HEX Final Decision #2025-26HEX NO. 2025-26
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 26, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20230014016 - 201 SHELL ISLAND ROAD — CARROLL DOCK —
equest for a 264.08-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusi Ron of
20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width to allow construction of a boat docking
facility that will protrude a total of 284.08 feet into a waterway that is 1,250t feet wide,
pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for the benefit of property
located at 201 Shell Island Road, in Section 16, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 264.08-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion
A 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
284.08 feet into a waterway that is 1,250± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H.
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 no speakers in
objection at the public hearing.
Page 1 of 7
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 recor°d evidence crud testimony from the public hear°ing r°effects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The property) is zoned CON
(Conservation) and serves a single family dwelling. Historically, it has accommodated
mooring for tip to hvo vessels. The proposed dock will utilize the existing path through
the mangroves and maintain the same orientation into Henderson Creek. The dock
design ensures ample setbacks from the riparian lines, with a minimum of 149'5 ". This
aligns ivith the zoning regulations and takes into account the property's current use. "
County staff concurred and further noted that the proposed dock comprises a 4-foot.
�adde pier leading to a fixed and floating dock / terminal platform with 2 slips; one slip
has a single lift for one vessel and the other has two lifts for a second vessel. The
regzrired sideh•iparian setback is 15 feet for properties with greater than 60 feet of
waterfr°ontage.
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 expert stated, "The current mooring areas are too
shallow (less than Ift at MLYV) for the typical operation of the olaner's vessels, lVhich
draft 6" and 18 ". The proposed protrusion aims to address this issue by providing the
necessary depth for launching and mooring shalloivdraft vessels, preventing the boat
lifts ftom grounding on the bottom of the creek. The oivner• acknoivledges that despite
the extension, there may still be instances where the water is too shalloly for the boat
lifts to operate properly. In such cases, they will plan accordingly. Please refer to sheet
7202 for further details on the existing ivater depths and the proposed design. " County
staff concurred..
' The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
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 fr°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "The nearest marked navigational channel
is situated 394 feet aivay from the furthest point of the proposed dock. The design
ensures that the structure will not impede local navigation. " 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 current dock extends 76'2 " (6.1 %)
into the Creek, and the planned dock ivill extend an additional 207'11 ", resulting in a
total protrusion of 284'1 " (22. 7%). Given the absence of other docks in the immediate
vicinity, approximately 77% of the A)atertivay remains open for navigation. " Couny)
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated, "There ar e no neighboring dock Ott zrctur es
therefore this project ivill not interfere ivith the use of any neighboring docks. " County
Staff concurs.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "While the existence of mangroves and
oyster beds along the shoreline generally imposes restrictions on dock construction
l 4thin 20 feet of the MHWL, the primary justification for the proposed dimensions and
location of the dock seems to be predominantly influenced by ivater depth, rather than
by the distinctive characteristics of the property itself. " County staff believes there is
Page 3 of 7
szfficient justification to find that the natural mangrove shoreline and oyster• beds
satisfy this criterion and disagrees; thereby finding this criterion to be satisfied.
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 from the pzrblic hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed dock structure adheres to
the 160 square feet limit for the terminal platform (mooring area) as stipulated by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Additionally, the access dock is
restricted to a width of 4 feet, ensuring that the design does not incorporate excessive
decking. The dock has been carefully planned to provide sufficient access to the vessels
for loading and unloading while maintaining a minimal footprint. " 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 r°ecord evidence and testimony fi•orn the public hear°ing reflects that triter°ion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "The proposed dock is intended for•
mooring a 40 foot houseboat and an 18 foot shalloiv water skiff. The applicant
possesses 646'5 "feet of waterfront, and the combined length of these vessels is 58 feet,
Mich constitutes 9.0% of the property's waterfront footage. " County staff concurred
and further notes that Section 13048 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances states, in
part:
Boats or other° floating equipment being used as dwelling units or° as commercial
establishments may not anchor or tie irp in waters under the jurisdiction of the
county for longer than 48 hours, except at facilities located in zoning districts
permitting such use and at facilities within such districts designated for such use
and meeting count} and state health standards for such use.
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 °om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "This propert�� stands as tl�e sole pr°ivate
parcel on this section of Henderson Creek, bordered by the State of Florida and the
Audubon. Neither of the neighboring entities maintains any upland facilities that would
have affected vielvs, and there are no plans for such constructions. Consequently, there
is no impact on the views of adjacent properly owners. " County 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 from the public hear ing r°effects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated, "Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
conducted a submerged resources survey during the seagrass growing season and did
not identify any seagrass beds near the proposed docking structure. Therefore, there
are no seagrass beds located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. " 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 crud testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion is not
applicable. LDC Section 5.03.06.E.II stipulates that "multi -slip dockingfacilities with
10 or more slips will be reviewed for consistency with 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 facilio) does not have more than
10 slips and so is not subject to review for consistency with the MPP.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the 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 (Henderson Creek), which will require an ST-
permit for the proposed docking facilities prior to issuance of any building permits. The shoreline
for this property contains mangroves. The proposed dock will be constructed water•ward through
the mangrove fringe. The access i-Walkway will be four feet wide. Any additional impacts to
mangroves will require i-Written approval from Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found no seagrasses are present
within in the area 200 feet from. the proposed docking facilio). On page 11 of 11 the Submerged
Resource Survey, an aerial illustrating no seagrasses were observed.
This project does not require an Envir•onmentcd Advisory Council Board (EAC) review, because
this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project r°evielvs as identif ed in
Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2.1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
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
Page 5 of 7
is enough competent, substantial evidence to approve the Petition. The boat dock petition meets 5
of the 5 primary criteria and 5 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-PL202300140165 filed by Joshua
W. Maxwell, P.E., representing the owner/applicant Raymond E. Carroll, Trustee of the Raymond
E. Carroll Trust, with respect to the property described as located at 201 Shell Island Road, AKA:
The West %2 of West 1/2 of the Northwest '/a of Section 16, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 264.08-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 protruding a
total of 284.08 feet into a waterway that is 1,250± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section
5.03.06.H.
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Dock And Site Plans attached as Exhibit "A",
and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Proposed Dock And Site Plans
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 201 Shell Island Road, AKA: The West %2 of West 1/2 of the
Northwest'/4 of Section 16, 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.
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.
Page 6 of 7
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 25, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
X
in
co
N Z
z�
0 w
MLU N O 0
�V) } o
Q Z o Z z
W d
W
J
�d a x
n ❑ ❑ ❑ cn
I
I
W w
oe ` a' d U
/ \ Z U U U W
Q O O LL ❑
f n
U) Zcn cn o
O O Y 2 W Z w W w O
2 2
\ Q Uo w ❑ O Z ❑ M W
LU p OZ ❑ M W I I
c
❑ U U O N C) v Y co W
2p J w p p 0 a w y `Y UO U C9
(S)�� �d p2y'= oo Jz0¢ IL a�v z U) CWWm Z¢ °w w
U) O
Q O J
o U
a a a Q
G o o O p nJ 2 z O
w U U
a 1L WM g w
aW J N
w
U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w
C7 U U U U U U U U U Y C) O
CL
i
y
m
O 'ys o
O �_ H
J W
U C m W
z
OS Z0
w Qao UQ WO
ox
O z
eaE��\y (9w LL O
z
~0: z Uo 0 Z
° N a O
\ Y U
� �W
/ UU OO
UW
O wo W U ❑
I `a
II 0- oz O a UU
W a R
/ O O W O Z O O O
I9 W O O O
o () wr
F4NOl
v�Qfl
UUUaZ n
+y w NW F N M 0
wJ0
Q � a
OC O oLL
Wo >m Vl0UI) W� IjO
w � `U Np UUYZ �
U�~ `adwM!V) W00 00
OON; O
CO O J W m W y (P (')
O
aW� O r<OO
ml
W0ad
N
PROPERTY LINE
X
in
w
z¢ N CD
U'
U Um) / p W cv xxn O
J / v W U
raz <m o
�wU J r
w
� J / U) 0 o 0 V)
O ( /
w zz zo Y P�\P��\
F) Z ¢ /
Q LU Q / y��gP z o a
��I O�p 0
0
Qa�Y� \ �5F UZ aU
aU
oe
O 0
�m`lz mU0 �U�
0 00 � coz EDZx V
0 1 Nq < MFw m
Z Om �m Wo Y O LL UI
p w (, C Z
w W w Z O G w 0
ZU) z
wQ W J Q
OQ 0 J= z Z
N
°p uzi a U) J
�14 Q Z z
2�26 J�o W U F
,de � dv ° J w Q co
a V = w
U)
t�� ��J �s 0 Lo O _o
Co�w
76,_2„ Z
r ds \ PROTRUSION w
Lo 0
o FROM MHWI _
o
I
r)
h
pQz �- C�` \\��F
O O
O o I? NIAN
U) ui ¢ l a z
J�Z m
w�Of N�
(nInLL v+� Y Hw
pw Z=
o ) Lr U� I p=p MT �`ZY w
Lo 0C U>0ww
OM r oc9 � a �z�UJ
�UZGZO �p ° W U J
m ng?
of W Wz�� �°� SJ I wx 00 2�
�J? � _
��00 5 zo0MLLZ w2
W U) Y w H z� z (n (n(n�p
0 I I dye 20 ��m � NQu� of 9� O
O �L �/ p w LL 0 U) v U)
2y °d> zU —pF- cn(z w
yd , J Z z w z ¢� o W
0, l sO iSzo R J J o
Vi°0 Q wY, =
OF ,O
p
ly 0 Iw-
P�� �s
o�
00
Q U
�Lo
N N lu
co
PROPERTY LINE I ��OPG o 0 0
-�-z 5
�yF\QP� z
�2�j ry
Zd Idb
SO o
i0 00 ` �5
vd'J v
°s Od 0
y j,
o
N O\
O
to
0
C)
Q
OUD
I- z
Q C)
z f
�U
J w Z
J I- W
CcLL
N W �
QU)
W O d
R
W
0
Q
W �
in�nu�i�o
o
z
QU)
OIL
m co
N
at5
Y
U(f)
o17L
J
aU
°g
a
�O`� �0VV
qNP
/ GOJC`
/
284'-1"
� PROTRUSION `
22.7%
I
I
PROPERTY LINE
� s
�2 oO
J
�O O 00
°o d OLQdy��J
o Ln 0 6�
61
s
/
Y
U
Z O
�o
0
Ow
U In�a
�0
w
�Z0
M Y
UU
� H
W W
zU
wQ
oa
IL
U
U
� O
w0
LL U)
n.
c Q
d'
0
F--
M W w
zz
J J
W
a
O�
=w
a
O
Of
a
W
a
Oy
d0
�o
O O
C?LU
M �w O
a
uz0
NNIL
o0
ww
zz
J J
►�y
W
X
in
co }
W jN
ZU) rr
1:2 N U
Q Z o Z FZ
QJ lQ W
LU
CS Q Q T
In ❑ O ❑ to
J W
R'
0
PROPERTY LINE o
z
1X/CL
LL
uj
284'-1�S YOLL a 1 " V
�`. MAXIMUM O J
--1IPROTRUSIOt22.7%I ' Q Z LU
I tL l" J a
\ J
\
Q Oz o
\ �wV) a
ROPE Y LI NE \, V
\ o
�P \i OR o
w
¢ 0
i \ m Q
QU
\ \ F. 0 z
aW� m
w
N \ Q Z 2
O Q Q U
\ W J Z
`F U W ) J
Z
\ w0 z
0 C) cn Z N U =
OQ0 p �> \ \ UUL 06 O (n
zp0� o> a� ° o a O
z�oo L� 0 co
>�
�w
ZzWp
j ❑ W
W Q-' N Q F. O \ J 0
UmLL �_ F \mod Za
LL)UQF
covo2 QW
5� oM F W Uw
OfaLU J LLJ
0 \ zz o�
Lij F- � \ \ 00
N N
(ntIJU1�OQ 0 \ MOco LU o Q
O I \
00
Z
rrl cq
O
Z
x
UCO
O N O
N (N
O X:_ to U
O LL Q W� Z Z
{- w
0-.LE o ai
o M � 810,.
�<0
p i
:VS) go q
w
J z co
w Iw f
rv0 W
o w W ryt'; ct
N O U) M :d. LL
Ix4NNIM1111
a} boO m0 O M Z
OWd�2J `-N �a
M>aQ
Cl AMU 2
t/j U) U) > 0 J
OI' z Y Y M Q a Q
00 ..I
z =— N
mw ��� a
a
2 Wg a
w
o 'Q J --
m w t9
U z
N N
Q w
V U , U
0 �N 0
W
0
4'-0" LU
a o
N �
x n.
4 m
co 24'-1"
1 1
r -f it ,0 W
z
Y -�
O U)
w
LL LL
LL o g =
�_
LL. W� N �� LU Q06
/Off_\60
\ z Q. Q
CY
— — — w
U) 0
o n.
00
00
m
OO o
m M
f I O O
0
•- N Z
L
X
Y
cn
u�l
U
°'
C
z
N
O
Ow
t
o
w
U
CF
2 W
c
U
Q �
C7
O
c1
LLJ
tTj
O
(U
co
o
v
O
CO
i
co
CD
O�J
o
°wag
o
`
�WV
C-)
m J
U
o
��
Q
LL }
ULU
_ _
O
Z ¢
W 7
Q N
OIML
U
C�
O
co
LL
N
a
p
O
p
W
2
Z
p
J
iV
U +
O
I I
X CQ
W
z
Z
O
a
0
of
2
z
J
o
W
O
�
a
- —
p
w
U
w
O
�
00
o
c
--
I
V
o
C04
❑
c�
o
N
O
Y
U
0
0
0
X
LL
X
if)
co
LLI
F
W
�2
a�
0
v
0
0
FW-
O
V v
Y O cj
J
LL
O �
W
J
�aa
_I = z
{N(, z
a M J
1.1.1 J
W
U�(f)
0
aN
I
H
[fl
I,
t
Q
Uw
J
Wa�
W
rn7�
co