HEX Final Decision #2025-16HEX NO. 2025-16
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
May 229 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240007613 - 19 Capi•i Boulevard -Request fora 90-foot boat dock
extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.1
A the Collier County Land Development Code for waterways greater than 100 feet in width
to allow a boat docking facility protruding a total of 110 feet into a waterway that is 1,138±
feet wide, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is
located at 19 Capri Boulevard and is further described as Lot 46, Isles of Capri No. 1, in
Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 90-foot boat dock extension from the maximum 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 that will protrude a total
of 110 feet into a waterway that is 1,138± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H.
CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATION.
Variance, PL20240011209, to allow the side/riparian setback to be reduced from 15 feet to zero
on the northern side of the subject 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 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 7
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 public speakers at
the 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 and testimony f °om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The subject property is in a residential single family zoning district; the
proposed docking facility comprises a finger pier with hw boatlifts/slips.
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 �°ecord evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that cr°iterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "Maximum protrusion at this site is
measured f°om the property line. The maximum amount of water depth available 20
feet waterward of the property line would be slightly less than 2 inches at high tide. At
low tide, this location would be 1.9 feet above the water line, as can be seen on exhibit
M of 08. This amount of water depth is not adequate for launching of any type of vessel,
besides a kayak or other vessel that could be reasonably moved by hand. " County staff
concurred and noted that the existing dock facilio) protrudes 89 feet from the rear
proper0) line.
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
' The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
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 ci herion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "There is no marked or charted channel
cat or adjacent to the project location. Therefore, no marked or charted channels 14411
be affected by the proposed project. " 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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The waterway at this location is
approximately 1,138 feet wide as measured from the Mean High -Water Line (MHWL)
on site to the nearest opposite landmass as seen on exhibit 08 of 08. The proposed dock
will protrude a maximum of 110 feet f •om the property line, or 93 feet from the MHWL.
In the case of either measurement, the dock will not exceed 25% of the width of
1a)ateiivay, and more than 50% of the ivateiivay width will remain for public
navigation. " 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 pzrblic hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "This dock facility is oriented in the same
direction as the existing dock and occupies much of the same footprint. The angle of
ingress and egress to both the existing and proposed dock is positioned in a shore
normal configuration, as is the neighboring dock to the south, and as is the nearest slip
on the neighboring dock to the north. Neither the proposed side setbacks nor the
protrusion being proposed is atypical for the area, and no neighboring docks should
be affected by the project cis proposed. " Couno� 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
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "Fir°st, the submerged lcmds at the project
site have a more or less continuous, albeit thin in density, bed of seagrasses that stretch
Page 3 of 7
the distance behveen both of the property's riparian lines " Zoning staff notes that the
subject property is not the only "boat dock lot" in the immediate vicinity and concurs
that all such lots are too small to support an alloivable principal structure; however,
staff did not research how use was authorized as in the case of the subject property it
is deeded ivith an upland structure immediately across Pettit Drive. The fact that the
two properties are deeded together creates a single lot despite being split by a street;
therefore, the required principal use is on the upland portion of the subject property,
and the accessory residential dock use is subsequently alloived. County staff concurred
that the above constitutes a special condition and therefore concurred ivith the
applicant's expert.
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 from the public Dearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed facility hill utilize only a
single 4 foot-tivide access, and the terminal platform is a S foot -wide by 32 foot -long
area of decking totaling 160 square feet. The total square footage for the dock will be
396 square feet. The square footage is substantially less than many of the surrounding
docks and is, in our opinion, not excessive. " 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.)
TDe record evidence crud testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
NOT BEEN MET. The subject property has 70 feet of water fi°ontccge, and the
proposed dock facility was designed to accommodate hvo vessels, totaling 70 feet (30-
foot + 40- foot LOA vessels).
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 criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The Zise of the facr.'lit�� as a private,
recreational, single family residential dock will remain the same. And the proposed
dock configuration will be oriented in the same direction as the existing structure. The
neiv dock will be shifted south, 1-Mile only the additional boatlift proposed along the
north riparian line will increase the side setback encroachment. Therefore, the
proposed project should not constitute a major impact to the views of the neighbors. "
Count)) staff concurred.
Page 4 of 7
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 fi°om the public hearing s°eflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "There are seagrass beds within the
riparian area of the subject property in a continuous bed that spans the distance
between both riparian lines, as seen on exhibit 06 of 08. It is not possible to completely
avoid the grasses with a dock at this location, and so the proposed dock has been
designed with the criteria outlined in LDC subsection 5.03.06J. in mind. That is, the
height of the dock will entirely be above 2.2 feetNAVD per exhibit 04 of 08, the terminal
platform will not exceed 160 square feet in area as is visible on exhibit 03 of 08, and
the access walkway shall not exceed 4 feet in width which is also visible on exhibit 03
of 08, and the access walkway has been sited to impact the least amount of grasses
possible. " County staff concurred.
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 fr°omthe public hearing reflects that criterion is not
applicable. The provisions of the Collier Couny) 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.
The Environmental Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to granting this
request. The property is located adjacent to an ST overlay zone (Tarpon Bay), which will require
an ST-permit for the proposed docking facilities before issuance of any building permits. The
shoreline for this property contains mangroves. The proposed dock will be constructed waterward
through the mangrove fringe. The access walkway will be four feet wide. Any additional impacts
to mangroves will require written approval from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found Paddle grass
(Halophila decipiens) and Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) seagrasses are present within the area
200 feet from the proposed docking facility. On page 9 of 9 of the Submerged Resource Survey,
an aerial illustrating the locations of the seagrasses observed has been provided. Since the
seagrasses occupy a large area, the location of the docking facility has been placed to minimize
impacts to the seagrass beds, and the dock will be constructed to meet the dimensional restrictions
For docks proposed to impact seagrasses (LDC 5.03.06 J). The dock will be restricted to a four -
foot -wide access walkway, the terminal platform will be limited to 160 square feet, and the dock
will be elevated above 2.2 NAVD.
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
Page 5 of 7
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
A 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-PL20240007613, filed by Nick
Pearson, representing the owner/applicant Daniel Ambrogi, with respect to the property described
as located at 19 Capri Boulevard, also known as Lot 46, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 32,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 90-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet
allowed by Section 5.03.06.E.I of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) for
waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow a boat docking facility that will protrude
a total of 110 feet into a waterway that is 1,138± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section
5.03.06.H.
Said changes are fully described in the Site and Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and the Map
of Specific Purpose Survey attached as Exhibit 13 and are subject to the conditions) set forth
below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Site and Docic Plans
Exhibit B —Map of Specific Purpose Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 19 Capri Boulevard, also known as Lot 46, Isles of Capri No. 1,
in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 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, PL20240011209, by
the Hearing Examiner; absent such approval, this BD is void.
Page 6 of 7
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,
June 18, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
��o
U
0
a
4
z
0
�-
a
U
O
J
C:IB.��cliom M nno CuiodtinDC4�'i3• Ant�ropi, 17 Ccprl BI cdV;AD1COUNT ViCollio- BDE eel.cMg
� Z i� � d
_�Q
O � W
H Z tt
o$=�
N
w
w
w �
0o z W Y
a �WQ ,� z
N O � � J
� 4 � � Q
Q
o �
Lf7
Um
(V O
o0
_�
U
W
�y��/ �
' 6 Q li N
W m O
�. °" I ( � ° � z � U
w '�g Q Q
Q � h�a� ate(
z_ �. a
m u- ��z �
X II � w
W �w �
� (I °d o
ti
�Y I I
W U
� Q
m
�� I I
�- W
��
pl I W
zl �I Z
o � Q ��
�I �I � �
�I �I � a
c�
� ��
x �
I �z�
as t� s
:�H:rvdioro NUrino ConaiMingC•11i•Ambrag1,19C.�rl BI�d1CAD1COUNTY1Colliv BDE cci.dvW CROSS SECTION BB DP_:YSZ4
e " jd ".
«B»
caup�
IWO
! 'A803NO3HO OSOZ-*Z :•ON 8Cf I SZ/8UZ:31V0I tlM :3MJS
l8 ,ASN.MVLIO OMP*JJM3d0A1812ldV3% :ONMVLIO
9NIddVW ONV ONIA3AVAS
ld 'S31dVN '08VA31n09 MdVJ 61
lb 13 rll URV 'a iJllld
SS32100V 311S / 80d 03HVd3Nd
rr '1 O ¢ap �WxxO F0WWRtn
11 Im" DO �000L OZ c o0
h O LL a LL Z II-- 0. }� a' Q
MM7 a Z SOOZ rn u
A� 0 (D LL0ZaF m��LLQ
V z0 O�CCWQ YOw0G
In .. W JV W0 O'^f� W-
r J u 0 z O W m z O
Ln cc 1
0 Q Q W W>WI... N ZIpJQ
p6 V N p' z J V 1 LL u Kw (u n LL W00 J W
W W Q cc J O 0 ° m }+�`jQQ/�j� LL ml 0 FFF M W N
l� ZQ OQ a Z �VD �dWN W W(Wj lalla
YL, ceK Rtf m a:R O N LL OJWxti} aNx0co
O V1 0 u'�HLL J
LL O C7
i uo m 3ol-W ER 0
7 W Cd 1/�JW oOc }N W cc0uj Zu+� W rVGF�ZQ
1��� � O}—J
JO �QLa ZaONuz CC WOW
>Qz
LLLn
ZNOQ0"FZFK ce O F-Qy
tn0 N"Wwa0 y�i H 'nO
N-3: Q Z z z
Vd' W_=p0
3"gI'_0�u ZOntw7ovi
0 O0 The `n'ccrDU1- 0O- W
ZOpc OZ��rn pogLz � za zW<
0. ;S
W O tg� O 002 F~-a4OF QrruF�00
1 a a Q N Z z 3 Z O= 0 Z W
I= vIm oc �mw ZIuO� x O F pF
u `,.j` a u wZm 'u�LL�Oz z ZIL
,1 0 '_^W o aoZ Wo w=� w�oWo
l a v a �Go �W? zz wo °aoLL
% LLI toV} � J 00 I�Wy.
J� w f Y 1 W H? {Q/ 1 Ol J Q U0 z W F- OLL N 0 Q LL
LL
C
v
IU)
O
0
r-
Z I-
Uz
i
w
m
j
G
M
L
N
M
0
7G4L UN NUIlVL18UH111V dU 31VJI3IltJJJ
9909-909 (199) :3N0Hd3131
'777N ld 'HOV99 AV8130
ZIV llNn 'Na31 0139NV1 OZZI
:)NI 'Duv [mj)lll
:A9 03HVdBHd
Z p
O j
z
° >
z >
0 0
W o
U2 S f
UW ' z m zv
0
WZq W=W
W aY w wQis
W
c°0a oao�o...gZqa0
azpzmzw
z °yVmwg0
Z qq,00�I.IO��L2 ZO gnno F p <Quvw
s
w
¢ �Fao� uwc
a ¢< UuWHEW.IzzoaiaiF�:
zaaW
W � N
oow` Q�
Z a
FOf0 a
S�t0 o
wZwG z m
¢DO0 p °°
ti7�oa _ o> 3
2 z
z
0 °
O W
K
� W °
Z K w
= z a Z
0 o u
a
O ° w
.� O
u vF-
n n Z
,e o 0 0 0
d a w
a
z = o a
H m z
O
Z O v
j m C Z5 o O
�_
Z 0 n o W O
¢ G lc. O z n.
z g W 3
N ° Z W
Q o LL zgi oc
nm. o~c z c� z
i �zo.W o
Q� nu po a
o[ z
0C�z '�
O i S MCI OR 0 a s j,;
3W gxdo
z
o OOo 45
¢ o otZazooc9N
w > a z w z p
rn in f- u o:
mZ ZLL~Q U5 O
Z NZ��g�a�
c k` Who`>$�s
W W WF LLLLOQF
12
.W` 6WWigSo
W
zO n
OQ JE ON Zu ILnW
N O u O=° 2 m O K
-•ac�u63m Z3am3
o Cywao:;imow-'i0000
p W Z Z W z O W U S a t
U u u Z° Z p O W Z �Czu
1{7 rua Wa ZZ =y�
Q �F¢O o>c >O}i�¢tm�
VI 1=/1 N N z N W OC K Z W
u Fu is0 6?mF O
o:
v�i .ti ri 0i •v A L6 � m
gf�=o�Z
O. LL f N a
a OW ¢acn
LL Z F o W O o
NmurjO,Lo>o
W O u = N
=°�W~Mz�
a ' iE Woa
Q owc'�LLf<LLO
F°w >0wW
Q Z m N H a O
=o
riOQ^p0wo
Z Foc Zd ¢�
0 w
F i��np zav'r'ima
5_ WtJ°LLi�ap12
m>3G°QMQ
m =72�aa°
a ¢ o1I a0
FW- Z O
O O a2 u W ° W
P� s z
m F a Z Q z N a
m g O 4 ¢ mr
° ~ �° m
a
z z o FZ G z°
0 w � hY- z o
m O o n m a
z 3 a a n
¢ ° oWZ°—
u n a Z w
0 FF
Z u Z N a\
¢ Z K
�waN''0P2t W =)
°.aO mN anp� Om O«
w .-i u �p
O u�7€u yy Z 22 O Y„
z�'u�a F �9v
Q°l70€^00 Z m.�rn
O j Oe0-c K° _� a Z o d'
u Doi 0Wa
s0�c 0 t; w>Fj l7� ap
o t o i qq
�o>e aW°t atl O °• L O)
u
°z F fap a0zC)
° a W o a m
z o> z w o w o Z j
�"ad' Oo �' WHO m
�EFw WL90 oW y°°
g O2 WZ ZLL wz O�0zd CO
mO KW ww N �L vj�a C
p O j 2>Q 0 0 0 Z w 4 m N
gW OV Ewa E
W W
W G 0 0 o a Z $
pw m�F=UB ZummF
Wg3r 0 o , n� V
a3o Z a� ZW�oz U
pZ mp atj ': mp
cctiwF17 V, p�LL
°vSo�Z"tw m��¢9P� o
¢N Op 2m O.0 a N Wz a
Z Z O'Z Y== 2a 2 CP
00 �0� pz°`A� U
a° a¢ u W_u. O o N
V uiOFz Li W m �Oa O
Aso WfLD00 o00
a�Fa vai z°�ozo mFLL rq
- u a W n•
wa1-n �o l=-m ii� 0W
ai.h-
c yv c 17ana naa
-11:lr 9SOZ-OZ '' ON 80f' SZ/9UZ31V0 SZ=eL :3NOS
l8 :A9 WVN0 I 6hW'1IW33d4A19lHdVO6L `JNMV6C3
'JNIddVW dNV DNIAwins
�J 'S3-IdVN 'UaVA3lf108 lddVJ 61
ld13 `11HIN'a dlild
SS3a00V 311S / HOd (1MJVd3ad
N
w
J
Q
Q
O
0
m C1
u
z
�
Y
Z:o
O c
F
Z
Q;Q
�Iz
o
O i
p
N
�
0
2
i
K J
I U O W m
I z 2 O _
w�Cu
I �Lnw
� Z _
I O � 0
u N u
0 J v O
Diu p
t �•,:T 0 z N
H
�.... �.... a W
N
ILn
co
h
v
U
H
N
N
H
N
LU
J
m
W
W
W
W
W
Q
C:
N
N
H
H
N
z
v
of
O
of
00
0l
J
m
00
en
co
00
00
h
N
C
J
N
J
J
J
.J
-3
ro
v
00'OL M„L£,LO,TOS
.00
�Zo
z
=
u
o
r2
z
w
�
m
W
W
z
Z
V1
W
LL
(S9NIHb'38 JO SlSVBf
,00'OL 3„L£,LO,TON
(d) AVM JO 1HJIi1 09
_ �d) �lt/MHJIH SIdd12iJ 'V'�I'b'
(iHvAainoo RIdVO
9NIIH31N30
a
4L UN NUIlVLIdUH111V 3U JIVJIJlidJJ
9909-909 (199) :3NOHd3-l31
77'IN -lJ 'HOV98 AVN�30
ZIV llNfl ddDi 0130NV1 0301
Ml `:)uvn()vmj31
:AG 032JVd3Hd
1
1
1
1
1
1
111
11
1
O
0
O
N
H
�n
N
K c
- N
,n M
J 0.
Tb'98ZO
M„LE,LOo LOS
1
1
1
1
111
111
11
1
N
N
V