HEX Final Decision #2025-22HEX NO. 2025-22
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 125 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240011350 - 388 Calusa Drive -Request fora 72-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 92 feet into
a waterway that is 2,766t feet wide. The subject property is located at 388 Calusa Drive,
approximately 90 feet west of Mangrove Lane in Chokoloskee, in Section 36, Township 53
South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 72-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 protruding a total of 92
feet into a waterway that is 2,7661 feet wide, for the benefit of the subject property.
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.
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 three letters received
post -hearing from registered public speakers as neighboring property owners regarding
concerns such as weather safety conditions.
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
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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The subject property is zoned Village
Residential (VR),1-which alloivs for• single and multiple dwelling units. The lot's current
use is single family residential, which warrants no more than two slips per the CC-
LDC. The proposed project consists of a single dock with two boat lifts. " County staff
concurred.
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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's exper°t stated, "Protrusion at this site is meccszrred from
the rip rap line, which is more than 20' lcmdivard of the average high tide line. Meaning
that at a distance of 20' from the rip rap line, there is no i-water at all for the entirety of
any normal tidal cycle (i.e., both high and low tides). So, of course, protrusion
allowance of 20' is, in this case, not adequate for mooring or navigation of any type of
vessel. " Based upon the provided exhibits, County staff concurred
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
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "There is no marked or charted channel
within the footprint or• near to the proposed project location. The nearest marked
' The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
channel generally jot lol-vs the contour of land around Chokoloskee and will be over
500 feet a filmy to the south, east, and tivest. Therefore, no marked or charted channels
tivill 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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The waterway at this location is
approximately 2, 766' wide as measured from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) on -
site to the nearest opposite landmass. As depicted on exhibit sheet 07 of 07. The
proposed dock will protrude a maximum of 90' from the rip rap line or 64' from the
Mean High -Water Line. In the case of either measurement, the dock will not exceed
25% of the width of the waterway, and more than 50% of the waterway 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 ar�d testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed dockfacility is oriented in
the same direction as the neighboring dock to the east and will occupy a similar
footprint. The angle of ingress and egress to both docks will be the same, and they tivill
not interfere with one another. There is no dock present at the neighboring property to
the west. Therefore, no neighboring docks should be affected by the project as
proposed. " 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 ji•om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "The shoreline conf gzrration at the subject
property consists of a small rip r•ap revetment beyond which is a mangrove fringe that
on average exceeds 20' in width. Therefore, the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) on -
site corresponds with the water4-ward limit of the mangroves. The standard 20' of
protrusion that the county usually limits dock protrusion to, in this case, prohibits the
dock from reaching the water at all since protrusion is, in this case, measured fi°orn the
rip rap revetment As a result, a finctional dock (one that actually reaches the 10eater)
Page 3 of 6
cannot be constructed at this site without exceeding the typical protrusion limit. 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 testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
ME MET The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed facility will utilize only a
single 4' wide access, and the terminal platform is a 10' by 15' area of decking totaling
150 square feet, which will be necessary for staging of gear. The total square footage
for the dock will be 445 square feet, which includes the decking above the Mean High
Water Level (MHWL) in the mangrove. This square footage is minimal and, 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.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public Iiearing reflects that criterion HAS
NOT BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "The applicant's length of shoreline
is 92', and the proposed vessels will be cumulatively 54' as well. 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 testimon�> from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "The use of the fact}will be for "Pt Vae,
recreational single-family residential dock, which is the same use as the neighboring
dock and which is less than the multi -slip use that the VR zoning designation can allow.
Additionally, the proposed dock configuration will be oriented in the same direction as
the neighboring structure and occur entirely within the riparian lines and side setbacks
of the applicant. Therefore, we do not believe that the proposed project will cause any
mcjor• impacts to the views of the neighbors. " County staff concurred
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 LllC must be
demonstrated.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. TI�e submerged resources survey provided indicates that no seagrass
beds exist wwithin 200 feet of the proposed dock. No seagrass beds ivill 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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion is not
applicable. LDC Section 5.03.06.E.11 stipulates that "multi -slip dockingfacilities with
10 or more slips will be reviewed for consistency ivith the Manatee Protection Plan
(MPP). " The proposed project is for a private 2-slip docking facility accessory to a
single family residence in Chokoloskee. The proposed facility does not have more than
10 slips, and so is not subject to review for consistency with the MPP.
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 an ST overlay zone, which will require an ST-
permit for the proposed docking facilities prior to issuance of any building permits. The shoreline
of this property is lined with 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 no submerged resources
within 200 feet of 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.H of the Land Development Code.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20240011350, filed by Nick
Pearson of Bayshore Marine Consulting, LLC, representing the owner/applicant Harold A.
Bowman and Illhwa Cassidy, with respect to the property described as located at 388 Calusa Drive,
approximately 90 feet west of Mangrove Lane in Chokoloskee, in Section 36, Township 53 South,
Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 7246ot 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 protruding a total
of 92 feet into a waterway that is 2,7661 feet wide, for the benefit of the subject property.
Page 5 of 6
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Dock And Related Plans attached as Exhibit "A"
and the Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit `B", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth
below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Proposed Dock And Related Plans
Exhibit B — Boundary Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 388 Calusa Drive, approximately 90 feet west of Mangrove Lane
in Chokoloskee, in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. While some trimming might be necessary within the dock's footprint or for branches
impeding access, plans should aim to limit the overall alteration of mangroves.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
may 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,
July 10, 2025
Date
Page 6 of 6
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
U
O
Z
d
O
m
��
a
Q
z
0
a
u
0
no Cmv�linnCb[G� NdC Bowncn,3D9 Cdiu�i DACADICC1BDE ect dvg LOCATION IrWP 3r:a<S�'S
LL
d
w mry m WZD
%,0
0 Z N z��
tL Z > m�
O� Q .- z I Z
Foot > LL1 Y ) r Q
zw Q 0*
Q 61 r Q z
totalw ZUr W J i as
U R O Q U) = too
to
C m z
~ lal
0 WZ
W js N <' i- N
Z 93
4k
_ wrcrcr
mwCD 0 Om
Q o in vi
vl9F00
n.
top
0.000
'toX
itop
\ X
41" to o
` ' , V X O
Q W
• WooRUNQ 0
w tat Q Z 0
cnit to X �F M
o s,� �o
,ti.o_ �,� b a
or it
z •
o
,zs p COm a
�` ` ,
,�� . '_� wry f°'�ti� ,. . � • O ' •�` �S�
to
co
it
X �INN
Q X X a°
Doti co
ate, m CD
-
w �a
�ooi=
Z 04 O Y FF— t�
Q p 0 coo
Sol
It
o
o �orA
I I �r'��
wo��
I I O -� � U
F..
W
W
I I
� z
J
Q
U
N
!Cl
cV
W CV (fl W
�w I I az ����
C7� � O�I--
N Q O I 2 J�=� ''
� � a � � � U
I � Qapp
m J
I � Q W
CO
Um
---�- _==�___-�= o m
00
Z�
Qn
� �
o � � �
Q U
I m
� Y I— (q
W U Q I— U Y C7
cq p p u. U Z
ppQm� N U oQ W
❑ r I J
� x Q � � Q. ::::: ':..:. ;.
LL.. I Y
U
O
(�
r�
o I o I C3
z) �� �
o � x�
J F
r-
I � I M�
W � s
C:�HNehoro Mdno Coneuftingl^'�1J3•KdC Bowmr, 2H Ciu iDrWADICC�BDE mt.dwq CROS ^u SECTION BB 3rS �0?S
O
0
LO
�i N
wo
° �
� O
rm
— Z
}d
LU 0 0 Q- � =.
.
I I
i Y
'o a - /// l// I I
w o o l l ,/ 1 1 1 I I
0 co l I
/ / I
t•,
0
n
L:
w
oW
0 U
M
Z N
aw
w
ow
mn
m
U)
C:�BayElx{Bc�4h'owQAOMNimy�ndfi9in{lSAS� Wmro�, HRi
c:tB.nYflnytnlytfiomQAeMtUi�l;�lfi9in KSO��B� Wmtrt,t`d3 FW it�iNlilW)0 a19A@�D7cdvGDlNAi,ERS?NYti31:uITf3[,
� �"' �i ,� o
°� 5 ..�>q 'J'
^m € a r-omrc z
ooQ ri � � ���o o ��
amo � ri o uso7 i ao o�
o .ow in
u:�� � �og���� � �'� W€
z4 O pU �U
�'��� � � N�BYggo 8 �� ��
a o ra
a ��m �- W �oH?N7t> � o
w U
2 ¢gip �W WNW �p ny1�0 W�j ZU w�
U ¢4w V€=1 �4 s• ��p=J nZ w0 N�
C NDY WOUOmmIZn��Nam WO O
5 oc�i� �So�+an����a`-`bo 44 �5_
a �''�� z�rc�o�i �� a�
�Wo?a ��yay����tJYg1J��1�1JJ<�o�a �p =o
Kd JJ6w `�UdUtJ2 fJ Uw �iZWW G 3�
a �1: ZZm wL�i€Z iFZ �i �¢
�a �nri u��il�Si��'''��OZF�TF� �a u�
q �
O
o
ffi;
�a
a
— — — -_ a'.�ar
4zW
Zw�
q ..
Wog
N� p°��s�
o�R RAN
��� O��N
ti�ti^
�.b � 4,
4y0 oVl�'q\
y 4yeppW N�qb
UC�i pytiy .N.M
4�� s4�4
w �
U
0 2
w
w
x
e
0
n W U
C�Z�
� Vl
0
U
,„��
��s_
/ ar
g�y�
'u$^
"��C
'�^'" o �
o
�a��
x
gt
�
N
x
a
p
f�
y
w
�'
�
3
�
�
=
Y
oX
E
>-
V
�
� �'
�
� d
,
Cl
� -
�
J
�
2
3
U
�
�
1O
d
o
o
P
�v
b
E
�
�
a=
5
�
�,
a
m
€ e
g
�� � ��o
W �b
_ z
� �rvNry
� rw2 a K9��
o� v� m N a� �
o Q �
a
k � $ .
�� a���
- �Wa�m-
�sW�.w�=o
o g��mW�o
���,�
�s�����„
�a=;o==gx
0
.
/
§�
a
d
�
w
0
Y
U