HEX Final Decision 2024-37HEX NO. 2024-37
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 27, 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20220005688 —Request fora 39-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 private multi -family boat docking facility with eight slips protruding
up to 59 feet into a waterway that is 447 feet wide. The subject property is located at 9724
Gulf Shore Drive in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 39-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet, to allow the construction of a private multi -family boat docking facility with eight slips
protruding up to 59 feet into a waterway that is 447± feet wide. This is a companion application
with Petition No. VA-PL20230000021.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the
Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with ail
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 was one speaker from the
public, Ken Keltner, as well as letters of objection from residents on Gulf Shore Drive.
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
Page 1 of 7
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.1
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 fi•omthe public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that "The subject properiy is
zoned and currently being utilized as a multi family residential building, which warrants
no more than one slipper dwelling unit per the CGLDC and the Manatee Protection Plan.
The proposed docking facility Tidll consist of replacing the existing dock and then
constructing a neiv docking facilio) consistent with the existing one. The new dock ivill
maintain the eight existing slips to accommodate 29 foot and 35 foot LOA vessels. The
proposed dock will extend out 59 feet from the MHWL, which is 39 feet of protrusion past
the alloived 20 feet. " County staff concurred that the subject dock facility serves and is
part of a multiple family condominium project. The project is divided by Gulf Shore Drive;
the dwelling units are on the west side of the road, and the docking facility is on the east
side.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general
length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or
moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish
that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s)
described without an extension.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that t1�e criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The proposed boat dock
project is to extend out far enough past the newly proposed seaivall shoreline and
associated riprap to accommodate the vessels. Additionally, the depths are not sufficient
within the allowed 20 feet; therefore, the BDE is needed to reach out past the proposed
seaivall and rip -rap shoreline as i-vell as to deeper water depths, as shown on sheet 7 of 10
within the attached BDE exhibits. " County staff concurred
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 inhlide into any
marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the chamlel.)
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
The record evidence and testimony Jrom the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The proposed docking
facility design is consistent with what is there today as well as the other existing docking
facilities on the subject waterway and their overall protrusion. As proposed, the dock will
not impact navigation as well as maintain the ingress/egress to both adjacent neighboring
docks. There is no marked channel within this section of Vanderbilt Lagoon; cis a result,
there will not be any impact to the existing navigation as a result of the proposed project.
The dock Will also be within the allowed 25% width of the waterway. " County staff
concurred.
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 Bearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The subject
property) shoreline and shoreline directly across the waterway are neither exactly square
nor consistent for measurement purposes. Based on these existing conditions, two
protrusion measurements are being provided, one on the north and one on the south end
of the proposed dockingfacility. To the north, the waterway is approximately 447feet wide,
and the dock protrudes 37 feet into the subject waterway. Therefore, the docking facility
will occupy 8.3% of the waterway. Additionally, there is no dock immediately opposite the
proposed facility. As such, over 91 % of the waterway will be maintained for navigation.
To the south end of the proposed docking facility, the subject waterway is approximately
1,101 feet wide, and cis proposed, the dock will protrude approximately 59 feet. Based on
this, the proposed dock facility will occupy 5. 4% of the waterway, therefore maintaining
94% open for navigation. County staff concurred.
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 ji•om the public hearing i°eflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The proposed docking
(acilio) is consistent with the existing dock on -site and the other neighboring docks which
accommodate larger vessels. As proposed, the dock ivill maintain the existing conditions
and associated access. County staff concurred as the existing and proposed facilities are
substantially similar.
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
Page 3 of 7
may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth,
or seagrass beds.)
The record evidence and testimony fr°om the public hCut °ing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The subject property
shoreline consists of a natural mangrove rip -rap shoreline along the entire 103 linear feet.
The proposed dock project is to rebuild/reconstruct a neiv docking facility that will mostly
be rebuilt within the existing footprint and extend past the newly proposed seawall and rip -
rap shoreline to accommodate the vessels. Additionally, the width of the waterway and the
fact the entire waterway is open for navigation allows for a dock to protrude out, which is
consistent with ours lvithin the subject waterway. " County staff concurred that the
requested protrusion is not excessive, given the location.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not
directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.)
The record evidence and testimony from. the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The proposed docking
facility has been fully minimized and still provides sufficient deck area for routine
maintenance, safe access, and recreational activities like fishing and kayaking. The total
over -water square footage is 833 square feet. County staff concurred that there is no
excessive decking.
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 is not
applicable. This petition is for up, vate multi family out docking faciliIYO
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of
a neighboring property owner.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "As proposed the dock
has been designed to be consistent lvith the existing docking facility that is there currently
and has been there prior to 1985. There are no neiv impacts to either adjacent property
owner as their• view hill not change, and both have signed off on the proposed design. "
Couny) staff concurred.
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.)
Page 4 of 7
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "There are no seagrass
beds present on the property nor the neighboring properties within 200 feet of the existing
dock structure. " Given the information provided within the provided Submerged Resources
Survey, County staff concurred.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of
subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
The record evidence crud testimony fi°onz the purblic hearing reflects that the criterion is not
applicable. The applicant's expert stated in his submittal that: "The proposed work is a
multifamily dock facility and subject to Manatee Protection Plan. Requirements. As
designed, the docking facility is consistent iidth the MPP. " Staff disagrees, as LDC Section
5.03.06.E.1 states that it applies to multi -slip dock facilities with ten or more slips. The
proposed facilio) has eight slips and so is not subject to review for consistency ioidth Collier
County's MPP. County staff, therefore, found this criterion to be not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this
request. The property is located adjacent to (Vanderbilt Lagoon). The proposed docking facilities
will be constructed waterward of the existing seawall with riprap. The shoreline does contain
native vegetation (Mangroves), and the proposed docking facility will have a minor impact to
existing mangroves. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no submerged
resources in the area 200 feet beyond the proposed docking facility.
This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review because it
did not meet the E.M. scope of land development prof eat reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article
VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 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 4 out of 5 of the
primary criteria and 5 out of 6 secondary criteria, with one criterion being not applicable.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20220005688, filed by Jeff
Rogers of Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc., representing Villas of Vanderbilt Beach Condominium
Association, Inc, with respect to the subject property described as located at 9724 Gulf Shore
Page 5 of 7
Drive, across from 9715 Gulf Shore Drive, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida., for the following:
• The petitioner requests a 39-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 the
construction of a private multi -family boat docking facility with eight slips protruding up
to 59 feet into a waterway that is 447± feet wide.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Dock Facility
Plans attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B — Dock Facility Plans
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 9724 Gulf Shore Drive, across from 9715 Gulf Shore Drive, in
Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. Approval is predicated upon the approval of the companion Variance, VAPL20230000021,
by the Hearing Examiner; absent such approval, this BD is void.
3. This dock facility is private in nature and shall not be used for rental or commercial
purposes.
4. Vessells moored at the north and south slips shall only moor to the dock and not have
independent tie pilings detached from the dock facility. Said vessels shall remain within
the applicant's riparian lines.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
Page 6 of 7
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.
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.
July 26, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
N
O
U
�m
W
Jm
WOD
9;rCD
mZ
of
w
g
0
w
0
owp wNoc0 M ww3
CwJ , vu w�ngm I
b M LL w as
(� mZ��i,
mZa "� (s0 "go
�g0" i 0
1
1 go
z Q o v�
U
0 =Z �I gO m
Q0 rn
z W U N N
J `
w�0
ZU)Z
O
cr N
Ulf Shore DR
z= w
= pUQ =
O 0 wwm O U
Z H f W J Z Z F p- Q
OLLJ
m0 VO (n
ao N �wU N O�Z aO
�Z ,� g0X wQ co
O> Q Q Q m
1 1 o> o> ON Q+
Q aliq• 3PU13A
POO
dcu
-� •� a Q
too
l� F
«B»
W
IB e N
1 r /ZV
L� m
6 co
Mt
JA
z r�
c
4 r.�:..•0� 7 I � o
u 0)
' lu L m Z
0
w m w 0 F
O 3 ` z U
101 w o x N
U 0 U N
U
w
m
Ww �� (0 z J
CC M
j0 G WW O
N a Q O LO N W W a.
and N W Cn CO N CQ
N G i
o co
z�0 W z
IL
ui cr) U O
J LLI z� Z
W !L 0 D
F~- Q
Q gz ; U
a �' F ¢o w� 0
W v v LL 0 `
0 ° L-
LLL
LL
L11 ty', O o z
z vJ
V Y LL Q
W �M ;� Q
z
LL II'�L 3o J
�LLU) az _I
c4=o� L
LL A�a z �a
v M
rn F Q q
nv zv
� o
m w mcan
m �
N KU C
W r, NQ
a
CK3 pw�' >
W r—y C
0 x c
A, 0U Z u
M
N
m=?,' W
�.. a
Z
Ww �
(L
mO
Q)
a W
p:neizo.uu muas a[vanaemu[oeacmcnuWennu i-cuurviraaizaeue.awg wcn nun ninr 1zn4izue3
,A1
0
LO
N
w
0
z
Q
h �
z
co
v I co
a
d
cn
H z
3
0
J
o U)
L(i N o N
Z N
m� z
Z F rn 0
U)
(n () X o 3�0� 0
W n L1J o 0y
C)
F."
i
(FWn-wF�Z3ow=wwwwQoaUk�WaJzOwNaOZwQ6-'
�myYW_
o3_oO3waQ�F�
oF-
s¢�i
¢3n
wwwwOz
w w
Mow
Z w=F'
00w
00 ww
i 00
o W>w<ZN }p000=Wwm
wWK03WF 00
000¢�
wo�mzz
WO
0waN22
0
Z
2
U
Q
W
m
J c
Q -
W �
oQ
00
CD E
0 �I
Q
J
bq N MI
� � o
Y O d. rn
v] N a>
cd
0
Cc3 (il Q
O rn
y bo
U 0
co
M �
N
m
A
W
p:N 9125.00 villas at vanderhflt
0
O
Z_
F- `1
c U
X O
W n
J
J
c�
L
Z
N
F
rn
(�
N
X
CD
W
W /1
Oz � o0
LL,W 0, (Aw�
W LL a 0
0Z I' (� Acn
Z
u_
Q LL
' J
z H � W
' Q X <
W ^ Z
1�
F
Cu
(�
O
Z
z
co
XpJ
W
�
�
U
W
W
�
m
O
o
�
Z
O
aW
p
U
Q
w
w
J
Mmp
Z
Iwl
o
W
OO
w
w
m
o
a
o
�
a
u,
Z
0_
c
a
XXx
O
j W
Z
X
Q
W
W
a
w=
m
'W
�
W ZQN
WPa
a
aOwWO
?�
ixi
�y¢O
0w>
a
a Z
N Y
p
p
F
O
O
O
j
�wwo>�z
o<33
ywW,jM
F
r?au�i
¢�S3F
Z
rc lr'IO1lol N
lw
U
LW
I� U)
J z
gym/ O
LL Q
Wz
0
Q z
>U)
oW
p:\19125.00 villas at
W
n
V
v
O
0
0
O
z
LL
>LL
UZ
Z
Q
U
z
CQC
I G
V
z
f-
Y
m
U
X
0
W
0
D0
J
J
m
LO
Z
�
F-
(�
r-
N
o
W
ON
Z
LL
V_
%
,L.Ln
V
z
Q
U
I--
Q
Z
(0
W
m
�
�
J
m m
Lim
LD
LO
m
in
W J
C7
N
M
p m
z
x
x
x
Z
W
(V
w
W
�
r
o
0
�
o
Q
�
Q
'k
J
a
n
m
J
J
N
C7
U
zz
u
O
w
X
O
J
W
d
1 � �
C)LL
U W
W W
m O
m o_
1
1
a
Q
J
J
b-0
N
N
U
G
r
e
M
�
G
U
G
R
z
b
.s
s
G
M
>
Q
�
V
GO
M
oU
v
a.
m
W
at vanderbllt beach\CADIPERMIT-COUNTY\19125-BDEdwg EXISTING AfATRIX 1211J/2023
W
Z_
J
Z
Q
ry
Q
n
W
ry
Y
w
Um
Q
m0
WW
CO
N
11.2'
0
Q Y
W U
�0
O Q
a Q Q
0 w Q o
X
d E:
79'rq' 21� = I
_ 21 �
0 O
� � N
a
can II 10'
�o00
N CO
O Q
I I Q
LL
>_
ol
L w Q 0
0 m > F. >- Z
W LL c U Y Q
z p J
I Q — X
o
�
W
�
�
W
�
M
R!
��LJL
LL
J
u5
W
HC)a
qzT
Z
r
rn
LL '
Q
W
Cn
0
m
0
a.
n
i.
2
U
H
Z
CO
w
�
m
0
J
mm
Q' LL
2
LO
m
p
W J
M
N
M
Q (n
z
x
x
x
Z
W
ZN
in
m
2
oo
>LLI
Q
O
F-
it
J
n-
'
t`
CO
J
N
.j
Y w
Uw
Q LL
m0
W W
CO N
co w W
Im0
1 D a�
U) a-
o
�
z
p
<w
Z
z
W
a
w
u
io
r
'vv
O
w
m
O
m
m
�
w
w
m
�<
a
m
Z
LL
j
O:
o
m
Q
X
O
< U
a
w
y
iVM�<..
�j'w
W Zoe
+�O75
O
W
ZUO
0
n
3
F
H>
p U
2
fp
0
K¢O
¢ y¢
O
W
w>
F
N
w
<
a
>>
W
w
z
t� O
m U1
W
a�
Ii
li
x
o
ceuawaz3w
z�wmo?:
r
o.-.w<m
»><
3Oom>o>a�<ap�O
w0'
0IUO>O3pzz
QQ
owo
K o
w U>
z
W<
W>
..wQ<�indzoo=
0Qo
NZ3>0nPF
�!EEaaa
WI=~�D
U;oQ
�00
F—�?<w
<u�3F
aF-
Z
W
N
N
w
z
a
a
N
0
villas at vanderhllt beach\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTl119125-BDE.dv:g PROPOSED DOCK 12/14/2023
w
z
Lev J
LL�VAZ
� z
�
Q
W C/) Q
o 0 m U [if
w O O�
z wo I
w
Z X
Q 0
Q
W
ry
YWI
oa0 0
4' 21 1 ao
W W
cq NLo
11�2 O
� N
ce)
N �
r- N
N
11.2' 10.5'
a -
- — — —
r--
1
5 10'
Eo00
N 00
O 0
z
2
1 Q
1 N�/
^ LL
LL
L Y Q
J
z_ X
F
� o
1 w
1
1
O �
� M
W
OLJL
A
LL
J
� W
H(a
� Z
61
=
I-
U
F=
Q
��CO
w
Q
m
�
�
J
mU)
�n
ocomC
W J
CO
co
N
c)
m U)
x
x
x
Z
W
N
�
w
W
O
>
Q
0
it
2
co
J
J
N
i
�
O
�
Z
O
Q
w
Z
Z
a
W
J
�
Z
O
W
W
N
<
m
Oa
a
o
n
z
LL^
m
c
O U
a
u1
J
a
d
z
>W~
aa_
ax
�>
D
a
W
d
k
QK�
�0WO
W m
+
U
..
zoo
WI-0
S
0. OM
Z
7
n
n=
00
7p
to
i
�
O
¢�iiQO
mwa
w
w
W
<3
uJO
M
W
W
3w0
7omWW
z
w
o!'-W�m
zWWW>o>3wOom
<
>>
mZZpWO
d'OWOWOOLL
<(70a33
w0E
o W
t-yy
W
no.=�S�OJ�
�ww��NaNQQ��OFF
Z3:
<w3F
Eoo
FW-r?<m
Z
W
N
N
co
d
I
0
F
J �a O)
N o N
Z
0
a H
d 0
<�mww' W
al vantlertllt beach\CADIPERMIT-COUNT1919125-BOE.dwg PROPOSED MATRIX 12/14/2023
W
N
W
J Ii Ij I I I k
Q
j IT m
00
C 00 a
Q a l z
� )�N II C! Q
W W =j Q o my
W 0
Z_ �i� i I� m �- 0
>J w o
W N 0 a U
iq CC= o o p om (n
W W G '
W T
64 W W > 0 1
U
�mm QQ
W
Un 0 I
0 v
00 0� I m o
�_-
O X
o LU
a 0 'COn
LO z VJ 8
Ilo j Q"'
W i > °€
I I 0 Q� LL
0
i El:i o
LU
U) O Q
V�J
LM Jp
Of w
Qo .U) >C3_
b
S."0 MNMt`
�
U C
O a m
� u
ro
_> o
M
C� w
N K
� U O
FCi W P-
W
0 C) Y o
Z Z U
Q W
J
Un W Y
x D QD
LIJ c
F
W
D:\1`J1L�.UU VIilaS al Vantlerbllf beach\(:AU1YtHMlI-(:UUNIY\1y11S-tltlt.tlWQ (:HUBS St(:IIUN 72/14/2023
:w
Ow
Lu
�z� Lu
Lw
Lu000
N 1 LL
A
w 0 > N to
Oca
Oaa...
2001
— ' 1
_
s � -
1
0
000
�wcl��
W W 0 (y) '
m O A`n�
� ��
D6
'1 _ I) F a
N z
Z
rn
1
WIi
v
d
3
0
F
o N
Z
0
m o o F
3 ~ 0 0
W K K m W U)U � U U N
U
Ww
m >-
J_ U)
m U
W
o
Z w
LLu E LL
0 w
m
Q D
J U)
J_
U bb cv
� � O
a� a
O �
� v
w>
� U O
LA
v
M �
A
s_
c
�� W
9125.00 villas al vanderbllt beach\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\19125-eDE.dwg SUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEY 1
Fore
y
rIF
Oodoo
� ti ` i r f -=. i
t'.
IF I N IF
pot
IF
U W
mU
W
\ N
W
Q
' N
IF
�IF
d
OD
IF
IF 3
0
o N
Z
0
w mw..z
Ll w
❑ ❑ U N
U
Q
W
m
co
F
J � �
ry W
W Q
0 �
Z0-
LL >�
L
IF
WIN
WW
■ - vi
w cn c� F
COO G O O
4-Q O �. o.
,s9E-9d` - O �•
COD
4 = �01
z�
,i �a w
rU
U �yVri CEO
s
IN �Fu
Vl
cn o
U
� - N
F
L_
F
W
p:\79125.00 villas al vanderbllt beach\CADIPERMIT-COUNTY\19125-RDE.dwg WIDTH OF WATERWAY