HEX Final Decision 2024-53HEX NO. 2024-53
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
October 249 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240006022 — 230 Seabreeze Avenue —Request for a variance from LDC
4.02.01.A Table 2.1 to allow a reduction in the front yard setback from 30 feet to 22.8 feet for
the proposed construction of a new residential structure to replace the existing residential
structure on a t0.3-acre property located at 230 Seabreeze Avenue in Section 29, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance to reduce the required
to allow the construction of a new single family dwelling unit on a triangular -shaped lot by
reducing the required minimum front yard setback to 22.2 feet where 30 feet is required.
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 %J 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 five letters of support for the Petition. There were no objections at
the public hearing.
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
Page 1 of 5
modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
.and 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 t1�e public hearing reflects that yes, the subject
property is a ivatei front lot that, by definition, is also a corner lot. Additionally, the lot is
primarily triangular, which results in the property having a front yard and two side yards;
a cornet, lot has no rear yard The unique shape and configuration of the property result
in a disproportionately long f •ont yard, which impacts the buildable area of said property.
The required front yard setback ivithin the RSF-3 Zoning District is 30 feet.
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 r°ecord evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, the subject
property was platted in 1952 and was initially improved in 1958. In 1986 a survey obtained
for several additions to the existing residence revealed encroachments that here addressed
using an approved Variance, Resolution 86-102, to reduce the required 30- foot f •ont yard
to 18 feet. The current property owner noiv desires to raze the existing single family
dwelling and replace it with another that will require the f °ont yard to be reduced to 22.8
feet which is less than was previously approvedfor the prior dielling unit.
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 the applicant's
expert states: "Yes. The County Commission in 1986 unanimously agreed that e 30 foot
front yard setback worked unnecessary and undue hardship on the then oivner of the
property, approving back then an encroachment into the setback greater than that
r°equested by this petition. " Coumy zoning staff concurs.
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 testimonyf•om the public hear ingreflects that yes, the applicant's
expert states: "This petition r•equests an encroachment into the f ont yard setback that is
lesser than the encroachment unanimously approved by the County Commission in 1986
Accordingly, the requested variance ivould make possible the reasonable use of the land
is compared to the existing home and other properties on Seabreeze Avenue. " County
zoning staff concurs.
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 record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that by definition, a
variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site.
LDC Section 9.04.02 alloii)s relief through the variance process for any dimensional
development standard. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship ivould 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 fi•orn the public hearing reflects that yes, the applicant's
expert states: "Petitioner is unaware of any objection by nearby property owners to this
variance request. Accordingly, the variance, if granted, would not injure the neighborhood
or• upset the intent and purpose of the zoning code. " County zoning staff concurs and has
received letters of support fr°orn nearby property owners and no objections have been
received in response to public notices.
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 pzrblic hearing reflects that the applicant's
expert states: "Yes. Tlie subject property is located at the dead-end of Seabreeze Avenue,
)ith the canal immediately to the south. Therefore, the number of abutting properties is
limited, and the objective of the front yard setback is ameliorated. County zoning staff
concurs.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony fr•om the public hearing r°effects that yes, approval of
t1�is Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the GMP concerning densit��,
intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other applicable provisions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is in the Urban Mixed Use Residential land use classification on the County's
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a variety of
residential uses, including single-family, multi -family, duplex, mobile homes, and mixed -use
projects. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance to reduce the required front
yard for a single-family residence, which is an authorized use within this land use designation.
Therefore, the use is consistent with the FLUM. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not
address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use.
Page 3 of 5
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 Count67 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-PL20240006022, filed by Clay
Brooker of Cheffy Passidomo, P.A., representing M. Travis Hayes Trustee of the 230 Seabreeze
Ave. Land Trust, with respect to the property legally described as the subject property located at
230 Seabreeze Avenue, which is the last house on the southern side of the road, approximately 700
east of the intersection of Gulfshore Drive and Seabreeze Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance request from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.O1.A., Table 2.1,
to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on a triangular -shaped lot
by reducing the required Minimum Front Yard setback from 30 feet to 22.2 feet. The
subject property comprises 0.3± acres within a Residential Single-Family-3 (RSF-3)
Zoning District.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Proposed Site
all attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the conditions) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Proposed Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located at 230 Seabreeze Avenue, which is the last house on the southern
side of the road, approximately 700 east of the intersection of Gulfshore Drive and Seabreeze
Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 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.
2. All other development standards are to be respected and the granting %J this variance
voids the prior approved variances associated with the existing structure on the property
which is to be demolished to make room for the subject structure of this petition.
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.
October 31, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
VA
Z N
to C1 rr//
O �N) N
o
M
rr \ M
Iln
ci
v
M .-
to of
vs
C
N
N
W6 w :4 i3. �r:i ::. 'i• LLi W i•6 �.�.� !+'
i + i woo i i
mrm
t _ Ira
Ire
c o c
y
N(1 tltipu ON J. -
mawa11
00
p OOP
i F -� e c --��
x
LIP
L
"i
�
0OA; rim
�� f ►- Jor
~ z n r.
V C
Lu
N
CV
G
3)
.O
VA-PL20240006022; 230 Seabreeze Ave Page 2 of 7
10/07/2024
c
HOLTAN RESIDENCE
239 SEABREEZE AVENUE
2024 � 1793-24
VARIANCE
Y�13 b \
Exhibit A
DIAGRAM KEY
AREA OF
ENCROACHMENT