HEX Transcript 09/10/2015 September 10,2015 HEX Meeting
� TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
`- OLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
Naples,Florida
September 10,2015
ey
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Hearing Examiner, in and for the
County of Collier,having conducted business herein,met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION at
2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Room 609/610,Naples,Florida,with the following people present:
HEARING EXAMINER MARK STRAIN
ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager
Fred Reischl,Principal Planner
Rachel Beasley,Planner
Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney
Page 1 of 5
AGENDA
THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY,SEPTEMBER 10,2015 IN CONFERENCE ROOM
610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING®ULATION BUILDING,2800
N.HORSESHOE DRIVE,NAPLES,FLORIDA
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO
COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING
PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER 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 TO BE BASED.
DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT,
PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING
EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A
COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS,
AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO
RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:August 13,2015
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. PETITION NO. VA-PL20150000735 — Michael and Wendy Thomas request a variance from
Section 4.5(h) of the Sleepy Hollow PUD, Ordinance No. 88-25, as amended, to reduce the minimum
rear yard accessory structure setback line from 10 feet to 6.11 feet to allow for an existing pool screen
cage enclosure and a proposed patio screen enclosure expansion that encroach 3.89 feet into the rear
setback on property located at Lot 167, The Crossings, Mills Run in Section 2, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida.(Coordinator:Rachel Beasley,Planner)
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURN
September 10,2015 HEX Meeting
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
VA-PL20150000735
A-Staff Report 4
B-Legal Advertisement 4
C—Photographs 6
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,
September 10th meeting of the Collier County Hearing Examiner's Office.
If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.
Couple of housekeeping matters. Speakers will be limited to five minutes unless otherwise waived;
all decisions are final unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners;and a decision will be rendered
within 30 days.
Review of the agenda: We have one petition here today. There are no additions or changes to that.
As far as the minutes from the last meeting of August 13th,2015,I reviewed those,those are okay as
submitted.
That will take us directly into our advertised public hearing. The first and only petition today is
Petition Number VA-PL20150000735. It's Michael and Wendy Thomas for a request for a variance on the
Sleepy Hollow PUD.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Thank you.Exhibit A will be the staff report. Exhibit B will be
the legal advertisement.
(Exhibit A and B were marked for identification.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And disclosures on my part,I have talked with staff,I've
reviewed all the files,and I spoke to Mr.and Mrs.Thomas and Mr.Markum(sic)before I came in this
morning.
And with that,Charles,if you don't mind coming to the microphone. Charles Whittington,I'm sorry.
I got you mixed up. I was thinking of something else.
MR.WHITTINGTON: Good morning. My name is Charles Whittington,for the record,Grant
Fridkin,Pearson Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of the applicants,Michael and Wendy Thomas.
Which one am I supposed to speak into?This one,okay.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We do that just so you'll constantly move around.
MR.WHITTINGTON: We are here today on the applicants'petition for a variance. It's a two-part
petition. The first part is to permit their existing pool cage enclosure,terminate as built where it's I think 6.89
feet from their rear property line where 10 feet is required. As well as the ability to repair and replace as
necessary.
The second part is to permit the applicants to expand their pool cage enclosure to the sides to cover
existing paver patios.
I'd like to just for the record submit some photographs that were recently taken just for your
consideration to give the second part of the petition some context.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Are they in addition to what's in the--
MR.WHITTINGTON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --packet that the staff has prepared.
MR.WHITTINGTON: Yes,Mr.Strain. I have four--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR.WHITTINGTON: --copies.
Page 2 of 5
September 10,2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And how many copies do you have?
MR.WHITTINGTON: I have four.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WHITTINGTON: Is that sufficient?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: We'll--sure,that's sufficient.
Could I see those--
MR.WHITTINGTON: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: --before we submit them?
MR.WHITTINGTON: (Handing.) It's three separate ones. There's four.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Oh,okay.
Okay,if you could leave a copy with the court reporter and one with Rachel,that would be sufficient.
That will be Exhibit C.
(Exhibit C was marked for identification.)
MR.WHITTINGTON: Some background might be helpful.
The house and the pool cage and the pool were all built in 1989 by the predecessor and titled to the
applicants. 25 years later,after the structure had existed for 25 years with no objections,the Petitioners bought
the property. They--unfortunately the closing agent of that transaction did not raise this encroachment
to--did not raise it with the petitioners. They were unaware of it. They closed on the property with this
encroachment.
They didn't learn about the encroachment until they contacted a contractor about repairing and
potentially replacing the pool cage enclosure. At that point it was brought to their attention. They were
unfortunately victims of circumstances. But once they learned out about it,they diligently sought to get it
addressed. They engaged our firm,we filed this petition and we've diligently pursued it.
The first part of the petition,we appreciate the staffs recommendation for approval. There's many
factors in favor of that portion: It's existed for 25 years without objection;the petitioners did not create the
issue;we have letters of support from a neighbor,as well as the HOA to permit the existing structure to remain
as built.
The second part of the petition,we understand staffs inability to recommend approval,but we believe
there's several factors in favor of granting that part of the petition.
We have letters of approval from the HOA,as well as the neighbor,agreeing with the expansion.
The--excuse me,the new paver patios are already utilized,and the expansion of the pool cage to enclose them
will permit greater use and will prevent interactions between the applicants as well as animals coming out of
the preserve area, including bufo toads,raccoons,mosquitoes.
In addition,the purpose behind the setbacks,view and access will be maintained.There's more than
enough space to allow access in the back,and the side yard setbacks will not be interfered with by the
expansion.
So with that,we would request that you grant both parts of the petition to allow the pool cage enclosure
to remain as built where it is,as well as the ability to ability to repair and replace,as well as permission to
expand the pool cage enclosure.
Do you have any questions?
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: No,I do want to make some statements.
I do notice that the HOA has a--the homeowners association for that area has approved the
application,the neighbor next door has not objected to it,I find no objections from the users of the utility
easement in the rear,and I've not heard any objections or not received any from the public.
With that,I'd like to hear staffs input.Thank you,Charles,for the presentation.
Rachel?
MS.BEASLEY: Yes,Rachel Beasley for the record.
Staff has submitted a staff report and is recommending approval for the first part,which is the
minimum rear yard accessory from 10 feet to 6.11 for the existing pool screen enclosure.
However,for the second part staff recommends denial;however,acknowledges that there are several
mitigating factors.
Page 3 of 5
September 10,2015 HEX Meeting
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,would you mind making those noted for the record?
MS.BEASLEY: Yes. In the staff report I acknowledge that it abuts a conservation easement and so
there are no neighbors in the rear that it would be affecting,the community association of Mill Run is in
support of it,and a neighbor next door has no objections.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And staffs position--basis for their objection to the
expansion is?
MS.BEASLEY: Objection is that there was no hardship,related hardship.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay. And the hardship is something that cannot be
self-imposed. But in this particular case there are mitigating circumstances,as you noted,and I appreciate
your comments for the record. Thank you.
Are there any other members of the pub--any members of the public here that would like to speak?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,Charles,I don't have any other issues. This is a pretty
straightforward request. It will take not 30 days to respond;I should have a decision out within the week or
week and a half it takes just more time to record it. And I'll let you know at that point.
Other than that I have no other questions for the process and I do appreciate your time here this
morning.
Mr.and Mrs.Thomas,thank you for attending.
Is there anything else that you'd like to add?
MR.WHITTINGTON: Thank you very much for your time.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,thank you.
And with that,I have one other--not of the public,I'm done with this case.
We're going to move on to one item of other business and it's of staff,and it's just a follow-up item.
When I reviewed the minutes from the last meeting I did note that the Church of Guadalupe,we were
going to do some research as to the P area that was in the southeastern corner of that church and how it may
have inadvertently been designated as a P when it was church property. Staff was going to take a look at that
and follow up with Church of Guadalupe. There was no time frame for it,but I want to know if we're still
looking at that.
MR.BELLOWS: I'll check with Eric today and well respond to you what the--
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Yeah,if you could I'd appreciate it. At least we've got to follow
up and let them know our results eventually.
Mike?
MR.BOSI: Thank you,Mr. Strain. Mike Bosi,Director of Zoning and Planning.
I did a little preliminary research and it was included in the package that the Board of County
Commissioners approved when they approved a number of public sites for parks.But the backup information
was not as specific. So there is some additional follow-up that we need on it and we'll touch base with Eric.
So we will most certainly pursue and try to find the specifics of it to grant absolute certainty to make
sure that property was intended to be rezoned as part of that action that the board had taken.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: And I remember from last meeting the church didn't recall
providing that request to rezone their property,and I think that was part of the issue. And it may have just
been an error in the legal description and somehow got on the zoning maps like that. But if we could resolve it
eventually and let the church know,that would probably be helpful.
MR.BOSI: Yes,sir.
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Okay,thank you.
Are there any other comments from the public?
(No response.)
HEARING EXAMINER STRAIN: Since there are no public left,this will end the meeting. The
meeting is here adjourned. Thank you.
***************
Page 4 of 5
September 10,2015 HEX Meeting
There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Hearing Examiner at 9:11 a.m.
COLT pc:3:7 HE RI/IG EXAMINER
P\
MARK STRAIN, ARING EXAMINER
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK
These minutes approved by the Hearing Examiner on 10--g- r .as presented or as
corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY
CHERIE' R.NOTTINGHAM
Page 5 of 5