HEX Final Decision #2025-13HEX NO. 2025-13
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
May 8, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240010366 - 228 Bayview Avenue -Request fora 25-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 45 feet into
a waterway that is 203± feet wide pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H The subject property
is located at 228 Bayview Avenue, further described as Lot 38, Block B, Conner's Vanderbilt
Beach Estates Unit No. 1, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 25-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 45 feet into a waterway that is 203± feet wide.
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 %J Ordinances, a 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 was a letter of objection
received from the neighboring property owner Mary Lorraine Esposito, and the trustees of 210
Bayview Ave, who appeared in person at the public hearing.
Page 1 of 6
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
primacy criteria and four of the six secondary criteria must be met.l
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 from. the public hearing reflects that triter°ion HAS
BEENMET. A three-story single family dwelling is presently being constructed on the
subject property) cis per Building Permit No. PRFH2O231148058, issued on January
24, 2024. The subject project is to allow the replacement of an existing dock facility by
approving the construction of a new residential dock facility with tivo boat lifts: one
'or a 42 foot vessel and the other to be decked over for the keeping of t~vo 14 foot
personal watercrcfts (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 r°ecord evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The appliccrr�t's expert stated: "Withozrt the boat dock extension, a vessel
would not be able to be moored shore parallel or launched ivhile at MLWL due to the
water depth within a 20' protrusion of the MHWL/propero) line, as shown in the
bathymetric survey and cross section drawing. " County staff concurred, based upon
the plans.
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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated: "Proposed dock facility does not intrude
into any marked or charted navigable channel, thus there will be no adverse impact on
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
navigation. The proposed dock and lift have been designed not to impede navigation,
and its protrusion is consistent with 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 and testimony from. the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "The waterway width is 203' and the
proposed dock facility protrudes a total of 45' fr°om MHWL measured at wet face of
seawall, which is 22.17% of the waterway width. Thus, the dock facility does not
protrude more than 25% of the waterway i-nidth and maintains more than 50% of
navigable waterway width. " County staff noted that the provided plans reveal the clear
distance between the proposed dock facility and the dock facility on the opposite shore
is 160 feet, which accounts for 78.82 percent of the width of the waterway; therefore,
staff concurred with the applicant's expert that both parts of this criterion are satisfied
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 t1�e public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "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 21.2' from the proposed dock." County staff
concurred.
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
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "Shor°eline confguration would allow a
boat to be lifted from a Parallel position relative to the shoreline, but after many design
attempts due to the close proximity of the neighboring docks, a 42' boat can only Dock
Safely perpendicular to the shoreline." County staff noted that the subject property has
80 feet of shoreline; a 42 foot boat slip plus a 10 foot let4de PWC lift totals 52 feet, plus
30 feet to satisfy the side setbacks of 15 feet, totals 82 feet exceeding the available
shoreline. Staff therefore 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 recor°d evidence and testimony om the public hear°ing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "The design of the proposed boat dock is
for recreational vessels to be maintained safely without 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 public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
NOT BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated: "Vessel LOA combined is 70' feet (I
ea. 42' long Boat & 2 ea. 14' long PWQ, which is more than 50 percent of the linear
miter frontage, being 80' long. " Coumy 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 f °orn the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated: "Proposed dock facility will not have an
impact on waterfront view of neighboring properties and will be consistent with
existing dock facilities along the shoreline cis shown in the aerial drawing. The
proposed dock facility is within the property's riparian lines and will not impact the
detim of the neighboring water frontpropero) owners. " County staff concurred that, due
to flood zone requirements, most structures in this area are elevated.
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 f °om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The submerged resources survey pr°ovided indicates that no seagrass
beds exist within 200 feet of the proposed dock. No seagrass beds will be impacted by
the proposed dock facility.
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 criterion is not
applicable. The provisions of the Collier County 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 within Port of the Islands.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of
this request. The property is located adjacent to a man-made canal. The proposed docking facilities
will be constructed waterwayd 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
this project 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-PL20240010366, filed by Mark
Oreus of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, Inc., representing the owner/applicant 228 Bayview
Realty, LLC, with respect to the property described as located at 228 Bayview Avenue, also known
as Lot 38, Block B, Conner's Vanderbilt Estates Unit No. 1, in Section 29, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 2546ot 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 45 feet into a waterway that is 2031 feet wide, pursuant to
Section 5.03.06.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Docic And Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and
the Boundary And Topographic Survey attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the conditions)
set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Proposed Dock And Site Plan
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit B — Boundary And Topographic Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 228 Bayview Avenue, also known as Lot 38, Block B, Conner's
Vanderbilt Estates Unit No. 1, 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. A Certificate of Completion for the proposed dock facility shall not be issued before a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the principal structure on the subject property.
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,
May 23, 2025
Date
Page 6 of 6
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
«A»
z a
V)
O F U Z
U 2 m d Y ixh z
a 0 w m 3 cj
Z
Z m LL N O Z w
a K C�7 ~O � Q C7 f7 3
Q°� aZw�a3 a W Y g N N Wgilt
Na �ZOE� Im O o n, x x a M >
z3w 000w C a U o E S w w 3 O
W F.wrnYv�ZFr-> W I 41 w\, �C
Z ¢ m ci o .W.1 HUM IL
OQ. N IL
Q
cq
9H OO
N 00 00
O O O
N N N
N IN
W rINMd'1n
1- >> >> >
Q W W W W W
Gfx�rxC�
I I 3NIl ALH3d08d 1S3M
IIIIIIII11111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
(IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z r � � ;
(( I I I I I �wg�
IIIIII1111111111111111 g 0
( I I,I,I,I ( I I I
( I I I ( I I I W
IIIIIIIIIII Z 3 IIIIIIIII W
LLJ
(IIIIIIIIIII o IIIIIIIII Q 00
(IIIIIIIIIII g m Q O
( I I I I I I I I I H
( I I I I I w3 ( I I I V W
I I I I I I I m= I I I I I �mm
(IIIIIIIIIIIII °z o I�IW �I� 11J M
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII a 0 ( = 00 (a)Q W
I I I I I > N L) M m
( I I I I At
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m� J
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII H z OQa
F-
( I I I I I I I O
mmi V N z
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
( I I I I I I I I I
M
I I V W m L% An
ao Z J �.. H
co LU
V
I1LU
I�III ( I I I I II ] Fri O Q
(I I w � ~ OC 0
I I w I LU = 0. Q
> Z
(III M
tz Z
(III a II O = Z N
llllll I I ( I I I I,I I II I U In
y of
RIP
!_7 a
( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I no ~
i l l l l l l l l l l l l l
I I I I I I I I I
�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z i= A M LL
III11111111111111 � o � o :'. IN
(IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ° N a V Z
II�I�I�I�I�I�I O Z
f U 2
_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. J
I MIFF] kLd3dONd 1SV3 >
i Ila
ZW
�Nya
N
_ O
C
a
g 4 JAM
w°
I- N
fh
U M
Q
w
M c
o 0M a
z a a
moo
00
000
N
N
N
O
O
O
N
N
N
WrlivMd't!�
W
W
W
a
o�1XIMIXM
W
z 3
:i
rl >
O
O
O d
z a IL
N
N
Ter!
c-I
0 o C}
� I N
J
O
= 3 N
11111 11111111 %\\//\\/ N > > > > >
G
IIIIIIIIIII��\\\ UjLUWww
\/
C" o if
(i II Il l l�lil �\
It
it
it
if]
f 1i
u 1 1 I I y\\
a� H
{ I I (IIII \/\\\ W M
if I
NsI U
Neer.III, I 11 I `//\// r?'�LZ
%` iit i I I I I I I I I \
�A It 1141111F
/At if ere ree
I�//AA//A � m�
I I I 11 ,�i5 i 1 '\ /\\//\ U N Z
I ! II I \ \
�\ ; VTTI l p, II I \\\
up
u.I I Ii- I I 11 I I/VA//VA//` � y
p V W {
ZkNit li ii\ a '�iif
i i 1 I\/\\\//\\\// � O to
fl a °a
�'\ i 1 1 /V/V�/
p'
it if I
\V II If I se
it it I
If If I ` z00
tel I if I II I itI I I I\//\\//\\ _ O LA
Gf
III u�t i11�1\�j\\\
�� Sri !° f i d I VA/VA/VA o ci
If It I I /j/j w N
if ere ere < lot
I' fbo
�+ Ii1IIIII %AAAAAAA `n .a
see. c3 Low
It
it
III �x
Lu
Jill
III
if I
° III / ! I I I �j\\j\� \\ a
\ \ \ \ \
¢ M a
sesN
m Q IL
o
Z ��n
O/ / o
\ \ \ \ \ \
a
0A10'100'Se-5:tz-zz\031v0dn\3nv M31Mve ezz\l3A8ns\0ioiuo) s/3nans 3NIWVI M0180 - £lz\zZOZ k3A8ns 103r0Hd\A3Auns\:0
ic
-'s
�8gion 8g o
yyLL 5 z
V
v1W �
�yJ}
�s( � O 3 WEm �g
p O Q kI!t
�mOQ
wJ6� pa mwOZp all
� pffi t
4 P 6 LL U q
6. mY
R � Q u
q ui
N0m36u tj
Jo o$w Wn gW0 Ow Z
rr
zip � m `� o = Wco wo
ZZ m SRO z m� m l50)
� z Ws IJi (D 00
O b V91 6� p g � N O sOVrip� ui to 0� ll ip2 O }� Z'd'=
d `_' ;az WIN
o,`%-' ozaa'yy'�.�,�,�q�czs� zQ� moo 1- QW �ca 0.0
iZ Fpsfsrcn �yS'p"�z�adtioLi�N�[i�'�•�yi aaaaa�diiii O �.yo coNNZW
z g � _1 �'` � 54 ��zg zmuwa<wx 111 W >�m } N �J
W ��UN z = .0 2 3�wq � �-horn �`rc Gi O� � cc
Q OC)
m z � ou o Q'`zk'��z" QS oz��$azt���"�Ej��YW�'+�y��G� � (�/] WO Z N
.0 'i gizi$3FOc4 oEu2"'S O �oLL m O
d �$ �j"+�$Ea$�8oi5zaoa6p<_vo9 LijtFF�S�>>22iiO�F3lt�g��� !-
� o OIYd�3Z2 v�o o? i o LSD 5UHt. F14US .
w �u
d a'$ Z w ti + vi %6 n oc m � ... m
eri r/ ?� u
IN
80 / jft O — i ha
M.
�m
w�WIN
8�a
O O t !4k t V t:
C �
Pj •� �� t _ G. c
z 44,
„_ IN
5 i0'52' E (Pi 120.00'rm ��-
�`�0p 3
/ Yt r %§ Jet
t O Vi
� T�I
4 j`t mIT
�i h jAr aWN
WIN
J 1�
¢y r COor
O\V
p Y rAt 'm
ppp L
O ry17 K 3 S �1 F �N7
pe r vto p 2i
O m G W � •i, s, r tb F .e o,
INN
uaOWN Nmq
� � b
lr L'
a t y k
rNN
to
1 t �_
01 tal LL
a4 CIAZp a t
120.00' W z ado
N t0'52' W Gilg ...=LS
\ �3
La
V
ggz
w o�000
wLKBi oa!RgLd