HEX Final Decision #2026-14Page 1 of 6
HEX NO. 2026-14
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
February 26, 2026
PETITION.
PETITION NO. BD-PL20240010109 - 400 Oak Avenue- Request for a 16-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 36 feet into a
waterway that is 154± feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H. The subject property is
located at 400 Oak Avenue, further described as Lot 7, Block I, Conner’s Vanderbilt Beach Estates
Unit No. 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: John Kelly, Planner III] Commission District 2 (2026-315)
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 16-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 36 feet into a waterway that is 154± feet wide, pursuant to Section
5.03.06.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
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 two public speakers –
the owner of the abutting property to the west and his real estate representative – who expressed
concern regarding ingress and egress of the dock associated with their property.
Page 2 of 6
5.The Hearing Examiner disclosed having reviewed the record for the petition and having no ex
parte communications.
6.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.1
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 this criterion
is met. The subject property is improved with a single-family dwelling, and the
proposed dock facility is being proposed for a single vessel.
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 this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent stated: “Without the boat dock extension, the vessel,
which has a draft of 2.5 feet, would not be able to be moored shore parallel or launched
while at MLWL (.13’) due to the water depth within a 20-foot protrusion of the
MHWL/property line, as shown in the bathymetric survey and cross-section drawing.
The water depth is not adequate until 10 – 15 feet away from the seawall.”
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 this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent 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 3 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.”
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 this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent stated: “The waterway width is 154 feet, and the proposed
dock facility protrudes a total of 36 feet from MHWL, which is 23.38 percent of the
waterway width. Thus, the dock facility does not protrude more than 25% of the
waterway width and maintains more than 50% of navigable waterway width.”
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 public hearing reflects that this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent 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 38.1 feet from the proposed dock.” 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 this criterion
is not met. The applicant’s agent stated: “Shoreline configuration would allow a boat
to be lifted from a Parallel position relative to the shoreline. Outside of water depths,
there are no special conditions.”
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 this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent 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 outside of the normal 20-foot limits, as shown in the site plan. A
Page 4 of 6
small deck area for safely loading and storage of non-motorized crafts is proposed
within the regular limits on the west side.”
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 this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent stated: “Vessel LOA is 30 feet, which is Less than 50
percent of the linear water frontage, being 75 feet long.”
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 from the public hearing reflects that this criterion
is met. The applicant’s agent stated: “Proposed dock facility will not have an impact
on the waterfront view of neighboring properties and will be consistent with existing
dock facilities along the shoreline as shown in the aerial drawing. The proposed dock
facility is within the property‘s riparian lines and will not impact the view of the
neighboring waterfront property owners.”
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 this criterion
is met. The submerged resources survey provided 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 this 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 and testimony from the public hearing reflects that 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
Page 5 of 6
waterward 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
five of the five primary criteria and four of the six 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-PL20240010109, filed by Mark
Oreus of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, Inc., representing the owner/applicant E T McGrath
Revocable Trust, with respect to the property described as located at 400 Oak Avenue, also known
as Lot 7, Block I, Conner’s Vanderbilt Estates Unit No. 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 3, Page 17, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in Section 32, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 16-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 36 feet into a waterway that is 154± 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 Dock and Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and
the Boundary and Topographic Survey attached as Exhibit “B”, and are subject to the condition(s)
set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A – Proposed Dock and Site Plan
Exhibit B – Boundary and Topographic Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 400 Oak Avenue, also known as Lot 7, Block I, Conner’s
Vanderbilt Estates Unit No. 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 17,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida
Page 6 of 6
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.
March 9, 2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT “A”
36'-0" From Property Line3'-6"37'-1"17'-0"5'-0"5'-0"15'-0"30' VESSEL
3710 PROSPECT AVENUE NAPLES FL 34104 239.949.5588PROJECT:ADDRESS:PAGE:DATE:REV 1:REV 2:REV 3:REV 4:REV 5:APPROVAL:ED McGRATH400 OAK AVENAPLES FL, 341082024.05.142024.05.23SITE PLANA1/8" = 1'-0"1/1NOTES:(A) DOCK DIMENSIONS• 795 FT² FIBERON DOCK• 220 FT PERIMETER•182 FT FASCIA(B) RE-INSTALL EXISTING LIFT15 FTMINIMUMSIDE YARDWEST PROPERTY LINEEAST PROPERTY LINECONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATESUNIT 2, BLOCK I, LOT #715 FTMINIMUMSIDE YARD
EXHIBIT “B”
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB CODE:SCALE:DATE:FILE:SHEET:23 JULY 20241" = 20'ORICKTJDAH1 of 2GradyMinorCivil Engineers●Land Surveyors●Planners●Landscape ArchitectsCert. of Auth. EB 0005151Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151Business LC 26000266Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.3800 Via Del ReyBonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380400 OAK AVENAPLES FL 34108LYING INCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDABOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYSECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST 22-213 BSLEGENDOAK AVEWATERWAYPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONNOTES:N 1°10'14" W 123.37'
S 1°10'14" E 122.92'N 88°49'46" E75.00'S 88°49'46" W75.00'
DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB CODE:SCALE:DATE:FILE:SHEET:16 JULY 20241" = 20'ORICKTJDAHGradyMinorCivil Engineers●Land Surveyors●Planners●Landscape ArchitectsCert. of Auth. EB 0005151Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151Business LC 26000266Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.3800 Via Del ReyBonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380400 OAK AVENAPLES FL 34108LYING INCOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDASECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST 22-213 PPLEGENDOAK AVEWATERWAYPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONNOTES:N 1°10'14" W 123.37'
S 1°10'14" E 122.92'N 88°49'46" E75.00'S 88°49'46" W75.00'2 of 2SITE PLAN w/ PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS