HEX Final Decision 2024-43HEX NO. 2024-43
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
August 22, 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240000927 — 2441 Maretee Drive —Request for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(4)(a).iii, to reduce the requi Dred Agricultural
RFMUO-Receiving side setback from 30 feet to 12.8 feet on the east property line and to
reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 28.1 feet on the northern property line for the two
existing accessory storage buildings on approximately 7.94 acres located at ±2,000 feet north
A US41 and ±850 feet east of Greenway Road at 2441 Maretee Drive, Naples, FL, 34114 in
Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider two variance requests to reduce the
required Agricultural RFMUO-Receiving side setback from 30 feet to 12.8 feet on the east
property line and to reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 28.1 feet on the northern property line
for the two existing accessory storage buildings.
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.
Page 1 of 5
5. The property is a ±7.94-acres legal conforming lot located in the Agricultural (A) zoning
district and within the Rural Fringe Mixed -Use Overlay (RFMUO) in the Receiving lands,
subject to the design standards located in LDC Sec. 2.03.08.A.2.a(4)(a) iii. County Staff
recognizes the need for the variances for the accessory structures on the subject property.
6. The County'0 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 then°e are no
special conditions or circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location size and
characteristics of either the land, structure or building involved Hoivever, the structures
that are encroaching into the setbacks have existed on the subject property for 35 years.
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 and testimony from the public hear°ing reflects that there is cr special
condition that is not the result of the action of the applicant. The buildings encroaching on
the setback were constructed 35 years ago tinder a previous owner°. The cur°rent owner
inherited these structures as is.
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 frrom the public hearing reflects that a literal
interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 2.03.08.A.2.a.(�)(a).iii wotdd cause the client
unnecessary and undue hardship due to the condition and age of the structures since they
could not be moved and would have to be demolished
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 required
variance is the minimum var°iance specified since these are existing str•trcttrres. There hill
be no additional encroachment on what already exists, and it is anticipated to have no
effect on the standards of health, safeo3 or itwelfare.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
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 i ecor d evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that grcn , ng this
variance will not confer a special privilege. The variance being sought is in line with intent
of the code to provide a property owner Ti4th the ability to avoid unnecessary and undue
hardship due to special circumstances, such cis the actions of a previous owner.
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 granting t1�is
variance will be in line with the intent of LDC section 9.04.00, as allowing it i-Would prevent
innecessai y and undue hardship on the property w4)ner while having no measurable
impact on the public interest, safety, or 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 i•ecord evidence and testimony frrom the public hearing reflects thcit there are no
natural conditions or physically induced conditions that iinould ameliorate the goals and
objectives of the regulation.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects thcit granting this
regulation would be consistent with the GMP as per the zoning verification letter. The
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay allows the landscape maintenance contractor business.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is in the Agricultural/Rural Designation (AG) and the Rural Fringe —
Receiving (RFR) land use classifications on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)a The
Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing
development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive, or are in
agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted. Therefore, most allowable land uses are of
low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands. Receiving
Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being
most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred
from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands
have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as
Sending and generally have been disturbed through development or previous or existing
agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving
Lands and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat
preservation and restoration. As stated, the applicant seeks a Variance for two existing accessory
Page 3 of 5
storage buildings for an Agricultural RFMUO-Receiving property, which is an authorized land
use. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests related
to land use, however, the current use of the property is consistent with the GMP.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION.
The EAC does not normally hear variance peons. 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-PL20240000927, filed by Richard
DuBois of RDA Consulting Engineers, representing Brightview Landscape Services, Inc. Real
Estate Department, with respect to the property legally described as a 7.94 acres parcel, known
as Parcel ID #00749520003, located at ±2,000 feet north of US41 and ±850 feet east of Greenway
Road at 2441 Maretee Drive, Naples, FL, 34114 in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance request from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(4)(a)iii,
to reduce the required Agricultural RFMUO-Receiving side setback from 30 feet to 12.8
feet on the east property line and to reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 28.1 feet on the
northern property line for the two existing accessory storage buildings.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Conceptual Site
Plan attached as Exhibit "B", and the Permit #72-1687 attached as Exhibit "C", and are subject to
the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit C — Permit #72-1687
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is a ± 7.94 acres parcel, known as Parcel ID #00749520003, located at �2,000
feet north of US-41 and �850 feet east of Greenway Road at 2441 Maretee Drive, Naples, FL,
34114 in Section 7, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 4 of 5
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement
of the development.
the buildings are destroyed or removed, new structures must be constructed in
compliance with the zoning setbacks and not based on the variances granted by this
decision.
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.
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,
September 4, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
SITE LOCATION MAP
N
E
Z
c
0
� o
N
/"1 O
M
O o
N
U �
O �
J �
N
ti
N
O
O
O
O
O
d'
N
O
N
J
a.
Q
G
b
e
p
e
p
44
al
gg
itl
pQ
C�
I
22ll
�pipi
k�8
Hry
p
a
2
iaA;A
aa;
e
9 <
3
,7m9 y
AON
zz
drdt
did
t 30M ORZ "a
ig g n� \
- i
^� �o � $� �—� 1 _— � - � .I �f �.Sti3, , s�`.`"�sRr, 3��`r/"�F'c�,: "hfK. r,#j• '�� `$ # , .�' �C3
Om
r
Im
In NIP,
or
di;
g9z
N m I
Y
�i,`�'��IR'��s th�44�,•,•,�F.'�#�►�1'k t•+•A+R•^-nrzt,U,A.olr�t�x;•�P•cxA►A�tat�*An•w �R�rsaisc.:-:,,,+.t��rr�.>'.: ..rca�ca ,s.::x:.•;.
Volt
4
''i1111wFalootto
APPLICATION rOR MUMDING Pk;RMIT �
Permit Number Z11,os- Aate
t W -
N4wofOwner •fdsnaa t.tnr•v _ Contractor Phone.____ {
JobA4&6as Cara Road
'Archfttct Electrical Contractor
Addrm r Address
P: contractor PlutnfiingContractor �� -� _:_P so
r� 1l,ddrxas' Adddees
eIt
F16
td
1
JI
IA
Ls
Jr
o
$lOolC ll'nit 0 Subd}vsalon
1 idlt � —�- •- .
{µ
ii. % j
s+. ri : xecpzd pi t, metes bounder .si i ref �sf ai3t of Sac , Two 4 1
' u H
'. S '.�
s
S
`•Yl'` exmm4,t:�ta { uald ,p'lte;* lte�atx Aifove) Cop
o
• „�f
P IF
ieiht cr of Starscs e
`.
aapy of the`spprnvetl plans ;and epeas£xcatsons shill be kept at the busldsri site
r ifuriug;conatructiort
4
,r�Eifl1` J't,Arit
ansrtg� ^ gunlding or Structure will £ace�_� _` 1 f'AJZNA!3F. 00T Al'ff£q AY r
UhAigtiG� lot
Use '
rq#Itldtrscn z3 Pfv4tixf t>uPli«I"bRF(!„ Nay'
sgtrs slf F<t i�'^'i I #lit: i`
a2 feet from East line:
4M f t from'South line
z: Jf3 t from West line A►x- '' '` , r •"', `
q ..l ..
oN
ffoo
N 21*12 feet from North line W
Floor Space F<34r 5qr' Feet -
TJtflity Sq, Feet
rP
Porch, Sq., Feet Central Sewer Name Yes
Car'horte Sq,^"Feet Central Water Name Yea
Other i 3�k Sq' "Feet Well Permit No.
Total Sq. Feet Septic Tan>= j , Gallonr 1
Estimated Cost $ rnzaf `til Drainfield Sq. Ft, #
Building Permit $ A,� Septic Tank NO. '
Electrical hermit $ r, Plumbing Stub., cles below
Plumbing Permit $ Finish Floor Grade. _.
Septic Tank $ Sanitarian .
Total $
o
The above..4opp I tion has been examined and is hereby subject to the payment of
$ rt:,:•by as proyided by the Collier County Building Code,
Payment Received: Building Official
This permit expires if work is not started within 6 months from date issued. Permit void if zoning classifi•'
soF
IN
cation is violated. This use must not change to any other use without a new permit from the Zoning '
i. Director. Fee will be,doubled if work is started without a permit. J
"APVt ..
go
LL
�..
4 —�
i . r