HEX Final Decision 2024-23HEX NO. 2024-23
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
Ap111259 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20230010693 —Eric W. Schrack requests a variance from Section 4.02.01,
Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the north property line
minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to zero feet, and a variance from Section 4.06.02.C,
Table 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code to reduce the required Type "A"
Landscape Buffer on the north property line from 5 feet to zero feet, to allow for construction
A a new structure utilizing a legal nonconforming zero foot setback on the north property
line located on a 0.74 +/- acre property at 6245 Lee Ann Ln., in Section 11, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the north property line minimum side yard setback
from 10 feet to zero feet, and a variance to reduce the required Type "A" Landscape Buffer on the
north property line from 5 feet to zero feet, utilizing a legal nonconforming zero -foot setback to
allow for the construction of a new structure within the Industrial (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 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 for this item at the public hearing.
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 from the public hearing reflects that they°e are special
conditions. The existing structure ryas approved utilizing the provisions in the 1991 Collies
Coumy Land Development Code that allowed side yard 0' setbacks in the "I" zoning
district. In 2004, the zoning provisions were amended to not allow the side yard 0' setback
and to allow for 10' side yard setbacks. The current side yard 10' setback would not allow
the site to accommodate a sufficiently sized second structure to conduct the property
owner's business within and accommodate vehicular access.
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?
Tlie record evidence and testimony fi°om the pZrblic hearing reflects that the special
conditions relating to the property are pre-existing conditions that result in this requested
variance. The existing structure was approved tinder the 1991 Collier County Land
Development Code that allowed side yard 0' setbacks in the "I" zoning district. In 2004,
the zoning provisions were amended to not allow the side yard 0' setback and to allow for
10' side yard 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 tl7e parcel is 80
feet wide, so the cur°rent code requir ed yards of 10' each would take up 25% of the lot's
�VI0dth. Per code, the side yards should equal 20% of the lot's width, lvith a minimum width
for each side yard of 10 feet This was designed with the code minimum lot width of 100'
in mind, not the existing 80' width and creates a practical difficulty on the applicant.
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 vcrricrnce will not have adverse impact to health, safety, and welfare. The
Variance proposed would be the minimum variance to allow reasonable use, allowing for
a second building of similar size to the existing building. This second building will be
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
functional for• the current air conditioning business and allow for scfe, code -compliant
access through the site per the included site plan.
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 from the public hearing reflects that while by definition,
a variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site,
,DC Section 9.04.02 provides relief through the variance process for any dimensional
development standard, such as the requested reduced rear yard setback. As such, other
properties facing similar hardships would be entitled to make similar requests and ivould
be conferred equal consideration on a case -by -case basis.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that the granting of the
variance ivill not be detrimental to the public welfare as all neighbors of the parcel are
industrial lots. The neighbor to the North has developed their lot ivith a O'side yard setback
to the South, and no issues have been caused by the existing situation where the subject
parcel 's existing structure abuts the neighbor's existing structure. Per the agent, a frreivall
exists behveen the structures, and one per code ivill be constructed inhere the proposed
structure meets the existing structure.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that there are no
natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation, such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the GMP?
The record evidence and testimony fr°om the Al; hearing reflects that the variance is
consistent ���ith the Growth Management Plan ("GMP ") and approval of this Variance will
not affect or change the requirements of the GMP.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is located within the Industrial District on the County's Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) of the GMP's Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The GMP does not address individual
variance requests but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously noted, the
petitioner requests a reduction from the northern side yard setback utilizing a legal nonconforming
zero -foot setback for the construction of a new structure. The subject use is consistent with the
Page 3 of 5
FLUM of the GMP. The requested Variance does not have any impact on this property's
consistency with the County's GMP,
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review %J the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County'a 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-PL20230010693, filed by Jessica
Uuttz, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Schrack Family Trust, with respect to
the property legally described as located on a 0.74 +/- acre property at 6245 Lee Ann Ln., in
Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A variance from Section 4.02.01, Table 2.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code
to reduce the north property line minimum side yard setback from 10 feet to zero feet, and
a variance from Section 4.06.02.C, Table 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development
Code to reduce the required Type "A" Landscape Buffer on the north property line from 5
feet to zero feet, to allow for construction of a new structure utilizing a legal nonconforming
zero foot setback on the north property line.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Site Plan attached
as Exhibit "B", and the Approved Site Drainage Plan, January 8, 1999 attached as Exhibit "C
and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Site Plan
Exhibit C — Approved Site Drainage Plan, January 8, 1999
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located on a 0.74 +/- acre property at 6245 Lee Ann Ln., in Section 11,
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.
Page 4 of 5
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,
May 15, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
V,
.�
0
N
M
O
O
O
M
N
0
N
J
Z
C
O
:�
ti
0
N
c
J
C
C
Q
N
N
J
��
V
.-
N
N
co
�
O
ao
M
N
aO
�
�rj
�
�
�
�
r-
..0
ti
O
�
(6
N
N
�
�
O
'�
0�.
J
�
U
n-
•>
�>
�
rim
i
m -
p -
w o
U �w
o� o
Ji78nd bdod 3aiM , 09
LU
�� � ---� owm TNd7NNb'.937 -- -
oo ab I _V�4
HUJI
U) bwoHu� w
w tz Y U
Q OU t
«b r r�
w
U
z ..w.
o m
I
w Stn e� T'Tw� Zy
I o
& I >0 p a qz W
�S m v, e du I Q (D �0
s U) Z =
Z Z
X
00 W
a� W
I:gm byN ,V, 5d1LL I �< ~' C) lvha nvN NOV913S v) z C
4 OaVI. MIS J 0
�g� got �UQ
=sc „ d LL Q >
s
NOvms
aO I o OaV o aais
0 03sodoad M ,,;
f °
lr I aw°'
z• z rt
W F m 1NM OVONON3 3
t— i i 8 NOV8135
p ' of
z m �'
al
z az 03Sodoad
��F.9 rF
Z
z
Zn1l 'Nils
Q. N m RAM iiS i
Z� LL�LLCF�
W< O�K j
<
a
4 a�el o 3NV7 S3NVP n na u z°
ez
(f U) c5z5� p� F N p�
m
R 8 0
w SGisa �ZZ
U
z ��$ z
Nyx
�Z e
w w
LU
QF
w z DF:z �J W.
U w a
w
C4
WWI — CZOZ 60 PO �U"�OZVIDST n—dOS CAPT9WI1 9 NV Id Id3DN00 SNVid &RS 0NIN0WONX MY SNOSWS 4 0Jd PM ,aZ
too 0 to III tit
I It
aW m I I I n _ j o 05 s
2 E u u n
�".4 a O E2� ci��-
v a,3Ij
W W O - 5,5��
z In w b b -_= �4 3 �r�TDgt't_Y -_-
ba ao _
"6 Ott
ry
0 CI
S o W.. w Q z f"s ox
��pno6oN"�" �ma�
❑ 1 1` 3 °EoN "EE�u°3u°pm
l
O
co
ETZ
E y— 00'OS 0 3„Lt,bZ.00S —
} O o o
U
O
aS
.�
O
s..
a
N
w a
�
c
v1
IE
6UI1 D03E o
1J00.24'17"W 80.00' c
E
0
« U a
b
t c
31V3S Ol
a
`n N"n 0 no A v a
v NIX
f� r
ii
\ vrov
>. x '0
c n n N d[
to
0. 0 E M 4 OVI 2NW4 u. n c u
-