HEX Final Decision 2024-17HEX NO. 2024-17
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 149 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20230014987 —Request for a variance from Land Development Code
Section 4.02.01 A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required side setback from 30 feet to 15.03 feet on
the north property line for the proposed accessory pool to be located on property zoned RSF
-1 at the northeast corner of the intersection of Yarberry Lane and Anthony Court located
in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner is requesting a variance from Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side
yard setback from 30 feet to 15.03 feet on the north side, for a proposed pool on a corner lot in the
Residential-Single-Family4 (RSF-I) zoning district.
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 an 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 two letters of support for this item, one received from Jay Ahmad,
P.E. Director of the Collier County Transportation Engineering Division and one received from
Jennifer Palmer, Board President of the Il Regalo Homeowners Association, Inc. There were
no objections at the public hearing for this item.
Page 1 of 5
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that there are special
conditions. The subject property is a corner lot encumbered by hvo 30 foot right-of-tivcry
easements. Pursuant to LDC section 4.02.OI.A. Table 2. Note 1. a., "Corner lots shall have
front yards along each street f °ontage. The other yards shall be considered side yards. "
The property is zoned RSF4. Zoning District RSF4 has a minimum of 50 foot front yard
setbacks and 30- foot side yard setbacks. The two front yards are a special condition and
circumstance.
LDC 4.02.OLA. Table 2. states, "... minimum setback lines crr•e typically measured fiomthe
legal boundary of a lot, regardless of all easements burdening a lot, lvith the exception of
easements that comprise a road right-of-uwy lvhere the nzinimuni setback line is to be
measured from the road right-of-ivoy easement line. "As stated above, the subjectproperty
has hvo (2) 30 foot right-of--mwy easements. The font yard setbacks are to be measured
(rorn the back of the right -of --way easement, resulting in an 80 foot setback along the West
and South property lines.
Additionally, the 30 foot minimum side yard setback requirements apply to the North. and
East sides of the proper o). There is not a reduction in the side yard setbacks for accessory
structures, however, pursuant to LDC section 4.02.03. D., the setbacks for an accessory
swimming pool on the subject property would be the same as the principal structure.
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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that 1,11e special
conditions relating to the shape of the proper°ty ar°e pr°e-existing conditions that r esZ�lt in
this requested variance. The subject property is affected by a literal interpretation of the
code, creating special conditions and circuanstances that do not result from the property
oimer's action. The hvo f •ont yards are a special condition and circumstance causing
greater than usual setbacks.
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
interpretation of the code 1-vourld not assist in firlfi.11ing the intent and purpose of the LDC
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
minimum yard requirements. The hardship is unnecessary because corner lots typically
but another residence's side yard. In this instance, the subject property abuts
approximately 400 feet of open space. The double front yard setbacks is an undue hardship
on the property owner.
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 pzrblic hearing reflects that granting of the
requested variance will not have adverse impact to health, safety, and welfare. The
applicant has designed the pool to be 15.03 feet from the property line, Tvhich is the
minimum required to accommodate the pool without adjustments to the model floor plan
for the home. The applicant has decided to utilize a pool fence as opposed to an aluminum
pool enclosure to minimize the encroachment. This supports the finding that this is the
minimum variance to make reasonable use of the subject area.
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 f •om the public hearing reflects that a s1-vimming pool
is an allolVable accessory use in the RSF4 zoning district. The variance does not grant an
allowable use ivhich is denied by the LDC to other lands, buildings, or structures in the
same zoning district. The proposed structure is buffered by substantial open space, which
niay outweigh the negative impacts, if any, of granting the variance.
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 that the granting of the
variance 1ae in harmony 1le general intent and purpose of the Land Development
Code and ivill not harm public safely, health, and ivelfare. Pools are a permitted use in the
underlying zoning district.
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 f •om the public hearing reflects that the subject
pr°operty is a vacant lot with no natirrcil obstructions.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the GMP?
The record evidence and testimony f •om the public hearing reflects that the variance is
consistent �-vith the Growth Management Plan ("GMP ") and appr^oval of this i/ar•iance 1-vill
Page 3 of 5
not affect or change the requirements of the (jMP with respect to density, intensitj),
compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other applicable provisions.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County'0 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-PL20230014987, filed by Francesca
Passidomo, representing Imperial Homes of Naples, LLC, with respect to the property legally
described as 11.03-acre parcel, known as Parcel ID # 00237920005, at the Northeast corner of
Yarberry Lane and Anthony Court, Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
• A variance from Land Development Code Section 4.02.O1.A. Table 2.1, of the Collier
County Land Development Code to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 30 feet to
15.03 feet on the North side, for a proposed pool on a corner lot in the Residential-Single-
Family4 (RSF-1) zoning district.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Site Plan
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 property is a ±1.03-acre parcel, known as Parcel ID # 00237920005, at the Northeast
corner of Yarberry Lane and Anthony Court, Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida. The parcel is located approximately 1,200 feet South of Orange Blossom Drive.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. The applicant obtains a building permit for the principal structure prior to construction of
the accessory pool.
Page 4 of 5
3. No construction of the pool may occur prior to issuance of the building permit for the
single-family home.
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.
Apri19, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
AIN
blimiL
Q
ra
� t
W(09
1 C�
W W
0
iu
goo
a 4 ix
r
0
—j
m
�. � z
t lq t R Lrr
a
Z
O--
gton' D eu
-�IwoU f
a J - --
_ ct
• Y rr
r 1' TT 17
u Ie
too
LL
r ! etii - —
G
Z a0 E69Y91s w'9'd'A3N0'MY'd lMOf 9f AU9t+0
ON 011VAVaa :4J33N5 vaiucild'A1Nf1008311103 81SV3 SZ 3ONVd
dWl-A1MJS 'HMOS 64 dIHSNM01'Z N011039d0 liNd 990d m : d/NOOO
*o 133roed A3AWS 31HdVdE)0d01'2 'Sin :.3ms wwn
011'S31dVN d0 S3WOH W18UNl XaV4NnOH jO dVW uz ` A` R ZIJO"
:1N311O 3LLL :03AONddV fZ'lZt :Oita
a o m w e
r i7 d ° ^ -
°� za u: o� o0 < OW w m ome< mo ;wrc g8 a'
wp �mmd ww o H yrcw o �k' om"' 80OZ
LLd €'ooU �. arc s 9 m w'o gi or E
_ o �5F gv 4t
rc ° %Sp°C iwl; cwi� r° u'°a ~SO i 9^O� oo$i aB'
a¢ J N W� e��,� 'r�Ka J pO z U0 • 19i f n $ mn: ` f3�[f "p EFiO
EF e,'f
'�Ed
p awi>iiwl wu�� m TF a wo pfa zwom d 0 .wd adz _v _ e v ^as
w as ,Xm W $ wop s�sp ssao s a$
y a awm° Wxo� woo m
> $ a ° 3 � a= a w �x �m ob 6=wz mil; so
�0 n s z F �� m$ w z oawo woz+ 5rc e `� a a`e `,
a $ 3OO :6mFFmoa -ma € �� 'eN omQa _ w I0 zo° a €° _ kgo
J z ot°i,iic €m on?rOO=z ° a ° w Ow w jwOmrc �a�°¢x$iaos~e �z Oa u�l F Zga • $E ga
E "ion tpw u €m o �, F � §tea, w�3`� owf w m z -tea $ •6� e�0 a� e
L z =dog o $€ mid ww oa N= xw515aarcx �Q aZYm 'off 0�8 .`n 3<W$ c9 fyo z H p eg o 2am Eg' LE
5t za-�m a Fa ���dag$ f�u'o'^�ml� ma w`-'wmz� O $w`�'
°��°`� ° � k' �zm � wm �u'n.'1if'"m` zz�§Fo,znip� ���w� a ma°V� >; r° 1`�m8 r� e
6 0 3 mN $ saa 3
mio 5 IN m? `dam°<w �a q $W m - p0I°313°: w�aaa6'� mLL:a�oa agcwwa'<w°wok' m$m rc�� cWi azGo $� .9ir8- a e;r
0 0 < m W�am�izmm 33� mmu m L-. 7 i L... ° =s
LL
w ° LL LL
..mom a mm�ca �z$wyw�m' a� w `>� 6P! �� w'r�' .w3aNp---�-- N SM119 z �m - • a 9 -- 'se
E t. aAIiw3 m� oo�OmmWOO W mQ. 0 W ch io i s wdm�'aow`on�"iwa �m w0®(3}6r c0i �o ,e. �a Y A eesyNii
I € I
SCALE: V= 2V
Qa I �N
r e Z x CD
m R3 1
W _ (� n o I
Win
xu
o€� ° Q N m
Doe's I I Ip I
IS2005'42'E 198.37
z3�m1
= s;l
a p Qa SKI
3 I I I I I 3J 311 ' mw i O�
w z Z I
a I 8
w
J lo��+ I vi I o
Y Et W I % I w�
�� I N0
O 3 In°¢z
5 o. I N 9 1 Q m< I _ o Ion of
W
1 I w C I U 0a3�oo lI I c aan
Ian Q U / I I v
I ((( I o I 0
O I >1Z00
3(a m
e/ N3f MAN I _ '� CO)
mt - _�
a _ I
oAt
a = It I
dr
n YARBERRY LANE $
0a
a�8 sg¢
s PALISADES
ae (P.B.73, PG.31-32)