HEX Final Decision #2025-08HEX NO. 2025-08
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 13, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240008508 -Collard Docic - 9990 Gulf Shore Drive -Request fora 30-
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 50 feet into a waterway that is 551.8 feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H
For property located at 9990 Gulf Shore Drive and further described as Lot 29, Block B, Re -
Subdivision of Part of Unit No. 1, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, in Section 29,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 30-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 50 feet into a waterway that is 551.8 feet wide.*
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Companion Petition No. VA-PL20240008511*. To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner
(HEX) consider a variance request from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.03.06.E.6 to
reduce the required side yard riparian setback of 15 feet to 8 feet for a dock facility on a lot with
67 feet of water frontage.
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 Code 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. There was a letter of no objection
received from neighboring property owner Jim Cerkleski. There were no objections at the
public hearing.
5. 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 crud testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. Tlie subject property is unproved with a single family residence. Proposed
is a single dock facility comprising trio slips, one for a 40 foot vessel and the other to be
decked over for up to trio PWCs.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that without the boat dock extension, a vessel
would not be able to be moored or launched while at MLWL due to the water depth within
a 20' protrusion of the MHWL/pr•operty line, cis shown in the bathyrnetr•ic survey and cross
section draining. County staff concurred, based upon exhibits A — Dock and Site Plans and
B — Boundary, Topographic Survey And Site Plan.
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.)
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
Tlie record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that the proposed dockfacility 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 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 ar�d testinzor�y from the public hearing r°eflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that the waterway width is 551.8' and the
proposed dock facility protrudes a total of 50' fr°om MHWL, lvhich is 9.06% of the
waterway width. Thus, the dockfacility does notprotrude more than 25% of the waterway
width and maintains more than 50% of navigable waterway width. 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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that 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 noted that
the propero) owner to the north is in the process of constructing a dock, Permit No.
PRMAR20241251516 that will protrude 52 feet into the subject waterway for which both
cr BD and a VA were approved; HEX Decision numbers PL20230008895 and
PL20230012485, respectively. The hvo neighbors had discussed plans with each other, and
each provided the other ivith Letters of No Objection.
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 criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that the shoreline configuration only allows a
boat to be lifted from a perpendicular• position relative to the shoreline. The dock is
proposed to allow a 40' boat into the slip, perpendicular• to the shoreline, thus already
extending past the 20' niaximurn. Also, due to the pie -shaped shoreline configuration and
Page 2 of 6
presence of existing neighboring docks, a 40 boat can only dock safely perpendicular to
the shoreline. County staff concurred
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 testr.'mony fi°om the public hearing r°eflects that cr°iterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that the design of the proposed boat dock is
for recreational vessels to be maintained safely ivithout incident. No excessive deck area
is being proposed, as shown in the site plan. County staff concurred..
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 pZrblic hearing reflects that criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that the vessel LOA combines is 64' feet
'I ea. 40' long Boat & 2 ea. 12' long PWC), which is more than 50 percent of the linear
}eater frontage, being 67' long. " County staff concurred.
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 fr°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that the proposed dockfacility will not have an
impact on waterfront viely of neighboring properties and will be consistent with existing
dock facilities along the shoreline as shown in the aerial dralving. The proposed dock
facility is lvithin the property's riparian lines and hill not impact the view of the
neighboring waterfront properly owners. County staff concurred and further noted that
due to existingflood elevations the houses and buildings in this area are significantly above
ground level.
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 criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The submerged resources 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.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that critei on is not
applicable. The provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to
single family dock facilities except for those-mdthin the seaivalled basin of Port of the
Islands; the subject property is not located within 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 seawall shoreline, which 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 2-1193 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. 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 5.03.06.1-1 of the Land Development Code.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20240008508, filed by Mark
Oreus, representing the owner/applicant Craig and Susan Collard, with respect to the property
described as located at 9990 Gulf Shore Drive, approximately 80 feet south of Bayview Avenue,
also known as Lot 29, 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 3046ot 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 50 feet into a waterway that is 551.8± 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 Dock and Site Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and the
Boundary, Topographic Survey And Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the
conditions) set forth below.
Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Dock and Site Plans
Exhibit B — Boundary, Topographic Survey And Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 9990 Gulf Shore Drive, approximately 80 feet south of Bayview
Avenue, also known as Lot 29, 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.
CONDITIONS.
1. 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.
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,
March 28, 2025
Date
Page 6 of 6
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Ails"
W y
z a
>
O
z a a
N
O
o N
a
I t c-I
= 3 �
>>>>>
l...11lllllllllll��\\�\\ �LLILULLILULU
Jr�,r I
;y
u 'i111111i11�\ Q
II I
It
uj
II
I It 00
It
If
L
NN
/OVA W
I II l U 1 I I I I I It
a ant
If
1 11 4491 I I /\�\\/% Q Q
If p i i i114,
%j
It
sill i ii', If II it
I ILO
li h III
a i i /VA/VA/ o O
JI
/
` I I U i it II 1\\\\ a s
V� 'I )Ill
It
A
\I If II it 6I 1/\/\
VI 1 110I'I 1\/\\/\\ Z _O tj
fliI,t
IY
\ 11 If
II II 1 I / no No M
LL
It i, /\\//\\//\\//\\/ z 4a1
Ili If
( iCL
iiitfj 1 u W
III �} ',. \//\//\\/ \ j/\\ >
a I'II 1///////\// ��Q
/\\j// 3 ~gL
a
\ \ U M
Q
W-
r `/F Wall
O �
00
do
...
:r
W
F-
O
Z
J
0 Q
0 3
d w N
¢ ru Y �
w U N U
Z O r Z
W Q w J Q O OU
0 N 0 O 3 p N N O N
CO 0 iL w z a a F F
� L!5ECo
o Q 5 0 o N N
NN O d00 i a 3 a a
N Cr) O N Z
Y NN NN`iN W I
Qru
W
III�I'I i
��IIIIIIIIII11111�1'I i
I l l s 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
IIIII111111111111111111111111111�1111111111111111111111111 IIIII
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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,e i l l l
`IIII 111111111111111 01111111111111111 ' IIIIIIII ve IIIIIII
I0
I I I I I I I ml I t I l I i
I I I I I I I( I I I I I a _o (IIIII III IIIII
( I I I I I WI
l l l l l l I I I I I N 3 I I O I I I I
I I zl I I I
i , I I.� I I I I I I I NULL I I IIIII I
IV) � e IIIII I
i cYi 'gN IIII ' i''rv6 (IIIIIIII a o � r-,' � � '� IIIIIII . III I
o W c7 I I I I I o000o a I I I I I
wwwwz a I I I I I I
0000a Q a I I I I
�................... o33 0zJo o000
����_ .... . . . . . 0
0w0 ¢ I I
Z'SI
O
w
a
m
:•: K
Y
a
J
�
_.J
WiiNMd'It1
Q
W
W
W
W
W
lz
1%
19
19
LAMI
W
00
Q to ti
O -i M
U :z (o
W
v rnZ
00
_ O N
cn
M
N
M
Aye
Zi
Q
Oz
w
W
Q
�Na
a
M
R
m
0
z
3snoHivoe
,A-£h
Il /MV3S do 30V3 WONJ
R
M
4
o
�
o
N
Q
O
OJ
M
h
M
Z
Q
J
Z
Z4
W
�
n
_
w
WriNMitip
~Q
W
W
W
W
W
C�0:lz0:kv
0
W
00
LILM
J � H
O J M
U � �
go
C� C7
W
U rn Z
V -NWWN{
NON G
a a
\I Z °°
_ O Uf
cn
V NM
2 a
b
�M
_FLL
ACc�
VZa
OZ_
Z
W
a
�ZW
io
pq
�! o
a
M
F w
w € c7
LL a < w
g Z > r r
F Z J N U U U
Z a o w ¢ ¢ cc
U O 4. U Y Y
O LLaa'
r Q J J 2 W W W rN r O J
OW w O W Z Z �.-, (7 = U p F- U N C7 Y W d
m X Q. O O 2 J a W W O W YL
(Z'J V W LL W O O (7 U J Z D_ V1 Q m Z O
N} Z O Z j d m rL J F- O W W w a,rG W H W O r' m
W J O S U J Mw d W J J W O O O 3 Q Q Q F- 2 apa 2 Q Y Q
Cpi 0 U W O 0 N d 2 2 N Q O C7 60. C7 N M N 3 2 If J m U pOR
O O
W N=NWo W>®• D 1 1#4�®����®� W a O w0 aow cn ® o
IL
Z a0. m�0?N .J a
c-�
Q
N
O
NN
WrINMatio
f->99»
Q W W W W W
\ \ ct
\\ W
\ �00
Q =o
J �
►I LL d
O = M
Ell ago
U � �
� a
U Z
MENOMONEE
\ IM
W
NMI
O G
pLi
M
N
C
\� %WZIL
L19
W
W
w z
a ho
o
�- a
U)
Lu ;A
U
U 00
Q �
Q
C
o/d04s8 CIZ-ZZ\HG 3NOHs dlno o666\,dJAHns\(NoRJO) S)JAHns 3NIdVN N012J0 - £lZ\ZZGZ A3AHns 133POHd\).3AHns\:o
m
�zao ¢
~oo oz a� �o mom'x zo oo Qz z �M� zHE o o 8o m5$5
o� OQ�J UQ oQ�Q2 0O d �O NjQ� a Zoi =mo 3I G .6nUi
omz o�zl,j' UWZoct mN3_� I-W coi0 �fy oar w wN� dad >m m a a 3mEhry� �rE
oN3 ° ¢>- ao� w Wtt> o w ozN os Z �' ° ui f= �o GaooNW
ma0 awo= mot zwa w Z� oNo mwa 0?w • in ¢ w ° ¢ ti w
tt S N a° _ 2
oho Qzo�o4m �mzr do
wza zN xo $z�N F36 o ° °
o� mo mm m a �a m m o mxwm�
m how a •-> Lwz 'z u =ow =mzo�n<orwno
o�ouo� z¢ oo"m '^mm w o ? oox�w
om�w H o0o z3 m `M' z
aZom m9 a� 000_ ✓roo��
00 ov YztsM2 ow�m a Z ��3 0o ao�� m -
Fj ' z $ Sz € o �m Nm mo
0_ ozFaa€� zdmz amm-' ON €0 'oam�j ���zg�Z^� p o� v
j- and z�Z -3 w� rm a- =0� 2 vRjwz lD a Q
d o c oFa 0 3�w � Z o ^oI�0 0J 3o mn�m ww W
2 maw o} P,._�ol.� w>�{3'�" wz�3ozlo ��'- -?E�w 'k'�WMMMm_w'u x g'go > N
U) rc o w tl:` mc'_ia Oz WW 2m qugE �i W,o a or zLLU�ou�u 3 wvi 15 Z o
W o� ma ono z oa on" gppa w 3�-�owzo �� zom U) ZQ
Z J O Qo ' nZE3< o�uoomvoi pz zoo �Qo a-I-oQ mpz U QO
} _ o2m y3 mQ �� v2i�W�' 3v'FOW'-^� omooQw " F = p� .0
F- i� a mo�mo woo"-� m >€r"o��ozn �0uam�mzo �- �'~ ww0 n. tiJo =0
oJm Nww'Om'F m� �~ Boa,=. ol-zzmm°""'z 5 'a'"o Q �•- F-ti
W m Y z�f��'ao aowwu ooa m"zcwi�m�u�P.� o-ooa aw W 2z� O J Zoy
2 - cr� Nm �w3aa z.w�mz uo jmo inzvu-i-i cFi L°ci ��'o rid o = F-
O ""wm h ISm000inoms %J'uw>m�wimamz��' °Nwo���� "' d � w � 6 ��� a UJW Z�Z
m% aoa�wau��s�auzFwm�aw2F�aaa>w �M mo
a >a Oz n m m m In aoo �� �° 0
° C7a =X
o m0 Q o¢ ZW
rnZ
Em }o rn 0o
U
z rn
N
Z
m 0
U
W
N
s j
n t * C P v
+ a
t * dood
loco
s
�z
n Q lJ o n
dad
^ m t y
0 7 N U
C
ur
vCl
7 o C
N * + * O V
o u `
o f f j 1 s ' n ��r"'111 cJ
zn a > * 'd /' •` part I
a n w m? m
i> • ^
w % Ci
Leo
to old du
dodo
m m
m II J II II W_ t o c
m o 3 3 w w d. LL U U m
dot
33 w �N o o o
o� o a
0 3 V
Z —
mm
t�i
4i
a mQ w VLZI
is No
4. NYl�6�K w
dot
w imwwi
mmU vo mQo� m�goY4
mmo
m�moo °rod�iomu�
m
O wow ZZ o ®®®m
N m
.^��
h�
ci
i
dot
CD Z
o � -
a
-�
N11°o�,a2 ��a���F�=
N 1T p EAR z 2 Ana
GULF SFIOKwnY Ul O.00o
Epp RIGt(f-OF-
J����LL
Jw
m
�
�
N
~
o
W
Z
m
N
J
�
a
U
m
H
�
v
U
k
9rdO'dd HOoO £IZ-ZZ\NO 380Hs dlno 0666\A3AHns\(H0180) SA3AHns 3NIHVN )MIO - CIZ\ZZOZ AlMins 103POHd\A3nans\:O
Qit ❑ -
U a
Z mo N 00
o W aFF`0 F a❑ �-
pm0 �. UZZ 2 M p[v
o Z m EOW
Z m�2 �Z Nz O m �; Ill 30
m Z- p~ o m m
NQ0 OZrNO GFO m 3Q U 0clj W
Koh III
Z m0 Cip �� ¢ O K W O U¢ N
iww >Im ww2 .a N ❑ U h ❑ N pw
W zN
p w w N Z J Z m N>
U a o z w O 3 m U
Nm � 0 m ow _
O ON > W OZ
d o S N Y w m¢ Z O� O S O
Z opt 1-a m pm pw
_ pU -a>p Z 30o 1
z-� mz wm oww O OQ Q
yid _ - rn m nu
Q. Zow 3mm�w �3o maw o www (1) W
M<r U pm ZKW�� .0 KT2 Z N
U a¢w�N wN �po�wa Ci gg0 W W
to � o ov� z �No ����o ww,3 � ZQ
w o o n II wow w
mw �pzma � ����w�m WWO o
} o �-
I— omn`. wo o�F W>woot �o� IV) WLL
o �O
d mti _o bi a�'<Jm=o wza<� a �Zm o o� ?o
<� o� wa >�a x
O Nam h i ow�N�widzw s0 �� ��� (n tnlL (D00Z
�. o ap �o app3 >a O W(n zv�
0>d z N n /] aoo U:, Jd0
U C� d =
No a W W
o F� 3 mZ Z J
z rn O0
U
o W
.1 U o
..z C)
�o ► W
W/It
O,�/
p/� 3
QI� 21I� N
tz
4 U `c
-
4i Qp <j2 � � • /�i - [ -
�m xlo I
y G Y tiWj
U VO o y dl 1 m
w
cv o
0 2 j .op
/
d 4 % .Of I I • C
I
,Z'SI
d s�
>® { ® c
0 3 -
33 �� W woN o C'.7 vai
o m a o O z > c
�f 3U R In _ U W
co
) m oNN
, ¢ o
c Y w m O
m m-� �3 mczin� ` -
wyz
Q Nm ovo
oom �m MM
<o�Y�
N < �
�� �affi
5w�¢iaoN
m
� ®®®m
Gt
> a
zn
130.00 M m
N1 0 42"W lPi oMwo m
gEpg ZW mo
CjUL�p RGHOOF_W�Y =N zoo w
Z � a
00000
Jx �n.w3a
m
J
Q
W
K
m
U
J
O
U
Q
�
F
m
W
Z
m
N
J