HEX Final Decision 2024-67HEX NO. 2024-67
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
December 129 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240007332 — 203 Goodland Dr E —Request for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.6 to reduce the minimum side yard riparian setbacks
from 7.5 feet to zero feet on both side yards for a proposed dock facility on an unplatted boat
dock lot with 20± feet of water frontage within a Residential Single-Family4 Zoning District
and the Goodland Zoning Overlay (RSF4- GZO). The subject property is deeded with and
located north and immediately across Pettit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section
18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Companion Petition No. BD- PL20240003998, to allow the proposed boat dock facility to protrude
a total of 33 feet into a waterway that is 100± feet wide.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance from Section
5.03.06.E.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum side
yard riparian setbacks for dock facilities on lots with less than 60 feet of water frontage from 7.5
feet to 0 (zero) feet on both sides for a new dock facility on a lot with 201 feet of water frontage,
subject to the approval of a companion Boat Dock Extension petition.
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,
Page 1 of 6
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. Multiple concerned residents who
reside further "up stream" on the waterway but use the same ingress/egress canal connecting
the bay as the Petitioner spoke in objection to the application. There were two public speakers
at the hearing who were originally opposed and met with the applicant's expert and as a result
stated that they would support the "alternate design" with the 446ot wide dock. None of the
abutting property owners expressed opposition to the Petitioner's application.
5. The subject property is a rare "boat dock lot" associated with Petitioner's main property/single
family home across the street. Based on historical aerial photographs, it appears that the
shoreline was altered sometime between 1952 and 1963 (when dredge & fill was permissible)
to make room for several docks including Petitioner's, recessing these docks landward,
resulting in the true property boundary to now be in the waterway. The entire waterway is
very tidal making navigation (especially the channel leading out to the bay) and docking a
vessel challenging.
6. County planning staff reviewed both the proposed dock design and the "alternate design" and
the staff report applies to both. The length of both designs is the same (30 feet) but the
"alternate design" has a thinner 4-foot (rather than 5-foot) width, allowing a slight adjustment
away from the abutting property owner's dock.
7. The County's Land Development Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for variances. The Hearing
Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant, deny, or
modify any request fora variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
1. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved?
The record evidence and testimony ji•om the public hearing reflects that yes, the subject
property is legally nonconforming with r°espect to the r°equh ed lot area and leWidth and is
not capable of supporting any listed permitted use within the RSF4 zoning area in which
it is located. As a result, the subject properly has historically been used as a boat dock lot.
Said use is authorized as the subject property) is deeded together i-vith an upland lot that
supports a single family di -selling (a principal use); the combined lots are separated by
Pettit Drive. There are several other similar lots in the immediate vicinity); all used
similarly; hor-never•, staff did not research horn their itse r-vas authorized
2. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action
of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the
subject of this variance request?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that yes, as per records
obtained from the Property Appraiser's Office, the existing dock was first observed in
1991, prior to the transfer of ownership to the current olvner. Said dock is to be removed
to allow for the subject replacement.
3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary
and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant?
The r ecor°d evidence and testimony fi°orn the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
expert stated: "Yes, denial of a side setback variance for this property would severely limit
the buildability and use of the lot, particularly in comparison to the neighboring boat slip
lots. " County staff agreed that denial of this petition would create practical difficulties for•
the applicant.
4. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of
health, safety, and welfare?
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public Hearing reflects that the applicant's
expert stated: "The applicant is proposing to only utilize the space within their riparian
area and is proposing the same side setbacks as many of the nearby boat slip lots. And it
is our opinion that a side setback variance of 0' is reasonable for the circumstances. "
County staff concurred; However, notes that the Zoning Atlas yields no information
pertaining to the use or setbacks currently enjoyed by the other property owmers.
5. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied
by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning
district?
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hecrr•ing reflects that, by definition, a
Variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site.
LDC Section 9.04.02 allows relief through the Variance process for any dimensional
development standard.. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship ii�ould be
entitled to make a similar request and would be conferred equal consideration on a ease -
by -case basis.
6. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, the applicant's
expert stetted: "The dock facilit�� code as outlined in Chapter S. 03.06A. states that:
Docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored
vessels and provide scfe access for routine maintenar�ce ar�d use, i->>Hile
Page 3 of 6
minimally impacting navigation lVithin any adjacent navigable channel, the
use of the ivaterivay, the use of neighboring docks, the native marine
habitat; manatees, and the view of the lvater•vvay by the neighboring
property owners.
The alter°native dock design as proposed (a 4 foot by )0-foot finger° pier) is too narroiv to
provide anj) other function but to access and maintain the vessel that hill be on the attached
boat lift. The project hill protrude only 7 feet into the platted lvatervvay and will leave
ample space within the platted waterway for navigation. Neither should the dock impact
submerged resources and, by extension, manatees. Considering that the project cis
proposed is consistent vnith the general area's uses and other docks in the vicinity, vne do
not believe views will be impacted either•. Therefore, our opinion is that the proposed dock
is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning code. " Couno� staff concurred
7. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the
goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses,
etc.?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, the applicant's
expert stated: "The area which the proposed structures lvould cover per this variance
petition consists of the staface haters of a tidally connected man-made waterway.
Construction lvithin the riparian lines, as proposed, will have no effect on the water and
has been designed to be compliant with the applicable state and federal restrictions for
this location. Additionally the proposed project has ah•eady been authorized at the state
and federal levels of government. " County staff concurred
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, approval of
this Tsarance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP with respect to densio,
intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other applicable provisions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY
The subject property is located within the Urban --Coastal Fringe Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed -
Use District and is also located within the Coastal High Hazard Area on the County's Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The GMP does not
address individual Variance requests but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. The existing
single-family use is consistent with the FLUM of the GMP. The requested variance does not have
any impact on this property's consistency with the County's GMP.
ONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
ATIO
The EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. Since the subject variance doesn't impact any
preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition.
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 9.04.03 of
the Land Development Code to approve the Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL202400073325 filed by Nicic
Pearson of Bayshore Marine Consulting, LLC, representing Noble & Noble Investments, LLC,
with respect to the property legally described as located at an unplatted boat dock lot deeded with
and located north and immediately across Petit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section
18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance request from Section 5.03.06.E.6 of the Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC) to reduce the minimum side yard riparian setbacks for dock facilities on lots
with less than 60 feet of water frontage from 7.5 feet to 0 (zero) feet on both sides for a
new dock facility on a lot with 20± feet of water frontage, subject to the approval of a
companion Boat Dock Extension petition.
Said changes are fully described in the Site and Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and the Map
of Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Site and Dock Plans, including the "alternate design."
Exhibit B —Map of Boundary Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is an unplatted boat dock lot deeded with and located north and immediately
across Petit Drive from 203 Goodland Drive East in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement
of the development.
2. This dock is private in nature and shall not be used for rental purposes.
3. This dock shall not be used for any commercial purposes, including the mooring of
commercial boats, unless specifically permitted within the Goodland Zoning Overlay
(GZO).
4. This decision is to approve the "alternative design" with the 446ot (rather than the 5-
foot) finger pier.
Page 5 of 6
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,
January 7, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
I
:1
,I,
i
SS
Y t�
1
I 5i
.1
i
W
z cn
CARayshore Marina Consulling12411 -
Or.
let
a03
)
CD WIT
0cn
3
LLto
I
varla ncc so1R l.dwg LOCATION MAP 12/1/2g24
W �
❑ M
❑ J
Z LL IN�
rn �
J � o p
CD � ❑O Q
�
(N N a
W o J❑ c rn �
J CO W c,.) O � IN
OU
� o N N U' co Z
_a
W
❑
Z 2 inp D
O N ui Q D �
❑ (A)� Z W 3k �'.' 0
� tWn 0 g cn a � �
i
i
'•`It00
�
F • Y. �o
a
w i o
u i� a
ooy
LL
w
w
LL J
N
CD? J�a
w =aa
J
U :i, - aw=>
a��x
wFoi
Z0
CDr w030
X F x Of
0m�
w
o Q 3wQo
0>
Too'0 zZ zQw0
F O oz
O Fill <W3W
m O i
all z
z z' 1 j 2 `I p
T. 1-
(q Q� Q
I Z Y o LU c�
�U �U CC) wt`, o H
�Q ow �' t U)
CD LU
Lo LU Oz -
Zr
CD
i9tr 56
r j
LU
Qtz Q --
w ��
I, z L1J Y
CoTill
z O
Q 0
TTTTT
1 Xil �C�
CD (D CO
z z U C71 w U) 0M
�pO Z a onLL
xm0 cn 000
ITTl
w w W (D �l
i z �Ma a
N O w
W
z U) F x i7
M �Z
1+1 V s
C:1Dayshore Marine Consubing12411 -Aquamarine-Noble, 203 Goodlantl Dr. E1CADICCIDollier variance set-R1.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS 1214/2024
%i
A
Z d0 t 193HS I 'S1NWO )UNO U3d S31ON 031VOd0 6Z/6Z/L:A38
lIdr :AS 03N33H3 I Mt-VZ :'ON sor I t4Z/6Z/L :31VO I ,Ol =at :31V3S
l8 A9 NMVNO
�NlddtlW ONV 7NIA3A6N5
NO ONVl0000 EOZ 911IMVifO
I
I
I
I
I
0717£ -W 'ONV10009
NO (INV10009 £Oz
NOI DMISNOD
3NNvw vnbv
SS3NOOV 311S / 210d (MIVd3ad
I
,a8 TO 3„os,zsoTON
� ,68•tiz M„o�;zsoaos
I
/
/
/
/
m i
m
w
o n
Q
p o
Z
o Jzwo
tz zm M >
`C F7MW zo 0
zaQ�ox m
WOz ,sm33Wo z
rum pOU-'OQw 0
jWW OKvwixJxQ v,Q
=rpzzzzzruw,w..V-
QowwoOu��oLLQZ>a>
U U U o w W 0 2 2 z O a a r
w J J �
a
zz
U
7Z£L ON NOIIVZIHOH.Lnv 30 31V31:JIIHD0
9909-909 (199):3NOHd3-131
777££ 1d 'HOV38 AVNl30
ZIV IINn '8811 0-13ONV1 OZZI
DNI 'Duvnbbnii
J.8 O3NVd3Nd
I
I
I
M
V m
O m
w �
02 I M
O I J
2 I U
00'67 3„oUFs roN
'OZ M„o£,ZS,TOS
`w W
m
�-------
l
~� h
f.
Q
-' � w O z
a w a O m=
nr. 2 N� o zw Uw
r o� awo i
S r 0 z o FZ�-
Z W m Q Z O W o o 0 � O
>o Iwo 2'2z w Trr
Z w� azw tn20 v, rw
a uz�F� >LLm z pw
Q oo ZED --ZO DO} o
00 OS Quid O1 ZS Uy, wC
taa o m00 uin 2wx
z Zmgao3
> Q ¢ Z o Z o w w W
m zw0�a�5 i�z�s�uQ�a
Jwz o^oUmp��zm
wpwowuo
0 IAwz<0Mw owani=wx0-},0
u 8DUOZKQJ Sao IX 34=ou�L
fi Z-roowaQ Wz°'
Z_kOaFinN iD r fa
z 2r Z". 2ofO00�Z¢a4A
Qo Qow s a_N p zw-
0 occ
oo�pFo�'W>000 xuz>wno
a 2 �p�io=Za08L ow;L=o-
rs
z x w x O s U' Z a w o 1 0
oo?33LLF>��oa0<( --=
0 17,w uoV'w'�'�>Qayzo5: 43
Z 0 °o Ww5 wzo�Wowzwo�
o �aQ=zLLo��Q >YPw00=�z
mr w
�u MNZOo'F-``i''o=pzocma Z"mg >o6u
w »ionazwNZzwWwZ000�ata
WuQd�C0oc20In�wOOQoOPdOz`" vo�
O O W W P o z Z o o Z U p< w S m Q
O W rozw> W m3 I�nO�ZpwF-Q1O aj
d9F?wao",WoEazx"0 woopo
L
LLt,Iw?aowwoOzSt;5zo iK?px
z umzzwxEmj S 3w,ww°,"30,wu
w�^-o6FqzzZ�za=z3oWLLaw
"a> G � �`-0< OZw-zW
Z '^oNVOwD =2�=ZOOZ5; Owm<w
V1Mv,v,Zy,K= V y,o K 0¢OQQ6ilri V
=0--pxorz z ugsrg �p wzwwLLa
� rLL��urLLow�omwmu, .moo xF xFon.
vpi .< nni v 6 °c r�ro m N A`.iti
m
w
I-
u
Z
LL
�
�
O
�wZ
Oz��
LL0-
p
Uop
aZLL
T
0
N N N On
� a N O�
O Cm
Oj
T 1 O rn z
,p fV re) o
N N C)a
N s
o ° re)
Mt;
K
fJ m ••,toil, O
����fififiJ
�Qxr�a
�
n
o'
U"Zo
u�Om_Y0p
x>
>
w�n3080
z
r
w
w
rc
o0
mrl
a�oa
k=}u
aF
ar�LL�mp
p
zuw
r
FrZ�G
<
a�
,Qoo
�4wsdLLa
ow
r
o
o
W
o
j
Q
�
0
r
mwm�woz
u
=
r
Z
m
Qon
as
u
=emu{-n
Cj wnw r w wwl9�� w x
womr., w �
o"oai3wwLL6o
W w a a C r 0 O l w r N e m
�° ZOVtjZydQ z
�wOz m-
o aan�aooxz
woWopoao
ar
�cz IDw onIT mz
wo J0,1 o =
r
�Om Z l7 um.Q�ah Q Y
z �'�MQgp QQ
o� a6o<ainz Q
v<i ¢ O
�a\oQ zwFatg
z_ mtoo>t�zao
Y Q w Y Y Q Z O
QOomQ r}pIA
iu�NMML FOww
nWwwrIM Mi a
��RoOLexwmQz
_ O e Z w W r 0 > 0
0
g
NO�ma7w~Z QU'w
Z �000�o�mtZ
3oownmuzwaJ
� K>Oac
. N z� M Px -w
memo< Zo o�
a o 0 Q p a w 0 m O
xal_1-waaQLL-Q��a
3ro1��,i 4az00���
r w Z w p z
w p o 0 z
;aWM 0 vauuarram
ox�wQOW _
o z
gO�m0N}rr_ 00
Kmo Iog<umWz
Z gr j 0 ti„r'?Kw � tO
O w m O� Z°
o Z J 0 O uuuullll m o o O
z N FSx
'vw„m, ZmW00 Fj roi `wr'
X F 0= N x p O o
ao¢uo'^ o
awoum; 00 Z3:6
¢�zw4NMWo�Mm�
l7Q F r;+OFx--iq U- OLL
p w
Z°�z DZ m3
� p O 9 z
fm3l9zz9_Mm
pU v=i� wwu�ua Zvx mz i
Z JOZ133HS
�321
WA 03NO3H0I
9E9 H7Z:'ON
90f
bZl6ZIL:3UV0
.OZ=.l:3lVOs
�9 .A8 NMVaO
6MP'lIW83d
80 ONVIGOOO
We
:ONIMVaO
'JNIddVW 4Ntl 7NIA3AllN5
w \
U \ J
N
J W
Z \ ti
a 0 \ 3
0 \ 2
O \
\ Q
r
Q O
2W�JULy
WQ2
WWti
O W W J CO
a4,Q�Ct
Im 2�a44�
�QQ o
a C
W2��Ue
QWy2J
UW0kQ
2�4QWU
Ohl7£ -Id ONVI0009
a0 aNV-I0009 NZ
NULLJI l 1lSNUJ
3NIVVw dnbd
SS3N00V 31I6 / 80d 03?JWIMJd
7Z£L ON NOI1VZIa0H1f1V HO 31V3IdIla30
9909-909 (199):3NOHd3l31
MH lH 'H0V38 )sV8I]O
ZIV IINn 7Ja31 0-IADNV1 OZZI
DNI /DIldnbdn1 i
:AU 03aVd3Nd
OW
V°'b,A1° �`�' 'j'?'?°'r ° ,gyp°
?
,S•y
,0'fZ
j
0
000 0
I
o
�
W
,6'ZZ