Resolution 1980-001BOOK 050 PAGE 520
kianuary a, tyuu
RESOLUTION 80 - „1
RELATING TO PETITION FDPO- 79 -V -5 FOR A
VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION REQUIRED BY THE FLOOD DAM-
AGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE (FDPO) NO.
79 -62.
WHEREAS, the petitioner has requested a variance from the Mini-
mum Base Flood Elevation required by the FDPO No. 79 -62; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing
as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed Petition
FDPO- 79 -V -5 in accordance with Section 18, Paragraphs (5), (6) and
(7), and has made a finding that the granting of Petition FDPO- 79 -V -5,
in its opinion, complies with the intent and purpose of said Section of
Ordinance 79 -62 as follows: `
(5) The 2.5 foot reduction from the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) 10 foot National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)
requirement to 7.5 feet NGVD is the minimum variance necess-
ary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
This conclusion Is based on the following facts:
The adjoining homes on the east and west are at an elevation
of approximately 6.0 feet NGVD and the requested variance
will put the elevation of the petitioner's home approximately
1.5 feet above the existing homes.
This is a reasonable difference In order to control drain-
ing on -site, allow for reasonable access to the subject home
and provide for a reasonable appearance in keeping with the
homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) The 2.5 foot variance is issued upon:
(a) A showing of good and sufficient cause based on review
of considerations contained in (7), following.
(b) A determination that failure to grant the variance would
result In exceptional hardship to the applicant and his
neighbors.
(c) A determination that the granting of a variance will not
result in increased flood heights, additional threats to
public safety, extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
(7) In passing upon this variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals
has considered all technical evaluations, all relevant factors,
standards specified in other sections of this ordinance, and
the following: (The Board's findings are noted in paren-
theses).
(a) the danger that materials may be swept onto other lands
to the injury of others; (such danger non - existent or
minimal)
(b) the danger to life and property due to flooding or
erosion damage; (not materially affected by granting of
f--- -� variance)
• January )80
(c) the susceptibility of the proposed facility and its con-
tents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on
the individual owner; (the lowered elevation has increased
the susceptibilty for flooding. Owner has, by letter,
acknowledged the probability of increased insurance
costs)
(d)
the importance of the services provided by the proposed
facility to the community; (no increase in service result -
ing from the granting of a variance) r
(e)
The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location,
where applicable; (not applicable)
(f)
the availability of alternative .locations, not subject to
flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; (no
alternative location is possible)
(g)
the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and
anticipated development; (granting of 2.5 foot variance
determined to be compatible)
(h)
the relationship of the proposed use to the plan and
flood plain management program for the area; (consistent
with County's flood plain management program)
(1)
the safety of access to the property in times of flood
for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (access will be
unchanged)
(j)
the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise
and sediment transport of the flood waters and the
effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the
site; (the expected heights have been considered)
(k)
the costs of providing governmental services during and
after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of
public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electri-
cal, and water system, and streets and bridges, (same
cost as surrounding residences) and;
(1)
variance shall not be issued within any designated
floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base
flood discharge would result; (not applicable, not in
designated floodway)
(m)
generally, variances may be issued for new construction
and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of
one -half acre or less in size contiguous to and sur-
rounded by lots with existing structures constructed
below the base flood level, providing items (a -1) have
been fully considered; (subject property is less than It
acre in area and there are existing homes on abutting
lots to the east and west;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Zoning
Appeals, that
Petition FDPO- 79 -V -5 is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
1. The variance shall be for the reduction of the Minimum Base Flood
Elevation
required by FDPO No. 79 -62 from 10.0 feet NGVD to 7.5
feet NGVD. BOOT( 050 PACES
• January 8,'1980
BOOK V 0 F04 "Mief Administrative Official shall mail a copy of this Resolu-
tion to the petitioner by registered return mail, and such mailing
shall constitute compliance with Section 18, Paragraph (10) of
FDPO No. 78 -62 which reads as follows:
11(10) Any applicant, to whom a variance is granted, shall be
given written notice that when a structure is permitted
to be built with the lowest habitable floor elevation below
the base flood elevation, the cost of flood insurance will
be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from
the reduced lowest habitable floor elevation."
3. The granting of this variance has been predicted on the engineer-
ing data and information provided by thg. petitioner and a review
of same with respect to the considerations required by the FDPO
No. 79 -62.
The granting of this variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals
does not make or imply any assurances that the subject property.
or structures are not subject to flood damage.
Further, the granting of this variance shall not create liabil-
ity on the part of Collier County or by any officer or employee
thereof for any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
In accepting this variance, the petitioner assumes all respon-
sibility for any property damage resulting from its application.
Commissioner Archer motioned, seconded by Commissioner
Pistor for the adoption of this Resolution. Upon call for the
vote, the motion carried.
DATE: January 8. 1980 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER %COUNTY, %FLORIDA.
ATTEST: BY:
WILLIAM AN, K CLIFF ?RD WENZEV CHAIRMAN
•n�; •.• 'i lJ r'i
t
I 1 I"..-.? T. 1