are seasonal
owners, who I believe were not here at the time the variance was filed for, and this is the view that they
have and the view that will be obstructed with.
Picture 5, please. No. Another one.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: She'll find it. She always does.
MS. CLARK: Okay. There we go. Thank you.
The approval of this variance will take away our view from Marlin Bay and diminish the views of
others.
The owners were well aware of the limitations of what could be built on the lot before purchase
and chose to assume they could receive a variance.
The basic long-standing position of variances upheld by prior law is that they must either do
nothing that harms others or provide a greater common good than the harm they produce.
This request is neither. What one individual desires for their own benefit in no way is greater
than the other individual's desire for another reason. This variance would devalue our properties while
increasing our neighbors' property value.
Why are we being asked to give up our views from this property that we've had for 47 years?
I could ask you which view you would choose.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, let me stop for a minute here. I'm going to try
to -- so this is the vessel.
MS. CLARK: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: This is the existing dock, and this is your property. So it
looks like it's going to be -- you know, the lines that you're talking about are going to be here?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
MR. DICKMAN: Correct, approximately?
MS. CLARK: Correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay.
All right. Can we make sure that I get copies of all the photographs and imaging?
MS. PADON: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you for allowing me --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you very much. Nice job.
MS. PADON: Our next speaker is Jeffery Clark.
MR. CLARK: Okay. I'm very thankful to my wife for doing most of the presentation because
we were going to try to do it together.
To restate, my name is Jeff Clark. I'm owners 182 and 186, along with my brother, Mick Clark.
So we own both properties. We swap back and forth where we stay at, and so our views change a little
bit.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here.
MR. CLARK: Thank you.
Would you find, I guess, what we call Picture 2, which will be from the view of 186. I just want
to share a few moments of how the family came down here because of our parents.
Take time to breathe a little bit because I do talk fast. Therein lies the problem I have.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: So the court reporter -- can you hear?
THE REPORTER: I was just going to ask the same thing.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, you need to speak up a little bit --
MR. CLARK: Okay.
Page 14 of 22
October 26, 2023
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- so she can capture everything.
MR. CLARK: Wait till she can find the picture there. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. We can leave
that one up there because -- either one. That's perfect, too. Both of these views were from basically 186.
The Clark family home in Southwest Florida was purchased by my parents or our parents, Bill
and Lois Clark, in 1977, so about 47 years ago after they visited the Isles of Capri and they fell in love
with it.
This is the view from the waterfront that we're seeing right now in front of 186 Tahiti Circle
looking in the northwesterly view. The same view that I'm assuming why Ken and Kathleen bought the
property, because of that view next to us.
Okay. Looking out towards the opening of Marlin Bay, this is what you see from the lanai, the
dock and watch the sunsets from.
Here's a little history about my father. He was a contractor in Northern Ohio. He did residential
and light commercial construction for most of his life.
Being a contractor, he was very well versed in zoning and permitting. At that time, the residence
on the west side of us were owned by Bob and Shirley Jurek [phonetic], which is 182 now. They did not
have a dock.
My father was very well permitting -- very well familiar with the dock permitting and size and
totally expected at some time for a dock to be built there to extend the normal 20-foot size that was the
regulations at that time.
So I just want to state that we have been here for 47 years and, hopefully, by the grace of God we
will be there for another 47 years.
And I want to repeat part of what my wife mentioned was the approval of the variance from the
view from Marlin Bay will diminish the view of others within our range right there, where we live.
And -- I'm sorry, take me a moment to get where I'm at here.
The owners were well aware of the limitations that could be built in that lot before they purchased
and chose to assume that they could receive a variance for their boat.
The long basic standing position on the variance upheld by prior law is that they must either do
nothing to harm others or provide a greater good than add harm or a significant safety reason to be granted.
This request does neither, that one's individual desire for their own benefits in no way is greater
than other's individual. This variance would devalue our property while our neighbors' property would
increase.
And I do have one thing that was brought up, which kind of intrigues me, is that they purchased a
boat, sounded like 54-foot, before they were even granted a variance that they previously requested. It
seems that most of their wants overcomes their needs, and their wants infringe upon our rights.
So that's pretty much what I have to say.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Clark. Appreciate that.
MR. CLARK: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thanks for being here.
MR. CLARK: Thank you.
MS. PADON: Our next speaker is Glen Fick.
MR. FICK: Good morning.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning.
MR. FICK: Glen Fick. I'm a charter captain on Isles of Capri. I live at the very end. I don't
have any cool graphics, but I live at the very end of the bay. So it's about a seven -minute idle.
I'm not here to talk about the view. I here to talk about the waterway itself, so I will make this
very brief.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: What's your address?
MR. FICK: 148 Capri Boulevard.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MR. FICK: Yup.
Page 15 of 22
October 26, 2023
So I make approximately 900 to 1,000 trips in and out of the bay a year. Everybody orients
themselves to the north because everybody knows there's a sandbar in the middle.
If you don't orient yourself to the north, at the best you're going to polish your prop; at the worst
you're to run aground. So that is the opposite side of the bay where the Demaret dock in question is going
to be built.
So I just wanted to point out that it should not be a water use issue at all. There's no earthly
reason why that should be a circumstance.
So I will leave it at that. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you.
MS. PADON: Our next speaker is Kathleen Demaret.
MS. DEMARET: Hello. Good morning.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning.
MS. DEMARET: My name is Kathleen Demaret, and I live at 192 Tahiti Circle. My husband
and I built our home in 2014 and live here year around on the Isles of Capri. This is not our seasonal
home. This is not a vacation home, nor a weekend home like some of our neighbors who are opposing
our petition.
We have owned our Intrepid since 2016, and it has been on the dock behind our house for the past
seven years.
Referring to our neighbor, Dick and Kendra, Sandra mentioned them at 194 Tahiti Circle, their
view of sunsets and sunrises do not come from sitting in their backyard. They come from their covered
boat dock. They have beautiful views, and when they're in season, we lower our boat dock -- our boat
lift -- excuse me -- so that they have a better view.
I have lovely views from my current home, and the only reason that we're moving to our new
home is because we wanted to build a different home. We learned what we didn't do right the first time,
and we thought we'd take an opportunity to get it right.
So I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the Clarks, Sandra and Jeff, had submitted a
letter last Sunday, October 27th, against us having our boat and our Sea-Doos moved from our current
home to the dock behind our brand new home, which is approximately 159 steps apart from our current
home.
I know this because I walk my dog, Koda, most mornings and usually meet up with a lot of the
neighbors, one or two at least, along the way, including Sandra and Lynn who just last week brought up
the dock to me and said that they had looked up the petitions, plans, and Lynn said, "We have no problem
with it."
I'm not sure why they changed their heart -- the change of heart, but I know that we are listing our
192 Tahiti Circle home in the next month for sale, and we would like to move our boat and Sea-Doos over
to a completed dock upon receiving our CO.
In closing, I want to thank all of our neighbors and friends that live on our beautiful man-made
Marlin Bay for their support as submitted and on record with John for this hearing.
And I also want to say that we enjoy year -around boating and the outdoor life that comes with
living on the Isles of Capri. It is a very, very special place, and we feel blessed to make it our home.
Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Thank you for being here.
MS. PADON: Our final speaker is Ken Demaret.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Good morning.
MR. DEMARET: Good morning. I live at 192 Tahiti Circle, my wife and myself, Kathleen.
And I just want to make a point that we have had our boat on our bay for over seven years with
zero problems, no complaints. It's been fine.
And our first application we made obviously was denied. Our neighbors didn't care for it. We
have sent them these copies as of months ago of the present design, and they said, quote/unquote, "We'd
rather have this one."
Page 16 of 22
October 26, 2023
We gave them two choices. They said, "We'd rather have this one."
I then went around to all our other neighbors, showed pictures of everything, and I have been
trying to communicate with everybody for the last several months.
And then on the 22nd, we find out there's a problem. We have been here available to talk to, and
it feels like we got a little blind -sided, to be quite honest with you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I hear you.
MR. DEMARET: So that's where we are, and we just want to keep our boat and move it. I
mean, it sounds like they want us to sell our boat and get a smaller boat. That sounds like what they
looking for.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And I just want to be perfectly clear here. So
you're -- essentially the same vessel you have now --
MR. DEMARET: For over seven years.
MR. DICKMAN: -- is going to the new -- to the new lot that you purchased? You are building a
house and --
MR. DEMARET: Yup.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And your wife indicated that, you know, like neighbors
should and do frequently, they cooperate; and it sounded like you lower your boat from time to time to
make sure that -- you know, just trying to minimize the blocking of the -- your neighbor.
MR. DEMARET: Yes. And I think, if you look at the pictures they showed of 194, my boat is
oriented completely different.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. DEMARET: Now it will be oriented this way, rather than this way.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I understand.
MR. DEMARET: Very large difference. And that's what we're trying to do is accommodate
everybody.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, it just gets difficult when --yeah, there are some
spots, and I hate to see this with neighbors against neighbors because, you know, there just are some lots
in some spots that are more desirable.
And it's always -- this one criteria usually is this view criteria of all the criteria that comes up, and
it is something that I -- ends up -- myself, I end up having to grapple with based on all the information
that's being given.
But I appreciate --
MR. DEMARET: And I understand that.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I appreciate you being here. Thank you for the
information.
MR. DEMARET: All right. Thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And have a good day.
So that was our last speaker?
MS. PADON: That is correct.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay, great.
Jeff, do you want to come up? Do you want to address any of these issues?
Thank you. Appreciate that.
MR. ROGERS: Sure. I mean, just to be brief, there was, you know, some things discussed
mostly about view and mostly also about the special conditions.
You know, in rebuttal to some of the special conditions, I mean the dock that's adjacently to our
west is a significant factor on what we could do for staying inside the 20 feet, as well as taking into
consideration any future dock adjacent that would be inside 20 feet as well, which is what they're allowed.
Getting their current vessel in there is just -- you know, it's not feasible; so, therefore, it pushes us
to make a request for a variance, which is why we are here today; and part of the criteria is special
conditions for you to take into consideration, as well as staff.
Page 17 of 22
October 26, 2023
And, you know, staff agreed that, for this particular property, one unique condition is the fact that
that adjacent docking facility is there, is existing and grandfathered. They could rebuild and replace in
exactly the same footprint.
As soon as they change that footprint, they have got to come in compliance. That's just the way
the code is.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right.
MR. ROGERS: So, you know, yeah, we took their fixture -- we always as a firm take anybody
who doesn't have a dock into consideration because they could have a dock. So bringing a boat in,
24-foot or 30-foot or 43-feet, whatever it is, inside the 20 feet from the other direction from the east, you
know, yeah, it leaves us 30 feet of backing distance.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Let me ask you about that because assuming that -- what's
the size of the vessel that the Demarets have? What size vessel is it?
MR. ROGERS: The one that we're --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, that --
MR. ROGERS: 44.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Is it possible -- I'm talking about -- I'm addressing the
special condition issue and specifically the attorney neighbor who is -- who did a very nice job making
argument that it should be parallel to the -- stay within the 20 feet, keep it parallel to the sea wall, and
saying, you know, with the combined setbacks, riparian setbacks that's 30 feet, is that enough space to do
that --
MR. ROGERS: No. Industry --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- for that size vessel?
MR. ROGERS: Industry standard for us that we follow provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is length and a half for a vessel. So 20-foot vessel, 20 feet, plus 10, 30 feet is what you need
for backing the safe navigational dimensions.
So all of that was taken into consideration, and with their current existing vessel, there's no way to
provide that backing distance from east or west within the 20 feet.
And also another thing that I just thought of, I could show you on my aerials, but you have record
of it, is most of the docks on this bay are, you know, perpendicular to angled slip design.
The boathouse right next to us on the east -- west side of us -- excuse me -- is actually a
bow -- bow -in. So it's not parallel. It's not at an angle. It's a straight shot in, but it's a much smaller
vessel, so the protrusion is less.
However, he does have a boat roof over it as well. So there are visualizations and things that do
hamper views.
Boathouses are becoming more common, and the code does allow them in places like Isles of
Capri and Vanderbilt Lagoon, things like that where their lot lines are tight, and your neighbor is right
there. So a boathouse would provide additional obstruction of view.
So, you know, the visualization that they provided with the photo of the vessel, where it's currently
moored, I want to also touch on the fact that we have taken that into consideration, too, because the view is
more -- the impact to the view in my opinion is more elongated with the design where we would back out
eastward over the shared riparian lines with the Clarks and be common with what they currently have at
192.
So by doing it the other direction, they see just the bow and not as much of a parallel side view of
the vessel. Yes --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Excuse me for a minute.
Is somebody speaking? I can't -- it's distracting me a little bit. Sorry.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I gotcha.
We're not saying there won't bean impact, never have said that. We just feel it's not a major
impact to their current existing view, especially with the design of it being more looking at the bow and
not the side view of a billboard, so to speak.
Page 18 of 22
October 26, 2023
That's really it.
And also, yeah, the boat, I do want to touch on. They did order the boat last -- in the last petition
before having approval, right.
That's common practice from my experience because it takes 12 months to 18 months, two years,
to even get a boat. So you order the boat, go through the petition. It gets denied; you back out, which is
exactly what the Demarets did and tried to accommodate their neighbors.
So that being said --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, let me address that for a minute --
MR. ROGERS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- because we have talked about that. I mean one of the
interesting things about the getting a dock facility variance is the need -- is the need, and the need is you
have a boat.
It's not that -- you can't just come in and say we don't have a boat but we're thinking about having
a boat because you don't -- you know, it's -- you know, so I have to take it on, well, I have frequently asked
you do they own the boat.
MR. ROGERS: Right.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Have they put -- you know, where are they in the boat
purchase and things like that. So it's a little bit of an anomaly, but it is driven by the need. In part, the
need for the extension is because you have a larger vessel, have it --
MR. ROGERS: Right.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- or at least are getting it.
MR. ROGERS: No, I totally understand, and I agree with you. You and I have -- on a different
petition we have discussed this, and it is -- the criteria or the application, I think, does say what vessel are
they proposing to keep there --
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: -- I think it states. So that's where we can say, "Okay, the vessel is on order.
They are going to propose to keep this boat here."
In this case, they own the boat. They have eliminated the other future vessel and just want to
relocate it to their new property.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Right.
And we have talked about this also in the past, you know, boats just seem to be getting bigger --
MR. ROGERS: Yeah.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- or, you know, the desire for them, and I think that you
have mentioned in the past that they're becoming easier to drive, basically, to operate, right?
MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: And they have outboard engines, so -- and there's other
areas of the County this is -- there's a lot of pressure. This exact same dialogue has happened in other
areas of the County because boats just seem to be more -- larger boats seem to be more prevalent with the
outboards. Am I wrong or --
MR. ROGERS: No. You're 100 percent correct, and, again, I'll reiterate this to you. What's
driving these larger vessels is the engine manufacturers coming up larger horsepowers in a smaller outfit in
regards to the motor.
So they're able to hang multiple outboards on the back that have significant horsepower to move
the larger vessels, which is newer technology, because these larger vessels used to be powered by diesel
inboard motors, typically, which, you know, bigger engine rooms below, deeper draft and the props are on
the bottom of the vessel, which increase your draft.
So the outboards have gotten stronger, but they also allow you to go into shallower areas,
man-made canals where there is control depth at 4 feet with these larger boats.
And some of these boats have, three, four, five, six, seven, eight motors these days. It's insane
but that's -- that's the industry and that's what's happening.
Page 19 of 22
October 26, 2023
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Yeah, and so what's interesting here from a -- and I don't
make policy. This is absolutely not what I'm here to do. But these neighborhoods -- and this is not the
only one. There's a couple of neighborhoods in the County where this type of dialogue we have had many
a times.
They were platted back when, you know, a 20-, 25-foot vessel was probably the only vessel you
would want to put back there, but as you just stated, the technology of boats have changed, but we're not
changing the, you know, the size of the lots and --
MR. ROGERS: Right.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: -- things of that nature. So it's -- it's not a policy decision
that I am required to determine, but that is what's happening. That is a trend, a trend that's happening.
I guess you could always compare it to if it were the other way around where someone wanted to
put an RV in their yard, and that would be the same situation.
So the lots were built, platted and set up at a time when boats in the box, the 20-foot outbox, the
box that set with the side yards -- with the riparian setbacks is essentially from -- I would guess that these
were platted back in the '60s.
MR. ROGERS: '50s or'60s.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I don't know how old these lots are. They were set up
based on a policy when boats were 20, 25 feet in length in a single-family residential area.
And now the trend is and the technology is different. Boats are lighter, as you said, and the
outboards are -- you know, they can be trimmed up.
So it's a very interesting, unique thing, and I will say this is not the first time I've had this
conversation. There are at least three or four different spots in the County where these issues have come
UP.
MR. ROGERS: You made me think of something, if you don't mind real quick. Back in the
day, you know, larger boats, diesel motors, bigger drafts, they couldn't get to these lots back in the day
because of the draft they take. So a lot of these larger boats would be kept at marinas.
The outboard industry has changed in regards to now these larger boats can actually physically
drive up to a single-family lot in the Vanderbilt Lagoon, getting through Wiggins Pass, which is a very
shallow, restrictive waterway, as well as some of the shoals around Isles of Capri.
So now these boats are typically used to be found at a marina because of their draft, but now they
can bring them here, and it's -- it's not going away.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it.
MR. ROGERS: This is not going away.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: I get it. I understand that.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah. So thank you.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Anything else you wanted to mention?
MR. ROGERS: No. No, sir. If you have any more questions...
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. All right. I don't.
I do want to -- does the County have anything else they want to add before we wrap things up?
MR. KELLY: No, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER DICKMAN: Okay. Thanks, John.
I just want to make sure I can get copies of all the exhibits. I mean, the neighbors had some really
nice -- they did some really good analyses. The photographs were really helpful for me, so I want to
make sure I get copies of those. Those are important.
And I just --again, you know, you heard that exchange that I just had with Mr. Rogers. I just
want the neighbors to understand that this is a conversation that I have had in other areas of the County.
There are -- it is becoming a situation especially for specific lots where -- and it's usually view is the issue,
and so this is not an uncommon -- it's something that's happening.
It's a trend that's happening, and it's coming before me, and I don't make the laws about how these
things are.
Page 20 of 22
October 26, 2023
Fortunately, the criteria is primary, secondary. It's not just one criteria, so it's not a completely
black and white decision. You know, things have to be weighed and looked at from different points of
view.
So when you look at these criteria, you know, part of it is oriented towards navigation and whether
there's room in the waterway and whether it's going to create a safety hazard or a problem.
Part of it is for the applicant themselves, you know, can they access the boat and so forth and so
on? Is there too much decking? And, of course, view; view is a big one.
And then, you know, it was -- we talked about the special condition. That's -- that's very akin to
your traditional variance. Is there a hardship?
But just like every hardship case, it's not based on precedent, and it's not setting precedent.
Everything is taken on a case -by -case basis. So I have to evaluate this on its own merits based on the
evidence, not based on any prior decisions or whether or not this is going to trigger more bigger boats or
anything like that.
With variances, so to speak, you have to look at it from a case -by -case basis, and it doesn't -- it
can't be used in the future to justify, you know, having -- you know, like, let's say a couple months from
now and say, "Well, you approved all these other ones, so you have to approve this."
We have had that conversation too. That doesn't hold water. It's a case -by -case basis.
So these are tricky cases. These are hard decisions to make, but I do think that everybody that
spoke here today, the County, the neighbors, the applicant, everybody did a really nice job, and I want to
thank you for doing that.
You really highlighted the issues on both sides very nicely, and I appreciate everybody's civility as
well. You know, again, this is an emotional issue and a tricky issue, especially when you're dealing with
neighbors that, again, you have to live in a neighborhood together. So there is that relationship.
So thank you very much for that. With that, I have nothing else to say.
Everyone have a wonderful day. Have a good Halloween as well. Thank you. We're
adjourned.
Page 21 of 22
October 26, 2023
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Hearing
Examiner at 10:31 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
ANDREW DICKMAN, HEARING EXAMINER
11 /21 /23
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on , as presented
I/ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY SUSAN
SIMONETTI, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 22 of 22
From: Kathleen Demaret <kathleen.demaret@demaretconsulting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 9:23 AM
To: John Kelly
Subject: RE: Missing Dock Letter for Demaret Extension PL20230003459
Attachments: Dock letter.pdf; Dock letter,..pdf; June Ltr.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.
Good morning John,
Finally, the remaining signed letters for the record.
Thank you,
Kathleen
---- On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:39:24 -0400 John Kelly<John.Kell ly@colIiercountyfl.gov>
wrote ---
Hi Kathleen,
The Hearing Examiner will take his usual 30 days to render his decision;
there's nothing unusual about that. I'd appreciate it if you'd send me all three
e-mails at the same time. The one that you sent the evening prior to the
meeting that didn't make it into the record and those from Sears and the
Krolczyk. It just makes for a cleaner file. We shouldn't drag our feet but
there's not a big rush either. Thanks...
Respectfully,
John Yeffy
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/ColIierZoning
Co)*er County
Growth Management
Community Development Department
Zoning Division
From: Kathleen Demaret<kathleen.demaret@demaretconsulting.com>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 9:20 AM
To: John Kelly <John.Kelly@colliercountyfl.gov>
Cc: Ken Demaret <kid5358@gmail.com>
Subject: Missing Dock Letter for Demaret Extension PL20230003459
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.
Good Morning John,
Attached is the letter from our neighbor across the bay, Randy & Tara Sears.
I have reached out to TJ and Colleen Krolczyk.... they are on vacation in Cabo
San Lucas, but she did text me. I requested her to resend the signed letter to
me and I would forward it on to you.
I believe they will return to the states this week and hopefully she can resend
their letter.
Also, we have the sign for the hearing inside our garage at 192 Tahiti Circle.
Let Ken or me know when you want to stop by and pick it up.
Thank you,
Kathleen Demaret
(239)238-8867
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.
Date ( } 7
To Whom It May Concern,
I. k� �CZ live at 1Le I.�;, � ��� �'► ��� � ��i�
which is onlnearladlkent to the subject waterway as the proposed
docking facility located 178 Tah4j Circle_ I have Fuller reviewed the
proposed dock design that is being requested within PL fl 8gg084 9-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request.
Sincerely,
Date
To Whom It May Concern,
I, live at
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 PL20230003459-
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request.
Sincerely,
Date 2 Z Z 3
To Whom It May Concern,
1, 14 P Cz b OL iv) I- + live at 14 6 CAx � r I i�3 � I
J
which is onlnearladjaGent 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 000 4 -
BDE Application and fully support this dock extension request_
Sincerely,
I
Qn CD
m
0
bC
N N
(p
CD
N � x
From: Sandra <clarkj@centurytel.net>
CDCD
C,
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 11:13 AM
G)
To: John Kelly
m
CD
Subject: Fwd: Jeff Clark dock extension
m
r*,
O
N
N
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use
r
CD
W
extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
9
Sent from my iPhone
Subject: Jeff Clark dock extension
From: clarki@centurytel.net
Date: October 22, 2023 at 9:01:36 PM EDT
To: iclar54@gmail.com
To: iohn.kellyCa�colliercountyfl.gov
Cc:
Mr. John Kelly
Sr. Planner
Dear Sir,
We are OPPOSED to granting the boat
dock extension #p120230006459 at the
resident address listed at 178 Tahiti
Circle, Isle of Capri, Naples, Fl.
It is clear that a boat dock of this size was
never intended for the small bays we have
in our natural waterways of the Isle of
Capri.
There is also a Sandbar that runs the
length of the opening to Marlin Bay. We
are concerned over the effect that this
large dock extension
would have over the present sandbar, due
to the effect that water currents have
around a new structure, such as a large
dock that extends into the bay. This
sandbar does affect our passage into the
main waterways during low tide.
The proposal also lists that there are no
seagrass beds in the area. When our dock
was built 45 years ago, the structures
were very limited in size to protect the
natural waterways and ecosystems. We
wonder why all the seagrass beds have
disappeared in our bay. The Isle of Capri
is beautiful residential area that appears
to be damaged by all the variances and
extensions on boat docks that have been
allowed over the years.
And most importantly, obstructing view
to the properties on the east side of the
proposal. We have adjacent properties
that will be most definitely affected by
this large extension. Our view from both
of our properties extends across Marlin
Bay and to Johnson Island.
The developers of the Isle of Capri
incorporated this vision with the creation
of our beautiful Isle. They set aside
residential areas with waterfronts that
have minimal dockage and a commercial
area marina with larger dockage for
larger vessels and fishing businesses to
exist. Thereby creating and keeping our
pristine natural bays in view for all to
enjoy.
We sincerely hope that you consider all
views on objecting this proposal to extend
a boat dock 47 ft. into Marlin bay. We will
be registering to speak at the hearing.
Sincerely,
Sandra and Jeffrey Clark
182 Tahiti Circle
186 Tahiti Circle
Isle of Capri
Naples, Fl. 34113
#440-864-5616
From: jeff cark <jclar54@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 5:59 PM
To: John Kelly
Subject: 178 Tahiti Circle dock variance
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.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Mr Kelly.
Good afternoon.
We just became aware of the dock variance request for
#P120230006459 at 178 Tahiti Circle on the Isle of Capri.
I wish to go on record opposing the request for a variance for a dock
extension for 178 Tahiti Circle as it is now submitted. My name is
Michael Clark and own both 186 and 182 Tahiti Circle. Our properties
are the most negatively impacted by this proposal. Our family has
owned 186 for over 40 years. Over the years we have seen many
changes affecting our island, some good others not so good. The idea of
SUPERSIZING our docks is not good.
In reference to the Staff Reports for 178 Tahiti Circle I wish to make the
following comments:
A sandbar exists in the center of the entrance channel to Marlin Bay and
from mid to low tide must be passed close to the seawall, the dock
variance will hinder navigation.
Secondary criteria- 182 Tahiti Circle will lose approximately 50% of its
current view of Johnson Bay and 186 will lose approximately 25% of its
current view. The majority of homes on Marlin Bay will also be
negatively impacted if the variance is granted. With a decreased view
we will also experience a reduction in property value while the larger
dock will increase their property value.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE LOOKING AT A LARGE OSTRUCTION OR
DOCK BLOCKING YOUR VIEW???
We are planing to be in attendance on Thursday. I wish my brother Jeff
Clark and his wife Sandra to speak for me.
Respectfully,
Mick Clark
182/186 Tahiti Circle
ladymclyn(a yahoo.com
From: Suzanne lambert <suzannelambert3@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:35 PM
To: John Kelly
Subject: Re: Objection to Dock Extension - BD-PL20230006459 - 178 Tahiti
Cir
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.
182 Tahiti Circle
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2023, at 10:00 AM, John Kelly<John.Keily@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote:
Greetings Ms. Lambert,
It would be appreciated if you would please provide me with the address of your
residence so that it can be provided to the Hearing Examiner together with your letter
of objection. Were you able to view the proposed dock plans? Please note that the
Hearing Examiner is holding a public hearing for the proposed Boat Dock Extension
petition at 9:00 A.M. on Thursday, October 26, 2023, at the Growth Management
Community Development Department building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, just
north of the Naples Municipal Airport. You're welcome to attend in person or you may
opt to attend remotely via Zoom, by registering at https://bit.IV/102623HEX. The
deadline to register is 8:00 a.m. on October 26. Individuals who register will receive an
email in advance of the meeting detailing how they can participate. Remote
participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not
responsible for technical issues. The meeting materials are available for viewing at
http://colliercountVfl.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2201. The
information available on this website is the same material being provided to the Hearing
Examiner for the hearing. The subject project is identified as Agenda Item 3.A and each
of the listed attachments is a clickable hyperlink to the specified documents.
Thank you for your correspondence. Again, please reply with your address so that it can
be provided to the Hearing Examiner. Feel free to contact me should you need
additional information.
Respectfully,
,7ohn Teffy
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@colliercountyfLacy
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at
http://bit.IV/CollierZoning
<Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg>
-----Original Message -----
From: Suzanne lambert <suzannelambert3@icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:56 AM
To: John Kelly<1ohn.KeIIV@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Objection to Dock Extension
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender
and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Hello Mr. Kelly,
I wanted to reach out and submit my opposition to the dock variance request for
#P120230006459 at 178 Tahiti Circle on the Isles of Capri. Our Landlord /friends
informed me of the above request which has huge implications for our rental home on
Isles of Capri. I was surprised to hear that the neighbors were again requesting a dock
extension that could hinder safe navigation out of the bay as well as obstructing the
beautiful views for several residents. I hope you will consider our opposition to this
proposal so residents can continue to enjoy the the views and safe use of the bay. The
owners of the home have had their home for over 50 years and do not deserve to have
their access and views hindered by this extensive dock extension request.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Lambert
Sent from my iPhone
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.
From: Laura Mason <I.clark.mason @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:31 PM
To: John Kelly
Subject: Re: Dock extension opposition BD-PL20230006459 - 178 Tahiti Cir
Attachments: image001.png
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.
Thank you for reaching out.
Here is the address:
186 Tahiti Circle
Isle of Capri, Naples FL 34113
Thanks,
Laura Mason
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 11:25 AM John Kelly<John.KeIIV@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote:
Greetings Ms. Mason,
It would be appreciated if you would please provide me with the address of your residence so that it
can be provided to the Hearing Examiner together with your letter of objection. Were you able to view
the proposed dock plans? Please note that the Hearing Examiner is holding a public hearing for the
proposed Boat Dock Extension petition at 9:00 A.M. on Thursday, October 26, 2023, at the Growth
Management Community Development Department building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, just north
of the Naples Municipal Airport. You're welcome to attend in person or you may opt to attend
remotely via Zoom, by registering at https://bit.ly/102623HEX. The deadline to register is 8:00 a.m. on
October 26. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the meeting detailing how they
can participate. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is
not responsible for technical issues. The meeting materials are available for viewing at
http://colliercountVfl.igm2.com/Citizens/`Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2201. The information available on
this website is the same material being provided to the Hearing Examiner for the hearing. The subject
project is identified as Agenda Item 3.A and each of the listed attachments is a clickable hyperlink to
the specified documents.
Thank you for your correspondence. Again, please reply with your address so that it can be provided to
the Hearing Examiner. Feel free to contact me should you need additional information.
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@colliercountvfl.aov
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning
From: Laura Mason <I.clark.mason @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 11:22 AM
To: John Kelly<John.Kelly@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Dock extension opposition
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use
extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Hello Mr. Kelly,
I wanted to reach out and submit my opposition to the dock variance request for #P120230006459 at
178 Tahiti Circle on the Isles of Capri. My grandparents bought the house over 40 years ago. Over the
years, my parents would take my sister and I to Florida to enjoy family time. As a child, I would play on
our dock watching dolphins and manatees while catching any creature I could find, creating my own
little zoo of minnows, starfish, sponges, and more. I am now a grown adult with children of my own. I
would love for them to learn about the Florida wildlife through playing from our family's dock. Sadly,
that will change with the obstruction of our view and wildlife not thriving in the area like it use to. Our
canal is narrow and has a sandbar at the opening. A large dock would make it more difficult and unsafe
to navigate. If this proposed dock was allowed, then a dock of the same size would be allowed across
the canal, making it impossible to get through unless the city dug a new canal through the sandbar.
That sand bar is a home or sanctuary to many of Florida's wildlife. I hope that you can consider my
opposition to this dock extension. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Laura Mason
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.
From:
John Kelly
Sent:
Wednesday, October 25, 2023 11:06 AM
To:
'Kaitlin Mack'
Subject: RE: Opposition to Dock Variance/Extension - BD-PL20230006459 -
178 Tahiti Cir
Greetings Ms. Mack,
It would be appreciated if you would please provide me with the address of your residence so that it can
be provided to the Hearing Examiner together with your letter of objection. Were you able to view the
proposed dock plans? Please note that the Hearing Examiner is holding a public hearing for the
proposed Boat Dock Extension petition at 9:00 A.M. on Thursday, October 26, 2023, at the Growth
Management Community Development Department building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, just north
of the Naples Municipal Airport. You're welcome to attend in person or you may opt to attend remotely
via Zoom, by registering at htt13s://bit.ly/102623HEX. The deadline to register is 8:00 a.m. on October 26.
Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the meeting detailing how they can
participate. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user's risk. The County is not
responsible for technical issues. The meeting materials are available for viewing at
http://collicrcountytl.igm2.coin/Citizens/Detail Meetina.aspx?ID=2201. The information available on
this website is the same material being provided to the Hearing Examiner for the hearing. The subject
project is identified as Agenda Item 3.A and each of the listed attachments is a clickable hyperlink to the
specified documents.
Thank you for your correspondence. Again, please reply with your address so that it can be provided to
the Hearing Examiner. Feel free to contact me should you need additional information.
Respectfully,
John Feffy
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.Kell}�ccolliercountvtl.Qov
Tell as how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning
orpleY C0141Ity
Growth Management
Community Development Department
-----Original Message -----
From: Kaitlin Mack<1caitlin.macic7613LmLyinail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:34 PM
To: John Kelly <John.I cll��colliercountyfl.L_,ov>
Subject: Opposition to Dock Variance/Extension
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use
extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Hello Mr. Kelly,
I wanted to reach out and submit my opposition to the dock variance request for #P120230006459 at
178 Tahiti Circle on the Isles of Capri. My family informed me of the above request which has huge
implications for our beloved homes on Isles of Capri. I was saddened to hear that the neighbors were
requesting a dock extension that could hinder safe navigation out of the bay as well as obstructing the
beautiful views for several residents. My grandparents built 186 Tahiti circle over 40 years ago. Their
passion for this beautiful isle was evident by the time they spent in this community. My family treasures
the home and legacy my grandparents have gifted us. I worry the proposed dock variance will cause
further destruction of the natural waterways, disturb the vibrant ecosystem surrounding our homes,
and decrease our property values. I hope you will consider our opposition to this proposal so my family
and future generations can continue to enjoy the "postcard worthy" views and natural wonder and
beauty of our bay.
Respectfully,
Kaitlin and David Mack
From; John Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:15 PM
To: 'GERALDINE KENTGEN'
Subject: RE: Objection to Dock Extension BD-PL20230006459 - 178
Tahiti Cir
Greetings Ms. Kentgen,
It would be appreciated if you would please provide me with the address of your residence so that it can
be provided to the Hearing Examiner together with your letter of objection. Please note that the Hearing
Examiner is holding a public hearing for the proposed Boat Dock Extension petition at 9:00 A.M. on
Thursday, October 26, 2023, at the Growth Management Community Development Department building
at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, just north of the Naples Municipal Airport. You're welcome to attend in
person or you may opt to attend remotely via Zoom, by registering at httus://bit.ly/102623HEX. The
deadline to register is 8:00 a.m. on October 26. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance
of the meeting detailing how they can participate. Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is
at the user's risk. The County is not responsible for technical issues. The meeting materials are available
for viewing at htip:Hcoll.iercountyfl.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2201. The information
available on this website is the same material being provided to the Hearing Examiner for the hearing.
The subject project is identified as Agenda Item 3.A and each of the listed attachments is a clickable
hyperlink to the specified documents.
Thank you for your correspondence. Again, please reply with your address so that it can be provided to
the Hearing Examiner. Feel free to contact me should you need additional information.
Respectfully,
,7ohn 7,effy
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: folin.Kcl]yrcollicreounl
Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning
Co 1e-r County
Growth Management
Community Development Department
Z Wing €] m on
-----Original Message -----
From: GERALDINE KENTGEN <aeraldi618@,aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:01 PM
To: John Kelly <John.Kellya,colliercountyflZv>
Subject: Objection to Dock Extension
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.
Good Morning Mr Kelly:
I would like to reach out & submit my opposition to the dock variance request for
#P1202300006459 at 178 Tahiti Circle on the Isles of Capri. I have been informed of the above request
and I want you to know this will hinder the owner's ability for future rentals. Part of my selection for this
house is the beautiful view from the pool area as well as safe navigation out of the bay.
I am requesting you to consider our my opposition to this proposal so all residents can continue to enjoy
the views and safe use of the bay.
For you information the owners of the house have had their home for over 50 years and do not deserve
to have their access and view hindered by the extensive dock extension.
Geraldine Kentgen
Sent from my iPhone