Agenda 01/15/2008 Item #17E
j
i5,:~] 8
1 (if 1
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
V A-2007-AR-12005 Eugene and Nancy Zilavy, represented by Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, and .Johnson, P.A., request an aner-
the-fact Variance of 4.8 feet from the required 20-foot rear yard sdback for a
swimming pool; and an after-the-fact Variance of 8.5 feet from the required 20-foot
rear yard sethack for a pool screen enclosure. The subject property is located at 480
Flamingo Avenue, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Subdivision, Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County. Flol'ida
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) consider the above-referenced Variance
petition and render a decision pursuant to Section 9.01.00 of the Land Development Code
(LDC) in order to ensure that the project is in hamlony with all applicable codes and
regulations and that the comrl1unity"s interests are maintained.
-
CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioner is requesting a 4.8-root after-the. fact Variance and an 8.5-foot after-the-
fact Variance from the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement of Section 4.02.03 Table 4,
Dimensional Standards fhr AcccssOI)' Jiuihlings and Slruclur~s on IYalerji-O!1/ Lois and
Golf Courses, of the Land Development Code (LDCI for a swimming pool and a screen
cage enclosure, respectively, to legitimize a 15.2-f(lOt setback for the pool and an 11.5-
foot setback for the screen enclosure. bolh in existcncc since 1997.
The subject 0.22-acre site is zoned RSF-3 and is a canal lot locatcd at 480 Flamingo
Avenue Drive, in the Connor's Vanderhilt Beach Estale Subdivision. The applicants are
not the original owners of the singlc-bmily residence. which was purchased in 200 I.
County records indicate that a ,:crtiJicak of occupancy was issued fill' the home in April
of 1997, and for both the pool and screened cage enclosure the month prioI'. Nevertheless,
as cited above, the LDC requires that accessory structllp;S on waterll'ont lots, such as
swimming pools and screen enclosures. ha\ e a minimum rear yard setback 01' 20 feet
"where swimming pool decks exceed f<lur ket in height 'll1ove top of seawall or top of
bank," As the subject propel1y's pool deck is approximatcly six feet in height above the
top of the seawall, the swimming pool and screen enclosure are required to have a
minimum 20-foot setback. Presently, the screen enclosure and swimming pool are
situated only 11.5 feet and 15.2 reet fi'omthe seawall, respl'ctill'!y.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this Variance petition would hale no tlscal impact on Collier County.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMI') IMPACT:
Approval of this Variance would not affect or change the requirements ufthe Grcm1h
Management Plan,
-
.
::'
AFFORDABLE HOtJSING IMPACT:
Approval of this Variance would have no af'l(>rdahle housing impact.
ENVIRONME!\TAL ISSliES:
There are no environmental issues associated with this Variance.
ENVIRONMENT",.L ADVISORY COUNCIL IEAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The E^C did not review this petition as thc) do not normally hear Variance petitions.
PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard petition VA-2007-.\R-12005 on November 15,2007. and believing that
approving the Varianee would not be injurious 10 the neighborhood or detrimcnlalto the
public wC!j'tre, voted unanimously tR-O) to IClrward this petition to the BLA with a
recommendation l)I' approval. subject to stafl" stipulations.
Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous'cmd no !ctters or objection
have been received. this petition "",,S been plaeed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The petitioners are requesting aficr-the-lClct vanances to setback requirements with
respect to a pliO! and a SlT<':l'n cnCh)~';llr<.:, both in existence since 1997. The granting of
such variances is permitted under 1.1)(' Section l).O~.02, The attaehed stair repol't and
n:.'col11lllcndmions of the Planning Commission ~lrc advisory ollly and <Ire not hinding on
),(HI. Decisions rl'garding \':lri~lnl'CS an.' C]ll<l')i-judici:lI. and all tcstimuny given mllst be
under oath. Petit ioners !lave the hllrd~n to pt\IVr.: that the proposed \'ari~l!lce is consistent
with all the crileria Sel1C)11h below. and you may queSlio111he petitionns (lr stalTt(l assure
)'oursclfthclt the necessary critnia h'l\C been satislied. Sh(luld )'(lU c(lnsider ,"'nying the
variance, to assure that :our decisioll is not lakr 1()lJl)d to he ~lrbitrury. discrimillatory' or
unrea,onahle, the denial ll1usl be based upon e'"1'1"":ten1. .,ubstanlial e\ iJenee that lhe
propo:;al docs not m(.:\.'1 Olll' or more or the liskd crikria helow. /\pl)rov,11 of this n:C]ul:'st
requires thn:-e aflirmative votes of llu: Board. In grallting any \'ari~lnL'e, the Board of
7()]ling /\ppcals 111:1)' prescribe appropriate condit i(lll~l and sall:guards in (.'llllllllTnit: with
the zoning codC'. including. but nut limikd 10, reason:d)k 1iml' limits \\ilhin vvhich action
Ic'r which the variance' is required ,hall be kgun or Cl'Il1I)lcll"1. or both. VioLllion of'
sLlch cUlldit in!ls and safeguards. when Jll~l(k a ]):1rt of the lcnns under which the \'uriance
is granted. \Vl)Llld he dl.'cm~'d a \'iulatlUllcd'thl' /,oning cOlk.
C,'iteria for Variances
I. There are special conditions and cireull1,lances c~lsl [ng which are pccnliar to the
location. size.. and characteristics orlhe land, struclure, or building involved.
, There are special conditions anJ circunlsl~IIH.-'CS \vllich do tlllt l\:'sltlt from the action of
the applical11. such as pr('-e~islin~ conditions relative to Ille p["opeTty \\hich is the subject
of the v,arianct' r~qLlest.
3. A literal interpretation or the provisions llr the LDC \lork unllccessar) alld undue
hardship onlhc applicant or creak pr:[clical dil1iculties on the applicant.
,",:
4. The variance. if granted. will be the minimum lariance Ihat will make possible the
reasonable use llf the land. building. or strul'1ure and which promlltc standards or health.
safety. or welfare.
5. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any spccial privilege
that is denied by these zoning rcgulations to other lands. buildings. or structurcs in the
same zoning district.
6. Granting the variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC, and
not be injurious to the neighborhood. llr lltherwise detrimcntal to the publie welfare.
7. There are natural condit i'''1s ,'r physically induced cllnditions that amelillrate the
goals and ohJectives of the regulation. such as natural preserves. lakes. golf course. ClC.
8. Granting the variance will be consisknt with the (iMP.
The proposed Resolution lias prepared by the County Altomey's Onice and is sunicient
telr Bllard action. -.I..'\K
RECOMMENDATION:
Statf recommends that the Board llC Zllniug Appea'k apprllw Pdition VA-2007-AR-
12005. subject to the Il,lIllwing conditions:
]. The 8.S-lllDt Variance granted is limited to the rear yard encroachment j"r the
screen cage enclosure along thr.:: property's s{)uthcrn. canal Il'ontage. as dcpictcd In
Ihe applicant's bllundary survey datcd April 18. 2001 (included ~lS Exhibit A);
.,
The 4.8-tlll\t Variance granted is limited to the rear yard cncroachment Il)r the
:-i\\ imming pop I along the property's snulhelTl. em:!l frulltage. as depkted 111 the
applicant's bllundary survey dated .'\pril 18.200 I (included as I :xhibit ,\);
J. lrthe residential (hvclling strLlCl111\' is dL'~;tro;'cd ("PI' uny' reason, to ~l1l c.\h..'nt L'yual to
or greater thall 5Cl percent of tile ~lctua] r:.:?plaCClllcllt cost llftllL' structure at the lime
ur its destruction, all reconstructioJl or the structure and ~h:('l'SSor;.' strLJCturl'S mlbt
!..:un!(xlll to th~ 1)!'uvisiu!1s of the I "and I k\'l'lrlflll1cnt C\'Lk in cll-.:ct at the lime (lr
l"ccollstructio!l,
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss. AI( 1'. l,rincipall'lanner
Department ol'lon;n:; and [,and lJevelopmcnt Review
(
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
HE
Page 1 of2
l'i"3,': !\jo, i7E
January 15, 2008
Page 4 of 21
Tnls i,em reqUires that all partlclpa!its be sworn in and ex parte dls:IJsure ~e provided by
Commission members. VA~2007-AR-12005, Eugene and Nancy Zilavy, represented by
Richard D. Yovanovlch. ~~,culre of Goodletle, Coleman, and Johnson, P,A. reauest a nine-
foot rear 'y'ard setback Variance for a pool screen enclosure. The subject property is located
at 480 Fiamingc Avenue, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach SU:JdivIslon, Section 29 Township 48
South, R.ange 25 East Collier County, Florida
1/15/2008 9:00:00 AM
Prepa red By
J~hn~David Moss
Comm uni~y Dev-:;!opmel1t 8.
Environmental Services
Senior Planner
Zoning & Land Development
Date
121201200710:28:26 AM
Approved By
Joseph K Schmltt
Community Developm€'nt &
Environmental Services
C0mmunity Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
12/20l20D7 8:1C PM
Approved By
J.~;f K;a::zkow
County Attorney
t.ssist3nt C0lmty .q~crnsy
County Attorney Office
::z1:.:!
12/21 !2007 10:27 AM
Approved By
J:Jdy Pur::;
Community Dev""!0pment &.
Environmental 2<':r\'ic~s
Oper<,;~i(>r~E ;'.na!ys:
Community Developmert &
Enviroitmental Se;vic-:!s t'.jmll~.
[ate
"12J;::1'28C7 4;28 r'M
Approved By
!\~arlene 3tewa:t
Community Development &
Environmental Se~vices
t=xecutive Secretary
Community Development &
Environ-mentaf ~ervfces Admin.
Date
12/25.120073:31 AM
Approved By
Ray BellQVI:s
::);>.I~i..H1rty :'sveb;J;rert';;'
Emiranmer.tal Servir:es
Chief ?:ann':!f
Z::ming & Land Development Revie'Ji
L.D::Z
1 :2/;::-;-:::0 'J 7 [ 2:1 AiJ]
Approved By
Susar: Murray, A!e?
Community Development &
Env~ronmental Services
Zoning e. Land Deve!cp",e:1~ Dir?:.tor
Zoning & L.and Development Review
C::t~
1f2/200S -:1.::5 AM
Approved By
.f"'..J~LUC'_..).^
'T' ,IT"'__
~\ nn T
____0/ "'^. - ,,/ "''''.....'''''......_.____ "'''' ~~~ ."
Page 2 of2
?,aerY~a i'IPT; f\,io. 17=
- Jarluaiy 15, 20G6
Page 5 of 21
OMS Cc~r:::li~ntJr
4ppilcatkn~s ,4~al)'st
:Jate
Admhistrative Services
lnformation 7echnology
1,'2./2G08 1:;:':0 PM
Approved By
Mark isackson
Budget Anal~'st
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
112/20082:03 PM
Approved By
~~ames V. Mudd
County Manager
Date
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager's Office
1/5/2008 11 :33 AM
til"./;r.IA o"nrl,T,,<tIFxnnrtIQR_ hnn",T%?()1 " %?()")()()R\ 17 %?()<;;I J!\A!\A A Ryol.?()Ar.FNnA
I/Q/?nnR
:1
~,')',
I~,
-'<f;~
r1:>l\;;~;\:I.'
C9!tlie-r County
t:;:r;:Ijl~c:~r~ \t.,~,':1P"K";"""~""tI;:)i',1F";:'J'~<:':;'::\>:l:rc:",'j:'lr:'~"",~~i:,:t'..;:\."'~
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARI~G DATE: NOVEMBER 15.2007
SVBJECT: PETITION VA-2007-AR- I 2005. LILA VY VARIANCE
AGENT!APPLICA~T:
OWNER: Eugene and Nancy Zilavy
480 Flamingo A venue
Naples. FL 34 I 08
AGENT: Richard D. Yovanovieh. Esquire
Cioodlclte. Coleman and Johnson
4001 Tamiami Trail North #300
Naples. FL 34 I 03
REOlJESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting a 4.8-1()ot Variance and an 8.5-j(wt Variance li'om the 20-j()ot rear
yard setback requirement of Section 4.1I2.03 Table 4. [limel1.\iono! S{ondords .ti,,' A cce.\'so/:> ,
Buildings ond Structures on /I'ater/run{ io!.\' 0/7(1 Golf' Co"rses. of the Land Development Code
(LDC) for a s\\"il11l11ing pool and a screen cage enclosure. respeclivdy. to legitimize a 15.~--I()ot
setback 1(l!' the pool and an It.5-100t setback lor thc screcn enclosure. holh in existence since
1997.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 0.22-acre subject property is a canal lot located at 480 Flamingo Avcnue Drive. in the
Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estate Subdivision. Unit 3. Lot 2. Block II. Folio # 27636040006.
Section 25. Township 48 S. Range 29 E. Collier County. Florida (see location map on the
j(lllowing page).
PURPOSE/I)ESCRll'TION OF REOIJEST:
The applicants. who are the not the original owners of the sing1e-liul1ily residence on the subject
~ site. purchased the propeny in 200 I. County records indicate that a certificate of occupancy was
issued for the home in Apl'il of 1997. and for both the pool and screened cage enclosure the
month prior. Nevertheless. as cited above. the LDC requires that accessory structures on
\vatertl'ont lots, such as s\vimming pools and screen enclosures, have a minimUll1 rear yard
/'.-11/101'1 J-.-J-::m'~..,J!..'.! ;]iJIi5
J'<Il'.-f(:f7
('('/'('/!i1I(': ,\'OI"'II/,I,,-rf.',.C!)()7
~ethack uf 20 feet "\\ here s\\'imming pool decks e.\TcL'd four kd in height ahove tor of seawall
or top of bank." As the suhject property's pdcl deck is approximately ::;ix 1l:et in height ahove the
top of the seawall. the swimming pool and screen enclosure are required to have a minimum 20-
foot setback. Presently. the screcn enclosure and swilllming pool arc situated only] 1.5 feet and
15.2 rcet \i"OIll the scawed\. respecti\el\'.
Sl'RROli'\"DING LA'\"D LSE AND n):\ING:
l\011h:
East:
South:
West:
Single-family residential structure. zoned RSF-3.
Single-Eul1ily residential structure, zoned RSF-3.
Cana\. then single-lill11ily residcl11ial structure. zoned RSF-3.
Single-bmily rcsidential structure. z,\ned RSF-3.
:2';~~:'~~ 4:;~m.~_~~~i~!
'_"o~"'~ '~.:l,\' ......,..~.,...".
r-. {;:". 'i"'j"". .-r:-i. :P=~'l'f'~'~~L. :
~..~ 'I ~ '-.t., ...i"lr~;"
d:~'~ )~tt.....~...:' - ,,.."''!., .T'1~'~":~~- .-~.. u_''<:: . :"'t~:.. ~'~~.
, .-,~, '.',~". Jil:i_,..4' _"":\"". ,...:....;l'....~ ."', '. .'. ~*~" .:., ";""'~;
l?"'" #'::ft.',;"-~:;,,,';_~,,~. ,"~',>', .~~".'" \.~:-.,.,..~, ..'; f' "",',; f't~\""'" ,~"
----~,-x--'-~- - ..; "-""'~~'r.,--,,---.~c_--.:~"'-"j;:- '-----...,.---- -;Y;'-..r:
_~__l~___::~~:-':~_~~ ~ ~=." __ ~ 1~~~~~:, .~\\~,
'. t . ''''.... """~-'V' ." 'n-~...-",,-"."
~"'1t'~' !~t. ...."f}~ '(-'[i~:"
;, " j~~w ," I,:.t~"":r' "'='. f 1"'/'1:
;:;,~~~~":~:.;.." '~""tth3J\~(\S1;i;k!:'-;-~';~~!
t ,,,,,~,,",,,,,,,,,c,,,",,~~,,..;.i
,i.\,...:",.>.f::.;.'c:j~':":';' >~,.'4i,_"_:&'1i. ,.....v
"i'- M' r' ,~:~ ;:\'~';"'\1lJ:~;,,::'~;.;,;'t;-"'i'\,"-':?\* ;-"';r"
trn~~LfiS;?j:r"E: ~
~- ~~F~i~~~:'~!- ~.~ ~'
~.. ~{. il::~__ ". I jal >'._....
GRO\\TlI \IA'\AGE'\IEYI' I'LA'\' ((;,'\11'1 C()'\'~ISTE:\Ci:
~: ~-..,..' "
,'J~}{:~"., ~':.:::"~~~
II .,., ...." "
~'&:,,"
I .'...,.......
',-".~,~ ~. .
.-----.--:~~-~
'., ,,:;--
IJI" "j._. '!'~;di;{~'"
"'" ~;,,:~\ ,
y ,'ff:~', ~~
~~:-L:t,~~~i~'~ ':': --:
,.
."',
,-----." ~
'1":C:::_1liiit.Ji':,:",c
i"-'i ..f:c'
i~
if '~
",.1'."-..
~.~., ~."-_~.7'
1 '~'.~~~~-~'0,;'
i 'i":~"~"""'->~~,-.&2!
.'t',,,. .,'
."~ :.':
'~=-~~=...-
rile site is located in the l..rban Ri..'sidC:ll1ial LJlld l;sc Designation on the l'ulUrc Land Use \'lap
(FLLrv1). Th~ G\'IP docs n01 ~lJurcss indi\ic1ual \,'ariance rcq~kS1.S. but deals \\ith the larger
issue of the ~lc1ual use. As prcvic.usly slakd. this Variance is heing sought 1c)r 1\\'0 accessory
structures on a single-b.lllily homr~site loc~lted \\iLhin a single-LlIllily suhdi\'isioll. :\s residential
uses are an authorized use ;n this land use designation. the singlc-i~lIl1ily home is consistent with
the FLt '\i1. !-urt!lClTn(lre. the '-.\\ imming pool and .'-<'!ccllcd cage (:!ll')osure arc permitted as
accessory uses 10 the single- 1diljily use. Tll..:rl:'fo]"c. the uses '\1'1 the subject >it,.: :!;"\..' l.Lclllcd to be
consistent with the f'uturc L_lI1J l :SL' 1,lcmclll.
ANAL Y~iS:
Seclion 9.04-.U 1 (If the LDC gi',cs the Duard l,r Zllning ;;ppcals (BZA) the authority to grant
\larianccs. The Planning Commission is adv'isnr: to the 13ZA and utilizes the provisions or
c'l/l!ulli 'ill-_'/, ""
,
\ill<.,'!}i'c'ri.'i,_','I,',
,_.,'"
"'":"1
Section 9.04J13 A. through H., in bold font below. as general guidelines to assist in making a
recommcndat ion of approval or dcnial. Staff has analyzed this petit ion relative to tbese
provisions and ojTers the fc,llowing responses:
A. Are there special conditions and circumstanccs existing, which are peculiar to the
location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved'!
There is no land-related hardship. The ]ot is situated in a platted. developed subdivision;
and absent this Variance approval. the petitioners would still have reasonable use of their
property. However, had the previous owners of the property not had the pool deck
constructed at a height over the four-Ic'ot high top-of~seawall threshold established by the
LDC the minimum rear yard setback for the property would only be ten feet (instead of 20
fee\): and this Variance would not be necessary. The rationale for an increased setback jc)r
pool decks constructed four-reet in height or more above the top or the seawal] is to
prevent a .deck's obstruction or water views ror the immediately adjacent propel1ies.
However. as shown in the photo on the lower len, the water view orthe adjoining property
to the west (496 Flamingo Avenue) is unimpeded by the applicants' raised deck; and, as
shown in the photo on the right, the adjoining property owner to the east (454 Flamingo
Avenue) has an even higher pool deek. Therefore, no such viewshed conlliets exist.
B
1~[
'J... ",
$:" ,- .... l"';"'"
~,,'j, .' II'".
~~~~":'."'1t-;~~;.;.,,;~,.;,.:;L,.......kl.::
.....~'.,,'
49(, Flamingo A lie., we.\'1 of.mbjecr pJ'OI1(}r~I'
454 Flamiu/.:o A l'e" ca,\" (~f,\'III~icct l'/"opcr(l'
FuI1hennore, the applicants have submitted letters in suppOI1 of their Variance request
1I'om the owners of these tWll homes. (Although the signature on the letter received fi'om
454 Flamingo Avenue. "Norman S. Nadel." does not mateh the name of the owner in the
Property Appraiser's database, the agent I()!' the applicant has con/inned that Mr. Nadel is
indeed authorized to sign on behall' 0 I'the ollner of record. the Mallrel'n W. Armour Trust.)
B. Are there special conditions and circnmstances, which do not "esult from the action
of the applicant SlIch as pre-existing cOllditions relatiye to thc propt'rty, which is the
subject of the yariallce request'!
Yes. As previously stated, thc applicants are not the original owners oCthe propel1y. which
contained the swimming pool and screened cage enclosure upon their purchase of the
home in 2001. Tire applicants assumed that both oCthe accessory structures had not only
been permitted. but had been done so properly: and their attached application indicates
!',/II"JI..I'A-]I)('--.'I!,;-//:!U()5
1"/,,:,3u(i
( '( '/'1 / ),,/<": '-\'"""('11I1".,- /5, :!1I1i~
they would not have purchased the h"me had they knowll "therwise. Thcrdllrc. this
condition is pre-existing.
C. 'ViII a literal interpretation ..f the pronsJOns ..f this Zl.ning code w..rk unnecessa..y
"Oll undue hllnlship ..n the lIppliclInt 0.. erelltc p..lIcticlll difficultics f.... the lIpplicllnt?
If this \'ariance were not approved. the ~\\iJlll1ling pool :lnd screen enc]()SUIT would
have to be 1ll0\ cd hack 4.g feet and g.) ieet. respectivcly. Theretl)re. a literal
il1lcrl'retati(ln or the LDC would creatc ob\ ious practical difficulties for the
(lpp!icnnts.
D. 'ViII the ,"lIdanee, if g,,"nted, be the mUJlmum ,"lIdanee that will make p..ssible th('
..cason able use ..f the lalld. building 0.. structu..e and which promote standa..ds of
health. safcty and welfare?
Ye5. As shown in the photo below. the I'l"l'posed Variance wou!J be the minimulll to allow
a reasonable L!Se of the existing pool and screened cJ.ge enclosure; and as the applicant has
submitted letters OfsLlppon from 22 of the surrounding properly O\\'l1ers. including ]el1ers
from the only 1\\'0 truly affected Iwrnco\\ners on either ,;.;ide of the subject site. approv'al of
this Variance would not ha\,' a negati\e impact on stambrds of health. salety and welfare.
Poo/lIl1d scrce!1cd cage ef"C/O,\UFt' a/ollg perimefer (~rr([i\"('d deck.
E. V~'Ui granting the \'ariant.~ rt>questl'd confer on the pt'titioIH:r any ...pedal priyBrgc
that is denied hy these zoning regulations to other lands~ huihHngs. or s'rHctures in
the same zoning district'!
Yes. /\ Variance by definilion contcrs some dillll.'llSi(lfla! r~lier lj'OIll the 7uIling r(:gu]atio!1s
specilic to a site. \\'hile Variancl.'~ are sile-specific and do !lot set a precedent for other
V[lrianccs. it '::!lould he ihllCd that six similar V~li'i~HlCCS have been gr;:lnkd in illis
immediate nci"hborhood:
',')1(.'''' _-'il/"-_
, ~'II
,I~', 11-
',r, \.""."
, _'II,'
i\"')
;'/1
. V-90-16, lor a rear yard setback Variance;
. V-92-5. 1'01' a side yard setback Variance;
. V-96-14, f(lf side and rcaryard Variances;
. V-96-21. for a rear yard setback Variance:
. V A-O I-AR-181 0, 1(11' a rear yard setback Variance; and
. VA-04-AR-6449, for a rear yard setback Variance.
F. Will granting the variance be in harmony with thc gcncral intent and pnrpose of this
Land Dcvclopmcnt Code, and not be injurious to thc ncighborhood. or othelowise
detrimental to thc public welfarc'?
Yes, The proposed Variance would allow the applicant to leavc a swimming pool and its
associated screened cage enclosure in the same location they have been without issue since
their installation ten years ago. In light of the surrounding neighbors' support. as evidenced
by the 22 submitted letters-and thc numbcr of similar Variances approvcd in the
immediate vicinity-approval of this Variance request would be neither injurious to the
neighborhood nor detrimental to the public welfare.
G. Are there natural conditions or physically induccd conditions that ameliorate the
goals and objcctivcs of the regulation snch as natural prcscl"\'cS, lakes, golf courses,
etc.'?
Yes. The subject propcliy is a canal lot and the arca for which the Variance is being
requested abuts a scawall. Bccause the previous owner of the house had the propcrty's pool
deck construckd at a height apprt1ximatcly six feet abO\e the seawall (two reel higher than
the f()llr-I()ot high threshold triggering the greater 20-1()ot setback) the applicants arc now
compelled to apply for a Variance. Ilowevcr, as shown in the photo below, the height of the
seawall of the adjacent property O\\ner to the east is approximately 27 inches taller than the
applicants'; and if the applicants' seawall had been constructed at a
'm;i4!::>:'
~nh;.
UJJ~ ,..~~~;~_:~
""",,
(_......_.,..~.~ p"r"" .
'j. :'1
I "~~;, '," "., , ---
I",. '''-' ,~,,,
,..I'ii',',:" ,
'"i:~;:
'tl:':
""""~l'-' '
.;, , ".
(' ,
~.",;
The greater height f!fseaH'lIllllt 454 Flamingo ,1 pe., east f~f.\'Il~iect prope,.~I', is shoH'l1.
,1','I!III!/lI',l<'ili,'--,Il:-ii.'iJ/!5
/"I,:~, 5 (!!
'1'( ./ \,/(': ,','"",'1/11'('1" ! 5, _'IIII~
consistent height their 1'''',1 deck Ilould nol nOlI e,ceed the I()ur-j(wt high threshold
tri~gering the greater 20-t()ot sethack. Instead. it would only require a ten-I'.wt selhaek. Clnd
this Variance request \\'uuld not be necessary.
H. \ViII granting the \'ariance he consistent with the Growth i\1anagement Plan?
Approlal of this Variance petition Ililln01 affect or change the requircments of the Grl1\\1h
!\/fanagement Plan.
ENVIRO"iMENTAL ADVISORY COM\lITTEE (EAC) RECOM!\1E"iDA T10!\':
The LAC does not normal!) heJr Variance petitions and did n(\t hear this one.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Delelopment Rel'iell statl recommends that the Planning Coml'nission Illl'llard
petition VA-2007-AR-12005 to the lloard of 7iiiiing j\ppeals with a rce(lmmendation or
approlaL suhject to the 1"llowing conditions (contained in [xhihit B to the Resolution):
]. rhe 8.5-tc)ot V[lriance granted is limited to the rC:lr yard encroachment for the screen cage
enclosure along the prorcrty's southern. canal -rn.1I11a~c. as depicl(:d ill the applicantls
boundary survey dated ..\prilIX, 200] (included JS r,hibil.'\):
1. Th,~ 4.S-f(101 V;:lriancc granL.'J is limited to the reJr y.!:-d encroachment f:A th(' :;\\'illllTiing
pool along the prupert:,'.s sOL'rhcrn. ('am!! fi'onta~e. as depicted ill the applicant's boundary
surlcy dated April 18. 21l1l1 (inc:ulkd as F\hibit :\):
3. If th'~ residential d\\~lliI1g ~trLlctLlrc is c!estl"oYl'J 1(:11' ~my r',~~l."on. 1(1 an c\.knt equal 10 or
gn.:aiCr than 50 i'LTcent (If the Clc1u~lI rcpl,lct'l1lcnt cost (if the structure at the time of i;s
de::,1ructiun. ~tlj rCf.:onstruction (lfthe SlrLlcturc and ac:ccSSl)ry qructuri...'S must confll:"m 10 the
l'ro\isions pl" till' Land [)..,:\,:!i.lj1mcnt Cll,jC in cl']'(\..'1 ~11 11;:'" lime of 1\':c0I1S1rLlction.
j,', "'." '.'11('-_'1,'_' 'I);},
("'I
''<lie '-,."\',
-' II
-
..~Xi',i;:j:.y. C-,' 3
,'_:" '
':1
or,,,,
-".'- -'
PREPARED BY:
JOHN-DA VID MOSS, AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW
CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
DATE
~.._-~--~---
RA YMOND V. BELLOWS. MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING &. LAND DJ:::VELOPMENT REVIEW
SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP. DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF Z01\INCi &. LAND DEVELOPMENT REVI!:W
DATE
API'ROVED BY:
JOSEPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRA lOR DATE
CO!vlMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &. ENVIRO"iMENTAL SERVICES DIVISIO'-J
Tentatively scheduled j~ll' the January 15.2008 Board orZoning Appeals Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CI IAIRMAN
DATE
!'c'/1I10il 1'.~-]I)I,--..fN-/,' :'Ufl5
/'./1'.,." 1;(7
i '( 'I'! illll": \''''','/J/I',T /5, _'()IJ-
COLLiER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWVrf.COLL!ERGCV.NET
<r>."~
,4,.
c'<,..
2300 NORTH HORSESHOEDRI"'E' , .
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
VARIANCE PETITION APPLICATION
(VARIANCE FROM SETBACK(s) REQUIRED FOR A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT)
PETITION NO (AR)
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
DATE PROCESSED
ASSIGNED PLANNER
'to lit' Ciimrit',ict! b_\" S!d/r
Ahol'C' 10 h~ c'ompicfed h," SlU{i
APPllCANT/AGE'~T INFORMA T!ON
--".~"""'~'~~1
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) EUGEr,E V, ZILAVY I,ND r<ANCY i. Z'LAVY
ADDRESS 480 FLAMINGO AVEr;UE
CITY,~ Nt.,PLES
STATE FL
ZIP 34 I 08
TElEPHONE;; 239,5,,4'3126
CELL -;;.
FAX#
E-MAiL ADDRESS:
NAME OF AGENT PICHARD D, YO\fAN()VICH ESQUIRE, GOODLETT" CO'EMAN '" JOHNSO',<, P,A,
ADDRESS 4001 '-'OR!", "''''''IAMI TRAIL "1300
CITY r0A'IS._,,,,STA TE_tL_ZIP 34103
TELEPHONE #- 239435,3535
_. CELL #-
FAX # 230.435~ 1218
E-MAIL ADDRESS;eYOVANOVICHrC:.GCllt.W.COM
"i
I'
,
!
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYiST REGULATIONS, GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU AR:; IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
".,~"'~"'''''_~~~~ ~.~,'J:".;k~...J.;,E __:~
'~'I-'"I"'-' ~ ~.. -ilY'--
v'ct ,::, ~ y ""; ~ ..'> u
I__~:.rl~\ t, cr .'1
Provide additional" - ,
ASSOCIATIONS
Complete the following for all Association(s} affiliated with this petition.
sheets if necessary.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZII'
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
r----.--. -- --.-----.----..- PROPER'TY "--.OESCRIP-iio'N-------- I
I'. ': "...,.~,,_._....__~...____.___.__...__,~_.__._"_._____~
Legal Description of Sllhjcct Pmperty:
Section/Township/Range _ 29._.1..48._/..12___ Properly I.D.#: 27636040006
Subdivision:.__Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Est._ Unit 3
Metes & Bounds Description:
lot: 2
Block: U
Acreage .22 __~~___._.._..__,_,..______"...__n"
Address of Subject Property or dllTcn:"IlL frOIll l\:lir.loncr's :.lddn;s~):
.__.~.=:=------..J
,
I
L~___
ADJACENT ZONING AND lAND USE
Zoning
land Use
N RSF.3
S RSF-3
_ __EesideIJtial Sinale Family
Residential Sinale Famify
E RSF.3
R-=:'Jcier:-:ial SlnQle Fomifv
W RSF-3
Pe-~,1d~[lt;C11 Sinaie Fami!y
Minimum Yard ReQuirements for Sub-reef Prooe:tv:
Front: 64.6
Corner lot:
Yes U No D
Yes X No LJ
Side: 27.4
Waterfront Lot:
Rear: c
NATURE OF PETITION
Provide a detailed explanation of the reqt!est induding what structures are existing and what is proposed~
the amount of encroachment proposed using numbers, i.e. reduce front setback from 25' to 18'; when
property owner purchased properly, when existing principal structure was built (include building permit
number (5) if possible); why encroachment is necessary; how existing encroachment came to be, etc.
The Petitioner i::- reoLlestin~ 3 \",:lrL,rlC;: ,)C 9 r(:L~tJ~LI~~L.P.~~))_~:l~,~n cnclnsurc. . The bui1dini2 permit
W:lS dated SeDtcmbcr ] I. 1 99t1. The Dcrmil \I'::;, 3DDr<:l\ cd or, Sentcmb~, 20. ]996. A Cenificatc of
Occullunc\, for the)loJ)lc ~~~~_j~.1-!..riLl~_L2~7. The !Jon] dt:ck DL:rJ1l11 \~'JS ;JPI1rCl\'ed on Decenlber 2R~
199!i_ POoLC::::12e Pe,mit aflDruved f'"ebruarv 7..1.99Z,._./\_Ccni!ic3tc pf (kCLlPJlIC'i I"or the ])001 und
sc:reen enclosure was Issued ()n l\Ltrch j /. ! 997. The PelTliun:;'!" acuuired the rhJr)C~J1v in J\Ll\'. 2001.
The Pe~itioner is r(~Queqin~ a variance fronl the rear \'~i.rd :;;cth~iCk to allow the screen enclosure and
'JnllC~ n:'ma~Tli1} lhe SaITle ]o\.~;~li(ln ~;ince lC)\')().
Please note that staff and the Collier County Planning Commission shall be 9uided in tt",-ir recomrnenda1ion to
the Soard of zoning Appeals, cmd thGt the Eoord of zoning oppecls sholl be guided ill iis determinatkm to
approve or d~ny a variance petition by tilG be-k::.-\''! ii::;r<:.-J -:ri-;eria ,', i -8;. Pieu::'2' ud6".:;ss tl".is criteria L'sing
adcii1lonaf pages if neces:or"y.)
1, Are t~le;e specie I conc:tionS:Jna circumstan:e: e:<,lsj-ing \-;,hic~ o~e pecuiiar 10 the IOGJtloll, size and
charocteris-tics of the k::tndr :trudure, or buiiuing inVOlved:.
Yes, th2- screen enclosure has been in exi::tence,. [1:1(i CO'd since 1 QS'7 and there hew; been no c.onloloinj's
?rom any neiCJhbors durin a thot period of t:me and :he sere-en enclosure does not interfere \t/ith the
DeiohbOr"s ei1fOyment of their pro;)e,.-ty..
2. Are there special condition:; and circLJm~tcn(es which do not result from the action of th"::S:P.8~C?-:.m, ',,,
such 0$ pre-existing conditions relative to the property which is the subject of the variani:e;r,,?:Q.:LJ~st. _'
,i:::C13 ".,
The Petitioner purchased the orODertv in Mav 2001.. The screen enclosure existed at that time. The
Petitioner was not aware of any ordinance violation ",then the orooerty was purchased.
J. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue
hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant.
Yes. When the Petitioner purchased the Droperty the Dropertv hod a screen enclosure. Had the Petitioner
known that the pool and caae were in violation of a setback ordinance the Petitioner would not hove
purchased the Drooerty.
4. Will the variance! if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety or vvelfare.
Yes. The reauested variance is the mj~imum necessary to continu~ the use of the screen enclosure that was
oriainally approved in 1997 and has existed on the Drooertv since that time.
.::. Will granting the variance requested confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by
thes.e zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district.
No. This variance should be aran1ed based upon the unique set of facts applicable to this variance reauest
and arantina of this variance does not set a precedent for other variance requests.
6. Will granting the variance be in harmony ','\lith the intent and purpose of this zoning code, and not be
injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Yes. the orantino of variance will be in harmony with the tJurpO$e of the zoninq code. Grantinq thi:;
variance reave-sf will not be iniurious to the neiahborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. The screen
enclosure and poo! do not obstrucl the vie\.', of surroundinq property ovmers and is in no way detrif'1]ental to
the neiahborhood.
Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf cour.se, etc.
No.
8. Will granting the variance be consistent with the gro,.'\,th management plan.
Yes.
:'i
,
I BE ADVISED THAT SECTION 10.03.05.B.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES AN APPLICANT
i TO REMOVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARII~G SIGN (S) AFTER FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF
, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE REMOVE ALL
PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISING SIGN(S) IMMEDIA TEL Y.
',',:-,
: ',i 21 ~~!
,) ~;
d:Jf :21
[
No. of Cooies
015
015
OJ5
02
01
01
OJ
OJ
01
o
o
o
VARIANCE PETITION
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET
Completed Application
Pre-Application Meeting Notes
Site Plan 24" X 36" depicting the following:
All property boundaries & dimensions
All existing and proposed structures (labeled as such)
North arrow, date and scale of drawing
Required setbocks & proposed setbacks
Copies of Deed
Survey of property showing the encroachment (measured in feetO
Location Map depicting major streets in area for reference
Addressing Checklist
Owner/Agent Affidavit, signed & notarized
Electronic Copy of 011 documents & plans
Application Fees = $2000 (residential
$5000 (non-residential)
legal Advertising Fees = $729.00 - CCPC
$363.00 - BCC
Checks sholl be made payable to: Collier County Commissioners
Other
j
As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I allestthat all of the information indicated
on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all
necessary submillal information may result in the delay of processing this petition.
~Lt<:,.~
Agenf/ Applicant Sign ure
Other
~
(.\<"\\'01
Da.re
RESOLUTlON- 08-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER VA-2007-AR-12005, FOR AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRED 20-FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR AN EXISTING POOL AND SCREEN
ENCLOSURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 480 FLAMINGO
A VENUE HEREINAFfER DESCRIEED IN COLLlliR
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
4""':;,n{~a I'or!' t"o 17~
~ ~'J~nu~'-ry' 'I S, 2008
"'age 19~i 2'1
V.'HEREAS, 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 pursu,nt thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and
WHEREAS, Petitioners Eugene V. ZiJavy and Nancy ~ilavy are seeking an after-the-
fact 8.5-foot variance from the required 20~foot rear yard setback for an existing pool screen
enclosure, and an after-the-fact 4.8-foot vadance from the required 20-foot real' yard setback for
an existing swimming pool, both of which were issued certificates of occupancy in 1997; and
Wl{]jREAS, the Collier County Bonrd of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after
notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of an after-
the-fact 8.5-foot variance from the required rear yard selback of 20 feet to 11.5 feet for the
existing screen enclosure, and an aflcr-the-facl 4.8-foo1 variance from the required rear yal'd
setback of 20 feel to 15.2 feet for the existing swimming pool, as shown on the aUnched plot
plan, Exhibit "A", in the RSF-3 Zoning District for the property hereinafter descl'ibt::d, and has
foLtIld as a matter of fnet that .'Hl,tist'actory provision and arrangement have been made conceming
all applicable matters required by said regul,ltions and in accordance with Section 9,04,00 of the
Zoning Regulations of said Land Developm~nt Code fot' the unincorporated area of Collier
County; and
"''HEREAS, all interel;ted parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board
in pllblic meeting assembled, and the Board having considered all matters presented.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OF COLLIER COUKfY, FLORIDA that
The Petition V A-2004-AR-12005 filed by GOODLETfE, COLEMAN, AND
JOHNSON, P.A., representing EUGENE V. and NANCY J. ZlLA VY, with respect to the
property hereinafter described as:
Lot 2, Block U, Unit No.3, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, according to the
pla.t thereof, recorded in Plat Book 3, page 89, public records of Collier County,
Florida
Folio No. 27636040006
il"::m r..)o. '17E
,;3nUa~)' ': 5, 2JCi8
Page 20 of 21
be and the same hereby is approved for an after-the-fact 8.5~foot variance from the required rear
yard setback of 20 feet to 11.5 feet for the existing pool screen enclosure, and an after-the-fact
4.8.foot variance from tbe reqllired rear yard sethack of 20 feet to 15.2 feet for the existing
.~wimming pool, a.o;; shown on the attached plot plan, Exhibit "A", in the zoning di!ilrict wherein
said property is located, subject to the fallowing conditions:
1. The &.5-foot variance granted is limited to the rear yard encroachment for the
ex.isting screen enclosure along the southern property boundary, as depicted in the
applicant's submitted survey .keteh dated April IS, 2001, included as Exhibit A;
and
2. The 4.8-foot variance granted is limited lo the rear yard encroachment for the
existing swimming pool along the soulhern property boundary, as de.picted in the
applicant', ,ubmltted ,urvey ,ketch dated April IS, 2001, included as Exhihit A;
and
3. If the residential dwelling stmcture is destroyed for any reason, to an exrent equal
to or greater than 50 percent of the actual replacement cost of the structure at the
time of its destruction, aU reconstruction of tbestructure and accessory structures
must confonn to the provisions of the Land Development Code in effect at the
time of reconstruction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number V A-
2007-AR-12005 be recorded in the minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted i:lfter motion, second and majority vote this _ day of
.2008.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF ZONING ^PPEAL~
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
, Deputy Clerk
, CHAIRMAN
i
~
I
By:
Ily:
Ap roved as to form
an( eg'l u 'fi i n
1-"
,\
Jeffr 'A. Klatz ow'
Chie Assistant ounty Attorney
,t;ganda Item No. 17::
,'I ~" -~', 15~)OOa
.~. Page 21 ;121
FOUND
5/8 ROD.
NO CAP
:i'
~
"
ci
:::
LOT 3
fOUND
CONCRETe;
MONUMENT
~~.
Lf:Gl:ND/ ABBI1IVlA ilON5
BOUNDARY SURVEY
Exhibit A
(
r- .
I -
I
60' RtGHT OF WAY
FLAMINGO AVENUE
-1t
172."(M)
~
FOUND
CON"ffiO~
POINj
'"
o
'1
1
.
80.0'(P) 79.3'(M) ""PP _ _ __
N89.45'20"E WM FOUND
I 5/8 ROO
LOT Z "'\ NO CAP
BLoCK U ~.I
17.3, ~
CONCRETE
ORNE
23,1~
N
~
a.
~
''l-
o
N
3=
b
v
.,.
b
o
z
~
c.
'"
'"
b.
LOT f
ONE: STORY
RESIDENCE
w
li'
;..
r
o
o
V1
----, -0
'-----.., j>I
"" - '----
~_ POOL MEA] ~EE14 ~
_ r~~ m
3'1-\1 64.61 jc...N:~-bP.:"
cnNCfiETr RETJl.INlIiG WAU_
\.3' S 'AlL
DOCK
FOUHD
ORlLL
HOL~___
(
I~
25'
se9'45'20"W
I LIFT I
I.._..l
25'
eo.o'(P&C)
CAN A L
o ~ROfImlt'~~U
fA r1D.//41IU/I)mTAlI
8 nD. (;~/C, HON.
o nv. RUHffl
;It D::lIW!tMfl"
'"Il.o1"Clll'l"J'lr~
~ II'r.lL
G-~JZ1I
N"f~-4~
~:fJA~_
11#5 5U'1VEr 15 F'RN'A/?ED f'0/iI.
GENE" V. ZlLA Vi ~nd NANC Y T. ZILA \/r
SUN (RUS T BANK
TITLE: FLORIDA. INC.
OLO REFUf.iL/C NA TlONAL 71TL!: I.IYSUR,ANCc COf1PAHY
~~I
IE-UJI.l1T.e:.\1iO'I:I'Il'
"'-"'C .. ,.Ill' eapt/O'a
1ttf.. ~~TfY. fl!"flH
Cll .. o::.<llQj D4SW
/"II -/'WIjOLr
n'..roct. CI:J/.I"tfl:1ff
CO"C.. CC/'ICRrTr
UT5 -1nUf1!S
TtXI_ rCl'(:)FlWrr
LEGAL oeScPJ'TlON
I ()T 9. f)/.()(;ff',-U CONNER'S
V,i:tNt/I:r.:D/L; I. ()r.;;qun-r::nm~f
NO. .3, recorded In FI~t Book .3.
pttg" Dcr, of th~ Fubhc. Re.cord:::. of
CoJlJer County. Florld'(l.
lff/"5""fsilOt:'iJLllrr:trlc.:tn:ts 'II". rtC:IO, "-l>'I'''''t/. .
or . Fre~dom of ~nal.lmbrdnceJA.
AbstrDct hlJS not bed" rcvlewC'Jd ;:md
otl1!Jr ez:lgemcnt5 and ro,tr-/ctlon5 may
't1pply to this pDrc.eL AU othar slIf;ement!l
thlJl: (JxJst; orlS rdqrJ/r8d to b~ provided
to tl18 surveyor by l:hrJ c;/Jent of hi'
or her Z2yent p!Jr rlarfd" Str:1tvteJ
NOTt:5< Gn-G.OOS (0) rAG. 4/
FLOOD ZOllE "AE" (ELll) PANEL 120067 D1B9 E. rJ ~!/W
DEARlNGS BASED ON PHYSC'AL CENlEftllHE Of _ ....~ J!ii' /0/
H.AMINGO ^VE.NUE. AS 6ElHC NBU'45'2G-E. __--1<". ~~
C'(lrol f:. Ne/:Jan. P.LS. #!:J01:3
:3871. Whltl!l fJorJ/evlJrd
Nl1p'~$. rJorldtt .34117
(r!'f41J :304-0055 Office
C1:141) .304--00""7 rr.cslmUt:J
Apen lB. 2001
Dote of Surve.y,
Af)[)feCSS Or fflCJFr:RTY.
480 rLANlNGO A I'E:I>/UE:
(
l' = 30'
$c.1I\'" ______._
Project No. CV03J:cPcfY..
fB No. ..JL41-. r.23.._ NOT VALID IMLOSS
Job No. .-O.1?03 ____ EI'1flOErSe:D WITl1 5J::AL
COF'IRiGHT 2001 {j"( CA~OI... &. NasoN, -rA.. ALL RIGHTS n~su:YED.
_._-w...-.'"'"""";.........~~"--I-.----....-~.-~7-.---,..-:-,---____~_.:--_r-____-'-.___~,.___,_