HEX Final Decision 2024-39HEX NO. 2024-39
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
July 11, 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240000509 —Request for a variance from Land Development Code
Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to allow the construction or redevelopment of a single family
dwelling unit and accessory structures on a triangular shaped lot by reducing the required
Minimum Front Yard from 75 feet to 50 feet, Minimum Rear Yard from 75 to 25 feet, and
Minimum Side Yard from 30 feet to 20 feet on the western side and 13 feet 6 inches on the
eastern side, for an Estates (E) zoned property at 174 Cocohatchee Boulevard, located
southeast of the intersection of Cocohatchee Boulevard and Cocohatchee Drive, in Section
22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
The petitioner requests a variance to allow the construction or redevelopment of asingle-family
dwelling unit and accessory structures on a triangular -shaped lot by reducing the required
Minimum Front Yard from 75 feet to 50 feet, Minimum Rear Yard from 75 to 25 feet, and
Minimum Side Yard from 30 feet to 20 feet on the western side and 13 feet 6 inches on the eastern
side.
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.
Page 1 of 6
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.
5. The subject property is legal -nonconforming concerning the minimum lot area, as are the other
similarly zoned properties in this area; the minimum lot area is 2.25 acres. The petitioners
recently purchased the subject property, which has been improved with a single-family
residence and boat dock. They desire to reconstruct a new single-family dwelling unit that is
compatible in size, scale, and quality with the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. The
triangular shape of the subject lot creates additional challenges with respect to setbacks.
6. 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
l . 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 yes, t1�e subject
propero) is triangular and is legal -nonconforming to the minimum lot area for this zoning
district.
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
this variance request?
The record evidence crud testimony f •om the public hearing reflects that yes, the existing
d1-yelling unit pre -dates the establishment of the zoning district that it is presently located
�vithin. Additionally, the lot is of a triangular shape ilMich presents challenges of its own.
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 from the public hear•irlg reflects that "Due to the
property's irregular shape, yes, literal interpretation of the tivaterfront setback fi°om the
top of bank will render much of the subject property undevelopable and will not allow for
redevelopment of the site with a structure that is consistent with other homes in the
cornrnunity. Further, when the neighborhood was originally subdivided, the subject
property's confgitration did not consider the existing Land Development Code and
required setback for• a single family dwelling unit and Estate district zoning r•egidations. "
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
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 "The variance that
is being requested is the minimum required to allow the property owner to rebuild the
subject's property while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding subject
properties. Allowing this variance will meet the intention of the zoning district standards
to maintain reasonable separation between neighboring dwelling units while allowing the
applicant to make reasonable use of the land. "
S. 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 by definition, a
variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations speck to a site.
LDC Section 9.04.02 allows relief through the variance process for any dimensional
development standard As such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be
entitled to make a similar request and would 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 from the public hearing reflects that "The crppliccrnt is
requesting a reduction in property's setbacks while maintaining the community's loiv-
density character. This request will not affect height requirements or other lot design
standards. If approved, it will not have any adverse impact on surrounding properties and
will comply vvith Collier County's growth management plan. " County zoning staff
concurred that the proposed variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
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•orn the public hearing reflects that "... the subject
property crbzrts the Cocohatchee River•. The structure tivill be elevated to minimum base
flood elevations (which the current structure does not meet), thereby enhancing the goals
of such flood mitigation regulations. " Couny) staff concurred and noted that beyond the
Cocohatchee River is a preserve area for the adjoining PUD.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
Page 3 of 6
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that yes, approval of
this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP concerning density,
intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other applicable provisions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is in the Estates (E) Zoning District and the Urban Residential Subdistrict
designated area as identified in the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). The GMP does not address individual variance requests but deals with the larger issue
Athe actual use. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance for a proposed principal
residential structure with attached or detached accessory structures. This land use category is
designed to accommodate residential uses, including single-family. The single-family dwelling
unit and related accessory uses are consistent with the GMP.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION.
The EAC does not normally hear variance petitions. Since the subject Variance does not impact
any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition.
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-PL20240000509, filed by Patrick
Murray of RVi Planning and Landscape Architecture, representing Perry J and Marilyn R Hodges
as well as Chadd and Andrea Hodges, with respect to the property legally described as 174
Cocohatchee Boulevard, located southeast of the intersection of Cocohatchee Boulevard and
Cocohatchee Drive, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
for the following:
• A Variance request from Land Development Code Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to allow
the construction orredevelopment of asingle-family dwelling unit and accessory structures
on a triangular -shaped lot by reducing the required Minimum Front Yard from 75 feet to
50 feet, Minimum Rear Yard from 75 to 25 feet, and Minimum Side Yard from 30 feet to
20 feet on the western side and 13 feet 6 inches on the eastern side.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Site Plan attached
as Exhibit "B", and the Map of Boundary and Tidal Water Survey 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 — Map of Boundary and Tidal Water Survey
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is that part of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range
25 East, Collier county, Florida, lying east of the seaboard coast line railroad and northeasterly of
the thread of the Cocohatchee River being more particularly described as follows:
Parcel 28: commencing being more particularly described as follows: parcel 28: commencing at
the NE corner of the SE 1/4 of Section 22, run S 00 degrees 32' 16" E along the E line of said
Section 22, for 1032.00 ft.; thence run N 72 degrees 03' 30" W for 120.00 ft.; being the point of
beginning; thence run S 48 degrees 19' 00" W for 438.73 ft. to the center line of the Cocohatchee
River; thence run N 17 degrees 01' 15" E, 378.55 ft.* thence run S 72 degrees 03' 30" E for 227.93
.1. to the point of beginning; containing 1.0 acres, plus or minus. Above parcel being subject to
that deed of easement to Collier County for drainage purposes recorded in O.R. Book 185, pages
58 and 59, Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. This decision is subject to the petitioner obtaining a Waiver of Historical/Archaeological
Probability.
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
Page 5 of 6
VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES,
August 7, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
«A»
o .
ti �O
�a
o1 0 r� F4 5
act
i
Q as a; qo oL
a
�\ 7IX H
a
o
eal
i
rn
O
LO
0
0
0
0
N
O
N
J
d.
L:
E
Z
c
0
a)
n
O
mi
J
VA-PL20240000509; 174 Cocohatchee Blvd Page 3 of 9
06/26/2024
BIT " B"
Va111011'S37dVN
GNVAIIAO I33HDIVHODOD HT
9DNHQIS9N SHOQOH
d0 NOISHQ
I1X��
I¢
va/uold'sauawl
GUVA91CIOEI 33H3.LVH0003 FLc
� DNHQISMl SHOQOH
a,
yam- R� ��- •�
EXHIBIT C"
l�
1 Jo la
w> ,sm
n,,, m alo
7m Y
av 3Wl uxie
4090—fZ
s3=H
V"N OW smw
ONO IS""
t RAMPT %"" r AM
:01 031JUM
N
•
-ter
ffvml aw
yyWWI
. — —
°
Wit
bva s a]va xn o•,ow,o ..w vv1
p
c 00
^� C p e O
// m iT in
to Mrq
O
m
� � N
> N N
O
ro