HEX Final Decision 2024-10HEX NO. 2024-10
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
January 259 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20230007304 — 6250 Parkers Hammock Rd -Request for a variance from
Land Development Code Section 4.02.01 A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required RSF-3 front
setback from 30 feet to 5.6 feet on the south property line for the proposed accessory enclosed
metal utility building to be located at Lot 19 of Parkers Hammock, also known as 6250
Parkers Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34112 in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The Petitioner is requesting a variance from LDC Section 4.02.O1.A, to reduce the required RSF-
3 front setback from 30 feet to 5.6 feet to accommodate a proposed enclosed metal utility building.
The purpose of the proposed enclosed metal utility building is to provide security, concealment,
and weather protection for the vehicles owned by the Petitioner.
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 County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative, public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's
representative. There were no objections at the public hearing for this item. There was one
letter of support from the neighbor east of the subject property at 6262 Parkers Hammock Rd.
Page 1 of 6
5. The County's Land Development Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for variances. The Hearing
Examiner having the same authority as the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant, deny, or
modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
Land Development Code. I
1. 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 evidence and testimony f°om the public hearing reflects that the subject
property) has a Collier County Special Treatment Overlay on the northern portion of the
parcel extendingfr°om the western to the eastern property line and 50feetfrom the northern
property line. This reduces the buildable area by approximately 10,550 square feet on the
parcel. The subject property is also considered a wetland parcel by the State of Florida
and requires mitigation impact fees for additional impacts/fill areas on the subject
property. The property owner prefers to eliminate any additional impacts of additional fill
material by putting the proposed enclosed metal utilio) building on already filled areas
within the f tont setback.
2. 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 recor°d evidence and testimony from the public hecn°ing reflects that the subject
property has a Collier County Special Treatment Overlay on the northern portion of the
parcel extendingf°orn the western to the eastern property line and 50feetfrom the northern
property line. This reduces the buildable area by approximately 10,550 square feet on the
parcel. The subject property is also considered a wetland parcel by the State of Florida
and requires mitigation impact fees for additional impacts/f ll areas on the subject
property. The property owner prefers to eliminate any additional impacts of additional fill.
material by putting the proposed enclosed metal utility building on already filled areas
within the front setback.
3. 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 evidence and testimony fi•om the public hearing reflects that a literal
interpr°etation of LDC Sec. 4.02.OLA, RSF-3 Setbacks, front is 30 feet, sides ar°e 7.5 feet,
and the rear is 25 feet, coupled with the additional 25 feet of Special Treatment Overlay,
greatly reduces the owner's buildable area on the subject property. Since the other half of
the subject property, also considered wetland, has a canopy of mature trees, if the variance
is not granted, the owners would need to remove approximately 2000 square feet of trees
and vegetation and then bring in 2000 square feet of additional fill and increase the
impervious area by 1200 square feet.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
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, and welfare?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that granting of the
requested variance will not have adverse impact to health, safety, and welfare. The
proposed enclosed metal utility building variance request of 24.4 feet would be the
minimum request to increase privacy and security for the subject property. The variance
request is only for the width of the proposed structure (24ft) and the concrete pad
underneath. The owners propose to have the enclosed metal utility building's side wall
(50ft length) running parallel and within a couple of inches of their garage's south gutter,
therefore reducing the variance request to only 24.4 feet. The variance, if granted, would
be helpful in reducing unwanted viewing of the subject property, the owners' belongings,
and buildings from the public. Hurricanes Irma and Ian reduced their tree foliage and
buffer between the street and their garage dramatically. The apartments across the street
to the southh have a high turnover and direct views into their garage when doors are open.
The owners also have many vehicles turn around in f °ont of the subject property since there
are two Parkers Hammock Roads that run parallel to each other (connected by Hanson
Street), and many times, people are looking for addresses on the other Parkers Hammock
Road to the north. The owners consider any unknown vehicles turning around in front of
their property as suspicious and it happens many times per day when they're around to
witness it.
5. 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 evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that an enclosed metal
utility building is an accessory use allowable in the RSF-3 zoning district. Some other
parcels in the Parkers Hammock Road community have large accessory utility buildings
and no Special Treatment Overlays or• wetland determinations on their land. The subject
property owners have two boats, two trailers, two motorcycles, and a Bobcat skid loader
(non-commercial, used to move their personal equipment in tight spaces) that they wish to
store within the proposed enclosed metal utility building.
6. 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 evidence and testimony f •om the public hearing reflects the side of the proposed
butilding will be green, and the owners also plan to have native vegetation gro�a� on the
proposed building's south slope leading towards the Swale and street, such as native coffee,
r•ed maple, laurel oak (all found on the subject property) to eventually blend the building
into the properties current outlook. The roof color will match the subject property's house
and garage. There are no sideivalks in their• f °ont easementfor the public to get too close
to the proposed building. The enclosed metal utility building is rated for 140mph winds
"'Carports ports Antnvher•e, Florida manufacturer').
Page 3 of 6
7. 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 evidence and testimony fr°om the public hearing reflects that no natur°al or°
physically induced conditions have been observed that will serve to ameliorate the goals
and objectives of the LDC. Due to the land's wetland nature, the wetland determination by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Special Treatment
Overlay by Collier County, the subject property is, and has been, more difficult to build
upon. The owners believe their setback variance application will significantly reduce their
impacts to their property's sensitive nature while maintaining its protective mature canopy
cover from natural forces.
8. Wili granting the Variance be consistent with the GMP?
The record evidence and testimony fi°orn the public hearing reflects that approval of this
variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP (growth management plan)
with respect to density), intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other
applicable provisions. The GMP is silent to the issuance of a variance application and
therefore the granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the GMP. Within Collier
County's GMP, the subject property is designated as an "Urban Residential Subdistrict"
for Future Land Use (FLU). The owners have no plans to change their land use from
residential to any other zoning district. The owner's only request is to add an enclosed
metal utility building to their property, which is an allowed accessory structure for the
RSF-3 zoning district.
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 the Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20230007304, filed by Patrick
and Lisa O'Donnell with respect to the property located at 6250 Parkers Hammock and legally
described as Lot 19 of Parkers Hammock, and is located at 6250 Parkers Hammock Road, Naples,
FL 34112, northeast of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock
Road, roughly a half mile east of Santa Barbara Boulevard and 500 feet north of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, for
the following:
Page 4 of 6
• A variance from Land Development Code Section 4.02.01 A, Table 2.1, to reduce the
required RSF-3 front setback from 30 feet to 5.6 feet on the south property line for the
proposed accessory enclosed metal utility building.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Site all
attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B — Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject �0.86-acre property is described as Lot 19 of Parkers Hammock, and is located at 6250
Parkers Hammock Road, Naples, FL 34112, northeast of the intersection of Santa Barbara
Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, roughly a half mile east of Santa Barbara Boulevard
and 500 feet north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26
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
may 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.
Page 5 of 6
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.
February 14, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
«A»
Z- z LL
c® o ° 1 g
LL U Q W
fQ Z
_ m d O ??Q 0
.c C p V
o E rw
- -� E
dll�ftftmm
N ca
a
CD
4%JH,bv
49
\ �D
WC ❑a-
e`'�' �(} vLLi a a
d
3 3
3� _ {�
- AD ''
r�
•rA-�
Jl
rr
� A M O �•.
cLU
7. N
spouaS l,
I
o
Fsf
°gip �
s
ffi
W�� ud
N8€ Fw<i
°0N�F!i�
w6 o
aopa 0
oz Mmo13
o
e�a�r�T
=mRbi
6EF50OF
56%or=m
FFF1
p0000§
nw�t
0
o
m
�zF��
�N�r3l
wo
fS°rc�
D
O
J
d-
O
J
((;, =o
wfs X" <5o 1111 ft _
t4 r zz
pmQoR
°0wzS ag_•v�_�i•ig$�O �9'�� it t
�is
#�07,°xr ° Rw < LLV ; p<
° Naz
�zp ou;,w E��F
W �
<8 �� `€wri
�y[ py y �M<�ZMW616
win al 02
,S, <
e igz=oWv0 ffi <2 1° o dWffl
a igm°°&
<<ffiw �me� <�< O=mayi Wd5
>�oG�ygo F �<;Nn�®i �� o �o��iFd1611110o
o�oC"xL-<��g`
w� u<�Uci zd 3�i
��o F �<��°�����o�d�o;�mo uLLzt
� g LLao2��iai�
3ir'��s<a
i518SHONiiiEiE
O
N
a
�U
o�
d
�
w
w
0
uN�a
�
wa
�pl
'�8 iw nvrrnua l
09—L4 '0'd 'Zt, 'B'd
('3'0 ONV 43'0 '3AN3S38d)
„a-d„ saes
�VrIVaNVW
SZaVa�Z a
e /i Q o
i
6
.
K