HEX Final Decision 2021-21 HEX NO. 2021-21
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
May 27, 2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO.VA-PL20200002506—Request for a variance from Section 2.03.01(B)(2)(d),
of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback on
the north side from 7.5 feet to 7.0 feet for an existing single-family residence and for the
enclosure of an existing concrete patio deck into a proposed master bedroom and bathroom.
The property is described as the south 75 feet of the south 150 feet of Tract No. 65, Golden
Gate Estates, Unit No. 49, also described as 361 12 St NE., in Section 2, Township 49 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petition is to request a reduction from the northern side yard setback for an existing single-
family residence and for the conversion of an existing concrete patio deck into a proposed master
bedroom and bathroom. Both variances are for 7 feet where 7.5 is required.
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.
Page 1 of 4
5. The County introduced the Petition and made recommendations, Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative presented the Petition, followed by public comment. There were no objections
at the public hearing.
6. The County's Land Development Code Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for the approval of a
variance, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following in order to grant the requested
variance.l
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 testimony and evidence show that there is no land-related hardship. There are no
special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the
structure or building involved.
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 testimony and evidence show that the owner was not made aware of the setback
encroachment until December 2019, via a county issued Outstanding Corrections letter of
Building Permit No:PRBD20191148633 approximately thirty-seven years after the single-
family residence was built.
c. 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 testimony and evidence show that it is possible that the existing single-family residence
and concrete patio deck would have to be demolished and reconstructed out of the 7.5 side
yard setback if a literal interpretation of the zoning code were applied.
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 testimony and evidence show that the requested variance would be the minimum
variance to allow reasonable use of the existing single-family residence and the concrete
patio deck. The single-family residence has existed on the site within the required 7.5 side
yard setback since 1982 without complaint or issue. Approval of the variance would not
have a negative impact on standards of health, safety and welfare.
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?
1The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 4
The testimony and evidence show that the LDC Section 9.04.02 provides relief through the
variance process for any dimensional development standard, such as the specific requested
reduced rear yard setback.
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 testimony and evidence show that the encroachment by the existing single-family
residence has been in existence since 1982. There have been no complaints from the
neighbors regarding the single-family residence and the concrete patio deck. As such, the
granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land
Development Code and will not harm public safety, health, and welfare.
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 testimony and evidence show that other than the narrowness of the lot, there are no
other natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.
h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the GMP?
The testimony and evidence show that approval of this variance will not affect or change
the requirements of 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-PL20200002506,filed by Dustin
Poore of REP Construction Company, Inc. representing Robert and Sandra Poore, with respect to
the property described as the south 75 feet of the south 150 feet of Tract No. 65, Golden Gate
Estates, Unit No. 49, also described as 361 12 St NE, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 27
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.14 acres, for the following:
• An application for a variance from Section 2.03.01.B.2.d, of the Collier County Land
Development Code(LDC)to reduce the minimum side yard setback on the north side from
7.5 feet to 7.0 feet for an existing single-family residence and for the conversion of an
existing concrete patio deck into a proposed master bedroom and bathroom.
Page 3 of 4
Said changes are fully described in the Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject
to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A—Boundary Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The south 75 feet of the south 150 feet of Tract No. 65, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 49, also
described as 361 12 St NE, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 27 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.
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.
June 11, 2021
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT " A"
., ���a..yy� Q 1j1111I III I 1
L, �� rairs.3'441.c...\`I , dim S �..1
1 ill 11 1 0, di
U W E< � _ g qFPi N O 0yvp� { d1$ 5 h sltE y M n 6 E-.4Aoo
F WIU,- k n O ...t 't 1 O 111
i-� d O Q y 1� OI UU� ° g +
iA0 .. 0.tl le �i Z 00 4: 11154.62181 s�Jddmtteo N .1I� 1 d"" oilo " 0
= 04 t.13 a Q i y.�1 0 0
E"E I C OI z 1 N
W dY�� 3 o � F c Z s eno rn
xillF RE
a ui 3 9rEtal.f.
@ ,: El COU •
O {N�e4.1
EsWW W ! h 2 q =ca- �^N xU]p igii
co
a 0Z mS Z 6 o 0ew ci. .g10 o° ; g
C= t0'J '2o �i _ C4 gY WSS = m z ■o0osaoo� c,�®I.p aS 4 41.
r
E'.
.›'y luauNso3 POOH,09 ~
:TW laa.r7S 972'I ,00ec M.01.61.00 S _ _
Z 1/0113Nw 1mlacv YTI
� z Yw�il
E.
tat 1 1 8 i 1A
H faV ii. ill 10 f1
z r1)= --.40,-... .w ,i ,fi g0 Im ill
lip lit It
r... roi X \CI D
a N° "
tee. W 1- i+
o~ h Oa
L`� h aCn w
t..?
may, Q CO
r
en l O A 8
3lMII I e r _ 1 W S
� _ o 1
L a o
.1.1 .eZl O x 0 <
' .$PI-'•01'31103 (s3
a§ Wcla
mai • Z oeq las
0
As" ..NOLLW/313 110011
O',ry 3raas3N ANOIs 3NO w I)uno3 Japlo3 S'L'
'3'N L3381S NM 1St n N _ II--- -1 .QZI
g w luawg3 OJ3U3
II ti > ,Iw oI __ 6ugsix3.9 - -
« .yI-• u m/n _ F . x3egles bugsxa .oL way "I
i$330 31303003 d 03N3 03"li ^7
All ,.'Ii .t. (n 1ro130 33S I.
wa =� ..".1n 11
s
.13, W IN bI. p •!
J Si $ u i $ CO
uJ Oo W $ o
h x
W
igi-9 il W tov.
g
b �aa' m p mg8 € Zn
.L dl z W ip y( 4p O.-
k1=1
lg FpLi x
e W6 p t La^04N
� IX al liz OOP
LFFj4�. .- t a _ N U
y la. [ gx WL.l^Nt1
WXG <Sa5 OOF-Nto
Cyfy NNZ— 1
5 882L4a