Loading...
Agenda 12/11/2012 Item # 8A12/11/2012 Item 8.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approved petition number ADA- PL20120001218 4affe Boat Dock Appeal represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, LP,A, requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in denying Petition BDE- PL20110001573 that requested a 19-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 39 -foot boat dock facility accommodating 2 vessels on 2 boat slips for property located at 10090 Gulfshore Drive and is further (described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit 1; Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Compan> on item to: VA- PL20110001576, Jaffe Variance] OBJECTIVE: The petitioner has filed an appeal to the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to deny the petitioner's boat dock extension request which occurred at the properly noticed public hearing on May 3, 2012. Upon hearing of a requested appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: Applicant is appealing the CCPC's denial of their re nest for a 19 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided iMetion 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 39 -foot boat dock facility accommodating 2 boat slips for the property described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit l; Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier, County, Florida. This parcel is a small non - conforming boat dock lot that has 50 feet of shoreline that was deeded to the residence located across the street at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955. 'A boat dock was constructed in the 1950's and continued to exist in this location for the benefit of the residence until the present date. The proposed dock facility includes the removal of the existing dock to allow the replacement facility outlined above. The applicant has submitted warranty deeds as part of the application which are included as part of the appeal application ( exhibit 3) of this executive summary. The petitioners brought forward a petition for a boat dock, extension to the CCPC, who has final approving authority for boat dock extensions. The boat';dock facility was proposed to protrude a total of 39 feet from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) to allow the mooring of two vessels. The CCPC staff report is also attached as part of the appeal application (exhibit 3) of this executive summary. CCPC Action: At the May 3, 2012 CCPC hearing for this petition after discussion and consideration by the Commissioners there was a motion made for denial by Commissioner Brougham, seconded by Commissioner Klein. The motion of denial carried at 8 -1. A copy of the transcript of this portion of the CCPC hearing is included as exhibit 1 f this executive summary. The Commissions found that the petition did not meet primary criteria 1, 2, and 5; further it found that it did not meet secondary criteria 1, 3, and 4. Page 1 of 4 ADA- PL20120001218, Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal November 9, 2012 (revised November 14, 2012, November 15, 2012, November 19, 2012, November 27, 2012, December 3, 2012) Packet Page -19- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Staff Evaluation: Staff is still recommending approval of the boat dock extension as proposed based on the reasons outlined in the staff report for the original Boat Dock Extension request (see attachment 3, appeal application). The parcel where the proposed boat dock is located is a pre - existing non - conforming lot deeded to the residence at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955 (see "deeds ", attachment 3, appeal application). The lot configuration and associated riparian lines place limits on the layout of the dock facility to accommodate the mooring of two vessels and requires the companion Variance. Other neighboring properties moor two vessels and this property owner is requesting the same. As noted in the original Boat Dock application the proposed dock allows safe access for the vessels to moor within the riparian boundaries. In addition, a boat dock was constructed in the 1950's and continued to exist in this location for the benefit of the residence until the present date. The applicant provided two letters of no objection from the adjacent property owners (see attachment 3, appeal application). FISCAL IMPACT: The Appeal request by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Plan impact. It is anticipated that approval or denial of this appeal will not affect the Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Board sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals hears appeals of final actions taken by the Planning Commission in accordance with the LDC, Florida Statutes and Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, as amended. Section 5.03.06.11 of the LDC outlines the criteria to be considered for a boat dock extension petition. In order to approve a boat dock extension, at least four out of five of the primary criteria and at least 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.) 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 Page 2 of 4 ADA- PL20120001218, Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal November 9, 2012 (revised November 14, 2012, November 15, 2012, November 19, 2012, November 27, 2012, December 3, 2012) Packet Page -20- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 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.) 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.) 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.) 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.) Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which 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.) 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.) 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.) 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.) 5. Whether seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) 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.) It is the opinion of the County Attorney that the BZA shall hold a de novo hearing. Based upon its review of the record of the CCPC hearing, and the testimony and other materials presented as part of the hearing on the appeal, the BZA may affirm, affirm with conditions, reverse or reverse with conditions the actions of the CCPC. A majority vote is needed for approval. (HFAC) COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC does not hear appeal request; that is only a function of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals. Page 3 of 4 ADA- PL20120001218, Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal November 9, 2012 (revised November 14, 2012, November 15, 2012, November 19, 2012, November 27, 2012, December 3, 2012) Packet Page -21- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals reverse with conditions the action of the Planning Commission's denial of BDE- PL20110001573 thereby ' granting the boat dock extension subject to the following conditions: 1. The BZA adopts a resolution reflecting the Board's decision. 2. The boat dock is only allowed as an accessory use to the residence at 10091 Gulfshore Drive. PREPARED BY: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Department of Planning and Zoning Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation REVIEWED BY: Michael Bosi, AICP, Interim Director, Department of Planning and Zoning Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Minutes of CCPC hearing 2) Location Map 3) Appeal Application Resolution to be prepared after BZA meeting and discussion. Page 4 of 4 ADA- PL20120001218, Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal November 9, 2012 (revised November 14, 2012, November 15, 2012, November 19, 2012, November 27, 2012, December 3, 2012) Packet Page -22- COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 8.A. 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.Recommendation to approve petition number ADA- PL20120001218 Jaffe Boat Dock Appeal represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, LPA, requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in denying Petition BDE- PL20110001573 that requested a 19 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot protrusion limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 39 -foot boat dock facility accommodating 2 vessels on 2 boat slips for property located at 10090 Gulfshore Drive and is further described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit 1; Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Companion item to: VA- PL20110001576, Jaffe Variance] Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 Prepared By Name: SawyerMichael Title: Project Manager,Engineering & Environmental Servic 11/15/2012 4:14:19 PM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 11/] 6/2012 2:40:51 PM Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/16/2012 5:38:42 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/19/2012 3:08:21 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Packet Page -23- Date: 11/20/2012 4:46:40 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 11/28/2012 4:15:46 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use - Transportation, County Attor Date: 12/3/2012 9:03:29 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 12/3/2012 3:16:56 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 12/4/2012 8:54:42 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 12/4/2012 11:25:30 AM Packet Page -24- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Attachment 1 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 3, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 am., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Goverment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Caroline Cilek, Planning & Regulation Heidi Ashton- Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 64 Packet Page -25- CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 late today as possible, which will be now. * **The first one is — well, they're both going to be heard — they're both on the same topic, so we're going to discuss than jointly and vote on them separately. When we do vote, well vote for the variance first and the boat dock extension second. IT read off what they are. The variance application is VA -PL -2011 -1576, the Jaffe variance, located at 191 Gulf Shore Drive, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates. The second one is boat dock extension BDE- PL20110001573. Again, it's the Jaffe boat dock extension at the same address. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER.- None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are none. Okay. Its all yours. MR. ROGERS: First off I want to — good afternoon, Commissioners. And I want to thank you for accommodating our schedule. The applicant, the petitioner, Andrew Jaffe, is in surgery this morning. We were hoping he'd be out by lunchtime, but I guess he's not out as of yet, so he will not be here. So I apologize for that For the record, my name is Jeff Rogers. Pm with Turrell Hall & Associates representing the petitioner, Andrew Jaffe. setbacks. And as the commissioner said, we are here requesting a boat dock extension and a variance from the required As you can see here on the overhead, the property is located in North Naples off Gulf Shore Drive, and it has an adjacent — well, across the sheet a boat dock lot that has been deeded to this property. And the history of that takes us back, way back to 1955 when this original — this property was deeded as a boat dock lot during the process and was deeded to the property that Mr. Jaffe purchased at 191 Gulf Shore Drive. And since 1955, this property has gone through numerous exchanges of ownership. I believe it was ._ I counted 10 different warranty deeds that had been issued for this particular subject property. The petitioner purchased a property basically a year ago back in June 6th of 2011 from the neighbor, Mr. Forbis, to the south of the boat dock lot. Like I said, back in 2011. And since then, W. Jaffe has purchased a street (sic) across the way on the beach and is currently remodeling/rebuilding the existing dock — or the existing house, and it is going to be his full -time residence. Move forward. The petition in front of you guys today is for the dock off the subject property. As I said, its small boat dock lot only and, therefore, is deeded to have boat dock access for two vessels. The difference of this particular property is its located at the end of a canal, as you can see on the overhead, and has less linear footage of shoreline. Those are basically the two hardships on this one. The dock proposed -- well, the project proposed is to move the existing dock, which I'll show you is right here. I'll move it over. There you go. The subject property outlined in the red border is currently as the property sits minus the vessels. The vessels have been removed, but as you can see here on the overhead, the unique situation of this property. Luckily there is a history paper trail that 'we have to follow in order to determine how this came to be. We're requesting a 19 -foot boat dock extension. We're going to remove the existing dock and boat lifts and construct a finger dock that is only 116 square feet and is going to accommodate two vessels. And as you can see on this overhead here —1'll show you the proposed design here in a minute. The existing dock, as it sit, was — is within the riparian rights of the property. You can't really see it very well, but the riparian lines are shown. They're labeled, obviously, but there is a dashed line, red dashed line indicating the actual location of the riparian lines. And as it sits, the little white structure that's on the south end of that dock, southeast side ofthat dock, is over the riparian line. So as it currently was built or constructed or used, it was not in compliance with setbacks and/or within its riparian rights. Now, what we've done is we're proposing to remove it, as I said, and were proposing a 4-foot -wide dock as shown here. So we're basically taking — removing out the dock and proposing a 4-foot -wide finger dock protruding straight out into the waterway. As — let me touch base on the uniqueness of this. The waterway from — measured from our firontage, linear Page 46 of 64 Packet Page -26- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 frontage of shoreline, is 1,420 feet wide. Granted, we know this is at the end of the canal, so that's not the typical situation on this waterway. Typically the waterway's 100 feet wide. Due to the location of this one, the width is 1,420 feet. We are proposing a 35 -foot protrusion, like I've said before. And due to the, you know, remote — or due to the uniqueness of this property, there's really no dock design that you could do that would accommodate two vessels, which is allowed here per the LDC rules. This is zoned a single- family lot and, therefore, is allowed two vessels to be moored up on there. This is — we've worked with it. We worked the design, Tim Hall and I, as well as the customer worked on the design, and based off what — his wishes and his current vessels, this is what we came up with that would accommodate his use as well as be within the riparian rights of his property. With that being said, we are requesting a variance from the required setbacks from those riparian lines. • The typical setback requirement is seven -and a-half feet. Now, looking at this, I've got a drawing here that shows that seven -and -a -half foot setback, and you'll see with this picture that it would be very hard to — virtually impossible to accommodate two vessels of any typical size within those required setbacks. As shown here on the overhead, the orango-reddish color indicates the seven- and -a -half foot setback area. The white area inside shows what would be the remaining buildable area that we would have to work with. One could argue that you could turn the dock and accommodate one vessel possibly. It would be a smaller vessel, but the applicant owns these two boats and, therefore, we have to design something to accommodate those vessels that he currently owns. And during the process of the purchase of this property from the adjacent neighbor to the south, W. Forbis, it was negotiated at the sale that he was purchasing these — this property for the purpose of installing this dock and this particular dock design. Now, we do have a — do have affidavits signed by both adjacent neighbors, one to the north and one to the south. Mr. Forbis has written a letter of no objection, but then come this week he wrote a letter of objection to us, to our surprise and, of course, to the petitioner's surprise. When Nancy Gundlach of Collier County brought that to our attention, I immediately called the petitioner, Andrew Jaffe, to discuss the issue. He was just as surprised as we were. And, basically, since then we've contacted Mr. Forbis. I've reached out to him, and we have a paper trail of all the emails back and forth. And since Mr. Jaffe (sic) did sign an affidavit or letter of no objection stating he does not object to this design — and we have not changed that design — he has retracted his letter of objection. And I can show you that in email. 1 don't have it printed out. rve forwarded it to Ray and I've forwarded it to Nancy for their review. So staff has seen that email that came this morning. They can vouch for that. With all that being said, really, what we're here for today is requesting a 19 -foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 for an overall 39 feet into a water -- water body that is approximately 1,420 feet wide. That's very — we can argue that. With that being said, we're also asking for a variance for zero setbacks fi-om the — from the retired seven -anda- half -foot setbacks. As I said, you know, there's really no other design that could work, and I open the floor to questions, if the commissioners have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go Phil and then Brad. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I have a number of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, we're taking both the variance and the boat dock extension simultaneously, so ask from both packages, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now, the property in question here, that the dock — proposed dock — or the existing dock is attached to is a boat dock lot. Is that defined differently in the LDC than what's referenced in your application here as a single- family home which has certain rights associated with it with respect to the number of slips? MR- ROGERS: Yes, sir. The difference between this boat dock lot — we're calling it a boat dock lot. Its not your typical boat dock lot in regards to Collier County normal boat dock lots. There's only a few areas that actually have boat dock lots, and one of them being — the main one that I can recall is up off Little Hickory on the north end of -- on the south side of Bonita Beach Road; off Third Street. And those docks — those boat dock lots are allowed to have zero setbacks. They're basically plotted boat dock lots, and you're allowed to maximize your water foot frontage of that property. Page 47 of 64 Packet Page -27- 1 2/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well — and I know Ray's about to interrupt, and so am I. Phil, you hit on a question that is really pertinent. Can you show us any document that you have that calls this a boat dock lot? MR. ROGERS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. That takes care of one. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, Ray Bellows. Pd just like to add that a boat dock lot in Collier County was approved — is approved through a conditional use as the ones on the Vanderbilt area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BELLOWS: This has no conditional use or anything other than it has historically been used that way since 1955, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does a property owner selling off a piece of his land constitute a legal use without going through the right process? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MIL BELLOWS: As far as I know, it would not unless it preexisted the LDC. In '55 I think it probably did. It looks that way to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in '55 this still was not called a boat dock lot. MR BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was simply the north 50 feet of Parcel 14. And what Phil has hit upon was one of the biggest flaws I found in your argument. And when you said that this morning, you kept refening to it as a boat dock lot. I don't know how you got there. So I think that the record doesn't support it being called that. You can call it whatever you want, but I don't think a boat dock lot, as defined, is one that fits this lot. So, go ahead, Phil. Pm sorry to interrupt. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, that's okay. That's where I'm having some issues. Your variance is, I think, predicated — my words, not yours — on the fact that the Jaffe residence across the street is entitled to have two slips associated with a dock coming out of that piece of ground across the street at the end of the canal. Is that — those are my words, not yours, right? MR. ROGERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't understand that connection. To me that's a pretty long reach. If Mr. — my example, if W. Forbis had decided to sell Phil Brougham that 50 foot of land at the end of that canal and I live in Fiddler's Creek, how many slips would I be allowed to put on that dock by code? MR. ROGERS: Two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. ROGERS: Two vessels. No? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Whoops. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, excuse me for butting in, but I think this issue has to be resolved before we go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And, Phil, you've got right to the point. And, I mean, that's the biggest issue with this whole thing. Brad, you`re 100 percent right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. I mean, I have — this is a subdivision. You cannot sell off your backyard in a subdivision and then give it the rights of a lot. This is still part of Lot 14. 1 mean, the subdivision's been amended but never to isolate this piece of properly. So, yes, it could be described; anything you can describe, you can sell. Look at Wall Street. But — but this could be described, but it doesn't have the rights. In other words, you're finding; a riparian land coming off of a description of a piece of property in W. Forbis' backyard. I mean, right now Mr. Forbis and this other guy are partners on Lot 14, but it's not an individual lot. And it can't, any time, be expected to get: the rights of a lot. Its a nonconforming lot even. MR. ROGERS: I can't argue with you on that. We are just following what has historically been done here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, did want to — can you help out? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The reason I supported the petition or signed off on it was my understanding that this isn't a free- standing lot, that it was, in fact, deeded to the lot across the street, `and its now part of that property. Page 48 of 64 Packet Page -28- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 So, therefore, it's not a free- standing nonconforming lot, because it would be deemed an unbuildable lot because it doesn't meet the minimum lot area. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I don't believe — I haven't reviewed all the chain of title. This is not my particular project. But, generally, when you have a platted roadway, the property owner owns to the center line of the road. So since he owns parcels on either side of the road, he owns one parcel that's severed by an easement for a road. So it seems to me it's RSF3, and you're entitled to boats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Heidi, this is platted subdivision. You cant go within a subdivision and start describing little pieces of land and have it have the rights of the lot. This is a part of Lot 14. He's never called it part of Lot 34 on the block across the way. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, this one's -- well, that's because that's how you would describe the legal. But this one is unique in that it — this has enjoyed this particular configuration since 1955. It's not like somebody now could go and create one of these. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why — when the subdivision was revised in, like, mid'60s, why wasn't that lot shown? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can't answer that question. And, again, I don't have the benefit of looking at the file. I'm just looking at the documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. I mean, a subdivision is a method in which you organize land, you plat it, and you can't then start to describe things by legal description. I mean, its a subdivision. And that would mean that this little area could have four boats in that area, so this is a way to circumvent the rights of the landowners by cutting out pieces of their backyard and selling it and getting the rights of two boats per piece. I mean, makes no sense. MR. BELLOWS: One other point. Any property owner can sell off a portion of their property to an adjacent property owner as long as they don't result in a nonconforming situation on their own. Now, if the lot where this appendage came off of is still conforming, he can sell that off. But it can't be a buildable lot if it's not attached to something else that makes it conforming in some other way. So if it was deeded to the Jaffe residence across the street and is part of that larger lot, then it is conforming in that regard, and they have some rights to the dockage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. But this is a plat. That roadway -- MR. BELLOWS: You can sell off a portion of a platted lot — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Gulf Drive — Gulf Drive — MR. BELLOWS: -- without replatting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: — is not — the people do not own to the center of a road on this platted situation. This is not out in the Estates. This is a subdivision. The subdivision has roadways, right -of -ways platted. So what you're saying is that they can own the land in the — they don't own the land in the roadway. Its certainly not on the plat. Its not part of their legal description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is the way — MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I've written opinions since the'90s that generally they do own to the middle of the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And they're encumbered by an easement unless it expressly states that it's fee - simple. Again, I haven't reviewed this subdivision plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, look at the plat. Here it is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But those are the general principles. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thafs a road that — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there is a way that we might be able to find out a little bit closer if this is a combined lot. The tax assessor's office does let you combine lots. Has this lot been joined with the lot across the street? Because if it isn't, then they're two separate lots. MR. ROGERS: To my knowledge, no, it'has not. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couple more — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why wouldn't they have done that? Go ahead, Phil. Sony. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a couple more points that I want to pick at on this application, and then get back to the more central issue, I think. Page 49 of 64 Packet Page -29- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 Supposedly, there's a 35 -foot - long boat dock for the neighbor to the north of the subject site. Is that that little dock that I we in the other 50 -foot lot? 1s that north? MR. ROGERS: Where are you talking about exactly? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Fm looking at -- look what's on the visualizer. That — to me that's what Pm. looking at, MR. ROGERS: Oh, yeah. That — COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's a 35 -foot lot that's sticking out of that other 50 — Pll say 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you know if that other one to the north was sold off, Phil? So you're saying it's a 50 -foot lot to the north, but isn't that still connected? MR- ROGERS: It's part of — its connected to the — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so that's why its not a 50 -foot lot. MR ROGERS: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, my question is more, that's a 35 -foot dock? MR ROGERS: Uh -huh. Oh, I — I don't know. I didn't measure that dock. I would guess --no, its probably 20, 25. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. It was stated in my document that immediately to the north has an existing approximately 35 -foot long boat dock. I guess that can't be verified. And can you speak to the hardship issue here, which is, I think, one of the central arguments? MR. ROGERS: The hardship here is the uniqueness and the history of it The uniqueness in regards to its location and it being a separate parcel or looked at as a separate parcel and also, then, the riparian lines coming out of the corners or -- there's a couple hardships here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To your knowledge, when Mr. Jaffe purchased this particular piece of property, was he aware of the riparian property lines and the uniqueness of this? MR ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So he bought into the hardship? MR ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So hardship is not something that's new? MR. ROGERS: No. But when he was closing in the closing process, he had both neighbors at that time sign off on the proposed dock design that he's now proposing here. In order to — to let — inform them that that's what he's — his intentions are, of building.this dock, and that's why we have two letters of no objection from them signing off on the proposed dock, CHARUV AN STRAIN: I wish making things legal was that simple, COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is it appropriate if I ask one clarification to the staff report as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Everything, go right on through it, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Under recommendation, Ray or — MR. BELLOWS: Ofthe variance or the boat dock? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On the variance — you say your recommendation of approved — subject to the approval of the companion boat dock extension petition, blah - blab- blah -blah, and issuance of a certificate of occupancy for building permit number, whatever, ending in 4314, what is that — how does a building permit come into this equation? MR. BELLOWS: The Land Development Code requires that you cannot have an accessory use such as a dock without a principle structure or principle use. In this case the principle use is the dwelling. And since they've destroyed, or are rehabbing the original by removing it — right now, my understanding, the site's vacant. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR BELLOWS: So we just want to make sure they don't do the dock without the dwelling. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I couldn't make the link. That's all I had right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad, did you - COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Yeah, let me continue on. And I — you know, Heidi, give me a binary answer, yes or no, is that that is a legally described lot such that we can figure riparian rights off of it and they can build — you know, it's part of Lot 14, but you're saying once they describe it and sell it and, you know — you know, it does go back. I think Eve sold it to Adam to start this. Page 50 of 64 Packet Page -30- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 It does go back, but the point is, that how can you, just by describing things, caseate a lot? And the reason that's an important question, there's probably about 10 other ones like this. And before everybody in Connors come running in here and selling off the lots and duplicating, you know, the boats in the backyard — so you're 100 percent sure that this is a lot, and they can figure riparian rights off of the property lines accordingly? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Based on the fact that its been in existence since the 1950s, 1955, yes. I don't think that people can start selling off parts of their lots and create new lots and then entitle additional boat docks. I don't think you can do that But in this case because it was an existing dock and ifs been sold for, you know, how many years now, as one lot, then, yes, I do think he's got riparian rights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why is it being picked up in the replats and everything? I mean, this Connors Point's (sic) been replatted since then. I mean, why did they not start to show this as a legal piece of property? I mean, to me I — MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think its not a legal piece of property, so — and I think — you know, I think he's got rights that if we take them away the county will have some significant exposure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Okay. And Mr. Forbis, who's his partner on Lot 14, he has the ability to put in two more boats. Because the lot — per lot, you're only allowed two boats. So what we're saying right now is per lot or per description, you're allowed as many boats — two times how many descriptions you can get on your property. I mean — MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think there`s criteria you have to look at when you have a boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- Okay. I mean, rll — the attorney says it's a legal lot that, yes, those are the riparian lines that are appropriate, then we'll go there. But the danger is everybody now in Connors can run in and sell that little nip on the back of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think she qualified her statement by the fact it was a legal lot because it was created back in the 1950s, but it couldn't be done the same way today. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, current codes would prohibit that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the difference, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHWFER: Okay. Pll ask some questions later on the boat dock part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONMR: The boat dock that exists, aside from that floating dock, which is not legal — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- it meets all of Collier County's criterion? MR. ROGERS: No. The dock — no, it does not. COMMISSIONER VONIER: It does not? MR. ROGERS: No. COMMISSIONER VONIER: The existing dock does not? MR ROGERS: No, it's not providing — the vessel on the dock, which is part of the dock, is not providing the required setbacks. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. Second question. The adjacent lot, 14, has 75 feet of frontage and this has 50. So looking at 75 feet and his ability to put in two boats, I think it's going to get pretty tight MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir, it is, but you could definitely design something that would accommodate the property owner to the south's wishes and get two vessels in there. It's not a perfect situation; that's why this is so difficult to get this approved, but historically this is whafs been done and, you know, we'd have to reverse whafs been done. I mean, not -- you know, I definitely, know we could fit something in there. And as the dock sits, go back to your other question, that is out past the 20 feet so — and it does not have a DBE approval as well. So as that dock sits, ifs encroaching on the setbacks as well as it's past the 20 foot. We're trying to make a wrong a right the best way we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. I notice another boat. Does that belong to Lot 13? MR. ROGERS: No. It — are you talking about this here? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. ROGERS: I believe, by the looks of the — if you look and see in the water, the turbidity screen that's Page 51 of 64 Packet Page -31- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 floating there, I believe that's a barge that just happened to be at that place doing some sort of — I don't know, some sort of work. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Now, this is not a clear picture, so rm thinking, all right, he's got this, and if Lot 14 — there's no home on Lot 14, I take it? MIL ROGERS: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT. And — but you feel that they can go out and put in two boats out there also? MR. ROGERS: Yes, ma'am. It would be considerably tight, but they could definitely work something out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.. And the one across -- on the northern portion there is also a dock there. Does that belong to the other residents across the street next to Mr. Jaffe? MR ROGERS: No, ma'am. That property is owned by the residents of the one to the north of us. He owns that whole L of the seawall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. He owns the whole L. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your opening statement you said that this lot is zoned single - family. Do you still stand by that statement? MR. ROGERS: Right now rm unsure, but — yes, sir, I believe — that is my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you consider this 50 -by -30 -foot square lot a single - family lot? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that that lot was deeded to the Jaffe residence lot across the way, so together it conforms a single - family lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not combined in the tax assessor map, so — they've not combined them — MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think I go back to what Heidi was saying is it was done back in the'50s as deeded to the Jaffe residence lot. And then, because it's not afree- standing lot in and of itself — and I would agree with you, if it was created as a free- standing Jot on its own, that it's an unbuildable lot. But since — my understanding of the way it was explained to me is that it was deeded to the Jaffe residence lot and, therefore, is a conforming lot of record which has rights to have the dock, even though it -- even though the street crosses over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the preapp, staff said -- I guess it was — Mike Sawyer, apparently, was talking to somebody from your organization, maybe you, Jeff — MR. ROGERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — note, nonconforming existing dock and — rm not sure what the next word — also provide info regarding other comparable dock facilities within the area, single, canal, and locations. Did you do that? MR. ROGERS: There are none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are none. MR. ROGERS; That I could find on Gulf Shore Drive, that mimic this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: At least on the three canals or the two canals north of us. Those western portions of those properties were not — they're a part of the single - family residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I played around with your buildable area, and you can fit a boat in that buildable area with a dock without protruding on the setbacks. You can do it if you don't want an oversized boat. The fact that this guy has two boats and he wants to fit them in there is a hardship that he created, and self - created hardships aren't reasons to provide variances. I — and I especially am concemed that when you put a 35 -foot boat in there and you've got a I00 -foot lot that has 30 of it taken away, is down to 70, and of the 70, over half of its being blocked by a boat, I don't see how that's fair to the adjoining property owner. And by the way, that's nothing to do with Mr. Forbis or his letter, because I had that conclusion before he wrote his letter. I don't particularly like his style in his letter, so it didn't — I didn't pay much heed to it. But, the point is, it does block that property substantially when you can actually fit a boat and a dock in there, maybe 20- or 25-foot-long boat, but I don't — so I don't buy into the hardship fact. I'm having a hard time. And then why is it a hardship in this county if you can't have two boats? I mean, I don't get it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean — Page 52 of 64 Packet Page -32- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's not a hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — its ludicrous to think that everybody is entitled to two boats. What the code says, you may — you may ask for two boats. Doesn't mean you're going to -- it's a hardship if you can't have the two. MR. ROGERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm having a real hard time with your variance. I think a boat dock extension would be warranted if it was within the setbacks, provided your dock configuration was different, but you've got a dock configuration that doesn't work in front of us today. So I have a problem with both of your applications today on that basis. And Pm just letting you know, I haven't found a way around it yet. And if we start deciding hardships are because you can't have two boats, that's a -- that's a strange trail to get going down. Anyway. MR. ROGERS: i didn't mean to interrupt you, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. MR. ROGERS: In my mind, you know, the biggest hardship here is the fact that the riparian lines are very restrictive, and that's just due to the uniqueness of the location of the property and, you know, that goes back to the 1955s when this was originally established. So it -- you can fit a vessel in there, you know, like you said, as shown here, but you know, that's the area that you have to work with that Mark was talking about. And I can't argue that we couldn't fit a boat in there, but the petitioner came to us with the vessels in his ownership, and he thought he was doing the right thing at the closing in crossing the bridge, so to speak, with the neighbors at that time in making sure that they were okay with the proposed dock and vessels that were going to be stored there, and at that time they signed off on it. Can't speak for Mr. Forbis in his confusion, but he's come back to say as long as it matches what he signed originally, he's okay with it CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, again, even — the neighbors don't dictate the codes and laws here, and for them to decide it's okay, that doesn't mean it's okay. You've still got to meet the — MR ROGERS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — thresholds of our Hiles, and I just don't see how you've done it — so anyway. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, you know what I'd kind of like to see here is if he and Mr. Forbis get together and let them design how they want to put these boats in here. Because when you look at — you're saying its a nonconforming thing on the 45, but that's about the only thing that makes sense so far because it looks like a boat dock place where both ofthem could use it. It may be, you know, going down the riparian line — which I don't even yet believe with the riparian line, but that might catch up later. But you know, let them sit down and design the backyard here, because this is definitely, to me, one lot. The fact that you've found a way to get four boats on it instead of two is — we'll let it go as clever. But I do think that it has to work for everybody, and he can't ignore the Lot 14, which it still is a part o£ It's always been described as a part of it. No one ever, you know, attached it across the street. They sold them together. They deeded them together, but they never joined them together. So I really — it would be difficult for me to even really give a good opinion on this unless you work something out with W. Forbis and showed how you're going to put four boats there, then we can start worrying about what the other neighbors are going to think, because there are people across the canal, people who have to look at this, and maybe they don't want four boats in there. So let's get — if we have to have four, let's make the four work together. The way you're doing it now, you're blocking his ability to come out, too. MR ROGERS: Well, we're coming out as one, one property owner, and we're — you know, we took the approach where we're worrying about him and trying to accommodate the best we can for Mr. Forbis. I understand its not a good situation no matter what — no matter what we do here in regards to dock design and slip layout You know, state and federally it would be difficult for Mr. Jaffe to get a permit that authorized his vessel and/or dock to cross over his riparian lines. You know, that's at the state and federal level. That's something that we could work out, potentially. Page 53 of 64 Packet Page -33- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at — the original design has these boats on 45. So, essentially, they pull away from their docks and they go into the center of the channel. They don't cut across, you know, the backyard or the dock area of Mr. Forbis. Those boats look like they've been designed — and you're right, there's nothing perfect there, but you're not coming in with that That big boat can pull out into the center of the channel and not block the Forbis site. MR. HALL: Sony. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall & Associates, and I think I understand the concerns that the Planning Commission has been expressing. In terms of the riparian lines, did you say you had a question or you were confused about how those related to each other or — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's — I mean, the one that's obviously going east/west is a riparian -- is a property line with a riparian. Somebody did a legal description defining a piece of property -- and now I m starting to think this is actually competing with Wall Street in cleverness. But they defined a piece of property, and now we're — you know, they just defined something out of an existing lot, and now we're giving it riparian rights. MR. HALL: Well, I mean, its a deeded lot. It's been through 10 or I I different transitions. lot COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a lot You can't use the word "lot," because it's not It's never been a MR. HALL: Okay. It's a deeded piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's been legally -- its been legally — MR. HALL: It's a property that has specific ownership, okay. There's a gentleman that has a defined area that he owns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's been legally defined, and somebody in Iceland might have bought it. But go ahead. MR HALL: Okay. Well, that — because that property is on the water, there are riparian rights associated with it, which — and riparian rights are basically, if you own property on the water, you have the right to access that property from the water. And there are — the ways that they define those riparian tines, generally, they start at the mean -high water line or where the water meets the shore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know how they define it. If — my problem isn't with the riparian line. My problem is, does it have the rights for riparian line. And we can move off of that. MR. HALL: No, I mean if it's — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If Heidi says it does, it does, so — M . HALL: And in terms of interfering with the riparian rights or the riparian lines of the owner to the south, you know, this design doesn't. If you look at how those lines — if you look at how they line up, I mean, where the edge of the property — the property to the south here and this property where they adjoin, that riparian line would come off a 45- degree angle to the center of the waterway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. If we're allowed a riparian line, that's the one you'd be allowed. MR. HALL: Right COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm with you there. MR. HALL: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is, too, is that since everyone's known about this lot and everybody's known about riparian lines and everybody's known about setbacks, what is the hardship then other than they can't, you know, take overadvantage of it? I mean, this is a very small lot so, obviously, shouldn't they be entitled to a very small boat? What would make them think that they should have the rights of somebody — you know, a 39 -foot boat, let's say 40, that's an 80- foot -wide lot- MR. HALL: If you look at the boat that's there now on the aerials, that's a 32 -foot boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HALL: But its not there legally. It's there — well, I mean, I guess it is there. It's grandfathered in, but it doesn't meet the setback or boat dock extension criteria that the county has in place now. So if he wants to upgrade that dock or change it, he has to become compliant with what the codes are now, which is what we're trying to do. And in taking that, what was a — the 35 -foot boat and doing the design, it was to move it as far away from that property to the south as possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. I mean, if this guy wanted a variance to build what's there, he'd have a Page 54 of 64 Packet Page -34- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 friend in me. But what he's trying to do, the way he's trying to aim it down the channel and, essentially, make it difficult for the other lot and, essentially, put it in full view of the other lot, I'm not with that yet. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one more question; might be rhetorical. What if — well, I — what if he did nothing? In other words, you say this is nonconforming and a boat that's currently — I assume is currently docked there is not, quote - unquote, legal; its grandfathered in, I guess. But if this petition were denied and it was not appealed and ultimately approved, what harm is there then? I mean, how is this gentleman harmed? What would he have to do? He could keep his boat. He could keep the dock as legal nonconforming; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No harm, no foul. MR BELLOWS: Yeah. The existing situation can continue into the future. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can or can't? MR. BELLOWS: Can, C -a -n. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ray, let me question. MR. HALL: Except for he loses the --just to keep this right now, he then is limited to the one boat instead of the two that are there now. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Ray, he's built boat lifts and stuff. I mean, he didn't have a boat lift in 1955. 1 mean, when they installed that boat &4 Elvis Presley wasn't on the radio. MR. BELLOWS: I don't know of any code violations on this site, but there very may well be. But my understanding is it's preexisting dock, and the boat is there. I don't know how long that boat's been there, but I'm sure they've had many numerous boats over the years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And its designed in a courteous position where it will pull out and not, you know, block the other people around them. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. It's — MR, HALL: Well, I think I might disagree with you a little bit. Just if you look — if you look at the — can we blow that out some? This boat currently has to back into this because of the way the lift is situated and all. So to come in and out he's actually — ifthis owner brought another boat in which is, you know, permitted there and has this boat here, then to get in and out of that, he's got to work around both of these in reverse to get in and out of that slip as it exists now, whereas, with what we have proposed, none of these adjoining owners are aff=ected at all, and it makes it easier to get that boat in and out of that lot without having those — you know, without having to come in in reverse and go around those lots -- those docks that are already there now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. But, actually, you've pointed out a hardship. Your boat might -- if you come perpendicular to that wall and you're within that setback, you're going to make — that boat's got to work around the tip of you. You're much further out than you'd be — M - HALL: No. The way this one can come in and out into the comer, the way we have the boat sitting right now, he's not affected by it at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could discuss it. I mean, you're going to be sticking out towards the apex of that triangle. So anyway. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim and Jeff. Staff report? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Come on up, Mike. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You've got it Mike. MR. SAWYER Good afternoon. For the record, Mike Sawyer with planning services. I actually worked on the boat dock extension for Jaffe. Nancy, my colleague, did the variance for this request. Page 55 of 64 Packet Page -35- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 On the boat dock extension, you've got a staffreport originally dated April 6th, revised April l lth and the 13th As you can see, basically, what we found as staff is that the meeting four of the five primary and four of the six secondary, with one of the secondary being nonapplicabie. If you have questions, Ill be happy to answer what I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Pll play. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll play, huh? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Primary Criteria 1, you know, the intent there is to keep it an appropriate number, kind of says for single - family use, two boats is good, right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. street? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're still claiming that these two boats belong to the house across the MR. SAWYER: Since'55, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Well — okay. I mean, the lots have never been joined. To say it's on the same lot, that isn't true. Even in the descriptions it says "and," and then describes this guy's backyard. But anyway. MR. SAWYER Well, just to clarify one possible point, that in'55, this — you know, certainly, the boat dock extension process certainly wasn't in the code at that time either. A minor point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER- Right. I mean, to me I think there's only two boats allowed on Lot 14. Even though somebody else owns part of Lot 14, that's just creative. Let me see if there's any other ones. They're claiming this, you know, the — and because they measure perpendicular, they measured all the way across into Ohio, I think, to come up with the 1,400 feet. Do you believe that's the width of the waterway? MR. SAWYER: As I tried to point out in the staff report, in black- and -white terms, that's what the criteria says; however, in this particular case, it's very hard to make that argument, quite honestly, and that's why in the staff report I tried to go back to what the actual intent is as far as navigability, and that's how we found that it actually, you know, met that navigation. Whether this configuration is used or the existing one is is not going to affect navigation because you don't have anything — any navigation going further west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, obviously. MR SAWYER Obviously. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or this boat will stop them if they try. MR SAWYER Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER Number 5, is the — will it interfere with the neighboring docks. When you look at that, do you look at it in terns of what's built now or what could be built later? And the intent of the question is, did you give Lot 14 the ability -- I mean, did you figure out what's going to happen on 14, what they can do to see if this is, in fact, especially with the variance, you know, interfering with their rights? MR. SAWYER: We did. Quite honestly, Lot 14, whether they come in now or later, are still going to have to go off of the riparian lines that you see on the screen right now. They're going to have to — whatever configuration of dock they propose, whether they need an extension or not, are still going to have to go off of that 45- degree riparian line that you see, because they don't have rights to that lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But, remember, they're asking for a variance here, and that variance will make that more difficult for them, correct? MR SAWYER: To an extent, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Hold on. There may be another. No, that's good. Thanks, Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. Pm reminded of the Isles of Capri case that we just reviewed a couple of weeks ago, and those conditions were not nearly as severe as these, and we did not allow one of the docks — or one of the lifts to be — to encroach on a riparian right. So this is a much worse condition in my estimation than the one we voted out in isles of Capri. And, for the record, I looked at that as 100- foot -wide waterway. I didn't buy your 1,400 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. Page 56 of 64 Packet Page -36- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. May 3, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. Mike, you did the boat dock extension? MR. SAWYER Correct CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if I had anything left. No. So I only have a couple of questions on the variance. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of the variance, of course subject to the approval of the boat dock extension and also the certificate of occupancy for the new house that's being built across the street. And it would be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have this afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the variance from Nancy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, a couple cleanup questions maybe. Page 5, did you do the aerial? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I did the aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you — if this is appealed, or wherever it goes, you reference that lot as a boat dock lot. We now know that's improper. Could you just make that correction? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your variance criteria on Page 6, No. E, the question was, will the granting of the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district Your answer was no. And then afterwards it says, most other neighboring properties moor two vessels. Did you rely upon any kind of data, survey, or statistical information submitted to you to come to that conclusion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So — MS. GUNDLACH: I had to think about that for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So our record — we don't have anything for the record to support that conclusion? That was just something you wrote in there? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, it's based on the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you were not given any supporting data to validate that conclusion, were you? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. That's what I was getting at I just wanted to make sure — MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we have data here that we're relying upon, it's accurate. And under a variance, I wanted to especially check that So that's all I had. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there public speakers, Ray? MR BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the public wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any rebuttal wanted by the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys got any more you want to say before we close the public hearing? MR HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record state that, rather than shaking his head, he actually said no off record. Okay. With that, well close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion first on the variance. Page 57 of 64 Packet Page -37- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A, May 3, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made to — COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — deny, second — by Mr. Brougham, seconded by Mr. Vonier. Discussion? Fm going to support the denial for the following reasons: The — I believe the hard — first of all, under variance criteria, I don't agree that they've met the criteria of Elements B, C, D, E, and F. Most of that has to do with the fact that the hardship is based upon needing two vessels. I can't see where that occurs, and also the impact on the neighboring property. But those are my reasons for denying this variance. Anybody else have any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion caries, 8-1. ** *Boat dock extension. Does anybody have any comments on the boat dock extension? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, .I will move to deny the boat dock extension, BDE- 20110001573. COMMISSIONER VONIER Second. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Motion made by Mr. Brougham, seconded by Mr. Vonier. Discussion? Fm going to be supporting the motion. I believe that they did not meet Primary Criteria No. l or No. 2, and they do not meet Secondary Criteria No. 1, 3, and 4. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? 4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll be supporting the motion but adding Criteria No. Primary 5 and Primary CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in addition to the ones I have suggested? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion to deny, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -1. Page 58 of 64 Packet Page -38- 3„% F O 2 W a n O 'O m C x S is frooa oumnd- iaodalr - v �H �s� Y o m S e � ° Y E J ¢ � u \ � °.i Oft" aroa 3LLamoos OO ll<JJ N > m I� Iw W � 2 ' f15Bao! ovoa >,HVaa- 3uai000� j 1 1I O i ��� 2 o J n v o« g z F R U) U% a R m m � n N K � m n Q '`` l7 arsnl o TIVHl Iwnwvl p R Ue Z m 2 < U n Z ^ n p o a ' O I a m 5 rs (coW a o) s O a W o8 wm f n ap J 5 m� / <,� o >n m R W LL Z � R r m n ? �g z G a Q m ul nR ` m m J W y W W > m O Z m _.. � 'Ifq L° o m LZ _ r g X z S ■� m> O J 3„% F O A, ✓dy z a � 11 x S is frooa oumnd- iaodalr - v �H �s� Y "�iOfB � g rcW by a�V S y a � ° Y E J ¢ � u \ � °.i Oft" aroa 3LLamoos 3aOr OOC nze3d Ws o I� Iw � w— x`k`� f15Bao! ovoa >,HVaa- 3uai000� TAMIAMI TRAIL 111.5. 41) � e � zzW l7 arsnl o TIVHl Iwnwvl <f�g a I a 5 rs (coW a o) s i anla .tvsaao Ljll¢ m / ? �g z GULF OF MEXICO U Z w O 7 Q O O 2 O IL � Q V Z Z O N Q Z O Q U O J cOi NCI OI NI I J; ai 0 Q z 0 W a N N O N of I i Attachment 3 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. iser coxntj! COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRiVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -5358 www.colliergov.net APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL Section 250 -58 Sec. 250 -58. Appeal from decision of administrative official. (a) Appeals to a board of zoning appeals or the governing body, as the case may be, may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the governing body or bodies in the area affected by the decision, determination or requirement made by the administrative official. Such appeals shall be taken within 30 days by filing with the administrative official a written notice specifying the grounds thereof. The administrative official shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers, documents, and maps constituting the record of the action from which an appeal is taken. Due public notice of the hearing on the appeal shall be given. Upon the hearing, any party may appear in person or by attorney. A decision shall be reached by the appellate body within 30 days of the hearing; otherwise, the action appealed from shall be deemed affirmed. An affected property owner is defined as an owner of property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land for which the interpretation is effective. An aggrieved or affected party is defined as any person or group of persons which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code, or Building Code(s). The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. A request for appeal shall be filed in writing. Such request shall state the basis for the appeal and shall include any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal. In accordance with Resolution No. 2007 -160, the fee for the application and processing of an appeal is $1,000.00 and shall be paid by the applicant at the time the request is submitted. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hold an advertised public hearing on the appeal and shall consider the administrative decision and any public testimony in light of the growth management plan, the future land use map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the County official's administrative decision, with or without modifications or conditions, or reject the administrative decision. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County official's administrative decision unless such Board finds that the decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the decision is contrary to the growth management plan, the future land use map, the Land Development Code or the official zoning atlas. Requests for Appeal of Administrative Decision should be addressed to: Growth Management Division /Planning and Regulation Attn: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 AMW Packet Page -40- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 262-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www-colliergov.net APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL Section. 250-59 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED REV: I I A=PJ-,,,AN17 iNFORMATION I NAME OF OWNER Andrew Jaffe ADDRESS 10091 Gulfshore Dr. I M, "11j= STATE FL Zip 34108 CELL # . FAX NAME OF AGENT/APPLICANT R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. FIRM Roetzel &Andress, LPA ADDRESS 850 Park Shore Drive ClTy Naples STATE FL ZIp 34103 TELEPHONE# 239 649-6200 CELL # 239 649-2708 FAX # 239 561-3659 E-MAILADDRESS banderson@ralaw.com I REQUEST D- E T A I L Appeal of Application No. ARIPL- BDE-PL 20110001573 (Please reference the application number that is being appealed) Attach a statement for the basis of the appeal including any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal. Submit required application fee in the amount of $1,000.00 made payable to the Board • County Commissioners. Packet Page -41- ADA-PL20120001218 JAFFE BOAT DOCK DATE: 5/30/12 DUE: 6/13/12 REV: I I A=PJ-,,,AN17 iNFORMATION I NAME OF OWNER Andrew Jaffe ADDRESS 10091 Gulfshore Dr. I M, "11j= STATE FL Zip 34108 CELL # . FAX NAME OF AGENT/APPLICANT R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. FIRM Roetzel &Andress, LPA ADDRESS 850 Park Shore Drive ClTy Naples STATE FL ZIp 34103 TELEPHONE# 239 649-6200 CELL # 239 649-2708 FAX # 239 561-3659 E-MAILADDRESS banderson@ralaw.com I REQUEST D- E T A I L Appeal of Application No. ARIPL- BDE-PL 20110001573 (Please reference the application number that is being appealed) Attach a statement for the basis of the appeal including any pertinent information, exhibits and other backup information in support of the appeal. Submit required application fee in the amount of $1,000.00 made payable to the Board • County Commissioners. Packet Page -41- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Basis of Appeal BDE -PL 20110001573 There was no evidence submitted to the Collier County Planning Commission "CCPC" to support a denial. Applicant's agent Turrell, Nall & Associates provided unrebutted evidence that the property owner met the criteria for approval of the boat dock extension. County planning staff also provided unrebutted evidence that they found that the application met the criteria for approval and recommended approval. No one from the public objected to the application and in fact, the owners on each side of the subject property submitted letters of no objection. The review and approval process for a boat dock extension is a quasi-judicial matter, where once the applicant demonstrates that he meets the criteria for approval, the burden of proof shifts to those objecting to the application to demonstrate that the applicant does not meet the criteria for approval. In this case there was no one objecting to the CCPC and there was no evidence presented to the CCPC that the criteria was not met. Very simply, there was a complete lack of any evidence to support the CCPC action. All evidence presented at the hearing was that the applicant met the criteria for approval. All of the documents which were in the CCPC agenda materials for this application are attached as exhibits in support of this appeal. Also attached hereto is a denial resolution issued by the CCPC. 63267531 Packet Page -42- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL APPEAL OF APPLICATION NO. AR/PL BDE -PL 20110001573 w/ Attachment — Basis of Appeal 6327930_1 1. Staff Report (May 3, 2012) 2. Application — Boat Dock Extension Application Jaffe Dock 3. CCPC Resolution No. 12 -05 (Denial) Packet Page -43- ADA- PL201200012iB REV:1 JAFFE BOAT DOCK DATE: 5/30/12 DUE: 6/13/12 h Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. AGENDA ITEM 9 -8 ADA- PL20120001218 REV:1 JAFFE BOAT DOCK DATE: 5/30/12 DUE: 6/13/12 FRONT: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: BDE- PL20I10001573, JAFFE BOAT DOCK EXTENSION (COMPANION ITEM: VA- PL20110001576) PROPERTI' OV*WER/AGENT: Owner: Andrew Jaffe, 10091 Gulfshore Drive Maples, F134108 Agent: Jeff Rogers, Turrell, Hall and Associates 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, F1 34104 The petitioner is requesting a 19 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility at the end of a man -made canal protruding a total of 39 feet into a waterway that is 1,420 feet long. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 10090 Gulfshore Drive and is further described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit 1; Section 29.. Township 48 South, Range 25 East; Collier County, Florida, Folio number 27530880003. (see location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to remove an existing dock and to construct a 4 foot wide finger dock that will service 2 boat lifts and vessels. The proposed dock facility is located on a small boat dock lot that has 50 -feet of shoreline that was deeded to the residence located across the street at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955 (see Attachment C Warranty Deeds submitted by applicant). The total proposed overwater structure is approximately 116 square feet with a total protrusion of 39 -feet from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL). The proposed dock requires a 19 foot boat dock extension and a companion variance petition VA- PL20110001576 due to the proposed intrusion into required riparian line setbacks. There is no dredging proposed for this project. BD- PL2011 -1573, Page I of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. Exhibit "I" April 6, 2012 (revised April 11, 2012 and April 13, 2012) Packet Page -44- Tu Mw I Packet Page -45- )12 Item 8.A. i (D z z O N NA L z 0 I- (r�) 0 J M i r� O' N fl.. M +t Z 0 I— F- LUj a ATfwne woa ownTnrlaxam I � W i�.C` gg w: < < s 9 a ° -i ,�i d -91 1m . J 0114— ` Y °� anaoroYaun000�a .00c osa r., �N,7,,a4o Q a l e C`�ei . -� F9� ms p s TAM14U:. TAAL ! =kE.. ` i 8 U {J.S tff [rj i b 5 mm °Em wE. ansro'o! _ �� •�,� � >s 0165 suao ivse3mr+s { D m m GULF OF jwx1cO U � Ll �< 00 IM a� Ct Packet Page -45- )12 Item 8.A. i (D z z O N NA L z 0 I- (r�) 0 J M i r� O' N fl.. M +t Z 0 I— F- LUj a 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -3 Note that a new residence is currently being proposed at 10091 Gulfshore Drive consistent with Building Permit PRBD20120304314 currently under review. SURROUNDING: North: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -3 East: Canal, and Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF -3 South: Undeveloped lot with a zoning designation of RSF -3 West: Gulfshore Drive ROW, then Single Family Residence, with a zoning desienation of RSF -3 Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website. Environmental Services Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with ten (10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. BD- PL2011 -1573, Page 3 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 (revised April 11, 2012 and April 13, 2012) Packet Page -46- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following: Primary Criteria 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.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of the removal of an existing dock and the construction of a finger dock servicing two boat slips, which is consistent with the allowable 2 -slip provisions. 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 (MELT). (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.) Criterion not met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the dock facility are adequate, therefore this criterion is not met. 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.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation within the man -made canal because the proposed facility is located at the western most end of the canal that prevents through boat traffic. Additionally the applicant indicates that there is limited boat traffic within this area of the canal and that the proposed dock is contained within the riparian lines however it does require the companion variance noted above due to riparian line encroachments. BD- PL2011 -1573, Page 4 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 (revised April 11, 2012 and April 13, 2012) Packet Page -47- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 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.) Criterion met. As noted in the project purpose /description above this dock facility is located on a small lot that has 50 -feet of shoreline that was deeded to the residence at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955. The open waterway in front of the proposed dock is approximately 1,420 feet and this dock facility meets the literal application of this criteria by being less than 25 percent of that distance. The applicability of this criteria however is challenging as the proposed dock facility is located at the end of the man-made canal. However, this location insures that no water vessel traffic will occur westward of this location. The proposed dock configuration is within the riparian lines and the adjacent property owners have provided letters of no objection to this proposed dock facility. For these reasons staffs opinion is that the proposed dock facility meets the intent of this criterion as navigability will be maintained. 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.) Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted and noted by the petitioner, the proposed facility has been designed so that it does not interfere with adjacent neighboring docks or access. Further the applicant has included letters of no objection from both adjacent neighbors as part of the application (see attachment B Application). Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which 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.) Criterion met. As noted above the proposed dock facility is located at the western most end of the man-made canal and has a total shoreline of 50 linear feet. Additionally the converging riparian lines associated with this parcel reduce the configuration and design options of this dock facility. Therefore the limited shoreline and associated riparian lines are the special conditions related to this request. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of BD- PL2011 -1573, Page 5 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 (revised April 11, 2012 and April 13, 2012) Packet Page -48- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility includes a 4 -foot wide finger pier allowing access and service to the two proposed vessels. This configuration minimizes the decking area. 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.) Criterion not met. The subject property contains a linear waterfront that is 50 feet in length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessels is 58 feet which is more than 50 percent of the waterfront footage. 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.) Criterion met. The information provided indicates that the proposed facility will not directly change the views of adjacent parcels as the proposed dock facility is within the riparian lines of the subject site. Further the application includes letters of no objection from the adjacent neighbors. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, no seagrass beds are known to be located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility or within this portion of the waterway. Therefore, there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 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.) Criterion not applicable. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria. With regard to the six secondary criteria one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. BD- PL2011 -1573, Page 6 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 (revised April 11, 2012 and April 13, 2012) Packet Page -49- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he /she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day period. ; COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for BD- PL20110001409, dated April 6, 2012. STAFF REC0MNENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL20110001573 subject to the following stipulation: 1. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving companion petition VA- PL20110001576. Attachments: A. Resolution B. Application C. Warranty Deeds provided by applicant BD- PL2011 -1573, Page 7 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 (revised April 11, 2012 and April 13, 2012) Packet Page -50- PREPAP,ED BY: 1 09 IATJ I pkilkyj OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ?,� /-0j- RAYM &D V. BELLOWS. ZONING MANAGER O DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES *111LIAM D. LORENZ JR., '.E., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NICK'CASAU;kKGLqDA, AE5MN1-StkATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BD-PL2011-1573, Page8 of Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 Packet Page -51- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. DATE + DATE DATE DATE '0Z NICK'CASAU;kKGLqDA, AE5MN1-StkATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BD-PL2011-1573, Page8 of Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6, 2012 Packet Page -51- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. DATE + DATE DATE DATE 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPLICATION JAYFE 10091- Gulf Shore Dn*Nye Naples, FL 34108 ADA- PL20120001218 REV:1 JAFFE BOAT DOCK DATE: 5/30/12 DUE: 6/13/12 Prepared by: Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FL 34104 (239) 643 -0166 Exhibit "2" Packet Page -52- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. gw� �co K �Nty COLLIER 'COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (238) 252 -2400 FAX (233) 643-6968 The following information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning Commission. Prior to submittal of the attached Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, you must attend a pre- application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06, the option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location, length /protrusion and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre - application fee is $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request, all accompanying materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. An additional amount for property.owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date. Within ten (10) days of the submission of your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertising (required fifteen (25) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. it is recommended, but not required, that you or your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. If you have ary further questions or need assistance completing this application, contact Department of Zoning and Land Development Review at 403 -2400. Packet Page -53- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 2800 'NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 I HIS PETITION IS FOR (check oriel: 0 DOCK EXTENSION 0 BOATHOUSE ADA- PL20120001218 REV:1 PROJECT NUMBER JAFFE BOAT DOCK PROJECT NAME DATE: 5/30/12 DATE PROCESSED DUE: 6/13/12 NAME OF APPLICANT(S) ANDREW JAFFE ADDRESS 10091 GULFSHORE DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34108 TELEPHONE # CELL ## FAX* E -MAIL NAME OF AGENT JEFF ROGERS FIRM TURRELL, HALL & ASSCJCIATES. INC. ADDRESS 3584 EXCHANGE AVE. CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE X 239-645- I66 CELL 9 239 -784 -4681 FAX 9 239- 643 -W32 E -MAIL JEFFO- TURRELL- ASSOCIATES.COW1 BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATION:. Packet Page -54- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLL:IERGOV.NEf 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 643 -+6968 Address of Subject Property 10090 Gulfshore Drive SecUon/Township/Range 29 /MQ Property I.D.# 27530880003 Subdivision CONNERS VANDERBILT BCH EST Unit 1 Lot(s) 14 Bkx*(s) C Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property NORTH 50' of Lot 14 tying West of canal Single - family RSF -3 a, a LAND USE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The omposed plan is to remove the existing non-conformin g dock and construct a.4 -foot wide finger dock and two associated boattifts The Proposed nroiect is on a small lot that has 50 -feet of shoreline that was deeded to 10091 Gutfshore Drive back in 1955. Due to the resticted shoreline tenath no setbacks from the property /rivrian lines can be Provided The total DroDOsed overwater structure is aQDroximately 116 square feet and the overall orotrusion will be 39 -feet from the Mean Hioh Water Line (MHWL) Dredging is not being Pmr)osed for this crrviect The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean iow water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot increments Packet Page -55- Zoning Land Use N RSF -3 Single- Family S RSF -3 Single - Family E RSF -3 ROW W RSF -3 Vanderbilt Lagoon /Canal DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): The omposed plan is to remove the existing non-conformin g dock and construct a.4 -foot wide finger dock and two associated boattifts The Proposed nroiect is on a small lot that has 50 -feet of shoreline that was deeded to 10091 Gutfshore Drive back in 1955. Due to the resticted shoreline tenath no setbacks from the property /rivrian lines can be Provided The total DroDOsed overwater structure is aQDroximately 116 square feet and the overall orotrusion will be 39 -feet from the Mean Hioh Water Line (MHWL) Dredging is not being Pmr)osed for this crrviect The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean iow water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot increments Packet Page -55- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. coffer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWNI.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252.2400 FAX (239) 643.6988 2) A chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank 3) A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as .a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW /MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip -rap revetment), I SITE INFORMATION Width of waterway: u2o %; Measurement from ❑ plat E3 survey ❑ visual estimate 0 other (specify) A2dgi Total property water frontage: 5-Q ft. Setbacks: provided 0 ft. required 7.5 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into water: 39 ft. Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1.33 fL, 2.3 ft., 3. ft. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: The two adaacent dodos orotnide assoroximately 20 feet from the MHWL late the waterway Most existina docks within these manmade canais of Vanderbilt Lagoon oraturde aoaroximatley 24 feet into the waterway however this dodo is unique in its location on the waterway. Official lnterurstations or Zoonina Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the fast years El Yes Z No If so, please provide copies. The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular mock Extension request. in order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at'ieast 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and /or questions. Attach additional pages 9 necessary. Packet Page -56- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Comer county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING $ LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV_NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 843 -8968 PRIMARY CRITERIA 1 1. Whether or not 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 multifamily use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate)) 2. Whether or not 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 petitioners application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). ((The petitioner's application and survey should shown that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) 3. Whether or not 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 Proaoaed docking facility will not have an adverse affect on navilmdan within the marl! -made canal, due to the location being in the very back of the canal The proposed clock is contained within the riomin lines and there is no other boat traffic within this area of the non -made canal. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages))_ The proposed hacking facility will prartrude approximately 39- feet tang the navigable waterway that is app=ftnatelV 14211- feet wide. However, this measurement is not applicable Packet Page -57- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Q& County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 3+4104 WVW►►:COLLIERGCIV:NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 AOk 5. Whether or not the proposed location and design of the dodo 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, proposed docking facility would not interfere with the use of any neighboring dock faculties. The Proposed docking fadliiiv was coordinated with both neighboring dock owners and the desi n was modified to accomidafe their reguest to ensure no interNre nce would occur. Packet Page -58- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLUERGOV.NET 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34404 (239) 282 -2400 FAX (239) 6434968 SECONDARY A. 1. Whether or not there are special conditions, not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which 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)) 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)) minimizing the dockingg area. 3. For singie- family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property2s linear waterfront footage. ((The applicable maximum percentage should he maintained)) Yes, with the vessels the WEl"icant is proposing to .roar on site together exceed the total owned shoreline lenoth. This criteria is not meet. 4. Whether _ or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either properly owner.)) b. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((If seaprass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated)) Packet Page -59- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. .50 County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW,COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 262 =2400 FAX (239) 643 -69681 6- Whether or not 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.ii must be demonstrated)) NIA: The subject oropertv is a sing19- ftmihr zoned lot and per the Manatee Protection Plan is allowed a dock and two associated boailifis. Packet Page -60- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT-. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLiERGOV NET 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA '34104 ('239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO 'SO AT MY OWN RISK. ,/,/ e. a , vlw I;fr - gnature of Petitioner or Agent Packet Page -61- e � COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV:NER' 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252:2400 FAX (239) 643.066 BOAT DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION (1313) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW WICOVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF SUBMITTED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 19 ❑ Chimer /Agent Affidavits, signed & notarized 1 Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: fg a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigate channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five (5) feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. f. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed. g. The dock facility should be illustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. $ 1,500.00 Review Fee $ 925.00 Legal Advertising Fee (estimated) Check shall be made payable to Board of County Commissioners As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. Packet Page -62- lAzil w •rs 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. F, , -7 �:,; 'j, MI.-l-, � eA:ht. r Packet Page -63- Packet Page -64- ypgtAitt'`#` t Packet Page -65- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. (r z 0 a n� Z y KZ w� ir a 0 LL 0 LL Y CIO N wD V a ¢z 0) � N m 1?? z� 0 z w oM m z Fes- t9 LU � z ��Q �° zzv "vv �o �d EL g Z 0 Q 0 ti °A M ova 9 0 .a a ,E w w � c m as •c �t en E .� (y nAuN ,zp t k ypgtAitt'`#` t Packet Page -65- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. (r z 0 a n� Z y KZ w� ir a 0 LL 0 LL Y CIO N wD V a ¢z 0) � N m 1?? z� 0 z w oM m z Fes- t9 LU � z ��Q �° zzv "vv �o �d EL g Z 0 Q 0 ti °A M ova 9 0 .a a ,E w w � c m as •c �t en E zii. Ile 0 Cl C> W 0 > 0 (D M uj z = w M >5 0 u f A. Cp. 1pdb, 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. > ul to Z p W sw LL 0 0 z ;= z Co S2 X ul 10 w 1p IM ll,. Ul 7-1 Ile 0 Cl C> W 0 > 0 (D M uj z = w M >5 0 u f A. Cp. 1pdb, 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. > ul to Z p W sw LL 0 0 z ;= z Co S2 X ul 10 w 1p IM ll,. Packet Page -67- CC tu aci 0 z 0 M z C) 0 Z X LLJ 2 pj < w D Cl) D Lu M x uj UJ < � C) a- z 0 =) X 0 t44 CL IM Packet Page -67- CC tu aci 0 z 0 M z C) 0 Z X LLJ 2 pj < Wf 0 M in V) - 13- %14 0 w 0 of-- U- om CL 0 0 ❑ 0 0 a. 0 4`1� 0 LLI w 0 CL 0 t- L IL 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Ti Hit A;, Ni jz I Z N. Nh €x p,\Ilniw*--OoCMADkSHEET\PERMIr-CXXJNTY%TH$6-1139-CWTY.O-p MROUrE IWO12RANDLKWU Packet Page -68- Z CD w LL, CO o 0 Cr CL COD I F, 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. d: dO H W LL `. CO Z ©S g A z a4 Wa x m c 00 S1 is s �� qq !. Zia,g S�oo3 ffio�a a >c 2 0 C, z Q` �• k t�tt vz Nt C9 z X z � � W F� Q U3 Q El. 0 CL i a O con of �C6 ZE Qom- '� �` CL z L� a 0 1r.=2 Pvo., Es Packet Page -69- Cn 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Ci TY'd 3r- VNIM19 IL z :> gw WHME Ap> any z x Packet Page -70- to to dZada LL 0 Ile M W Co z < .Ei —'9 d4 V- GAT Cz ern I Packet Page -71- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. H It X ® w D WI , '- 1I - .1.1 k HF 0 j UI LLI R9: M 9 M LU wig �0— g a � aing 0 M., : 9 . .. ......... I LLJ < ;;- a. 2 0 ,�, \i L.L LU / -J'/ CO /'��\ Co 0) 0 L) \ \ \ \ \ xm w AO CY O z z Cb CY i 0 G Rai 1D *�, �j '/�� \fJ �1..�..( a si 4 75 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. PRE-APPLCIATION NOTES A, DDRESSING CHECKLIST Packet Page -72- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ,i..t.Y`..:. i4 L3f�' -s•• c ..•v���a .L'..�.:a- 4^w€'OCy`L�f![( BDE) R.-2' CAI -PLi4A F14 --.14 1VtE2Tt:� %.Y f'',O E S P a #_1� Date• ` Time: • � Conference Roam. _ Project Name: 2MIIN __ T Site Address Applicant- _...- ti`fy`�w a i }1+ ■T Assigned Planner mtkT, Meeting Attendees: (Attach Sign -in Sheet) Submittal Checklist is attached to Boat Dock Extension Application Notes- pie -- ter- � � crab e ,r 17`14 u ► :i► :� �lw�!►. ,11.�_ Qom, :� � It 's. +► VIP 49�i�___ Packet Page -73- • r kr ` i i rlk�i[ I l L z �. ut LU 4 0 t w Cr Q +n Ln P.! th ItS :f } LL Eml t z z LAI z LJU z Z as t9 � 0 ttn O ate. <C a t tn �3 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Ln Cn t 41 \. LU _ Q TJ ON y, f ii uu { V` (V CL �. 4 i rn N N CL 113 iii G aCe E I ; z F44, uj - z� Packet Page -74- 0 r N t9 In An d 12/11/2012 Item 8.A Comer county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISIONI NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -5724 W W W.COLL IF RGOV.NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239 -252 -5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address_ Form must be signed by Addressing nersonnel prior to pre application meeting, Please allow 3 days for aroc essina. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO PLUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department PETITION TYPE (indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) a BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ SDPi (insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Pian) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change – Unpiatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy ofiengthy description may be attached) ti 4:5 -- Z5 ` ia'{,lal;z� c—' "�' l FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more ��C. STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if alreadyassignenj 1 i✓~�t � �. G � f1 ��'• .mot• -�^.� �i � LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projecttsite in relation to nearest public road right - of -way SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (rf applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing ptoi,_ -C suites only) SDP - or AR or PL # Packet Page -75- `1� V -UNW L-04 1q, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. y Cod er County izY!PR� 1bu -: �'+f�ylN"°4•+aof 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 262-2400 FAX (239) 252 -5724 WWW.GOLLIERGOV.N ET Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: ❑ Checklist is to be Faxed back ,Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: PHONBr � 3 / �-i,'> ' � y FAX Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street game approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY FLN Number (Primary) Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved b Date: Updated by: Date: Packet Page -76- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Packet Page -77- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. xi Jaffe Dock Naples, FL I hereby state that I am the owner of the adjacent upland riparian property located to the A104r11 of the proposed project at too�o Gee �:r :Awes rs+c.. - �'��'cti r ;Jaffe resilience, l . understand that the subject property is proposing to construct a deck that will encroach the on required side yard setback of I0 -teet. i do nat object to the proposed project and agree to allow .the project to 'be c raid out. • // AU I (Origidal signature ofad` t owner) Lys ( tgned} C{1 ,w) cmywi-2-1 (Printed name of adjacent owner) V� a } Packet Page -78- Jaffe Dock 2 , L4 35'1 Property Lin 32 2& Packet Page -79- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Property Line May 19111157a Robert C. Forbis May 19, 2011 10091 Gulfshore Dr Naples. Fl 34108 To; Appmpriat review agencies and Administrrators 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Re; Proposed dodo for 10090 Culfstwre Dr. Andrew and Fern 3affe This letter is to inform all parties that as the oviner of the adjacent parcel, 10080 Gulfshore Drive, 2 have no Objections to the proposed dock as Per attaches! drawing . Sincerely, 4M&wd C Forbis Packet Page -80- P.1 NUY 1Y ? 1 11.57a i i r. ProPerty Lin& .4 R 2C* f Jaffe Dock 2 t i ) 23' i 4 i 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. p.2 ' .5th` - •--- _..._._._. _ ._ Packet Page -81- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Packet Page -82- INSTR 4572691 OR 4689 PG 3007 RECORDED 6/8/2021 10:08 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. $ROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOM.70 $32,550.06 REC $18.50 CONS S4,650,000.00 Floe-Let Andress, LPA atn0WL%M.Pwftn WAtstR L 8Mft*8hxoDrk,%S ft=D RB Timothy G. Hairs Attorney sit Law Quarks & Brady LLP 1395 Panther Lane Suite 300 Naples, FL 34109 -7874 239 -262 -5959 Fite Nwnber: sms- Forbis Jatf ill 3 g p Sales Price.4xi?;I000 {� 00 Parcel Identification No. 275301i 8 & 27S30880003 dSPaw Aboeo This Lime For Recording Daia Warranty Dean (STATUTORY FORM • sEcnONJ 689.M. FS_} This Indenture made this &"- day of wife whose post office address is 1443 Rain grantor*, and Andrew T. Jaffe and Fein is 10091 Gulf Shore Drive, Naples, FL 1� `i'1Titnesseth that said grantor, for good and valuable considerations to has granted, bargained, and sold to situate, lying and being in Collier Ct Lot 34, Block A, and the CONNER'S VANDERBILT Book 3, Page 18, of the Public 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. e' C. Farris 1 and Debsa 1. Farris, husband and rk' of the County of Collier, State of Ffarida, d and wife, by the entirety whose post office address County ofCalk S , of Fhnida, grantee *, sum feet of Lot 14, B El i ESTATES, sect "f Collier County, t} NOf100 DOLLARS (510.00) and other tpt whereof is hereby acknowledged gns 11orever, the following described land, C_ I ision of part of Unit No. 1, thereof as recorded in Plat Subject to the following ezceptions.�4"' (1) ad valorem and non ad valorem real a year of closing and subsequent years; (2) zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposer} by gavernmentai authority, (3) outstanding oil, gas and mineral Interests of record, if any; and (4) restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. Grantors hereby confirm that this property has been grantors' hoaresttsd. and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. * `Grantor' and'Grantee° are used for singular or piuraL as contest n quiet, Packet Page -83- DoubteTtmeo �� * ** OR 4689 PG 3008 * ** 06/03/2811 16.85 2394344999 i 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. GUARLES 8 BRADY PAGE 03/12 In Whets Whereat grantor bas hawwo set g=tm's hand and seas the day and year first above wt9ttm. Signed, sealed end delivered in oar presents: Wrtnen Mime. e-ftt 13th Ro c. Farbis Witnaas blame: ✓ -r ner Witnw Neau. i F 19, -pe b.– Dem J. Fort s Witness Nana _ =-ri 12 fr-' State of ✓ /WiUg County of 1 Me foregoing htst mentwu who U we pesonelty known [wot" SWI aTwwmj y Drell Merrtmy F614 -ftp 2 Packet Page -84- RoWK C. Fortis and Debra 1. Fortis, DO:It1te't'IMW David L. Petersen, Esq. Quarles & Brady LLP 1395 Panther Lane, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34109 Grantee's I.D. No. Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification No. 27530880003 /27530160008 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 3537841 OR: 3712 PG; 0935 RECORDID is OFFICUL F co"S of COLLIER COMI, FL 01 /10/2005 At 01:35M MM L IM, CLIRI cats 5506000.00 RtC !BE 1x.36 Reta: . 9566.66 QUARLBS !i IRM 1395 PlJRMI L11RR fl64 UPLBS IL 34109 WARRANTY DEED TIES INDENTURE, made this December, 2004, by and KI ERLY L. BILINSI�i and DENNIS 1'1'I. B . ` husband, whose Timberwood Court, Bremen, I i _ is 1417 DEBRA J. FORBIS, husban M), ROBERT C. FORMS and e, as tenants b drety, whose address is 10091 Gulf Shore Drive, Naples, Flo�ida 4�-1 9. (! asRA1v'm.r.,n , * + SOL` f H, thi ($10.00) DOLLARS, and o� by said GRANTEE, the rtX sold to the said GRANTEE, land situate, lying and being Lot 34, Block A, andl the No No. 1, CONNER'S YANDERB Page 18, Public k� - �' � '# '1:1'�'� #i� +. •.7 .+-.ti • :n i 1. it f � lit • of Lot 14, BI - ` , abdivWon of'p t of Unit ecording to plat in Plat Book 3, ounty, Florida. SUBJECT to municipal ordinances and zoning codes, restrictions, easements and reservations of record, and real estate taxes for the year 2005 and all subsequent years, bearing Property Identification Numbers 27530880003 and 27530160€ oS. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditarnents, and appurtenances thereto belongings or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same m fee simple. GRANTOR, hereby covenants with the GRANTEE that at the time of delivery of this Warranty Deed, GRANTOR is lawfully, seized in fee simple of the property described above; that GRANTOR has authority to sell and convey the subject Property; and that good ' title and lawful �R fully warrants the title to the property, and will defend the same against the lawful ,claims of all persons whomever. * "GRANTOR" and "GRANTEE" are used for singular and plural, as context QBNAM"9917.1 Packet Page -85- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ** OR; 3712 PG: 0936 * ** IN WITNESS VM 3F, GRANTOR has hereunto set GRANMR'S hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WITNESSES: Witness #1 KudBERL)KL. BILINSKI protHr s (� co rrotrarneBelow I CnAe# STATE OF FLORIDA.. COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing inst" by KINEB) RLY L. BILINSKI i me or jVI who have produced (SEAL) CJiti1'tiD E11011Ri * MY�E� :. es�e�riarunarv� ate ��•�e�� rii. / 7d: December, If' who we personally known-ft, as idemttification. QBNAVA4991 7.1 - 2- Typed or printed name of Rotary Packet Page -86- FlEiU�''f T0. Davia L C 0k�MU" A. Yaa.7;:. v2n Assenderp E g01 i,awel Oak Drive. $ntts 300 yy o. Hot* 33963 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. "t 20SO34 M: 2171 : 1399 "t W0 U MM f d m wwl ls � 1111N.iF 2753088DO03 anon it To rare n Tai Warranty Deed M& 1068turr, Mack this 26th4ay of Mary R. Lawmaster, Trustee of the Mary u /t /a dated 11/12/91 and individually, UU: �tlli romm wo t[ -=I APril, 1996 A.M. BIt1A Lawmaster Revocable Trust nCeo cmay of' COLLIER skotor Florida a s Kimberly L. Biiinski and Dennis M. Bilinski, wife and husband, wbmmk%muis:l4l7 Timberwood court, Bremen, Indiana 46506 1. sfawca dyer suet -r Indiana r Brow as. Y Wh ii *M the GLUM) t. WW Ib a,atWwaleb of We wm or - - - - - - • - _ _ TEN:& No /1.00(510.0() - _ - _ d ether Cool and valuable a OAdwa am m GRANTM in Md pW by GRANT=. the _ - - - - �UatR4. arbae�fs ks,vby a*&etedCed. W Pte. ►aegaiaed aad a,Nd w ee aid GRAD and aRAMYFS ben abd asiM >a wm. abe 64kw 6g danibW %W. mum, 4* aw bsia in at coomy or COLLIER swe or Fimida w rk: Lot 39, Block A and the no Of Lot 14, Block C, Re- Subdivision Of part 'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, accord plat in 3. Page 18, Public Records of Cog County, Flori Subject to restrictiog6, ry tzo sand s nts of record, if any, which are ot(�1 k 'eft t�s subsequent to December 31st, 199 T Cl gad 9W CtaNu► Loa haaby Lary +meanrale w sad bmd Lad tviit asHea ee Lae aCaiaa 1pWfW a1 A" . Ilk Witnew Whermt, ee sneru be, beeaum ,n b� rwa -d -a tic day r,t year am taus Weisea. 77inted Name: tf/ta -,r,e y TARMASTER. Individually Lail and as Trustee MAN— UW1 Qahb w V&q Nwih, NAMM. FL MW Printed Nam. STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF COLLIER 1�- 1-pW rat aatWwkdaad bdbm ,bed , c. J'` r' a y �r t f MARY LkwmhSTBR, { �t sim b Pwgm Ry kmmn wme or wha ku pWnw bw U . S . driver's license a momwaaun, This Doee,.aW h6p ed by: DOW L Cnd U4 YOUNG. VAN ARRINOW A VARNAWS, F.A. Printed � ap 61 fry /iAl!ffi, iR 33963 II�IOIRt 1. f � M! camieeon P.a�,ioa: ffiv� Adefth M'ti�IRt4ifCGwf/t� FiTataY: (irk■ 4 q9t� aaw>rwrrwrirr.rrb Packet Page -87- BM 13 8A 134 w,,.: 't s' zllit�14 F.. 4 TVA USA swo'3w Nspbk ft id, me 80Wf OR ow 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ISm'i4e don dMI IKaoear Mme! WABi TIM Wl1RRAWIr DWEED, omd* day or itisewt�te t9r41. by Mwy R.,IAvmpow, a worried soma. -bap post u ioe addcas k Zfi?gg Cosmy load 56s, ltwnemee, IN rfaimowl, to ifa7 R, t,asnnssear,Tetst{aaeaflhe Mr:yLaltssreAlia'{'itW ts/e�tsDried Nossabar 12, aentaft6.rdlkr' h - 26701) County a;n d 46. Saysasal. = 465.90 - . (fir and bwsJj,dm (curs "Oraatof and 90tsi ed hdob A pwdo look boboww ag do beam k * i mpmustoom and aadps sf hs l idsalr, m6 dot swa xoms and mdpeo of ampondoss) VnTN '+l..55t R- no ew tlm or, for wW is aonidetMm tdthe sum of Teo DWim (MDA6j wd other dons, teotipt of wbk* is bmft adc wWWped, Wroby pam bopam- aeiit„ Avas, rm bet n inset WrAP amt Confirms Wdo dw to r-4- a asteria hodskosmd in Gelber Comty, FkWda, v>z Lai 3I, Bkwk A, ad the I�W. of port of Gait N& soeardie it Flat Hook 1 PVC ili, of do PsAe aeeaads CNN* PioML TOGE77 >3R tdth A t / (i 1 y��J%1 thereto beiao6wg a im asysrise if, WOW& iN Wrrmw T MBW, Cs=mw has *o" rod sa&d thew pseseats doe 4* aad 3M fim &M S*o4 SaW aad DeSmend a to && flraotor in ft ft" MM I mow CM FY dnd on"d" brims osa, an atfsxs da*M dwiwd in tl<a.ftws mr:aid amt iawcmuWafas W4wtaioeadmosr>edowgslmaonaih MIMYS.IAVMASTMtomerio,aasa to left pcn*o&wlxd in BW *rho =Wftd the torepastg jowwommishe acbwwiiWMzdd balm= do aha esssattmd doe so= SW bond aad t)ifac9rl sad in tlrt Cooly mnd Stato %w afon=M this A day of Noy 19.'1993 Puhk of the ft is of bas aad =y aamamtioo mph= awrylan J. Mast 110TAILY run= Packet Page -88- a z d W. 4r � �• f . . WAraA'tiae[o it wane. o rwnrrio 'phis learranty peed the 390137 ( f.l ♦MCO ►O��iiM ¢) 22 tiny .,l duly A. t). its 75 by Milton W. Wood and Jenne E. Wood, husband and wife iteavinttftr'r talfrri !Fm nttutiur to Mary R. Lawmnator Will ,an {nf rjlre'nrirf:r 267n0 COOIILV ROAd 1154, R.N. ills NappanaCr Ind.465SO fu'nrinala fled tier• easels,,. . Nex,..a .,..< e...... .N. tr•rv: and .r.n•..' i..L di 16, ru sn the.. nusutmr.t asA t /�e,M FFW1na ire..l .ru. .w.lir• . «rri !...n� ..t .nAn Mn,i, .nA Hv .w /w.rr�nw.7 j 1�tn1:SSL4ika liHtt ti... trlwow. 6 lend t »ashes rH {ir.n a.l thw stem nl c 10• QO and other volualdr, s•rnultieratiun.. rr•.,,W w1wr,44 i, irror."r arinnu'itvl,r«ti, lrr+,rlrr itants. bargnitur, trllt, aliens. re• fairer, rrhwrrr, reentrvs aarl . nrtlirms ratan the pronlor, all flint rertnin latest aUuate in Collier Coaniv, Plraitim niz. Lot 34, Block A. and the North 50 feet of Lot 14, ,Block C, Re- Subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, Conner'.s Vanderbilt Beach Estates, According to plat in Plat Book 3, Page 18, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. -a:•U .i. , -��•` -sits 0O�!)f� :cam <� r ' • ^ ^ l to d,�[; �•- �y �''! q • R . '�°'� Gs ���`�� C �.4 ri R1 +ti kJY[Yrn �i Q +, I uu .r. ►t, MQ 207t ` U � wait all thr trnertrrnts, hreaditrarsteefr Bud aptttertrasseli s thrnta iraianokies a in 08)6 wisp apprrkJnirm, ��TQ``��Fi w and W Wide the ram« to is.' sinrpip io"llnr. Filth t4v grantor hereby /+oe+ereanis With Arad prahtre shat 16 9441111111134' b lawfully seMttsed sef sstd lastd in frr siasplei ,hot flu #ranter has good right end seam +fal auihafty to stli and caretwy meta land, that thse pm jar hrrrby flelly ioarrante slip Bale b sales land and will dpfrnd the same against 16 lawfulsdestatt of all pettatis salromsann'r; and that said land it fee of all e'neambanne. rrerpt taxes atminstow suleliesseirwat to F)mosselorr 31, to 74, and conditions and restrictions of records. lie WhW 114tt'WA the stool grontor hat signed and trolyd these pre"nis the elate Brad teseer first abaur "Mijen, siprad, uaw and drGr'urrd to out p►ranrr, 41 �1 .....: ...................... .... ...... J Milton W Wood ........ . y*' � one �:.. STATE O I ltLgM CrAllry That on tMe day. before ,wets xn aatuer state wtharlaw it she ideas afeewkS sad in the County atoessatd m sale tSt spppared Woad & Sung E. hood +.' '"1 &band t"i�lid wife sa rut6 asks rmoud the } .. .has bd'1he•t"�' dexrtbed J sad'• 4•• aduaneki[rd 6r: m rsit RleA1{i�.'Rq I" 4141kC i seat 4g&. r1 4 C4 j, .Matt ..p�: i1 O'Hara, Prea. ,t`F r � Ago= :' 1?ifiF T17tf iAt9ttttANCE AGEYiG'Y, p{C •.e.ura r,s aaKm s--ft sewn i cull lea Ceuwrf, Fla." 6W Fir AVENUE SOUTK - SUITE 2V. wn,,.ns•. T. *C ­T ' NlIPLESj it t)FZiOA .33940 n.., 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. s - '9 .+_ ' •-�+^ ••; ... ,, vk.•wp; .: �•...... ,. .'�'rt:..i .... .. .... use, 'Gat M.: .v n,,.. Packet Page - 89- 12/11/2012 Item S.A. k 414 rule .isi88 r.i..i.d iw i..f..,• n46 t...e.wr+ f...w, tMi...d.• 111". 1tut imt,%myrid wa, i..rp,trrd b+ RICHARD HIYINS LAIISOALE RICKLMD BMWs LAmmkt.E, P.A. 1 Arr�f+ �t Deed X-mit r mi—i tyaa an Deed AJAIUfORYf"— Si(111Ai 68461 f_S) MAMAS. fwafnk saw EMs 3>1t1ettlUrt, �tuL• ihi, ' ind Jai r +f 'Sentr•aber i,t 71 irftttrrtt GERTRUDE S. MATROr+RAN0. joined by her husband, ANTHONY J. HATROGRANO, nl thr•tatltnt\ .,I Collier rmalrttl Florida g1.110111'. 'Mil MILTON W. ROOD %I.— lo-1 idur add,n i, 3320 Hamilton doulevardi Al lentown, of dw t'tntttit (it tt..t,•,11 Pennsylvania I8I03 cl.n.t JR-ftrVdrth that s.inl gladot, fa, •Wl iu thr uttn nr - --- - - -- -- --Ten and No/ 100ths --------------------------------------- Oolljr., i1t1t1 "th4•t tttttxl awl .aluold.. t.w,.nlrtat »n.. 1,1 a 41 91.41-lttr fu l,e+lr1 11.1161 1.t ..tid the't—tIA nb,•.ettl i% herrin tlrluirtWk 11mL Ito+ 4tauh tl, b uRntim? ...,1 41.1.1 to thr wad grltrite', Anil pt tittn , la•tt, AIM .t.. Iom Ititt•trt, ILr 1411• Irlft4ug * verthtsl latul, .ttunlr. hls%l; .uni hri"a ill Collier Ca"s"t+. Fknitla ttr+.1t. Lot 34. Block A, and the North SO feet of Lot 14, Block C, Resubdivision of Part of Unit No. 1, CONNER'S VANDER- B1LT BEACH ESTATES, according to Plat thereof as recorded In Plat book 3, Page 16, Public Records of Coiner County Florida. SUBJECT to restrictions and easements coxlmon to the Subdivision. Taxes for 1471 and subsequent years. A1.1 acid t:lant.,t A,..•. h,•trht lust e•.u,.nd It.- title it, .aid Lu'd..u,d +t ill drlrud 1111' 'aim' ae.t»nt th1' f.t+f'15ii tfaiu. td ,111 11X1 ... 11+ +tltomtr+4•tt•t. "Glnidnt- knd 'gl.1111re- stir tt"ni fm ,itign6a o1 111111.11, 4% t,t)WI.0 1441ttitt•+. 31t Muttratt 10hrrruf, iaaolnt 441. I +r/rtt {1111 U1 gralrt'. + haul null ,e•d tht• tint and lew fiat al. r wtitlrn. StKrte%L , ilvd tt%i th-invird it, tert ptr.rrer ,•'.11. Icrtaxr' tL6c C l,�it; t E - >r Gertrude S, H trn� 1-a no 'r 4j r,, /rte" { /. ;)tt4it 1.4[X4 _ __ _... (5X11I } Anthony .0, `Matrogranoy • ..�._.,.....,._.,..__.. _. .._ _4444. _.. _. _... ._.- 4444_ _4444.. tStulj ST.ITF: OF Now York C.t)t1\,n, OF ` httCho611 t ItF:RF.Ii!' t:EiitTlb l' that 4n1 ibis dap lwfo" tar, stt al6trl .11th' gnaliff,11 itr t.ti r .trklt WIVil)rtor ill +, lk, .,I,t +rfx °rrtt ANTHONY J. MATROGRANO and GERTRUDE S. M4ZROGRANO, husband and wife, to nx, klntw7l in W, the prrm"t.S (Immihnl in And 11.1.1 'Weut"I litr f.neg"ing i ... titum-ta 111161 :.rLiunrbKlprr! hrlu, t• ow that titry ru ruled Ihr sanw. WITNM my It.4nd :uttl uncial sral in dir C'utittly autl State lam .dart• id Ihi, ; 2 d "'y ' September is 71 + tAiy cetrmti"Itmi t•xllinx: - -- • ,••_Zry• Public PM E, P;MINSON aatur ruta+r. $1411 01 4.. rot. to Ko me ' (NOTARY tE11L) GtITIMLSS Wow /YMZTai" ^� i tzu autos L, ,1E 73 X. r N Packet Page -90- cn z 1 tj« .t 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. [�}}3�T 9n3^ •UTRI xff .4 „i r.rrrK. rw 411 taw. r►RIfMN wfRR4TrrY ecxn -nWNr, rw►J 183 F193 dvafr r.TA•nMtMWM.�xtwr..va fi Il'15 �' Il�II�� �If 31? F f 375 Mattthis 3rd flog of April 9 41 D. 10 69 CI%CCA Sar3ST 2127A, Slt., joined by Ill It wiro, CARMQL RIZZA, of Iitr C,uaty of Lee ir, the .brit, n4 Flnridn parkas of the f/rat port, and rx$T..FWD7 S. %Lt IDT,ANO Trhosi. correct post office rddresls is: 2341 WindwRrd WAy, NAples, Flnr of flee rounlyof Collier it, the Alote o 339 f F.1 QSJ.C10_ part v n/ t he areri »rTliorl , ASri111 (to set) I. Ibal fhexaif] portics of IItr 4rxt part, fraorrd fa rot, xldrralirrn. of lire turf, ref Te-1 ARD NO/ 100 ------------- ($10.00) -------------- Dollars, to then !a harld gold 111 the said hart y rffor Rrrattel part, the receipt Irketrof It hrrrhg arknolOrderd, hove /rnorlrd, bargained nerd fold to the sold party of lire orrv»fel prat, her heirs end otaignx farrier. tier fulloor•ing dexrribed load, altoatr, lrpa s arrrl brirtf in the Cou.rrly of Collier , ,Starr of 1 °larlda, to Tril; 1 :11111111111111 r:ti ° Lot 34, Block A, end the North 50 feet of r� ° Lot 14, Block C, Tin- subdivision of nrrt of _ " Unit No. 1, CO\TER'S V.it'DZ23ILT A %Clt 'STATCF, to rot rccarding to the :alp or pl,nt thernof on file rnd•recorded in Pirt Aook 3 ?t pr7e In, Public R -cards of Collier County, Florin,,. J � SMUSCT to texas for tHc c.,londtr yn. 1969 end et•sements And restrictions of record, if ,ny, 2 SPATE rr FLOCVDA STATE of FLORIDAA T. X �, F eL't,Etdttrr.. :T :F'.t` . ;,_,': r-,aawaENTt�j�'STANI!' ett.rta(T,NP t :.•f TRXIiN n rntn Yii tro,.r —:�..: •...- . -..... 1'h. erat.l � . - .lid fire told part left of tier flrat part do heteiry /ally worraol the !life to said loud, onrl will lielendttife tarn,, artlioxt the lau/ut eloinrx ref till prrxauR u•konrNoerer, Ill Witncsr, Where0 T lire fald parri ,-s of the A,,,, part have hereunto xrl th^ir hands and arats fire lay acid ycoriirxl airnrr• u•rillarr. Sign d, Sraied and Delivered In Oar FrrAeneet (Cp Sinle of Floridly } County of Lae T t1EttEBY CfRTIF1', Thal oil lido rlrrrl prrxoaally appeared be/are nee, on. njf ,-ef drrill oulhorized to rnlrrricrlxlr, arrlhx ,'md ttekr nekrruuder /arrfrala. 1- -"MST •11M, SR, find CAT-72L 2IZZS, to lire rrell knearn and knoten to rote to Ire the irtdirirluols drxreArd in aril who erecatrd the forrOnino deal, crud they oil ru »rlrvtQevt before fire that they executed the atime frrely orret rolurttcrrlly for the purposes therein orpresam. WITXENs my bored cud n / }l fiat a.vrl crab; �xxxx� sa�oatx�xxaooacxx:sxunl �atacx>f, fc'loezrix ills doll of Avri 1 , . /..D. 1,7 (XCM -:"Y4S S4-1L. !'A : a aryl Pabiir + Ny Conrnrrsx an Erpirea l�d L4I.' Packet Page -91- R,rp — !R A—.,rI RKRrR. RMr ri CCLLICR COUNTY, rtew'D. w AFGARCi 7. iGOit 3 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. t^�t1r4: qr n...r, r�.,ww.t r *p.xtrry Ue•!u_wrwu. r....+ _ 10 rle�s tar`jj 't tO µACE j7 .7lrrlr t hi• i. T .: rrjl of .i.,•;, I tr15Yi't'fl J, :7 ti;l. " }' ST1 \1r1' ,•r,' r +y CT'V hvahnn4 njnId' i; I+ of Ihr Cons „/ LtichfirllS_ rr, lhr 4rtr• rf t4ii beat jl )xrrt Sr•r r,f rhr fi pear, rrr +d .Ttn r.:T Ill - .' ..n,: r.1t4;QL ,mot rrllt+, ne nn r. rttntr. b•• Atilt an'tlrnt7• Ora runt! 1tn I Atkinn Strrmi is M61, currant � illOtf ke Arldrras A 1 , f i;}r•trnvnr CO, n"rtlrtst (•64:7 of tear ('orrirltl r+f ;:i :.Manes lx the Meier of "Ca nn nO ti Out t /We/ Sue u% tear xr'rrutd p6rl, t�t�itl141"Cl 1l r1ra1 l err nnl" Iforl le" rrf liar IWO Jrarl, for arrd In mnrIll 11na nj tear .rrar nJ 7'ti ........... a . tr+ !h !vr lrrrad l,afrl /r ----------­ " IJr,tlars, lit/ ll +r •.r/r/ trrrrrlr of tl +r- earned port, f/tr rrrrlpt i trlietrv/ is lit nrlrnnu'Jrrlfrd, hwr �( rald part It's, arf for errand Jxrrt, their PnrnlrrJ, J +arrtnArrd nxd told to tee ;j I jorrr•rr, !hr f,dlwvir,; drerrihrd lanr/, .iN„rte, tviali roar! LNit' JnrlJrrend areetinr Coil 11" Strrtr of 17uriria, 10 tr(f CorrrrlItJ of o Lot 7.1. R }nCY, .5, ,n•t ""' r:. -r t+. ;^ f "rt of S.at 14.0 r Is t'.lock C, in Co,rN'L'jt•S V,- .).iZ JIj,7 1.,i:rt L57ASSi5, c_cordinv to the plA% 111,7, -rof rocor•led in Plet nook 3 At page jr, of the Public Kvcords of Collier g County, Flori,41a, being A replet of Unit Alt SUWZC1• to tAxNC for the cnlandar year 146a and ` v. restrictions of r9cord, i .; • � �� _ ,�.> "� ....DDCltf1EMARY .. r 'J FioRt a S UR tAX = Sir — a L-3 B 0 + led tilt rafrf•parli rr „/ lhr Jlrel rprr, riu herd, tared end Hill rlrlend 11, rarer�]j' afa/nst t ?�r txtrjrrf rfaltne /ng oar�at t/rf tale to +aid I ".Cfttt'Mr+ IN :,)(•rt•()1. the "ill Jarrliet. (if flee 1611 Perivens wlrati m".cf. N on tttriz ba, a :Krt,+dladea the dalsand urarErstl abalit,fertlten�aVe Aprtrxpta �, Sigtsrjri. iralrri cart 1}r}itr'cri to tlur Prewwert / .� lC.•T :..r C.- _ ( ' /,91 /.•r: C (, tC ✓•f _Eveiya R. 7Ceny J'` ° ' <C! (lj J � �. 9tsntay Sblr • -- � •�' { , att C Marc hla. — — _ t�L'a 6p -3hki ' t g ( Y rolity7 ��- �rtgi ti$t11i<! Air k'ttiY wtii -CMU UT es, Stantlord t;rntnty a! j !'ttf .lt:tlS' c Eit1' M�1' ghal aril them real/ low ..rrrratty 4poeap", Lr /alp tttrr oo a ifpl dtttp aN(bnrtrnrf fnrtdnrlrrtefrr rrrrlhx algal take rrrAilt+tYlMtjttp�AFI J, STANLUV SIJARp aril DOjMTjfy rl. SHARP r to t»r tI t kgr.trrli O,rrt rtrron• ++ In taro to hr the tt /dit�rtrrnt a dritnrJLort 1n and who axrrutrvt iJ+r ?trrPjraJalS rlrrd. e,rd they tho•+ r."ratrrt tier Anl+ir fret-III (fill/ rvdgatarlJy fur li rrprutruere thrJiNh rprot J� at rn nor Aril"_ '\S illy hotrod and a ?JJri6l .etit sa; llYaYntj yell]: xx�: r�• r:•::: xx. r...:• c:.: x::;;:rtauit:4taM: »f:tirrrtrta, d 'j rlls� ate rif Jto 1. so), l, lit 6; , (NOTARY'S SSIL}•%' +INTE or F L 0 R 10A •'ltr f.'anrnria :JOrt f r/rirex�rll I 1964 JR w UtMUMCKF,•.^Q.,Shil.Mt• TAX is a `f040Q_ l rAWk art Grrtr.t C i 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ♦ tw,hiftl wr iaWTfiK- t /Tf.ta4.aawfT TYha, 151La Mi,p, tiYhlfM `- �..�:: {ii :3C;1 Q3 tsucflx rt lrtzax;} Anyrfyt « G.i. Nf aMatk aiaMt srrtsftTpRM 1rkrNat, llARltrA dirt lt�+lriffttt, III.,) • 1W. t . f day n} lit I f i ♦; etr ks ynlwrrr, -1i I l, „ru, , A. t), fa .r7 , �t }fttttEt rrl " thy !l. lttlty i£ua�iuu +• +fell iiifl+ ♦.f (in, 4"I't'r Isi :£6.! 1 .. •., , 51ath nt rhr j } rot, it}fi £♦ lnri }ri} ..hutp utu+ t"fliths h pAtt .1, Ktffrt�ir 11Ftweuirl lit, �Ifa ♦taw �tl f+att, atut p {xr.r Jveaf s*�itY Niti}•rH In ii k )pii kr.ry {tile f.lpitht [ t tiff) nMrt lli ♦ i tri tiny tins ly It! ,fir lha Al+ri� frf 5Nt1 },Irk nut 1 rY of the orm.1 iitllgtanrtfir 11,f1 Ihr aa14 {ran 1, ,. i ... 't fii. hill {iart, tnr and t+[ RNNlsieyafkgr of liY own tit rari Iq {us p►f i atri vah at,S q,. {rtrr atfmu h-) lei♦ ; rr- .. _. _ _. K }i+asTet b ia•tr6p al Wit'.4 ♦1111 "1, +wa f• £p {Hai ii,hl ii£ au+l p Itt, r.ri fir wer♦ni'pt12 thw1)"ll tt ,win rtq) Rrrl♦fad, iaft a4r t -.H t ..d.l nr ihr i[Lt ♦art 1 0., r I" 5twt i7urW tr,4"l irdinr•lnft .t♦- ar•ri }..r! }.arxf, shtwtr, ittiry{..oiat l+rhiR InftiH. rww ni i} arnnrj }url. t'.: z € raty nt ,'rrl t 4rt i... r[, j It ,. i ...i(�♦ i £qtI .1 c4kj�t' r. i.: ai.t f£ „• `.+,d ti «kf_' 1. -, n; 1£,r lu rr p..+ .6' }r r.i Miles• Mitt UMf }lY` eatatlii s t HNH ,d r31 n' .atf± r ni *ttt ti,. Jtrl. err atilt iir•f{ avert «t}i 4 (-..1 i +... iw /N M.1 N {w NiiWyMt. 4 {t Minroo {iur r, r; tt.,- },,.+ , ,1 u :[ tl... ,..i awl 5ev1 ioY ( It —, —ti.lo - {' ` t t rh ” ..1 t 4" £ 1 *tXlHtt, .-A it° a�arri�f hr rair {urwTNt•: 4 t c.•.,t t wt4 tt ;t{ ,.I.d I tit I f {3- !{ },ni` isl{ {Et) riot .ni tlai .It. 1rj ♦ap stM, ♦A tdthit lii4, . {ri..0h „i i., t•.ir .elrY ♦wL,Sa =. 3a- t «m +it: ggwfrwi h. V.P SrXaveY iRAlm- it.. Se [�.,u ilr.ndvyl +rr .r,d w {wi r♦ntit♦'l} Itw tra♦p.riii+ 4u•+ M:miH {i ii,trai 1"*;p ith, Ilml - I,+ - o,,, ,kit Itw rf Mil A nri♦ix al . ,t r „• 11'Ii}.Yheiptl trrir,l rY1 -.1 ill it i €: Yitr 4nt Sr. .i.,, rut lU .r ii.r ♦.t �.i � .• ° f nt irt< f'ul,tk• Xh ♦ ♦rnmis {,nt cy,irn: i'iirv7 ties 'r+'Lt. d.1t sit .t lrr:r � ` k. iy, !iF "• al ,,. ; r -, ire 6a k tt., amt IbT.Yd:,rt h: F3wtt t4wri !ta tt at pool, J:7 ii }aztR[T YE►tl }'EI:{t. :' ::aura, Coll }r•r '- twwnt •, Packet Page -93- . 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. � WLRRAIlTY O[[D rw OM CORWwaT14M Ow[W�\ rent+ R. R. 77 R..YtMn•e 1> twra,n., Ts, w.♦ k. �, Den 4rpq , 23628 rr„I•, t2C�. r 7J ':I, .Unde. this 11t11 tlull of 1.1 ay 1). 19 Sfi Q f (UQQ{� CC:il:hli5 Yttii FIBILT P•EACII ESTATES, 11:C. , rt rarporalian whiling lrnrirr the laths of lit, h'trrtr of Florida haviny its principal place Of i husiurxx itt the t:uttnil,, of Collier and Sirttr of Plor "da pctrly of lire first psarl, and '.IILLIA'•; ilr. SOIL ";•;ITE AI {D DOROTHI H;, 71; "ITE,husband vri,fe,es nr, estate by the entirety, of 050 Ruzabolat: St,,Denver, a of the- t:aurtty aJ Denver and Slctlr.oj Cnl. ^ntiG ytwirl SOa of the serand purl, tDi USSMI, That the said 1wrly of lite frrxl port, for and in call- ,� siderniian of lite stint of Ten Dollars end other valuable cons idcratinnsie IIto 11 in hand paid, the rerripl wherrof is herrby nrknawiedgrd, has grattled, bargained, sold, II rdirnrd, renrir rit, rrie acrd, ranveyed and ronfrtned, and bit these purseals doth grrtnl, bargain, sell, alien, retnisr, release, ronvey and ronjrm unln lite said part ie8af thr sr and pntr :, otrrt their i heirs and assigns forever, all that certain parcel of land lying and bring ire life Coanly of i Collier and State of Florida n,urr tntrlicularly desrribrd as fotlornr: Lot 3-f of Blocic "tie_, Unit #1i Conners Vanderbilt Beach EststoB, acoording to the map or plat the r0of on file and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, in Plat Book 3, Page 18, Also the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Black "C" of said re•- subdivision, being a parcel of land approximately 30 x 50 feet lying between the East side of Gulf l Shore' Drive and the end of canal In Block "C ", a TDgtht` 7uith tilt lire trorrtrtrttls, hrrulitcrrnrriis unit apparlettanrrs, milli ctrrrlJ r;r arlrllr, regitt, litir, Interest and rstalr, renersion, retnainder and rturateat therecc hrtrrr+a: y fit nv cir,,;utirt oppr . Icy_ :', tuinttrpt U five and T %1d the carne in for sinipie forever. And the said ptirly of ,hte flrrl part dolh rournatil with the said parties of the second Pori that it is laurfully srized of the said pretnires; that they are free of all inratnbrarters, and that it has good right and lausful authority to sell the junto; and the said party of late first ptirl does here- +� by fsiJly warrant the title to said laud, and will defend lire saute against the• lawful claims of all a r persuris.whornsororr. _ ti i SS hPCEDfs Ili, supd party of the prsQ28ef has coused } 3 �,fA vr� ', these presents to be signed in its name by iisfPrrsident, and its t f rporale corporate seal to be affixed, attested by RsSee.Asst.SSO"Y ;`.;x' • ti•j " ' a e day and year above written. & Tress. • sY; �* � '�` ,•tit r• ; ,. lit.- ;€`� -i_ erident. i IF (c ' Slgtted, Seated and eliuered ir. Our Presence; /...... .. .,..i _....__ ",.�_r�.�: cr.,d'S!�PSI's'_�74'.!"';._ .. +,E •':M. ���._.. �••..." _.�. ?` .:Y.•r� }S is „I Packet Page -94- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 3 Packet Page -95- Florida Department Environmental Rai lire : ,t r♦ `� �+1ff i t. �- i I � �fM -%A f3wft Office P.O. Btu[ 2W Fflr! A1lyers, FL 339(12 -2549 �+ 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Rick Scott Gmemor (ennffcr Carmll Lt. Gowmor Herschet T. Vinyard fr. 5ecr uol r ; �r • - t a t - a i 9 1 : a it � s ,;.i c:a ff L ' �' t - � a a exempt • t. f4' need 1 .i Env 1f t {. Ji it -' _�f4 M' Permit .�1.,. You must comply f the Y'. t.:t: and u/ t-mg f# W #f mf; }: hi acconb=e *. Rule Packet Page -96- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ArJ rew Jaffe it No. 11-03=63-001 Page 2of6 This exempti6n. verification is based on the information you provided the Department • the Y. f:.n; and rutes in effect when 1 !I R r i/ submitted. sit- conditions so : i 1 project design is modified, ♦ the statutes or goveming the exempt activity are amended. However, the activity may sffl be conducted without furdmr n• w • • sn ,o or :a•1• •r:ri • finm the Department w• a after the status one-year expiration of this venfication, provkk-d: 1 1) the project design does not dumge, 4nt- it rules governing the exemptachvity. In the event you need to re-vm* ffie exempt for a I:a u ! • til a • -r •sr • • ■• and verification fee will be required. Any substanU Wra to the project design should be submitted to the Departmentfor review, as changes may result in a permait being required. "4 41414 AWAIRAVIAVA 4, 00 9-4-0-1 114 Zvi f -4 ► t,; 4 # :J i ■� • . La i7 • ,;.1..• i r • f • -J r • ii a • a 6 +.1 • L- Packet Page -97- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Andmew ja& Y& No. 11. 03=63 —M Page 3 of ♦ t •1 �• • a t'_ • J • I: : it 1 1' i :J . q ► I SJU;W4 all to 9-1 7 71-78 is i r,■4 ••�„ •• a f 1 • 1^ . . :1 +l 1 1! _ ♦ :.a t .i f i i •t .' • t Y•)• a Y1:Y r U for 1 the t Corps Engineers entitled "Coordination Agreemi between the US, Army Corps of Engineers Oacksonvj-& ■ and the s} • Reg .. a ♦ ! vr, sY a r. ' a .� . ♦a r. t' • u .ti tl i � :.:a afl ! • $ ♦ . " .1 :i♦ r .! a • •a. � • • ii � , is •' �' y Clean r This notice ccrostitutes final agency action and is subject to the provisioM of Chapter IM, F.S., which does not apply to the SPGP IV R1 review. resource pernutting requirements under Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b), FAC. This deber�iOn is final and effective an the date filed with the Clerk of the Demunent urdess a sufficient petition for an adrnnustrative hearing is bmejy filed under Sectiom 12OS69 and 120.57, FS., as provided below. If a suffident Petition for an x .a hearingis timely • ;.! this determination _ ,: rat 1 x ! mm •1 i • ! s.1..:1.# a ' ♦ i 1• a l ■ •! 1; i' s ♦ .11: -:: .a i a i 11 ! ipq ♦ ait • ,• •t a •' s • a / ti ; 1 • * ••. ;Y f i 1 t - u. • •. ,�. ♦ • 'f .Y' � • ♦ $ � • .tea a • 1 • t 1 r - ♦ �' 4 . a3 '� • 1 iii :• ♦ ,:� ti • Packet Page -98- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Andmw Iafie Me Na 11- 0307763OM Pegs 4 of 6 explanation of how the pefif=wes substantial hiterests are or wM be affmcted by the agency ' ♦ ' :.1 I i : t f (c) A statement of when and how the petitioner received nofice of the agemy decisim (d) A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indkate; petitioner corden& warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed • !i statement of the specific • ... or statutes that the petitioner Yf 1,:.7 f require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, including an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the spedfic ruler, or statutes; and Packet Page -99- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Aruiww ja& Me No. I14W/7634)04 Page '5 of 6 • : • • yr, r : !� - ... • a 7, t c' It • 1 1 t6• • i :.f iltt • • • Q ♦ c' • 6�11 T ■ ° • : M a • • • • l.;} • • i •4 i • ! Because an adrnini drafive :hearing may result in the reversal or substantial modification of this action, the applicant: is advised not to corntnencge constriction or other activities until the deadlines noted below for filing a petition for an administrative hearing or request for an extension of time have expired and until the exemption(s) has(have) been This letter adcnowledging that the proposed ac" is atempt from environmental resource permitting :.• :}a c} i_ under Rule 1 • constitutes order of the Department. %*d tD the provisions of Section 120.68(7)(a), FS., which IM a a W . I[.., Mr. lic 4 Mw -1 —.11 - - • •,r s} s f • r • : s i� • • • . • t 1 • - r as t - • • a • : • with the Clerk of the Departnwmt The applicant, or any party w1thin the meaning of section 373.114(l)(a) or 373.4275, FS., may also seek appellate review of the order before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Cmnunissiort under Section 373.114(l) or 373,4275, F.S. Requests for review bdore the Land and Water A4idicatory cornndssion. must be • ai with the Secretary of the Corrunission. and served • -. the •. u A. r f Y11- t t I I •: I Tf.—. a a • :.. •cu a •:a %e , ■ ii:+ • - r • . .• 13,17; • • • . • 4 f.: M. 7m, • • • : �.. i ., ♦ .1 ' t -! it ;SF tY:. '• 4:; f f .• i I oil ail l G 4 m-, 7 M A 4rpmyj t• • a - • .:f VMXILOM Packet Page -100- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Andftwja& M No.114BW&S-M Page 6 of 6 Thank you for applying to the Subnxezged Lands and Resource ProgmcrL If you questions, please • to Elizabeth GMen by telephone • '. • or • ` e-nuff at r7 .+': t r :J ail, f • r' When :a r 1 to this IS, ' please reference u .d... above. Lr:liiTi�lLiiil 191 ice.- ft # r r rl ii •. M #1 r:. 0 Packet Page -101- -1-1_1 i 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ,►� r �� 0 � � � :� � t' • t i.� � � tit �' '. i.,� i_.i. {7ermal Conditions: 1) The time limit for completing the work and a zecl ends five years from the date of issuance. 2) You must maintain the activity autha nzedE by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the termsand conditicros cif this permit. You are not relieved of 66 require ere if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good.faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Caaditian 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain. the auk activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of 6* permit from this office, which may regt*e restoration of the area. 3) If yon discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by thu pmt you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination, required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4) If you sel the property associated with this permk, you must obtain the sWature and nuailing address of the new owner in the space provided below and forward a copy of the pem-dt to this office tD validate the bznsfer of this authorization. : 4.1 • a ai ��.'•. Iii ♦ :.t ! ♦; . 0 7 a I • +:d :i♦ 1t + • ,7i t.� ♦ / ! O)a a . i a 1•' to . ♦ -i-Q6* 4' - 1+1 . • J • • � • ' M '•! a.. • •: ri f- .. • :Jilt • Yon numt alknv ! ' ..._e z datives from this; itti.a- to inspect the i. ' /." i acftvity time • =` • :.i necessary to emum that n; being or f - been accomplished Mi accordance with the 'Ml and it • . ♦f : of your permit it 7 t' t i ti 1'1 Packet Page -102- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. GENERAL CONDMONS FUR DERARTMENT W, �n• ,R - a Design or fl t t u• deficiencies amoc: r r with the permitted o.: e) Damage claunsassociated with any future modification, wspermon, orrevocation of + ; • erw :a- an Applicants •lt r:. The deterMirudim of this offine that „ v of Us Permit is rot contrary to public mlerest was made - 1 reliance on the hdomuffion provided. Reevaltuttion of N=dt D6cisiam This off a may t r its decision a+ this permit at my &w the circumstarwes . a .• Circumshmms that • • require i •r include, but are not limited to, the following: YOU If comply with terms and conditions of permit, • + t•ryt ■ • . • • 1 byyou mmqp)rt of yam peimutapplicationpruvw to have been r: 1•." incompleu ormaccurate : ri c) SqVificant new mformahon surfaces which flus office did not consider = reac1mg the original public interest decision 5) Such a reevaluation may result in determination that it is appropriate �1 to the 1 � •1 a a.! fc t u ♦ a. , t f� tit • i 11 a+•7 /: +�• # • • 4:i• :1 procedures a a.; contained aai' . .+ • . i referenced enforcement s procedures provide for the issuance of an administrafive order you cwnply with t terms and conditions of your permit t f for the mitiatLon of ° •r. action .0 " appropriate. You be «• ma. s a :. i ar «ari t t - al iG "•. 'J- 11S a?i 3 • t r: t. a! s with such dixecave, Office al certain t I , i it r (such as those +: CFR 209-170) accomplish corrective measures • • or ofixxwise and bM you • the cost. �. . . t a' x in 68 i ' M: Packet Page -103- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. aa! ;• w • •,.i #:.1 w _ t :+: �i •' tt s :. ! -mat • �-• +i ! • f :i • 1IF1,WjLU Ljeg • Sualltooth sawfish. All construction personnel am responsible for observing water- related actrAties for the presence of these species. ! 17 # ai•► • • .:,• a • sr :•r a a+ ! s •.• r-• ■:� • r .f �. a •• •.r_. f, • ♦ _ s: ! •.;. !!! ;� r> • •- • • •� t ss .i ♦ f 1 1 i' t tt ";.# ti tin 17.1 the Natiorml Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources ie ! #. g Florida. r AU vessels associated with the construction • i qI i wake/idle speeds at all times while in the construction area and while in water depths where the draft of the vessel provides less than a fi!; !o! from the bottom. whenever AD vessels will prefererttially follow deep-water routes (,Ieg., marked chanrX.1si possible. r- •j�• M ,i sm w i # • • ♦i r • f • i ! - .s (' ! Packet Page -105- A-- ter■ Packet Page -106- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. ;f L2 Tbb Tb b 0 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Packet Page -107- 0 11 elk Irk 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. a Ilk 114 ;f" 11 Packet Page -108- K] 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Packet Page -109- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. Packet Page -110- .$Ala , �plil 4 , E 4 � n c f 1 4 yr (I' r s i -t. 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. I M10411 9 Packet Page -111- x'8$S 8 g e .F € a Gal its a E tit € 6 .€•°a a �F�€ g; aEg a a a n 1 1 i WATERWAY •.r Wk e "n S � � >I ° vii �8 z gs �5 � e C eX J x j x X S S •S, x icy �. r w x j //� /j �6 s -s 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. DRRWE GUq ,-.AY ) Packet Page -112- 9 4l�rr�Y��ra h ` M� r Rig �S0� a Him'; g a� :3 �a Ajal o v3M t �� v l 1 0 QJ o� gC14 y� E W S N RMR e pppp�gggg'' Cr e KO I n ■ +S `ae N%. ` Rj �^ V i i z i r 1$y� i h N O mb s ego w � U C o h - OOO 9 n c � o oilw n C) Q) 2N h n u U Lo O v a o C h e LO E � g DRRWE GUq ,-.AY ) Packet Page -112- 9 4l�rr�Y��ra h ` M� r Rig �S0� a Him'; g a� :3 �a Ajal o v3M t �� v l 1 0 QJ O t �g y� E W S N RMR e e KO tN m ig ■ +S `ae N%. ` Rj �^ DRRWE GUq ,-.AY ) Packet Page -112- 9 4l�rr�Y��ra h ` M� r Rig �S0� a Him'; g a� :3 �a Ajal o v3M t �� v W - z H n' H fl n 2 Z y y y y c O O t y y� N g i i i z i i W U C o h - OOO 9 n �o$'sss's n h h n u U V u O v W - z H n' H fl n 2 Z y y y y 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL2011- 1573 FOR A 19 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR A 39 FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF -3 ZONE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 19 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 39 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -3 zone for the property hereinafter described, and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have not been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06, and . WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number BDE- PL2011 -1573, filed on behalf of Andrew Jaffe by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 34, Block A. and the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Block C, Re- subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Boot: No. 3, Page 18, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida (Folio No. 27530160005) be and the same is hereby DENIED in accordance with the provisions of the public hearing held before the CCPC on May 3, 2012. Jaffe Boat Dock Ext \BDE- PL2011 -1573 Exhibit 113" Rev. 05 /03/12 1 of 2 Packet Page -113- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of Aa C-k' .2012. ATTEST: Nick Casalanguida, . ra or- Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney 11- CPSd11127 /13 Jaffe Boat Dock Ext `BDE- PL2011 -1573 Rev. 05/03/12 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION? COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA t f� Marl P. Strain, Chairman 2 of 2 Packet Page -114- 12/11/2012 Item 8.A. 28D v Wednesday, November' NAPLES DAILY NEWS NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners, as the Board of Zoning Appeals, of Collier County ill hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, . in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail fast, Naples, Florida. The• meeting will be- gin at 9:00 A.M. The titles of the proposed resolutions are as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE ;BOARD OF '.ZONING' APPEALS OF - COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA- PL2011 -1576, FOR A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION .5.03.06.E.7 TO PERMIT. A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK FROM 7.5 FEET TO 0 FEFT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10091 GULF SHORE DRIVE, CONNER`S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 2S EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. And ADA- PL20120001218, 1AFFE BOAT DOCK. APPEAL - REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, LPA, REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF A DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IN DENYING PETITION SDE- PL2011000IS73 THAT REQUESTED A 19- FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 -FOOT PROTRUSION LIMIT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A 39 -FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY ACCOMMODATING 2 VESSELS ON 2 BOAT SUPS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10090 GULFSHORE DRIVE AND IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH SO FEET OF LOT 14, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT.1j SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. A copy of the proposed Resolution is on file 'with' the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator Prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of, an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. , If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for., a group or organization -may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said .material a minimum of.3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the, Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days EnPPrior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to.appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need.to,ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the, provision of certain .assistance. Please contact • the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, .Building W, . Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252 -8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing Impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Teresa,Cannon, Deputy Clerk (SEAL). November 21, 2012 No.1968542 Packet Page -115-