HEX Final Decision #2026-26
Page 1 of 8
HEX NO. 2026-26
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 26, 2026
PETITION.
Petition No. BD-PL20250004529 - 167 East Hilo Street - Echeverria Dock - Request for a 36-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 56 feet into
a waterway that is 527 to 719 feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section 5.03.06.H for property located
at 167 East Hilo Street and further described as Lot 408, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a 36-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of
20 feet allowed by 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 56 feet into a
waterway that is 527 to 719 feet wide.
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 comments at the
public hearing.
Page 2 of 8
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 the criterion
is met. The subject property is located within a residential single-family zoning district;
the proposed docking facility comprises a finger pier with two 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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “Protrusion at this site is measured from
the property line, which falls near the back side of the seawall. At the seawall, depths
at this site average 2.5’ at low tide. And at a distance of 20’ from the rear property line
depths at low tide average approximately 4.5’. The depth in the center of this area
would then reasonably be an average of about 3.5’. Note that while speaking in
averages for the same of simplicity, in reality, the average depths are not the most
limiting. The most limiting depths are the shallow spots between the average depths.
For example, while the average depth might be 3.5’, there may be shallow spots
reaching to 3.0’.
The largest boat proposed under this petition is a 40’ LOA yellowfin, which has a beam
of 10’ and drafts approximately 2.5’ to 3’ depending on the loading at any given time.
If the boatlift’s cradle and bunks are considered, which add an additional 10’ each to
the required depth, then the unexpected depth needed at low tide would be
1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized.
Page 3 of 8
approximately (conservatively) 2.5’ plus 20’, which would be about 50’ or just over 4’.
It is reasonable then to assume that this vessel would have difficulties getting on and
off a lift at the average low tide if it were oriented in a shore parallel configuration
within 20’ of the property line as the typical county LDC requires. This is because the
most landward part of the lift cradle in this scenario would be located only about 8’
from the seawall, where the average depth is between 3’ and 3.5’.” Zoning 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 the criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “There is a marked channel existing
adjacent to the proposed project. However, the proposed structure should not cause
any impacts to navigation within the channel, as can be seen on exhibit sheet 08 of 09.
The proposed lift structure with vessel protrudes the same or less distance into the
channel than existing structures on site and on neighboring properties.” Zoning 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 this criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “Depending on where measurements are
taken to and from at this site, the width of the waterway is approximately 527’ or 719’
wide, as can be seen on exhibit sheet 09 of 09. The proposed protrusion for this project
will be 56’ from the property line, which will meet the 25% protrusion limit and which
will maintain 50% of the width of the waterway, no matter which waterway width
location is used.” Zoning 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 public hearing reflects that this criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “The “proposed” portion of this project
consists solely of a boat lift adjacent to an existing dock where ingress and egress has
always been in a shore-normal configuration. The dock has been functioning this way
for nearly 50 years with no known issues posed to public navigation. The angle of
ingress for the new slip is also in a shore normal configuration, which is also away
from the neighbors. The neighborhood to the north who is closest to the proposed lift
has similar shore-normal slip configuration. The neighbor to the south should not be
Page 4 of 8
affected by the slip at all, as it is not in any close proximity to their dock. Our opinion
is that the proposed structure will continue to not interfere with any neighboring
docks.” Zoning 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 the criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “The riparian area of the subject property
is located within the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. The existing dock and boathouse
on site BD-PL20250004529, 167 E Hilo St Page 8 of 10 03/09/2026 have been
grandfathered into the state’s aquatic preserve regulations (outlined in Chapter 18-20
F.A.C.) in addition to county code, as have many of the other existing docks in isle of
Capri, which includes both of the neighboring docks to the subject property, Alteration
of the aerial footprint of the existing structure would require bringing the entire dock
into current code which would include (but is not limited to) restrictions such as:
limiting overall protrusion to 20 to 25’ from shore. Overall decking would need to be
drastically reduced, and any access walkways would need to be limited to 4’ width.
Basically, an entire re-design of the dock would be required. The only way to maintain
the current configuration is to construct a lift within a location that the state would
consider an existing slip, which would be considered an allowable improvement for
grandfathered structures. The location where the lift is proposed is the only viable
option.” County Staff concurred that the above constitutes a special condition and
therefore concurred with the applicant’s agent.
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 the criterion
had been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “The project as proposed would not add
any decking to the existing dock facility. It will in fact reduce the amount of decking
from the existing dock. Only a boat lift is proposed to be added. However, we
acknowledge that this petition brings scrutiny to the rest of the existing facility as part
of the review process.
The proposed (existing) dock facility’s decking will consist of (2) 4’ wide finger pier
accesses (both reduced from 5’ wide) that stretch the length of the 2 shore-normal slips,
and an existing 8’ x 21’ (168 sq. ft.) terminal platform that protrudes from the end of
the south finger pier. The dock itself will have only 539 square feet of decked area. The
Page 5 of 8
remainder of the total 1,156 square feet listed in the notes section of plan sheet 04 of
09 is comprised of roof area from the boathouse. The 539 square feet of decking is a
modest amount considering its use for storage of fishing equipment, a dock box,
cleaning station, and non-motorized craft by the riparian owner. Furthermore,
numerous other docks in the area have a similar scale of decking, including both
abutting neighbors. We therefore believe that this square footage is not excessive. The
proposed facility will utilize only a single 4-foot-wide access, and the terminal platform
is a 5-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.” Zoning
staff concurred with the applicant’s agent.
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
has not been met. The subject property has 119 feet of waterfrontage, and the proposed
vessels will be cumulatively 72 feet, which exceeds the 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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that this criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “The dock and boathouse facility at the
subject property has, as previously stated, existed for nearly 50 years in its current
state. The only addition being proposed as part of this petition consists of a boat lift in
an existing slip, which would serve to change the view only by raising the moored boat
inside the slip out of the water. This is a minor and even inconsequential change in
terms of the use of the property, especially considering that the only thing that the boat
would be blocking is the view of another larger boat inside the boathouse that is also
on a lift. Also pertinent is that a 24’ side setback is being provided, which is 9’ larger
than the 15’ required by county code), and which is significantly larger than is provided
by the dock of the direct abutting neighbor, who is providing only a 13’ side setback.
Additionally, for a number of years the slip in which the lift is proposed was utilized by
a larger vessel than this petition is proposing. And to reiterate, the proposed dock
configuration will be oriented in the same direction as the neighboring structure and
occurs entirely within the riparian lines and side setbacks of the applicant’s property.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a large number of neighbors and residents on
Isle of Capri have signed letters of no objection to the project as proposed. Therefore,
we do not believe that the proposed project will cause any major impacts to the views
of the neighbors.” Zoning staff concurred.
Page 6 of 8
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 the criterion
has been met. The applicant’s agent stated: “There are seagrass beds present within a
200’ area surrounding the subject property. However, all of these grasses are located
far enough away so that no reconfiguration of the proposed project will not be
necessary per LDC subsection 5.03.06(J). No impacts to seagrasses are expected as a
result of the proposed project, as can be seen on exhibit sheet 07 of 09”. County Zoning
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 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 and testimony from the public hearing reflects that County 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 (Snook Bay), which will require an ST-permit
for the proposed docking facilities prior to issuance of the building permits. The proposed docking
facilities will be constructed waterward of the existing sea walled shoreline. The shoreline does
not contain native vegetation. A submerged resources survey provided by the applicant found
Paddle Grass to be within the 200-foot area of the submerged resource survey, but the grasses are
roughly 56 feet from the proposed dock, so no impacts are expected. SRS Report sheet 9 of 9
provides an aerial showing the setbacks to the Paddle Grass.
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 not being applicable.
The criteria are set forth in Section 5.03.06.H of the Land Development Code.
Page 7 of 8
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BD-PL20250004529, filed by Nick
Pearson of Bayshore Marine Consulting, LLC, representing the owner/applicant Angela B.
Echeverria, with respect to the property described as located at 167 East Hilo Street, also known
as Lot 408, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
• To allow a 36-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 56 feet into a waterway that is 527 to 719 feet wide, pursuant to LDC Section
5.03.06.H.
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 167 East Hilo Street, also known as Lot 408, Isles of Capri No.
2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (see Attachment A
for full legal description and location map on the following page). Property ID No. 52400640005.
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.
Page 8 of 8
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.
April 22, 2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
EXHIBIT “A”
NOTES:THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTINGPURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDEDFOR CONSTRUCTION USE.LATITUDE:N 25.9813414LONGITUDE:W -81.7256788SITE ADDRESS:167 E. HILO ST.NAPLES, FL 34113CREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg LOCATION MAP 1/5/2026SHEET NO.:COLLIER COUNTYSUBJECT PROPERTYSTATE OF FLORIDANESWPID #:52400640005SECTION:32TOWNSHIP:51 SCOUNTY:COLLIERRANGE:26 EISLE OF CAPRIECHEVERRIA DOCKLOCATION MAPN.S.P.250201 OF 0906-25-25MARCO ISALND
4.2'6.7'>9'2.7'4.5'5.4'7.8'9.2'6.0'3.8'7.2'6.1'6.3'6.7'6.2'2.6'4.5'2.8'2.3'5.5'RIPARIAN LINE AND 15'C.C. RIPARIAN SETBACKPROPERTYBOUNDARYSCALE IN FEET10050250C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS 1/5/2026NESW·APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE:·APPRX. EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE:·WIDTH OF WATERWAY:NOTES:·APPRX. EXISTING MAX. PROTRUSION:ECHEVERRIA DOCKEXISTING CONDITIONSCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250202 OF 0906-25-2548'1,156 SQ. FT.119'834'HILO ST. ERIPARIAN LINEAND 15' RIPARIANSETBACKSEAWALLDEPTHS ATMLWSITE ADDRESS:NAPLES, FL 34113167 E. HILO ST.110'95'119'66'EXISTINGGRANDFATHEREDDOCK ANDBOATHOUSE4
8
'NAVIGATIONMARKER BUOY25' STATE SETBACK
·APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE:·APPRX. EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE:·WIDTH OF WATERWAY:NOTES:·APPRX. EXISTING MAX. PROTRUSION:ECHEVERRIA DOCKEXISTING CONDITIONSCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250203 OF 0906-25-2548'1,156 SQ. FT.119'834'SEAWALL875 SQ. FT.BOATHOUSESITE ADDRESS:NAPLES, FL 34113167 E. HILO ST.RIPARIAN LINE AND 15' C.C.RIPARIAN SETBACKSCALE IN FEET201050C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg EXISTING CONDITIONS (2) 1/5/2026NESW15'44'6'39'22'21'8'17'29'11'28'23'685 SQ. FT.DOCK24'4.2'6.7'2.7'4.5'5.4'7.8'7.2'6.3'6.7'6.2'2.6'4.5'5.5'PROPERTYLINE25' STATE SETBACK4
3
'
4
8
'
C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg 1/5/2026AA05PROPERTYBOUNDARYSCALE IN FEET4020100C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg PROPOSED DOCK 1/5/2026NESW·APPLICANT OWNED SHORELINE:·WIDTH OF WATERWAY:NOTES:·PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE:·PROPOSED PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE:EXISTING DOCKTO BE REDUCEDTO 539 SQ. FT.15' RIPARIANSETBACKECHEVERRIA DOCKPROPOSED PROJECTCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250204 OF 0906-25-2556'834'119'1,156 SQ. FT.RIPARIAN LINE,15' C.C. AND 25'STATE RIPARIANSETBACKB
B
0
6
DEPTHS ATMLW22'39'4'21'8'44'32' LOA40' LOA875 SQ. FT.BOATHOUSETO REMAIN15'5
6
'
M
A
X
.
P
R
O
T
R
U
S
I
O
N124.2'6.7'2.7'4.5'5.4'7.8'9.2'7.2'6.1'6.3'6.7'6.2'2.6'4.5'5.5'29'4'PROPOSEDBOATLIFT12.5'25'TYPICAL 20' PROTRUSIONLIMIT PER COUNTY CODESLIP #4
3
'
4.5'7.8'5.4'2.7'9.2'PROPOSEDBOAT LIFTMHWL +0.42' NAVDMLWL -1.63' NAVDFRAMINGSCALE IN FEET16840C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg CROSS SECTION AA 1/5/2026DOCK PILEDECKINGECHEVERRIA DOCKCROSS SECTION AACREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250205 OF 0906-25-2556' OF PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE,MEASURED ON ANGLEEXISTINGSEAWALLDEPTHSAT MLW32' LOA44' EXISTING FINGER PIER, ON ANGLEEXISTING BOATHOUSE ROOF(PILES AND VESSEL NOT SHOWN)39'15'STANDARD 20'PROTRUSIONLIMIT3.5'20'BOAT HOUSE ROOF TO BE OFSAME MATERIAL AND COLOR ASPRINCIPLE STRUCTURE OR OF APALM FROND CHICKEE STYLE
MHWL +0.7' NAVDMLWL -1.8' NAVDDOCK FRAMINGALL PILES TO BEWRAPPED FROM 12"ABOVE MHWL TO 6"BELOW SUBSTRATESCALE IN FEET201050C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg CROSS SECTION BB 1/5/2026DOCK PILESDECKINGECHEVERRIA DOCKCROSS SECTION BBCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250206 OF 0906-25-25DEPTHS VARY,NTS25'12.5'4'14'21'23'RIPARIANBOUNDARY4'61' TORIPARIAN LINEBOATHOUSEROOF15' SIDESETBACK15'10'15'BOAT HOUSE ROOF TO BE OF SAMEMATERIAL AND COLOR AS PRINCIPLESTRUCTURE OR OF A PALM FRONDCHICKEE STYLE
C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg 1/5/2026PROPOSED DOCK AND LIFT(NO SEAGRASS IMPACTSPROPOSED)ECHEVERRIA DOCKSUBMERGED RESOURCE SURVEYCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250207 OF 0905-25-25PROPERTYBOUNDARYSCALE IN FEET10050250C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg SRS 1/5/2026NESWPADDLE GRASSH. DECIPIENSAVG. COVERAGE: 80%56'200'20
0
'10'TYPICAL SRSTRANSECT65'
C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg 1/5/2026PROPOSEDDOCK ANDBOATLIFTECHEVERRIA DOCKSURROUNDING WATERWAYCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250208 OF 0905-25-25PROPERTYBOUNDARYSCALE IN FEET10050250C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg WATERWAY 1 1/5/2026NESW115'85'86'87'*DIMENSIONS SHOWN AREAPPROXIMATED BASED OFFTHE AERIAL IMAGE AND ARESUBJECT TO MINOR ERRORAPPARENT CHANNELBOUNDARY BASED ONMARKERSCHANNEL MARKER BUOY25'14'60'16'RIPARIAN LINERIPARIAN LINE
C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg 1/5/2026ECHEVERRIA DOCKSURROUNDING WATERWAYCREATED:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:SHEET NO.:N.S.P.250209 OF 0905-25-25143'SUBJECTPROPERTYBOUNDARYSCALE IN FEET300150750C:\Bayshore Marine Consulting\2502 - K&C, Echeverria, 167 E Hilo St\CAD\CC\BDE set.dwg WATERWAY 2 1/5/2026NESW*DIMENSIONS SHOWN AREAPPROXIMATED BASED OFFTHE AERIAL IMAGE AND ARESUBJECT TO MINOR ERROR527'
71
9
'27'40
'
44
'
1
90
'
15
5
'
30'24'5
6
'CHANNEL MARKERAPPARENT CHANNELBOUNDARY BASED ONMARKERS182'51
4
'85'
EXHIBIT “B”
John PacettiDigitally signed by John Pacetti Date: 2025.09.05 06:19:43 -04'00'