HEX Final Decision 2021-40HEX NO. 2021-40
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 26, 2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO. BDE-PL20200001106 - Request for a 41.8-foot boat dock extension that
extends 21.8 feet from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater
than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of a boat docking facility with two boatlifts and
a boathouse with a 1.3-foot roof overhang that protrudes 43.1 feet into a waterway that is
906+/- feet wide. The subject property is located at 2713rd Street West, which comprises Lot
1, Block F and Lot 23, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Replat, Unit No. 3, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To replace an existing dock with a dock facility comprising two boat slips and a boathouse for a
single-family residence on the above described 0.31+ acre property that is located within a Single
Family Residential (RSF-4) zoning district. The docking facility will have two boat slips, one with
a lift to accommodate a 30-foot vessel and the other a platform type lift for up to two personal
watercraft each of 12 feet in length.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Approval with conditions.
FINDINGS.
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(4) of the
Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of
the County Administrative Code.
2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all
County and state requirements.
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04.
4. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial
Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person.
Page 1 of 7
5. The County representative introduced the Petition and staff recommendations, followed by
Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative, and then public comment. There were no
objections to the Petition at the public hearing.
6. The County's Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.H. lists the criteria for dock facility
extensions. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a boat dock
extension request if it is determined that at least four (4) of the five (5) primary criteria, and at
least four (4) of the six (6) secondary criteria have been met. The County's Land Development
Code Section 5.03.06.F. lists the criteria for a Boathouse. The Hearing Examiner may approve,
approve with conditions, or deny a Boathouse request if it is determined that seven (7) out of
the seven (7) criteria have been met.'
Primary Criteria:
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation
to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property.
Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are
the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be
appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-
family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
property is located within a residential single-family zoning district; the proposed docking
facility with boathouse will have two slips, each with a boat lift.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general
length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or
moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish
that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s)
described without an extension.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The petitioner
has demonstrated via survey and the provided cross-section, that water depths adjacent to
the subject property are too shallow to allow for the docking of vessels absent a BDE.
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an
adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any
marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The applicant
states: "Proposed dockfacility does not intrude into marked or charted navigable channel,
thus there will be no adverse impact on navigation. The proposed dock, boathouse and lift
have been designed not to impede navigation and is consistent with all the neighboring
docks along the shoreline.
'The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 7
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the
waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock
facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the
required percentages.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
BDE request is for 43.1 feet, including boathouse roof overhang, as measured from the
property line. Asper the attached "Overall Site Plan with Aerial" the actual waterway
width is 906± feet; The overall protrusion of the proposed dock facility into the subject
waterway is 4.76 percent. The proposed width between dock facilities will be 824f feet.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would
not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the
use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The submitted
plans reveal no impediments with neighboring dock facilities.
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.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The applicant
states: The subject property and adjacent neighboring properties along this shoreline all
have special conditions that require alternative dock design options, one of those
conditions is the natural shoreline makes it difficult to dredge the subject property which
could reduce the overall protrusion out. " The record reflects that seven other properties
within this subdivision that have western waterfronts, six have been approved for BDEs
and the 7th has an active petition.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for
loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not
directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. As shown on
the drawings by the petitioner, no excessive deck area is proposed.
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.)
Page 3 of 7
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
combined property has 180 feet of waterfrontage. One vessel of 30 feet in length and two
personal watercrafts, each of 12 feet, are proposed to use this dock facility. The total
combination vessel length is 54 feet; therefore, the vessels would occupy only 30 percent
of the waterfront area.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of
neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of
a neighboring property owner.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The proposed
facility will be setback from the riparian lines in accordance with the requirements of the
LDC. The drawing in the applicant's support material labeled Overall Site Plan with
Aerial shows that the proposed facility will be comparable to the others along the same
waterway.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds
are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J of the LDC must be demonstrated.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The
submerged resources survey provided indicates that no seagrass beds exist within the
footprint of the dock. No seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of
subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section
5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion is NOT APPLICABLE. The
provisions of the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan do not apply to individual docks
behind individual residences.
Boathouse Criteria:
1. Minimum side setback requirement: Fifteen Feet.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. As per the
submitted site plan, the boathouse will not exceed mandatory side yard/riparian setback
requirements.
2. Maximum protrusion into waterway: Twenty-five percent of canal width or 20 feet,
whichever is less. The roof alone may overhang no more than 3 feet into the waterway
beyond the maximum protrusion and/or side setbacks.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The subject
BDE request is for 43.1 feet, including boathouse roof overhang, as measured from the
property line. In the "Overall Site Plan with Aerial" the actual waterway width is 906±
Page 4 of 7
feet; The overall protrusion of the proposed dock facility into the subject waterway is 4.76
percent.
3. Maximum height: Fifteen feet as measured from the top of the seawall or bank, whichever
is more restrictive, to the peak or highest elevation of the roof.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The proposed
height is 15 feet above the seawall.
4. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site: One.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. Only one
boathouse is to be built on this property.
5. All boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all 4 sides.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The boathouse
will be open on all four sides.
6. Roofing material and roof color shall be the same as materials and colors used on the
principal structure or may be of a palm frond "chickee" style. A single-family dwelling
unit must be constructed on the subject lot prior to, or simultaneously with, the construction
of any boathouse or covered dock structure.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The roofing
material and color of the proposed boathouse will match that of the existing single-family
residence serving as the principal structure at this location.
7. The boathouse or covered structure must be so located as to minimize the impact on the
view of the adjacent neighbors to the greatest extent practical.
The record from the public hearing reflects that the criterion has been MET. The boathouse
is located within the required side/riparian setbacks and is consistent with other similar
facilities along the subject shoreline.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff
report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's
representative(s), County staff and any given by the public, the Hearing Examiner finds that there
is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Section 5.03.06.H
of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. The Petition meets 5 out of 5 of the
primary criteria and 5 out of 6 secondary criteria. With respect to the Boathouse element of this
project, the Petition satisfies all 7 of the 7 required criteria.
Page 5 of 7
nF C'ISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number BDE-PL20200001106, filed by Bill
Nelson and Sabrina Dobbins of Greg Orick II Marine Construction, representing Steven D. Dyson
Trust, with respect to the property described as 271 3rd Street West, Bonita Springs, Lot 1, Block
F and Lot 23, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Replat, Unit No. 3, in Section 5, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A 41.8-foot boat dock extension that extends 21.8 feet from the maximum permitted
protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, to allow construction of
a boat docking facility with two boatlifts and the establishment of a boathouse with a 1.3-
foot roof overhang that protrudes 43.1 feet into a waterway that is 906± feet wide, for the
subject property.
Said changes are fully described in the Dock Plans and Map of Site Plan Survey attached as Exhibit
"A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Dock Plans and Map of Site Plan Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
271 3rd Street West, Bonita Springs, Lot 1, Block F and Lot 23, Block G, Little Hickory Shores
Replat, Unit No. 3, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
CONDITIONS.
All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
DISCLAIMER.
Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any
way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency
and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or
undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
APPEALS.
This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done
in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law.
Page 6 of 7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES
AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
GREG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 949-8588
Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 271 Yd St W
Bonita S rin s FL 34134
Date: 10/6/2020 g �
Approved Signature:
A
" '
Approved Date:
Proposed Boathouse and Dock Layout
1 3' Roof Overh,
M
GREG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 949.5588
Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 271 3�d St W
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Date: 9/25/2020
Approved Signature:
r
S
Approved Date:
Boathouse Layout
c- 16 0'
i
s
� ►j
7 1
GREG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 949-5588
Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 271 Yd St W
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Date: 9/25/2020
Approved Signature:
A
Approved Date:
Proposed Boat Lift
Dock Cross Section
43.1'--
35-
MHWL - 0 01' NAVD
MLWL - -0 80' NAVD
1
Proposed Dock Level
the Existing Seaw
4.
4.9' NAVD
GREG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(239) 949-5588
Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 271 Y, St W
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Date: 10i7i2020
Approved Signature:
Ar
w r
S
Approved Date:
Overall Site Plan with Aerial
G REG ORICK MARINE
CONSTRUCTION INC.
(239) 949-5588
Name: Stuart Wood
Address: 271 3rd St W
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Date: 9/25/2020
Approved Signature:
A
w r
Approved Date:
PREPARED FOR: PBK PROPERTIES LL.C.
FOUND NAIL
2 O
DATE OF FIELD SURVEY: JUNE 22. 2019
2
AGNOU, BARBER & BRUNDAGE. INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS
N
w
FO 1
ON: E"° m�—�, W&": o.
BY_ nP_n A�nOflli R S. m.
TM�
k
g9263 36
5 , S
RON OD
ti 22
enm�pa Nede SwFl ,a , C.US
OeM: 2021.06.15 11:N:03-0/'00
0W
WAYNE D. AGNOU, R.S.M., NO. 5335 DATE
2
SCALE: 1"=3
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY MEETS THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE SET FORTHJ
BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 5J-17. FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027. FLORIDA STATUTES.
C T
THIS SITE PLAN URVEY IS VAUD THOUT THE E AND THE
TFLORIDA � RAND
'
ho000
1JNf (PER
CP
ORIGIADDINAL IONS AISEDSSEAL OF THE LICENSED SURVEYOR MAPPER.
P
H
01�,o
OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORTS BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING
ooi N
N
PARTIES
��ObW
N Q
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS
PROHIBITED BY
FOUND PK NAIL &TIN TAB
CHAPTER 5J-17 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
PROPERTY LINE
C
THIS SITE PLAN SURVEY IS CERTIFIED AS i0 THE DATE OF FIELD SURVEY, NOT
16
THE SIGNATURE DATE.
OGENERAL
NOTES:
3 N
1. DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
n o
2. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM
EAST ZONE, NAD 83/90 DATUM AND REFERENCED TO THE
W
c ko w
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK F, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES UNIT 3,
N
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
V1
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AS BEING SOUTH 89. 33' 28- EAST.
b
S 89.33'28' E
1111j1t11����� i
n tNE D. A G,y ��
• •CgT,•C�
3. HORIZONTAL COORDINATES WERE DERIVED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS USING A
o
130.00'
:
TRIMBLE DUAL FREQUENCY RECEIVER (MODEL RIO), RECEIVING CORRECTIONS
Z
%
FROM TRIMBLE VRS NOW RTN (REAL TIME NETWORK)
••��Q.Z
* *
No. 5335
4• VERTICAL: ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL
-
DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88).ELEVATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED USING LONG
m STATE OF W ;
TERM OBSERVATIONS WITH A TRIMBLE (MODEL R10) DUAL FREQUENCY
RECEIVER GPS (GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM).
P. e
O R%0.•
SURVEYORS NOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY IS TO LOCATE THE SEAWALL
2
"-OsUR' E;OP,��`� O
5
AND THE WATERWARD EXISTING CONDITIONS ONLY. NO UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS
HAVE BEEN LOCATED UNDER THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY.
271 3RD STREET WEST
DRILL HOLE
P�
x B.D8 x 7.89 .�EXISTING SEAWALL
WD G ELEV.=4.9'
x WD7
x W�4
EXISTING DOCK 3.448
WDX
2.85 //
x W68 x 6.778
wo
EXISTING BOAT LIFTS 1
x 91D2 r
x WD0
x 5.89
WD x 4.70
WD x
x N3
6.7
x WD6
x U8
x D2
W
xW Dl
WDOiND
x GND 23
'tND\ 1111TFACE OF
x G D \ EXISTING SEAWALL
COT L---
/ E -(PER \
Cq T) \
x 5 x WD xWD '2
x WD9 WDD x4.5
1.64 GND
WD 3.7 5
ND x GND
EXISTING SEAWALL
ELEV.=3.8'
x 911
-PROPERTY LINE
0
x,D ,,, 22
21
EXI
ELE
271 3RD STREET WEST EXISTING CONDITIONS
x 77..94
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS MHWL=0.01' NAVD88 DD
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING MLWL=-0.80' NAVD88 FRDPOSED 10.0' X 16.0' DECKED
MLWL(-.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS PLATFORM LIFT FOR PWC
x D3 x He
W
PROPOSED DOCK
x WD8 x 7.DD
D
P�
A0
G�O�
5.B7
x W
xU
3.48
WDx
?.85
xw x VDB x�
WD9x ,
W96 x
x 19J.02
D x WDO
x 5.89
WD x WD
x
x WDS x g,a3
Rip
x 6.776
WD
\AR\Nli
5
x WD3
NF
4
x WDe
m \
\
x WT
\ \ W D7
r
o.
22
q \\-IETFACE OF SEAWALL ` 3
COT
EW SEAWALL
CAP ELEV.=4.8'
185 L.F.
a
PROPERTY LINE
0
PROPERTY SHORELINE = 181'
21
NOTE: WATER DEPTH ELEVATIONS
WERE DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING
MLWL(—.80) FROM BOTTOM ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED 16.0'X35.0' BOATHOUSE
1.3'
OVERHANG
PROPOSED DOCK \
P-�
O�
x WDg x WD9 G�
x 5.6 7 WD
4.14
x WD
3.48
WDx
W .0
MHWL=0.01' NAVD88
MLWL=-0.80' NAVD88 PROPOSED 10.0' X 16.0' DECKED
PLATFORM LIFT FOR PWC
x 5.96
x 7,53 WD
WD
6.76 \�'Q/ x 3.35
WD �� WD
x 1.3'
/ OVERHANG 'I-,o�
x 5.4D8
WD x l
s. \ 1.67
WD
SCALE: 1 "=10'
271 3RD STREET WEST PROPOSED BOATHOUSE