HEX Final Decision 2024-26HEX NO. 2024-26
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
April 259 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. BDE- PL20230013185 —1139 Chokoloskee Dr —Request fora 62-foot boat dock
extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100
feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 82 feet into
a waterway that is 1,573f feet wide. The subject property is located at 1139 Chokoloskee
Drive, northwest of the intersection of Chokoloskee Drive and Parkway Village in
Chokoloskee, in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 62-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 82
feet into a waterway that is 1,573± feet wide, for the benefit of the subject property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the
Collier County of Ordinances,8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The public hearing was conducted in the following manner: the County Staff presented the
Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, public comment and then
rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no objections to this
item at the public hearing. There were two letters of support added to the record at the public
hearing, which included a letter of no objection from Rodney Raffield of 1125 Chokoloskee
Drive and a letter of no objection from Patty and Damas Kirk of 1143 Chokoloskee Drive.
Page 1 of 7
5. The County's Land Development Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility
extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boat dock
extension request if it is determined that at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria, and at
least four (4) of the six (6) secondary criteria have been met.'
Primary Criteria:
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation
to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property.
Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are
the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be
appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-
family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
The record evidence and testimony jiom the public heap°ing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. A duplex is actively being constructed at the subject location via Building
Permit No. PRFH2O230313405. Based upon the subject criterion and the provided
definitions, a duplex is comprised of tu�o dwelling units and not three thus four slips (ri)o
for each dwelling unit) are appropriate.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general
length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or
moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish
that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s)
described without an extension.)
The record evidence and testimony fiomthe public hearing reflects that t1�e criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "As it stands, the pi°oposed vessels would
likely have isszres getting on and off the lifts at dead low tide without an extension. The
iVater depths at the site are such that the proposed configuration is the optimal design
available for ingress, egress, and storage of vessels on boat lifts. Any other lift
configuration within the typical protrusion limit inside the applicant's riparian area poses
even greater issues ivith water depths or public navigation. "
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an
adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any
marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "There is no marked channel at or adjacent
to the proposed project location. Therefore, no marked or° navigable channels will be
affected by the proposed project. "
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the
waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock
facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the
required percentages.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject waterway is 1,573 feet wide and the proposed protrusion is 82
feet or 5 percent of the waterway. There is no dock facility on the opposite shore, nor is
there expected to be one; therefore, approximately 95 percent of the waterway remains
clear for navigation.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would
not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the
use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing rejlects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "There is only one neighboring dock facilio)
that is near the proposed dock. This dock belongs to the north neighbor and is
approximately I10 feet away at the nearest point. This distance is great enough so that
neither the subject propero) owners nor the north neighbor• should have any issues
navigating to and from their respective docks. The south neighbor does not presently have
a fimctioning dock. Hoivever, the dockproposed tender this petition should not impact their
ability to build or use a dock, should they desire to do so. "
Secondary Criteria:
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject
property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed
dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these
may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth,
or seagrass beds.)
The record evidence and testimony ji°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "The unique conon of this propert��
primarily relates to the shoreline configuration at the site, which consists of a vertical
seaivall, a boat ramp, and a very long and slight slope of ground elevations waterivard of
the mean high water line (MHWL) (i.e., a very large plane of shallow water depths).
Although water depths themselves can be problematic in designing any dock, in this case,
it is the extent to which the shallow ~-Haters extend that makes this site particularly difficult.
In essence, it is the extension of the shoreline that is the difficulty here. Dredging to ample
depths ivould be very expensive and environmentally damaging. " The Hearing Examiner
agrees.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not
directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.)
Page 3 of 7
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "The proposed facilio) will utilize only 480
square feet of decking, ivhich is substantially smaller than many of the docks in the area.
The main access walkway is 4 feet in width, and the fingers are only 2 feet in width. The
only area of substantial decking is the terminal platform, which we opine is needed for
loading, unloading, storage of recreational water4-dependent items, launching of kayaks or
paddleboards, and other recreational uses. This configuration is also consistent with
aquatic preserve rules, which comprise some of our state's most restrictive construction
gzridelines. We therefore believe the decking proposed is not excessive. " The Hearing
Examiner agrees.
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's
linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEENMET. While County Staff notes that "the subject criteria does not specifically
address duplexes; therefore, this situation is somewhat unique. The proposed dockfacility
has been designed to accommodate four 25 foot LOA vessels, which would exceed 50
percent of the 110 foot shoreline. " Still, this is purely a mathematical calculation and the
proposed boat dock does not meet the criteria as proposed.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of
a neighboring property owner.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hear°ing r°effects that the cr°iter•ion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "The pr°oposed dock will be located in a
similar configuration to that which was on the site historically. It ivill also be similar in
design to the Surrounding docks. The dock is consistent with zoning and the future land use
of the site. Therefore, our opinion is that any change in views caused by the project will be
minimal and certainly not major. "
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds
are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The submerged resources survey provided indicates that r�o seagrass beds
exist within 200 feet of the proposed dock, and the proposed dock facility will not impact
them.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of
subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
Page 4 of 7
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is not
tpplicable. LDC Section 5.03.06.E.II stipulates that "multi -slip dockingfacilities with ten
or more slips ivill be reviewed for consistency with the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP). "
The proposed project is for a private four -slip docking facility serving a duplex in
Chokoloskee. The proposed facility does not have more than ten slips and is not subject to
review for consistency with the MPP.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of
this request. The property is located adjacent to an ST overlay zone, which will require an ST-
permit for the proposed docking facilities prior to issuance of the building permit. The proposed
docking facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing seawalled shoreline. The shoreline
does not contain vegetation. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no
submerged resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility. Exhibit sheet page
6 of 8 provides an aerial with a note stating that no seagrasses were observed within 200 feet.
This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review because it
did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article
VIII, Division 23, Section 24193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 5.03.06.1-1
of the Land Development Code to approve/deny Petition. The Petition meets 5 out of 5 of the
primary criteria and 4 out of 6 secondary criteria, with one criterion being not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20230013185, filed by Nick
Pearson of Bayshore Marine Consulting, LLC, representing Garwin Brown, Jody Brown, and
Pavlo Joannou, with respect to the property described as 295 West Avenue, further described as
1139 Chokoloskee Drive, northwest of the intersection of Chokoloskee Drive and Parkway Village
in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• The subject property comprises 0.46 acres located within a Village Residential (VR)
Zoning District, upon which a duplex is being constructed per Building Permit No.
PRFH2O230313405, issued on August 28, 2023, and is in "Inspect" status. The rectangular
lot measures I I I feet by 220 feet, located on the western edge of the island of Chokoloskee.
The parcel's waterfront consists of 90 feet of vertical seawall, and the remainder is
comprised of a boat ramp. The remnants of a destroyed dock, mostly aged pilings, remain.
The petitioner desires to fully remove said remnants and construct a similarly situated dock
Page 5 of 7
facility with four slips, two for each dwelling unit. The proposed dock facility will be
respected within the required 1546ot side/riparian setbacks.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Proposed Dock
Plans attached as Exhibit "B", and the Building Permit No. PRFH20230313405 attached as Exhibit
"C", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B — Proposed Dock Plans
Exhibit C — Building Permit No. PRFH20230313405
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The Northerly 111 feet of the following described parcel of land: Commencing at a stake on the
West Side of island of Chokoloskee two hundred ninety five (295) feet southwesterly from where
the North boundary of Lot Ten (10) of Smallwoods's Division reaches Chokoloskee Bay; thence
run two hundred fifty-five (255) feet along waters edge of said Bay; thence Easterly along a curved
line two hundred fifty-five (255) feet; thence Northerly one hundred eighty (180) feet; thence
Northwesterly to Bay and Point of Beginning, in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East,
as shown by map or plat on file and recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 27, Collier County, Records.
CONDITIONS.
l . All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
Page 6 of 7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
May 15.2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
I
z �^
� O
t
_ 0 0
O
ce)N
O -
2 w Z Z•Z9 m
N O LL
0 2 N h
❑ O " 09
b'29 N f N 33 6b
_°
Q ° !e Q
U f 3
b
3a
39
0 a
W
(A)Lm
O �
Z
O
U
7
0
0
2I Poonylew 2IQP"�� S
,h
O-�P o
w
a
mi
Q
0
SEEMS
O
J
LL
LL
O
W
SEEMS
I--
1)
W
J
J
O
U
t
'FI
6,
z;
;i
�j
f
II
s
I `
M 0
Q' r (� W
Z13
W M p z
W J W
WLLI �Z
NJ OY r` h aO
O 00 m Z
Yo rM �w
W ?O �M W Qfn
J !n W MO O N00 S<ZZ
OCM tM[1 N U N Z f) a
H
Z J U
w w 3:
W
a wo �W�
z E o o� oNz
O z( Q D0 wlvw 0
z o � z rMN
C:lBayshore Marine ConsuNing120047.00 -Brown - 1t09 Chokoloskea Dr1CAD1PERMfT-CONNTY10olller BDE s¢t-BMC.dwg LOCATION MAP 4/232014
I
W
w
lL
Q
Z
N
w
Q
U
0
L-]
—i I
x x x
Q
U
Qm
z U
p
w r
w
o U w z
Z Z z r
Q t
J w• o O w
oam
p d.
� w
w �
O
LL
Z U
a F. x aN
z waX< ?x
w
ow
k aiaa w= •�ne��?..
w ZowUo �'pWZ 7S
p UC)w wi mU2
LL p O w N 2 K U
K y¢ y w Q Q y LL
mo=w<3 3wo
z pazw oow¢�
a3 000 jam<<0W
K p wZpLLF?�w]m
WOQU?O<=�OOLL
V%Iw F3Mwoo22oo
�F?¢<w3F Mpp
J�Q
-s
N
w
w
IL
o
z
T
w
J
Q
C,1
N
N
0
LU Ur J
W m Z Q
J U
W
Y CD z X w
U Z Y Q W U)
W U ,
wv
•
`\//`
c
cam: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --,
i� i/------------------------------
E
rI
O
O
J�
2i
$
o
z�
wp
-Brown • 1109 Ohokolosk¢e Or1CAD1PERM1!-COUNTV10ollicr BDE set-BMC,tlwg CROSS SECTION AA 1f2312024
P
n-i
:.� f `+
Y
J
m
PRFH2023031340501
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PERMIT #: PRFx2oz3031340501 PERMIT TYPE: Building
DATE ISSUED: August 28, 2023
BUILDING CODE IN EFFECT: FBC 7th Edition 2020 w/ 2022 sup2
JOB ADDRESS: 1139 Chokoloskee DR, Chokoloskee
FOLIO
JOB DESCRIPTION: New construction of a Duplex
[ROOFING TYPE: Metal
1139 Chokoloskee DR, Chokoloskee
OWNER INFORMATION:
BROWN, GARWIN & JODY PAVLO JOANNOU
2613 NE 28TH CT
LIGHTHOUSE PT, FL 33064
AREA OF WORK (SOFTY 5000
SETBACKS:
FRONT: 35from AE REAR: 30' from MHWLPrmcipal/ 20' accessory LEFT: 15'
FLOOD ZONE: VE
SEWER: Sewer
WATER New
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: CERTIFICATE #:
PRINCE BUILDING CORPORATION LCC20200001798
231 NORTHWEST 1 IOTH WAY
CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33701
(305)923-1046
RIGHT: 15'