Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2021-14HEX NO. 2021-14 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. March 11, 2021 PETITION. PETITION NO. PL20200002057 VA -Request for a variance from Section 4.02.03.1) of the Land Development Code to reduce the required accessory structure side setback from 30 feet to 12.5 feet for a tennis court on Lot 5, Block G, Subdivision of Blocks E, F, G and H in Pine Ridge Subdivision, also known as 132 North Street, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. Request for side yard setback variance for a tennis court from 12.5 feet where the zoning code requires 30 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87(2) 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. 5. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County staff and then public comment. There were no objections at the public hearing. Numerous nearby neighbors submitted "no objection" forms, including the property owner closest to the proposed tennis court. Page 1 of 4 6. The County's Land Development Code, Section 9.04.00 contains the requirements for variances. Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for evaluating a variance application: "Before any variance shall be recommended for approval [the Hearing Examiner] shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination."' a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? The record reflects the existence of a large pond that consumes nearly all the applicant's rear yard. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? The record reflects the existence of a large pond that consumes nearly all the applicant's rear yard. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? The record reflects that the Pine Ridge neighborhood is a collection of large lots for single family homes, many of which have amenities like the applicant's proposed tennis court. While it is true there are many ponds in Pine Ridge, the shape and size of the pond behind the applicant's property is unique, making use of the property for anything other than the single family home difficult. d. 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 and welfare? The record reflects that the west side yard is the only plausible location for a tennis court with a variance. While the `proposed tennis court surface" is larger than the actual tennis court (baseline, doubles sidelines, and net posts), County planning staff testified that the "outermost court fair play line is the point to use for determination of setbacks, " particularly in this instance since the applicant proposes no fence around the tennis court. This is analogous to calculating setbacks for swimming pools. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? The record reflects the peculiar nature of the applicant's lot, including the very large pond in the rear yard, leaves no room for an accessory tennis court, which most lots zoned RSF- I in the Pine Ridge neighborhood would accommodate without a variance. 1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 4 f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? The record reflects that the Pine Ridge neighborhood consists predominately of large single-family lots, many of which have an accessory use, such as a tennis court. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? The record reflects the existence of a large pond that consumes nearly all the applicant's rear yard. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? The record reflects granting the variance creates no inconsistences with the growth management plan. 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 9.04.03. of the Land Development Code to approve Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number VA-PL20200002057, filed by Brian Foley, PE representing Myles Samotin, with respect to the property described as 132 North Street and is legally recognized as Lot 5, Block G, Subdivision of Blocks E, F, G and H, Pine Ridge Subdivision, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.56± acres, for the following: • An application for variance from Section 4.02.03.1) of the Land Development Code (LDC) to reduce the required accessory structure side yard setback from 30 feet to 12.5 feet to allow for a tennis court at this location. Said changes are fully described in the Survey and Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A — Survey and Site Plan Page 3 of 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 132 North Street, Lot 5, Block G, Subdivision of Blocks E, F, G and H, Pine Ridge Subdivision, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. Approval of this Variance will be in accordance with Exhibit "A" with setbacks not to exceed those shown. 3. Any fence or wall for the subject tennis court must comply with Section 5.03.02 of the Land Development Code. 4. If the approved tennis court utilizes lighting, such lighting will be directed only onto the petitioners' property and will be shielded to prevent glare onto neighboring properties. 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. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. 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. March 19, 2021 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq.,AICP Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT "A" r,r rrar a u,rs s..crcH m eor cashrurc D�r<eS,r< T VEST BCNCHMARK [AST v BENCHMARK Mrc• ,K I ,trvr O ,Hrt SW [r R !0o rrh[ rMAry t9 O� � rd^ee)pr M20 rLA 9pVt rS S UR V F, I 0I\E I C H UP: ou u IN L)ARY "A IN u SCI PK NAIL A DfSK LB 6569 ELEVATION . 16.9, NAVD SEI PK "" I 01SK LB 6569 [L[VAr/ON - 16.4• NAVD PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY NORTH ST N.89°15'00"E. 905.20' (P) 3 (60' R�W) `� 6.7 NB9'14'34 •E. 5105.40' (C) Q Q xo, roe race cas,ncun. CENTERLINE z1 // \ _ _ U6 1, �; rw cursrRscrror rm u(irtw n.o EDGE OF PAVEMCNS6I30.0' b66 }164 Nr,gg•} ;p 'F 0.00' CPk �3 V FIR 5/8' — 166 FCM NO ID 0.9' X166 XI6.9 I NO ID W o k ).1 PROPANC L VALVE h49.1 STRP.LT ADDRfS3: X69f 47.1 111.5' 132 NORTH ST >�,.6 CONE NAPLES FLORIDA it X 02 177 >As'B = SPOT ELEVATION BASED ON NAVD DATUM BLOCK G C192 X466 X I I PAVER - — -631'- — - t76 r •• Q X461 >1T4 '• ' Bt ^ I ° 78.7' $ LOT 6 LOT a M N 4/32 c) BLOCK G BLOCK G � 'n ONC STORY RCSIDENCE W X16.4 N W L'i 2 ---Lo'- O ^ 'o k3B � o 1r) P z �a± kb016 I 11).1 ITS -• = X.- >n O 2 jL�l H 16: EOv ioB 0B zoCONC I c�c IV SCALC I' ° 30 63 �N 1SB % I 12) X 66 ISO POND 6. T� 26 EO� 16] 16] ]6 1 12.9 12.] 124 a VER 164 2 1z 4 162 22 X ]4 1 X1 Xt6.l 423 fOV 124.0L- 1231 >43A A FCM NO ID FIR 5/8, NO f0 k61OR 13.7 X62 39 16.I 2013T (MJ rv0)Y+. 0.4' V s.a2•.ro2,r 20I36' cP' M .... N,82'35'44 ...t. LE'CAL DESCRIPTION LOT IS LaT 14 +"'>""°' __• LOr 5. BLACK L, tiVJPFWISION OF BLOCKS C, BLOCK G 3'73£ T, L AND H, PIAC RIDGE SUBDIVISION, IN BLOCK G 3.88 'P --•� ACCORDANCE VITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 29 , a° 1111-1. m OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER �' '�• COUNTY, FLORIDA 9uum amol. an mmr:g a y ,.4•, ,. o-a.,, A K•s r.c.,, �. Y .. , ` es r,.4R n.�.. _ �.�„Ma1Nry.i16!_ ew .nmr nuw:rt "„ra nerm:o ~o .. ,...,a.. ,.... ,..•m. .. ,,... ,arn.n•nrc, ..a�..� rep „ux oo... r..1 .�F.LA. SURVEYS CORP. T��m —�Pro-rrrmrulAYCDa�Ermr4NBNA.rcat tI-6539 Ise NORTH ST BOUNDARY AND PARTIAL sRnT 1 1 •. SAMANTHA ARDENFRIEND-SAMOTIN NAPLES, FLORIDA 'TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Variance Request for Tennis Court Side Yard Setback FOR 132 North St. - Pine Ridge Estates INDEX OF PLANS SNEET NO. DESCRIPTION I COVERSHEET 2 AERIAL PHOTO WITH CONCEPTUAL PLAN 3 SITE PLAN PROJECT DATA PROJECT NAME: 132 NORTH ST. COUNTY PL NO.: ZONING: RSF-1 FOLIO: 67231360002 LOCATION: COLLIER COUNTY, FL S 10 T49 R'' Prepared for Owner: Myles Samotin 132 North St. Naples, FL MAP z tl. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 5, BLOCK G, SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS E, F, G AND H, PINE RIDGE SUBDIVISION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 29, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA Blair A. Foley, P.E., LLC C- 61glNeer Devclopmenl C,jmullam `9I.dp— W./ S9mh-N.rAo FI 311115 PMw[12)9126 222lt11121912l9— F,,1219t263.IN 21.1n.�1 (nIxWO'n`wl.mm Digitally signed by Blair A Blair A Foley Foley Date:2020.10.29 08:12:59-04'00' ClAllleals 01 Auth-1-11— No. 9e69 FI-1d, Reglat9raA Proteaelonal Engines, No. 53756 `C m Nam. Dab 132 North St SNEE7 (VA) 01 S AWLco''i"� CK ,ter. -� AC• lol `� - ` . I _� -� �1 .' I li ter I :'C17SICRY S/ • �' i I .::7ClJLC 1 �lJ r � �F\ _ -:` a •.r �• � �� j 47% l �1 � � � i t +s � v it � •.Olk��{' n�'.y� • F- .•r . � � .i . r � 4 r 4 ��•; t `� - SETBACK TABLE RSF-1 PROPOSED REQUIRED FRONT YARD (N) 101, 50' SIDE YARD (w) 12.5' 30, REAR YARD (S) 168' 50, NF/RTH .CT BK -B1air A. Foley P.E. LLC� M —, MylcsSamolin o ti., ". uun • �wf � _ � �.n �� J9 x..r Civil Enginccr / Ucvclopmcm Consultant I �._..i�j 132 North St. Sitc Plan ""` siunn 120 Edl'rnfine \Vay Lmfh - N.pks. FI.,J 105 i .� ph ny?t91?fii.l? C[III?i91?sV 4g Fax1=191:M11 WTlim it lidf wl[um COIIICr County, Florida