HEX Final Decision 2024-58HEX NO. 2024-58
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
November 149 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20230008895 - 10030 Gulf Shore Drive - A proposed 32-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 52 feet into
a waterway that is 534.8± feet wide. The subject property is located on Lot 30, Block B, Re -
Subdivision of Part of Unit No. 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Collier County,
Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 32-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow the construction of a boat docking
facility protruding a total of 52 feet into a waterway that is 534.8± feet wide.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Companion Petition No. VA-PL20230012485 to allow the required 15-foot side yard riparian
setback to be reduced to 8.1 feet along the southernmost property line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the
Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code,
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The 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
Page 1 of 6
rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no objections at the
public hearing. The property owner to the south provided a letter of no objection.
5. The Petitioner must satisfy the LDC criteria for both the dock facility and for the boathouse.
6. The Hearing Examiner is constrained to applying the policies already in the code regarding the
permissible variances for overly large vessels associated with single family dwellings, which
is becoming commonplace. The Hearing Examiner cannot create new policy.
7. Regarding the dock facility: In accordance with LDC Section 5.03.06.H., the Collier County
Hearing Examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a dock facility extension
request based on certain criteria. In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve this request, at
least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria must be met.'
Primary Criteria:
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 ji°om the public hearing �°effects that the ctiterion HAS
BEEN MET. A two-story single family dwelling is presently being constructed on the
subject property as per Building Permit No. PRFH2O230416818, issued on December 6,
2023. The subject project is to allow the construction of a residential dockfacility with two
boat lifts, one to accommodate a 45 foot vessel and the other for a vessel not to exceed 13
feet.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is
unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application
and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching
and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "WithoZrt the boat dock extension, a vessel
1vould not be able to be moored 074 launched while at MLWL due to the water depth within
a 20' protrusion of the MHWL/property line, as shown in the bathymetric survey and cross
section drawing. "County staff concurs, based upon Exhibits Band D.
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation
i The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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 recoi°d evidence and testimony f om the public hearing reflects that the cr itei°ion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states. "Proposed dockfacilio) does not intrude into
any marked or charted navigable channel, thus there will be no adverse impact on
navigation. The proposed dock and lifts have been designed not to impede navigation, and
their protrusion is consistent with that of the neighboring docks along the shoreline. "
County staff concurs.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width
of the waterway and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width
between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility
should maintain the required percentages.)
The record evidence ccnd testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's agent states: "The waterway width is 534.8', and the
proposed dock facilio) protrudes a total of 52' from MHYTl'L, which is 10.28% of the
waterway width. Thus, the dock facility does not protrude more than 25% of the waterway
width and maintains more than 50% of navigable ivater•way width. " County staff concurs.
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 fyom the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant states: "The proposed dock location and design will not
impact or interfere with the use of any neighboring docks. The nearest existing neighboring
dock is approximately 29.4' from the proposed dock. " County staff concurs and notes that
a letter of no objection was provided by the owner of the adjoining pr•opero) to the south.
Secondary Criteria:
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the
subject property or waterway that justify the proposed dimensions and location of
the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to
the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline
configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "Shoreline configuration only allows a boat
to be l fted f i•om a perpendicular position relative to the shoreline. The dock is proposed
to alloly a 45' boat into the slip, perpendicular to the shoreline, thus already extending
past the 20' maximum. Also, due to the pie shaped shoreline configuration and presence
Page 3 of 6
of existing neighboring docks, a 43 boat can only dock safely perpendicular to the
shoreline. " County staff concurs.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel
for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck
area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck
area.)
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the pztblic hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "The design of the proposed boat dock is for
recreational vessels to be maintained safely ivithout incidence. No excessive deck area is
being proposed, as shown in the site plan. " Cozrnty staff concurs.
3. For single-family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel or vessels in
combination described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's
linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be
maintained.)
The record evidence ctnd testimony fi°om the pztblic hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "Vessel LOA combines is 71 'feet (1 ea.
45' long Boat & 2 ea. 13' long PWQ, which is more than 50 percent of the linear water
frontage, being 68' long. " County staff concurs.
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 pztblic hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "Proposed dock facility will not have an
impact on waterfront vieiv of neighboring properties and will be consistent with existing
dock facilities along the shoreline as shoiyn in the aerial drawing. The proposed dock
facility is within the property's riparian lines and will not impact the view of the
neighboring waterfront property owners. " County staff concurs.
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 pztblic hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The sztbrnerged r•esour•ces survey provided indicates that no seagrass beds
exist within 200 feet of the proposed dock. No seagrass beds will be impacted by the
proposed dockfacility.
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 9
The record evidence and testimonyJrom the public hearing refiects that the criterion is not
rpplicable. The provisions of the Collier• Couno) Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to
single family dock facilities except for those within the seawalled basin. of Port of the
Islands; the subject property is not located ivithin Port of the Islands.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this
request. The property is located adjacent to a man-made canal. The proposed docking facilities
will be constructed waterward of the existing seawalled shoreline. The shoreline does not contain
native vegetation. 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 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.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that there is enough competent, substantial evidence based on
the review of the record that includes the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report,
and comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or their representative(s), County staff and
anyone from the public, to approve the Petition for the boat dock and boathouse. The boat dock
petition meets 5 of the 5 primary criteria and 4 of the 6 secondary criteria with one criterion being
not applicable. The criteria are set forth in Section 5.03.06.14 of the Land Development Code.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20230008895, filed by Mark
Oreus of Greg OLc II Marine Construction, Inc., representing James Cerkieski, Trustee of James
Cerkleski Trust, with respect to the property described as located at 10030 Gulf Shore Drive, at
the southeast corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bayview Avenue, also known as Lot 30, Block B,
Re -Subdivision of Part of Unit No. 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Estates, in Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 3246ot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet
for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow the construction of a boat docking
facility protruding a total of 52 feet into a waterway that is 534.8± feet wide, pursuant to
Section 5.03.06.1-1 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Survey and Site
Plan with Proposed Improvements attached as Exhibit "B", the Proposed Dock Plan attached as
Exhibit "C", and the Dock Cross Section attached as Exhibit "D" and are subject to the condition(s)
set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit A — Zoning Map
Exhibit B — Survey and Site Plan with Proposed Improvements
Exhibit C — Proposed Dock Plan
Exhibit D —Dock Cross Section
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 10030 Gulf Shore Drive, at the southeast corner of Gulf Shore
Drive and Bayview Avenue, also known as Lot 30, Block B, Re -Subdivision of Part of Unit No.
I. Conner's Vanderbilt Estates, 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, VA-
PL20230012485.
3. The boat dock facility is an accessory to the single family home under construction. If the
home is not built this Petition is null and void.
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.
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.
November 26, 2024
Date
Page 6 of 6
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
9
p®
N
OVW�(
WU2�WO m
W 0 LL a N Lon
gU) 11
v� g 0 Of
O
N
N
Sh«e OR
N
N
BD-PL20230008895; 10030 Gulf Shore Dr - Cerkleski
10/30/2024
Page 2 of 8
3
M
d
x
z
.
in
w
p
�
N
K
x
U
z
;
3
m
in
M
n
m
=
N
W
LLJ
i
j
o
iv
U
oinN
w
w
?,
�
u
U
_
U
O
Z
W
OMO'Is9-£2-ZZ\80 380Hs jlno o£ool\A3A8nS\(�iot8o) SA3AHns 3N18Vw N0180 - £lZ\ZZOZ )amns
o N < c
a!Q 0O Fo pp to K0 �KK Z� zw0 �O �OaZ �•- ZoT Ow0 (Q[
ZCU O„2 Y _ p ^ J
O< X Z_ U O C� ix x w U Z Z nn�� N W U ~ w�
OU CON�N z ZOIm0 OI Y
p p UW p > J J v_{ �Qm >W in
T WW 1�
oN .¢00 Z O ZO Z� w4 KOJ O Z MUW oZN ZN s W00
1= IL W
x O`~ OZ Wpw xK zi tw q _ Qw
w iLpoW <w J�� in, wW¢ z4 00 ¢z 00l2 0>WWWuGG wws`
�> O �vN ZZp O 0y5tw >3K r
r K 2 N W Z z m ¢ K> Q � N wz - z p m m z 4 Z O
InN2ply"OW <rua aq W OU - �.+ N'gn
�wo�bmaw z^o sm inIX. o� >J~z J`n oE¢z�`p"
z owz vl &m apw oo �3 (Ain �wzr.w Qrtn� ��oo
po vv�Mix w�tt0 0 wz Q zz s0 = w3 �N avJioo ww
U¢1 J �m�nn j U1 U] w�U¢ O �O Wr= ZO V1wp0 OF4fnoh�w
m�� QSW� zzh N_m ww2M 00 "� ~� N OwUSW� .
wppz ax^ am o x�o� wd~�-¢ v 0
a WW " O m w � 0 V I Z Z 3 0 O Z X m HQ I W N Hw>
p~��060� wmQNwN �ZjO �K zf- pOOw wr���2NW0 ..
�w�w cgw�o� i'^a oo >Wox omuFWiiia ¢
wm3w ao zo -_wGi-
xW irwawG �z �� zoz wf.'' mo ¢ o U.
>in�om<n3J �� Ewa � "ogN ZO zo ��zo ado+ 4004w w
o mm�� 31n� z g �P�F w2-�n wc�mpZo<Wv, �o "
VfN�Om mw d woWFn Nw S �Z�4--. ft l¢-a3 DOZaOJwZ0 s
in
Uw^q J>U Kz0 UZggpOzqTzNVOwK w�i OZOOd��z
Wz�zonwo N> «aw�WW-vo Kv U= Owp�KJwNWmUW 7 O
^ _ m=w
O w "aU�Zwr=`J`wN� �oF xZxx Zxx w¢Z 3W �OrLLr� a ✓r�
o ¢o¢.-wl. u.-w v�.-aw.-.-'daaJ
Z n N e � m m o ^
70�+
O�
Z
+
1
�
Min
/�
^
O
2
<
� w
6
+
+
m
1 U O 1
NO ooa
R/p Jm� O O.1
`^� pV<<
/O p Q Kgz
=2 CJ zw
wm
WOz
O" mzo
~ azwu
o
a aow
z d<
Ui s 0
wU
O 00
GULoo H0o EDR
/n
WN
W
z
to � Z Q
00
LL
i z=p
O to LL C7 CO CO Z
O U) Z'° D
Lu j=O
a �Zzw
� pZ OJ
o F- o
Z N
O Z
In 0
w
111
= m j Z¢ n 3 3
z�ao yoro
Z F O =
ash wz�a�
g 3
o
o i
`J' W z (A
i zXH
„M.U
qm zw
Z oNaaatG ��a
O�000
J Mioaa5a2!
O1dO'A3OG dd-Y2-Zz\60 3dOHs 3lno ofoot\A3AHns\('Aoi6o) sA3n8ns 3NINVW N0180 - �ZVZOZ A3A8ns 103rOHd\A3AHns\:o
n
7
�i
a u 0
oOFa gzoFz z o a
oW a mom o w 4 a
zoo ��� �w uzz
Fo waw a� aio z m w in '°m• m FJ
1 m o U
� V pz o O b
N o <z Q z¢¢ O bowZ o �n w x m¢ d i
Z w W x= m 0 w 2 a m y LL O O O O U N O LL N
zmW? F?W 3
N p
oU NtmmaYON ON
O WKw>O Nam Z
MO
m wW~K o 0LiZ W won
u 0z tea$zi m u zo
0W?ONwO
ZO Wo
=TmZztimz W ON
wNwFw o0=
Wm > "f
V)OLL {i' Wbww z0 RN U QQ O
w Sz0
r wm<zNwivui wom� mw ' ZO a rpa
m qN< K w✓inow,
OK �"O U n In Qi�K
t"inwo S��wa� x ozw>o\ W
mwm VIWmytZO>Oww�t b i0w0
4 -Inw<
ti t'yy�� ¢ o
(lWLL �t"WGO�� 00
NW>Wiwy io00 ¢ Ot m O F'K
mmz fn a0�uzb o�
uouzozaw
Omm xW oo¢KS 3ZWd2�0 an�¢ U _
°�w
o
n
Y
O
o�a
18•`Op- v� P)
'N���•17.20^ W (
73
T
,324,
•cN / / � to � rt ,�
GjJj,,o 5HOpF-WpY
o , �
4oO 4m +
0'y
0; �'O d J
O
n'
z
s
WUN
,
a�
Z�C
•t72
M6
MOM
Z
•-
m0
w0✓t
3
o�
o
w
�
w
a
�
�
N
m
El
3
z
N
O
ooa
C5
zw
o
�o
3
0
x
oG
m
w�
0
i
a
�
N
•'
Z
Z
W
z
ss
a-
3m
K
K
a
o.
000
in¢¢
W
a
w
O
a
a
3
g
a
tW-
?:h
j
G
3
U
M
C
X
d
m
M
GN
N
9
G
n
c
a
w
_ w
zm m
mad no wN.�
am m �
QNQ&m
oaom
svm{w
Z o�i o0 0o d H
O�OO❑
J �NaW W�aa3a3
N
N
m
r
i1
w
a
i J
V �
UJ
o aM a
z o. a
OD
O
N
O
,qt
N
O
N
CI
n an
soYm *w
E-
i
s � ,
ct
i
p' \ W
Vv v V ct
00
_ LL H
om o \ ° \ uJ +1 d
i'
e
U \M w � A� V V�
to
ui
!! a Q
\ ' `# zco
_ ® U)
� w N
Emma yy
VZa
Cz
a �vz
j / V IM
i, f O
% CL
a
i a 4
O�
M
CL M
Q
d
ti
« p»
w y
a
d' o
o a el' oo.
z CL lot
00
0
N
O
to
+ + N
O
= 3 N
1 1 1 %�� j��N u i-I tV M �t iA
4 )I p I\i I l I! 1 1 X/
j
hINa`
KIN.�
%\//
ct
lil:/\� Q
y W
.,
4 ij ii crm
Ii �1II I11!%\ TOT
IIIIIIIIIISM
�L.
t^ W
it
, IN it
►11.. v!
�N%N NI NNINNNip cif ii it I I ,A/xA W Iii
I� ! / M
ONccW
N.�A
�i M w
'i ail It I I 1 i ��A. mi
if Is ,:% a
\% o
o ¢�y
4 1 1 \
I IN I I Il I i i
�I i 4 a , it I it I j j ,��V�VAVAA ,it 'N G
rit III
If :It
IN
rt
�� kn t.� '�/� W W
it
// INN/i
It
NN\If it I >// ;I%,y X `n
itVAXVA� 0. Q
�lii t \11 If
it 4i il� N NX
\
//� �
uq iltillll �`\���
cn
�I i ' , A/ V� oai,
it
;A \ i w
It
q +, it I > A�II1Nv/ X/,V/i—NN, it If 11 at
'ifit
VA��i N � no M
Ij
\ \ \ c%> y
it
�I N INLU
ill AIN INN/,.,A
ire,
a.
j\� j\�jIN
j\\j LUwzw
a
A�VA�\', `I, rpp_
m
/�// /�/�/ G
Z
\Ii % O
�; \\iIN, ui
Q