HEX Final Decision 2024-60HEX NO. 2024-60
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
November 14, 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20230018267 — 267 3rd Street W - A 26-foot boat dock extension to allow
a boat docking facility to protrude a total of 46 feet into a waterway that is 133± feet wide
within the RSF4 zoning district. The subject property is located on Lot 3, Block G, Little
Hickory Shores, Unit 3 Replat subdivision.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 26-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet allowed by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for waterways greater than
100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility to protrude a total of 46 feet into a waterway that
is 133± feet wide.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Companion Petition No. VA- PL20240004206, to reduce the minimum side yard /riparian setback
from 7.5 feet to 0 (zero) on both sides of the proposed boat dock facility.
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
rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no objections at the
public hearing.
Page 1 of 7
5. The Petitioner must satisfy the LDC criteria for both the dock facility and for the boathouse.
6. The Petitioner has presented two versions of the dock plan and county staff has reviewed both
to allow for the Hearing Examiner to decide the most consistent with policy in the code.
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 fiom the public hear°ing reflects that the triter°ion HAS
BEEN MET. The subject property has been approved for residential dock facilities by
means of Resolution No. 1987-260; therefore, this criterion allolvs up to two slips. The
proposed dock facility comprises a finger pier with two slips, one foIA a 27 foot vessel and
the otherfor a 38 foot vessel.
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 testimor�y.f°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "Most boatlifts vary bettiveen 10' and 15' ire
length and width on the lift pile centers. If a lift of this general size here installed inside
the 20' protrusion limit per Collier County's LDC (ignoring the fact that there is no
reasonable way to fit the vessel proposed inside the riparian lines and normal protrusion
limit), then this lift would be placed in approximately no more than 2.5' of hater at loin
tide cis can be seen on exhibit sheet 04 of 08. Subtracting approximately 1.5' of that depth,
which is required for the lift's beams and bunks, lvould leave only approximately 1 ' of
water for the larger proposed vessel to operate in. Most 38' LOA vessels require
approximately 3' of depth to operate lvhen loaded iWith people, gear, gasoline, etc., so 1 '
of depth at l01V tide ivould be insufficient. " Based upon the r•efer•enced exhibit, County staff
concurs.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
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°ecor°d evidence and testimony fi°om t17e public hearing reflects that the c�°iter ion HAS
BEEN MET. There is no navigable channel at or adjacent to the proposed project
location. Therefore, no marked or navigable channels will be affected by the proposed
project.
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 fi°om. the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "The ivaterlvay at this location is 133 '
Vide at its narrowest location. The applicant is proposing a dock that will protrude 46'
into the waterivay from the MHWL. This protrusion amounts to 34.6% of the waterway
width. However, which means that this criterion is automatically not met. However•, the
opposite shoreline appears to not be buildable as it has been placed within a preserve.
Therefore, we can safely assume that all 87' of the remaining waterway will be left for
navigation, which accounts for 65.4% of the waterway... " Couno� staff concurs that this
criterion is only partially satisfied, a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width is
maintained 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 pZrblic hearing reflects that the cr°iter•ion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's agent states: "This dock facility is oriented irr the same
direction cis all other docks along this portion of the lvaterlvay, which is in a shore -normal
configuration. Neither the proposed side setbacks nor the proposed protrusion is a0 pical
for the area, and no neighboring docks should be affected by this project. " County staff
notes that all of the boat dock lots along the subject shoreline have been constructed to be
perpendicular to the shoreline. Thus, the proposed dockfacility Will not interfere with the
use of neighboring docks any more than existing docks impact the petitioner; staff,
therefore, concurs.
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
Page 3 of 7
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
BEENMET. The applicant's expert states: "The parcel on which the proposed project is
located is an unconventional -sized lot that is too small for a principal structure to be
located and is intended essentially exclusively for the use of boat mooring. The lot is also
too narroiv (especially when considering the standard 7. 5' side setbacks from both riparian
lines) to reasonably moor a boat in a shore parallel configuration, which all but requires
mooring in a shore -normal configuration. A shore normal configuration within the
standard protrusion limit per Collier County's LDC would limit the property Owner to
mooring boats of 20' LOA or less, which would severely restrict the overall and intended
use of the lot. Furthermore, nearly all of the adjacent boat slip lots already have docks
with similar configurations, protrusions, and provided side setbacks. " County staff
concurs and adds that Resolution 1987-260, i-vhich approved specified lots for boat dock
use, is itself a special condition to be considered.
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 crud testimony from the public hearing reflects that t7�e criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert states: "The proposed facility will utilize a 4' by 41 '
long finger pier attached to an existing marginal dock that together• totals only 264 total
square feet of over -water area. This square footage is substantially smaller than many of
the surrounding docks and is not excessive in our opinion. " County staff concurs that there
is no excessive decking and that a 4 foot width should be adequate to allow for safe access
and routine maintenance.
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 Izeaf°ing reflects that the criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert states: "The length of bot1� vessels proposed
(38' and 27' LOA) in this petition together exceed 50% of the property's 32' of shoreline. "
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion HAS
BEENMET. The crppliccmt's expert states: "The proposed doc1� confguration will be in
Page 4 of 7
line lvith the other docking facilities on the street per exhibit 07 of 08 [Exhibit Bj.
Additionally, the use of the facility for• private recreational purposes will be consistent with
the surrounding area as well. Therefore, the proposed project should not constitute a mcjor•
impact to vieiv of the neighbors. " County staff concurs and further notes that the existing
dock facility protrudes 13.14 feet beyond the allowed 20 feet as allowed per Hearing
Examiner Decision No. 2020-02. The applicant has also offered an alternative design in
the event it is found to be more favorable.
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
BEENMET. The applicant's expert states. "There are no seagrass beds present in a 200'
area surrounding the subjectpropero), and so no seagrasses are expected as a result of the
proposed project. " Given the information provided within the provided Submerged
Resources Survey, County staff concurs.
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 ar�d testimony fr°om the public hearing reflects that the criterion is not
applicable. The applicant's expert states: "Section 5.03.06 of Collier County's Land
Development Code (LDC) stipulates that `multi -slip docking facilities iWth ten or more
slips will be reviewed for consistency with the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP). ' The
proposed project is for a private, recreational 2-slip dock associated with a single family
zoned lot in Little Hickory Shores. The proposed facility does not have more than ten slips,
and so is not subject to review for consistency with Collier County's MPP. " County) staff
concurs.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of
this request. The proposed docking facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing
riprapped shoreline. The property contains a mangrove, and impacts to the mangroves will require
a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The applicant provided the
submerged resources survey that found no submerged resources in the area and provided 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
VI1I, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Page 5 of 7
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 4 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.H of the Land Development Code.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20230018267, filed by Nick
Pearson of Bayshore Marine Consulting, LLC, representing Benson FL RE LLC, with respect to
the property described as located at 267 3rd Street West as Lot 3, Block G, Replat of Little Hickory
Shores Unit 3, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the
following:
® To allow a 26-foot boat dock extension from the 2naximum 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 to protrude a total
of 46 feet into a waterway that is 1331 feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Atlas attached as Exhibit "A", the Dock Facility
Plans attached as Exhibit "B", the Map of Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit "C", and the
Resolution 1987-260 attached as Exhibit "D", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Atlas
Exhibit B —Dock Facility Plans
Exhibit C — Map of Boundary Survey
Exhibit D — Resolution 1987-260
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 267 3rd Street West and is legally described as Lot 3, Block G,
Replat of Little Hickory Shores Unit 3, in Section 5, 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, VAPL20240004206,
by the Hearing Examiner; absent such approval, this BD is void.
3. Prior to or concurrent with obtaining a building permit for the dock, a Right -of --Way permit
shall be obtained for access improvements to prevent roadway and drainage system damage
if not previously obtained (As Per Resolution 1987-260).
4. This dock is private in nature and shall not be used for rental purposes.
5. This dock shall not be used for any commercial purposes, including mooring commercial
boats.
6. The alternative plan with the smaller vessel on the west side of the dock shall be approved.
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 7 of 7
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
WLIVAIII a I%
Alk
ji
9
A
Y
Y
i
Y
?MIDY
7
9
7
7
a
s
alH
A1NnOO 331
NO
111NN30NVA
a
dA
_
a,.
6
6
5
30N3AV
ME101
71
ms a p�
r A _ R ell 9 02 1 QO W�{J
O� LL U (n W ZOI-
F 0 F a % g0 F R _p CLU O
w r �Z
.. 0: a R o F m H a T a �IWi 002Cocz
'o R % 0016
C, OzLu
R R "" e L
Y F� O Ii.IIL N W
LLJ
R F R R 3Alt/0 F R% F¢ CO W�°
W
3AIHOA377bA F R A3llbA lSb3 F a W Z V O m
a UZZUQ
UWIL. W W go
F a �^I(LLXL p plZW
f: R a to
F a ' LA to
UQ:ggKXso
R " - %" in 744Q}}ulZE
W a 3A1 jr A311tlA iS3� il.O m OUPC
Q=
a P F" R
RF
R
00
- C F F
i S
ua ^:f =-1= 30N3AV 153A1 aT
C ~N
ME
to
H sm
LL m >
al
_ . i'a so
III E III ILI o m 9 "
❑ C)
R'u m m Ou. -Ou m g0 m a �u
e'a+g x € wge
F mi a0
all
to
a a am g
a a 900
F
a F L ul m w
'7 R I
0Iw LLJ
t it
r I w
L \
L• J w
=\ a i on
o m \ c U
D_� ?> I o
d > s s I z
F
"F>m 3M�133N1S 0tlIILL >
3 m i
I I
m—---- — — — —— —
o0 c s =J I
Tam�
a
Lint I&I .�D at
N90SB
seoinosei ol6oloeegae io opolslq 6upeu6lsep eoinos Aluno0
leloUjo eql eie sdeyq /Ilpgegad leol6ol0eego�yOIJolslH eql
O
N
�p
0
Z
W vZi
~
In
0700
O
w
rn
ZZq
LU
Z
O
In
2
W
Q
N
8
U
U
O
W
�
Z
�
�
a
O
U
Z
Pill W" I
N-L1-Y1
p
I CON V1V VA 1 1011Na
<tatiot
K
H ESCIZZ it jag
PC m,
11
Cell
x imriicm
m
ag w Chit
I
rn
Il9
M
114 Iai0.1alam
Iili
oaz at as MI, .Intl
(
d
-14 VAN
CI 1
to
100i LOrtlalt Vantozaci
I%
t00.1t I mf 411 ,t W
GLC I
=
�1, ;VA
at k:z
m
1
III
9
LtICI
i
till-+l1lflL-,t-,l
�M`
dele-S�1t
foal 4flaL 01A
"Alm
m
o2t
l l4Va t qtl Lml31)11-
�01
LL-CZ
ME
nog Lrao�i+at
o -
xal to taSO
oi-ls
m
a
01�avuVII
n
9•
vocN aVloam
`o
CI
LLot19
m
110 t9-l110
IVa Y:OwnA
10 IV4JOl
toLl6
01
ros
uroo no"rivwai
a
it
mal�aio<Ir
r
rt
SITI
it
1011.11I
WTo
M
rc
pD o
of01
tt
fro 119.IVY1RVant
LOfil
i
N'0 190VV ICaI
10<l
a
.OW I.COC1
*sew
�
W01
CGI
IS
IWa0
1XI
,IW
DP49
4t
9W twill
C
GO
IOW
Litt++
Ooflii
IM CUA
YOai
0
_Ae "SI
=."I
11-11 9
9YI K"ll
N<QI
m
am mWim
tmr i.
w
IMI
IV
ollf<m
Nti
"is
u
nYma1
LOLL
if
11I 0.41a1
LrfLl
P
ETC
Lriil
t<
zi Lt t<1a0
91 Lilly11
C4
Y .III¢ra
Pill
l6~MA
N<OL
n
llt fihvaanKING
w
m
LOW
"1=1�.�
a
f"t.Zl.
ve
POLICE
Eo-X !Seal
C
rabbLmaat
Pavel
OL>Lrnt
L1YL01
IPa
M." VNIA
Pill
M
lM
fr9'
O � L
>iiIwai
a1
brat
r
as
a
1N am
e3
Iltl
l
t
K.L@41IxiG ' r1
A
aM
1 L
AL LA A
W
•a+L
La
nova
>ua:1L
a
t_a.GA„
�
`s
z
b
z
OL
0
all
000
�999
n
::gi
o
0
00Mg
gg yay
213H10 �Z�Z�6 ��� 9NINOZ �NOISI�3il 1Sb'l
ui 99
!f L
M b o 0
()w db
` ZZ �z�k
F LL o u
z
a �� �Z
O�X to �M ° i
1j EL
tJi. Z `� o O W
r` M ui
w i Q ^ N OO LL w
LL Q J M�- ID �rce) w0�
V J tq W ^ Z CD N C?
Q ONU o a Nm to z}�UW (ZFEN wommool uj Jcn
N O W a LLI o ��
ui w
t� 0 z y o Woo
Q ui O U
V) OEM
a o `w' o a Fo ow�o
I- u U) H � � d) gJ z�aLL
LU
N ' y
oil
id
R
aL
Y
3
tl
- co
_ 3
TL
E'
etl 1
1
EW t
:I t
W.
LL
MINIONS
ME
ME
i
11
f
a
Z
o �o
C:1B.rydioro Mad no CmoJling0000 • THA Fil os1Z30C4,00 • Bmsm • 2i73rti 9 114CADWER MR•COUNTYtB DE :LC40mem. BD E-mli blte.dv�j LOCATION
LL
Q
r
w
z
Q
ry
Q
a
w
U �
O—
oQ
w0
U)m
O 0
az
o
a
w
z
J
X
N�
05
lag' 1
M
4a. r1l � 0
o o_ o
z U
I—
O
IL L
Z�
8
aW�W ryry yy
LLN O Y W
WNS0.2
M..NKLLaXXaLLaQ_v NNp2wh,
ViM1L
O
0
WoX
to
x
WM 9 wi
?o 99grcJ
tWWFOZii
oLL°wdonuww�F. G�o=�� woa�u3�z0oY°JZad
u`2�F3F'F owa
�00=
O°Vsw0
Min: kxwO,-
00 �Z3<<s'm
°°rHo
V~
U
OW
O
w
Za
oW
/^ a
Nw
an
W
r111
�� s 8. :!�T]AtiL'TI_•7sn11Yc\d'l�l-rfS:�s[ia.:aa.l.'.i7•.Clifr±,^.mEJ.SPr,TaT-�i.Yt�'!�T�!
zd Doti
U 0.
0z
ww w0x
INN, w
w 0 YO o
w O�
0o ONNG
z d
w ° W
a X
ON, LL
o
aU) I I A6 p i
° `r
Z
� I � %�s•z Q o '
LINN
o
J
U) m,.N] 0 U)
W �!
NNW Nommmm,..mW w s
O W gyp'$ U
> za z
o W
z
w 6's
N
I
m 0 H
° OQ�
w
LL Z W QW I WU. M
0 0 0 � w� II Qao� a
m o u, oQ �Qw
I� m rl
of CO
4mmi
x �
� M x� zl!� W V s
C: \BaYcltoroM rino ConwhlnA\=.THA FIcuL3Qi400•Bonrion•3i73tl Sf YJtCAUV'ERMIi•GOUNI Y1tl Ut :14:91Wnwn.tlUbmIvblle.tlNy GNOtiU
C:�B:rvehoroM nno Conailtinp\�000•THA RIcoI?300400•Bonoun•ti73d SY NACADW ERMIT•GOUNTYtBDE 3SE4\Bunrun•9DEvxhiblla.tiv�q CRO55
0
N
a—
ff
h
ri
C�'
0
ch
C
Z
0 ~
w
U ww
fY]��w
�OwO
Owcob
Z�ON
0'
ww
>z
Ow
z(D
Qz
�il�
w
1
W
ON
OW
U
w
D
Z°
CO
W
NW
ZW
00
WD
W
C:+e �yEhcltRµNnmOnnMM1limilfXgAin THORHI �7tYBRT4l00t`?9709a1n 27a ��diDt Y69APY%',SRMIS>�.VHR'(e8D¢i'¢1N�B�vnO��@�bnkyhit�rrdu0lRAiiB1NLT0Jyl nrlttfxvI
N
8
N
N
�33 %fl, H
87 OF FOR
W NARGAJoo
0
0
1 W N
2 0
j QIkN
Z 0
0 _ Q ,
d'
_I
O Q
J W Z
-a0�a
s�
Q
w
D
LY
D
U
�O
a.
Q
.,
n.
U
7
r
CIO
r
1T
LL�ry
LL w0Q0,
Q00W 9
�Q
w
:Qw
°oQz
cnw22
s
rutenoza
O
N
F-
W
W
LL
o
Z
J
a
U
ch
0
U �
O-
0 J
C) Q
w0
U)m
O
acl
oQ
o.
3g�
N
'r
�.JO
Qzz
000
ZQ U
0
x
0
3
J
O i
z o
w °w
o z
w
rc
Z�11rv(Vmn V v.
ui
K
W
O w X
�x
X¢ Wm
wtswz� RR �z
aFpU0z9� �;i
1� = 0cc S Oq
SK LL
U a Z N WWII( p ¢
Z K �:�..�pWQj
3LLaooc �gm<J8wo
°oazoa3o'oa
q z3� 0
aOf� oo
g
I�
Z
U�
ow
0�
a
z
w
J
w
ZN
a
W0�
W a
�8b a<dfi ls@OAU'P.HU�Id,C®VdRYeBD�ZOINOM,BO�E@04liAla Mla�iUD0.lYhibib AMoi nnlo 730202I. diup
'NS'd 717 L AY ;� M u4W /o WMOL67S D7�70013 090PV 4eZi987 £'ZOZ/y1160 031 va l 30 l 4'133145
io pas panoM N as o un7auoujo!P Pn 7aN UAfVNA31WX MtVWdM (3 ")99fZ-i9i-QPZ 66tOFZ ON SOr 31173
86LS 'o/y asua�l7 opNo� /o alolS
jaddbn v n(au7S louo/ssaJaid 06ff V ISLWH1Moi
'W S'd W XJAAY 7J89oa u4o/' 3NY7 33LVX)V ILPi ,OZ = NJ 37VOS
nass�vrro.� �xa 86WONOMMIld (03N91S) 0 N I A 3 A a n s NNONN %' AS NM Vd0
W bNeudasv Wd4viaddeWpuedortavns
wrws,dm � leuolssa�ad'W'S'd 3 1 I 3 OOV0730OO 331H0 M32/0
a Aqp 4sAmba III7GanVYago8u4o7
98 paAojddV puo paMaNaa SZ0716Z190 A34?MS 077/4
ti
J
raj
N
c-
b13 'Leo M3H10 oN 3L i N isand IMWX
1 A7 'LZOZLi 1pLLo3S o! 1NY7ASM/1d m7Y.3<
SYM loYMlSB✓ ON :131M/iS SiNL
W
c;
0
N
o
w
N
J
a
o
`L7
O
BBOAYN ,01 �NOLLVA313 � 3V 3NOZ OOOld
NO11 V{Ya03Nl d30 0300 v v G/60/Z0 03SV l31
A3ia/1S O1HdVd00d01 ONV AaVON/]08
ate
°
h ~ gl
Q Q1�
C L
3�&
r� CQby„
e'S o�'rN
a2 0 °
CL
� ` sd
j °O m o
2 � o �om
Vhh °ov i
y zO
o�O�l'i
in FE o 0
J ac
:
dVYI 40 31V0
N6LIOOIIZOZI / L900Z1 �l73BW(1N dVYI / 1LLINnW/100
a
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
us zi '�� V4 csv u4 m
1k4 VV
Ct'ti k-�u{VVV�e�A pn C�Jti
YY�V`4Y4YRh4 Y¢444 M1ac �.�h�Ofe�J.�l jz�4b 93`
1
f .r r
f. WW
off
S�f i
Ir OCTOBER 27, 19$7'
'ION e7-260, PETITION 1?9-67-17C, COKKUNITY DMLOPHM DIVIslow i+
'INO PROVISIONAL USE "A" OF THR RSF-4 DISTRICT FOR
[?MRCIAL BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES .. ADOPTED
inner weeks stated the property is located approximately 1/4
Guth of Bonita Beach Road, and 3/4 mile went of Vanderbilt Drive to
Littl* Hickory Shores Subdivision. He stated that the Board
ed staff to initiate a Provisional Use for this property beca-
the small lot size which cannot be used for a principal strua-
He said it appears that these lots were intended for boat
ote, however, that is not indicated on the plat.
Weeks stated the rrpC has reviewed this petition and forwarded R.4
h a'recommendation of approval. He $did correspondence on this At
on was received, with six letters in favor and one in opposition*
ed the letter of opposition was due to misinformation and after
ication by Staff, the objection was verbally withdrawn. He said ;�1:�'
1Wx lift :. . , -;:
ftoomends approval, ,.�:.,
lr4r 'sJ�MN. �
:response to Chairman Hasse, Planning/Zoning Director McKim
y•:t
I.the docks are for private use only, however, renting of boat.;;�
ez ;_ �
is a problem throughout the County. She explained that Staff
Becomes aware of this type of violation if there is a complaint.
r,,missioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight an4
�d unanimously, that Resolution 87-260# Petition PU-87-17C,
�n-coxmercial boat launching facilities for property located
cimately 1/4 mile south of Bonita Beach Road and 3/4 mile Wait of
rbilt Drive, be adopted.40
;«
c ... . • G � i :: is j�.f1�fl �±', M ,.4G
It
!J ' 1' fl ki
i G It
toll
I! X i1 C L q1 �uFG'• �l
•t., G �. ..i, ri r.ly;. 1'y. t
.t 3.fl . J*
RESOLUTION 87. 260 OCT 271987
RELATING TO PETITION N0. YU�87-17C FOR
PROVISIONAL USR OF PROPERTY HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the legials.turs of the State of Plorida in Chapter
67a124b, Laws of Florida., aad Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred oa Collier Cauuty the power to establish, coordinate aad
aa!'ores stoning and such business regulations as are necessary for
the protection a! tie publf.c; and
E7RERI:AS, The County pursuant thereto has adopted a Compzahtasiva
tossing Ordinance establishing
regulations for the
stoning
of particular
geographic division* of rho
County, among which
is the
granting of
proviaioaal Haas; aad
STHEREA3, the Collier County Planning Comiiaaion, baiag the daly
apisoiated and constituted planning board far khe area hereby effected,
ban held a public healing after notice as in said regulations made and
provided, and has considered the advisability of Provisional Use "a" in
a i15P4 tone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a
matter of fact (Exhibit VI) that satisfactory provision and
arrnngement has been made concerning all applicable matters required by
said regulations and in siccordance with Section 13 - Id of the honing
Ragulations for the Collia.. County Planning Commission; and
WEIEMA3, all iatarars:ad parties have been given opportunity to be
heard by this Hoard in public matting assembled and the Board having
conaiderad all matter* pra;a•at•d.
NOW, 'tgEREFOAE $E lT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OP ZONItiG APPEALS of
Collier County, Florida that the petition of Community Development
Divieioa, repr•aanting the ".bard �f County Commissionats, with respect to
the property hereinafter described ass
Lots 1 throu6h 23, Block TMG„, Little Hickory Shores,
Uait /3, as recorded in P?.as: Gook 6, Page 2, Official
Mcords of Collier County
600K 1�CAGi ��
got jog FArit
'28
0CT 271987
ba and the same is hereby approved for Provisional Use "a" of the R$14
soning district for Non-Comsrcisl Boat Idiunching Facltities, subject to
tht follaving COaditiona2
a. At time of Obtaining a dock rwk+ 0 aright-o#-war pazmit
shall be obtained sad the owner shall provide nccsss
improvtmsncs to prevent damage to the roadvty and raadvar
drainage iaproveslents.
b. All boat docks erected oa the subject lots +suet coopllr
with Section 8.46 of the Zoning Ordinance (82-2j.
BB IT FURTIIBR RESOLVED that this resolution bt racosdad in tht
minutes of this Board.
Cortsisaioner Piator offered the fors;Ding resolution
and moved its adoption, seconded by Coe•iasionar r-^MAnilatit
and upon roll Cali. the vote wssa
A7ESs Commissioners Pistor, Goodnight, Glass, Saundeza and Hasse
XA
Yg= None
a• n
Dona this 27th der of October • 1987.
• 1 1 i 1
A EMAI?VWWAL
ALL"
JAtiL8 GILES, CLUXW
Dy. •�� 0
rq a qri, ry Clerk
A
1 1
�_ Y•i 1'
Pt1-67-�17C Resolution
C
OCI Z71987
FINa1xG op FACT
ET
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMISSION
FOR
A PROVISIONAL USE PETITION
FOR
PU-87-17C
?hs following facts era fain:
1. Section 7.11b.3){a) of the Zoning Ordinance authorized the
provisional use.
2, Granting the provisional us! will not adversely affect the public
interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in
the same district or neighborhood because of:
A. General compliance with the Cnmprehensiv! Plan:
Complies with Comprabansiva Plan
yes �C _ No
8. Ingress and agrsee en property and proposed atsvcturls tbsreoa
with particular refaTlacs to automotive and pedestrian safety
and convenience* traffic flow and control, and access in case
of fire. or catastrophes
Adaquatg ingress b agrees
Tom. Ito
C. Affects neighboring propertied in rrlation to nodal, glare,
aCOnnmiC OT odnT lffaCCai
�C No affect or Affect mitigated by
Act cannot be mitigated
D, Canaral eospatibility with adjacent properties and other
property is the districts
Compatible use within district
Yes No
Easld on the above findings. this provlsiosial use
stipulations, (copy attached) (s1►ould-oar.�_b! rac
DAM , 7 Chairmanr
tlbbillQ 0? tAC7 FORt!
eooK 109 �a�.c ��