HEX Final Decision #2025-34HEX NO. 2025-34
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 28, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20240013776 —10 Pelican St. E-Request fora 12-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 32 feet into a waterway that is 840:h feet
wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is located at 10 Pelican Street
East and is further described as Lot 17 and the east 10 feet of Lot 16, Isles of Capri No. 1, in
Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 12-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 100 feet or greater in width, to allow a new boat dock facility protruding a total of 32
feet into a waterway that is 840± 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 %J 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. One phone message was received
on August 28, 2025 prior to the hearing from the property owner at 14 Pelican Street East with
no objection to this Petition. There were no public speakers at the hearing.
Page 1 fa
5. In accordance with LDC Section 5.03.06.14., 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
BEENMET. The subject property is located within an RSF4 zoning district and will
support a single family dwelling for which the LDC allows two boat slips. The
proposed dock has been designed to accommodate two 24 foot vessels, one to be on a
16 foot by 16 foot lift and the other on a 16 foot by 20 foot lift.
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 frrom. the public hearing reflects that c�°itei°ion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The proposed boat dock extension is
necessary to extend out to sufficient water depths, which is limited by the State's
aquatic preserve rules on the allowed overall protrusion being limited to terminating
at the .4 ` MLW contour line. Additionally, the aquatic preserve will not allow for any
dredging activities, which would limit the overall protrusion to reach greater water
depths or create sufficient depths to reduce the overall proposed dock protrusion. "
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 agent states: "The proposed docking facility design is
' The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
consistent with numerous other existing docking facilities along the subject and
adjacent waterways. As proposed, the dock and boatlifts will not impact navigation
)ithin the subject waterway, nor will they alter the existing ingress/egress to both
adjacent neighboring docks and the associated slips. There is a marked channel within
the Marco River which provides safe navigation between the markers, which are just
waterivard of the existing docking facilities. Based on this, as proposed, there are no
new impacts to any navigation as a result of 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 crud testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The approximate waterway width is 840 feet. The requested total dock
protrusion is 32 feet, which is under 4 percent of the width of the waterway. The clear
distance between the subject dock facility and that on the opposite shore is 703 feet;
therefore, 83.81 percent of the waterway is open for navigation.
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 testimonyf°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The proposed dockingfacility design
and overall location will not interfere with the existing adjacent dock facilities. As
proposed, the dock will be within the allowed buildable area by providing the required
setbacks, and therefore, the views into the subject waterway by the adjacent property
owners will not be impacted, nor will their access to their 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 from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The special conditions takr.'ng into
consideration with the proposed dock layout are the two adjacent existing
grandfathered docking facilities [on either side of the subject propert3)j. Both these
docks extend out past the 20 foot mark and the 4' AIL contour line, limiting access
to an angled or shore parallel dock design. Additionally, both adjacent docks are within
the required 15- foot setback line, further limiting any dock/slip design that would
Page 3 of 6
allow the proposed dock to reduce the overall proposed protrusion and still provide
safe access. " Given the expert's explanation of the State's aquatic preserve rules,
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 heap°ing reflects that crite�°ion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The proposed docking facility has
been fully minimized to the fullest extent possible and still provides deck area for
routine maintenance, safe access, as well as recreational activities like fishing, plus
storage for these activities, the dock provides. The total over -water square footage is
899 square feet. " 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 t1�at criterion HAS
NOT BEENMET. The proposed dockfacility has been designed for mooring two 24-
foot vessels. The total shoreline at this location is 85 feet. The total length of vessels is
48 feet, which exceeds the 50 percent threshold
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 reco�°d evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEEN MET. The applicant's expert stated that, "The existing on -site conons
consist of no docking facility, but both adjacent neighboring property owners have
docks along the subject property shoreline. As proposed, the dock has been designed
within the designated setbacks and is consistent with the other existing boat docks on
the subject ivaterway. Based on this, it's our opinion that there are no neiv impacts to
either the adjacent property owner or their current vies-n of the subject ivaterway.
Additionally, this is a boating community; therefore, docks are all part of the overall
atmosphere in this community. " 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 LDC must be
demonstrated.)
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that criterion HAS
BEENMET. There are no seagr ass beds present on the property nor the neighboring
properties within 200 feet of the existing dock structure.
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. 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.
The record evidence shows 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 (Marco River), which will require an ST permit for the proposed docking facilities before
issuance of any building permits. The proposed docking facilities will be constructed waterward
of the existing seawalled shoreline. The shoreline does not contain native vegetation. A 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) r°eview, because
this project did not meet the EA C 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, exts, the County' a 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-PL20240013776, filed by Jeff
Rogers of Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc., representing the owner/applicant Warbler, LLC /Jean
M. Unruh Gift Trust, Victor O. Unruh, Trustee, with respect to the property described as located
at 10 Pelican Street East, also known as Lot 17 and the east 10 feet of Lot 16, Isles of Capri No. 1,
in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 12400t 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
Page 5 of 6
waterways 100 feet or greater in width, to allow a new boat dock facility protruding a total
of 32 feet into a waterway that is 840± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H.
Said changes are fully described in the Proposed Site and Dock Plans attached as Exhibit "A" and
the Map of Specific Purpose Survey attached as Exhibit `B", and are subject to the condition(s)
set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Proposed Site and Dock Plans
Exhibit B — Map of Specific Purpose Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 10 Pelican Street East, also known as Lot 17 and the east 10 feet
of Lot 16, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. A Certificate of Completion for the requested accessory dock facility may not be issued
until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the principal structure.
2. 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.
August 29, 2025
Date
Page 6 of 6
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT "A"
Q
0
mi
LL
a
Q
cV`Y n.Z
z� ao
`LU U
iJr �1j z
t
Z H CD z
�° W0
a�
o �� Q�o
Uww
�z
Z
1n W
W w(DZ
�a z-
J CO
V)
aL �z
J AJw 0�
0 �0.Q. V)w0
U 00Z w
v FO ^ Q
V
"7
;
o
O
Z
0
o
�i
W
i
n
o
to
L
U
N
W
n
r
pa24042,00 • 10 o po I Ico n s11CAD 1PE RMI7CO U N
LOCATION MAP 01102025
n�
H
O
0
7
w 0'
u
p U
Z( K Z
i
O iu rc w
rc,
s
z
r cc
t7 a� Ada
p •i ly
W 20U ' wIn-
0 W 701-
rcuo �rc
JpZ rc1v1~i''
I( Z o >- O
too vl wlplla5
t70 �F � j� ID g,n
zrcwwa� I....49
j; rr¢
w 0 4 III J V? Z p Z J
WW rcj
m w ap
F= is ��§F
z.
N
W
Z
N
o
O
rc
o
J
0
w
o
In
b
Yi
g
0
o pollcon s
1862 AERIAL 8110R025
0
ri
F "
o
z
n1 i- '.
S
Z( w z
R
Z it ro ow
n R o
� W N
o
L
7 n W o N X
L5 a0 �az
Z_ R Q Z
� nl ul n 0 , n1 x
IllV p•L? 2 o
W 7.o.
R
000
R J ❑ It N <
WI. �.}
K N sQ O 0�11 ui u� 2
wo L z F W h o L�
,((oUnoFWj:�.x
OW W o>z01, LSy
Woa�uDc�z am
f%1 Ill �Na�pq2
WW Z X
I— rT- i � Q1-
M
AU�
D
W W
J
as
� N O
w
N
W
N
I
0
F-
rc �otiN� Z
W wor'� 0
o 0
w u
i g�eoi N
n n u
W
lJ
p.1210420010 o policnn silCAOIP ER MIICO Ut!
Cal Y
A
D
0
p
Z
D
0
00
u.
0
Z
O
C/)
U
a
.WJ
:2
IL
W
W
J
J
W
w
a
an
Q
00
Z
W
J_
H
..I
N
i<
Q
O
�m
z
0
z
ul 0 .
u
a °z
? W z
Ia
of
11 W wow n N M
K
W N
n Z O i
() W o X x Iil
n r� xn. n,C
n.Ne
z �F x fa =1
�. III W O d III S J<K
Dto ?��
U
W y�bn n
a 70w 7 O O rc
LLre
?n .. pin.. KK O
Kv 4 O ..VI %Q =N 2
�ua�''��ow OJC w o WSa
z Will
0
O; IL n off
OU > O LL? y OwO
> K
wo
z �i�gQoi2oo�LL
UWj ur3 �J71�I-� i n t i
1-' FZ QUI C lll�F R�1-
Z
p
g
C
1
p:12.D42.00toe pelt en el{C ADIP ER MITC Olt NT1'124042B0 E.dwp QU®i¢¢fiAN01b1E NSIONS CJ tOR02a
ww
0
z
n
O
m
W
IL
0.
3
o 0
z
w � ci
�z>}
yJ W yy AA.
Z lal �. mOtl N NM
0
N � h
o
Z00
N
a PCB1.Ka Ka u.�
z a%z
Cid n
Nwo rK �w
ct po wa
rco°w� z0�; Y'prc
IL 0 ki:
_�; �rc
� N O00lw- a Q I�Z.
.
Zwwrco e�0pFA
w �o aptp,
007 07 a<a 7 o rc1-
00q8 owQ M2
aw fe =0o 3woa
W= nN'iIl
aoo
z
0
p N O
1
AN
1
hl
w
0
z
W
x
3
0
Fw
•p�6am �6CAOlPERMIT•C OU NTY5t4042•BO E.dwp 00®HT16ANDEPTIIS G1102025
0
rm oxen a
0
n.,
w
F-
��
O2E
o J
a.¢
Q�
W
Q W
Z T.
O0
zLL
W
0W
z
ww
impmm
W
woQ
0 2 z
z F-1 Q
n
a
0
p 12,D42 o0- t0o pollc on s11CA01PER AdIT
1042BD E.JNA ADJAC ENi DOCK G1102025
. W
T:
�o
* X
O
r
k
p:12�llA200- 10o pollcon zllCADIPER b117-COUNT Y2d1042-BD E.JNA ST OVERLAY 01
w
W
1- l- WO=U
r1f W
LL -�
I�HXE ►'i iW 0 0 0
I fn C7 L~L (-
o 0 oa o
W W = 0 U
o 0ca§w' U)
z 0 IL z
I I
I I
i.
w
z
g
n
Z
ui
0
e i'r z
_0
0 F
0
r 4 w
U)
ui
Z
U
O
U_W
Jw
WW
p, m
D
r.
M- u
c
c
4n
n �
`^ o
� u
W
P.
m
G
w
C
W
10o polic on stlC AB1R ER M1,117C ODUTY44042BU E. J;ap BUBMERG EU RESOURCE SU RVEY G110R025
p 1&U42.00 10 o po tic on stICAMPERMIT-COUNTYC4042 RDE.JNp WID TII OF WATERWAY 54I0/2025
�wz
>2IC `r
N o r
H
F
u•0?W WJ
O A.
E a N y0
Owns F r W
X '.. U+
L
(ft
g o
OzWo
ujadzl
� nz
oWam
0
�xfZ
xwiM
w
xM
Z
Zzw-
n
Dao
�kk
U)
�U
0
V%ZZ
0
N 0
a0
°&a
wO
LL
pz
"a 0
�OOD
T LL ru O �
z 502
ZU cc i
cc W(OO} Z
G P' n. tG
ou Uy Rio w
4+ WODU F
N OX w w
ul
M a00
MEN
zx
0
o
m
K
�x
oc
mWO
a�
sz"s
wog
oO�
WO
MR
w
U
N
a
2
ci
Hw❑OOi_p�i owwQziz'ZZ'apw-gzquNKifi�kic-Aj' za8p.'}1`_w&aW2=FKUOr-d am`w�aoGF`!fNZZ�F�aNWiurc 'wug
�OzOac
w OZwW0�3+
ff )
LL
ZD❑g°o�co w
wQ yC:
dtv . O
g1u� N ry yU, Y 'M,Yp
wxz
wy.aN�Nc°aO OOO •-N 5 ?A O �LL
aEw��kQIII, W. m r o a
III
3ao 8 i= N m ^to�Q v_ LL 8
aLL oo b'zJ°gw
-wa�o (DFoO
W w� UOOod
OUYnaw V $1 v0WPO¢Of uVZo 0
WO
n a>,o � trW wazy
og z s0ow
n� 2
ow
w0 uMMWWk o o
50a02W❑ ooxaas
z Soa YZ
2N2D�m0m wzw ZnIw wmSUwq%AxWWO
y -= 0W
w W Z
00PEm Ox so, "mpp}a❑600Knowowu�uUzs.1-
nirwf��wc":i;'�c?No0ioD. ` ❑kW� 0O'p�0WtO�t_W€WO`nly Rd' StWj `O'twewe�st zxKmm+xLLmzm§ iwy naups amig
o�
F�
FDw
z~LW7�$$�FrzWN O
z ga oowBaw m oma vj•W owg
O OUr �W F
F cC m 1M
w WPEa? • moG� rn W
GNmegoz O 2u.Xri{ +mWO
~WjZw ft VcoOpw LLWZp
KOVW5 a pa UttWK❑�05 Zxz zZ
09WOO �qlx " MaIwOe7WY92� L
LI) aoC a❑amrc��ZW�OarZziol:o i ❑ �w � Q�r
" _o
W %ll reeMtinonowobawo6w
oit aa0a �+
am zDzw mz o gw
0eo�0 iwE Fwb %(x00wagH377
O
J
M�.weep `_•
awns
(w7.ie
nZQl6+llN
R