HEX Final Decision 2024-56HEX NO. 2024-56
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
November 149 2024
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20230014809 — 3512 Okeechobee ST -Request for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 4.02.0I.A. Table 2.1, to reduce the required RSF4 zoning district
front yard setback from 25 feet to 15.9 feet on the east property line and the side yard setback
from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north property line for the proposed accessory attached porch,
to reduce side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north property line and the front
yard setback from 25 feet to 24.7 feet on the east property line for the existing residential
structure, and to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.3 feet on the north property
line for the existing accessory covered lanai, on a 0.17± acre property located ±680 feet
southwest of the intersection of US41 and Osceola Avenue at 3512 Okeechobee Street,
Naples, FL, 34112, also described as Lot 17, Block E, South Tamiami Heights subdivision, in
Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAi, PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
This request is to have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance request
from the Land Development Code to reduce the required RSF4 zoning district front yard setback
From 25 feet to 15.9 feet on the east property line and the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2
Feet on the north property line for the proposed accessory attached porch, to reduce side yard
setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north property line and the front yard setback from 25 feet
to 24.7 feet on the east property line for the existing residential structure, and to reduce the side
yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.3 feet on the north property line for the existing accessory covered
lanai. Five setback variances in all for the purpose of legalizing existing and future improvements
to a single-family home on a legal, non -conforming interior lot.
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.
Page 1 of 6
3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in -person in accordance with
Emergency/Executive Order 202M4.
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. There was one public speaker
in support of the petition.
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 hear°ing reflects that yes, t1�e subject
pr°opero) is a legal, non -conforming interior lot, both in minimum lot ii)idth and minimum
lot area. In the RSF4 zoning district, the development minimum lot width is 70 feet, and
the minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet. The subject property has a lot width of 60 feet
and an overall lot area of 7,200 square feet. The existing structure was permitted and built
in 1966, and according to the most recent survey, the house has a few encroachments, most
likely due to the fact the measurements were not exact back in the original construction.
The current owner acquired the property on June 30, 2022, inheriting the structural issues
with the residence. The owner also has a granddaughter ivho lives at the property) and has
physical and cognitive disabilities that require special care. The fundamental needfor the
front porch is to more easily and effectively transport her in and out of the house ivith the
required medical equipment and attention.
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 testi»IIony, fi•onathe public hearing reflects that there is a special
condition that is not the result of the action. of the applicant. The existing strircture �-Has
permitted and built in 1966, and according to the most recent survey, the house has a feiv
encroachments, most likely due to the fact the measurements i-Here not exact back in the
oi rginal construction. The current owner° acquired the property on June 30, 2022)
inhef•iting the structural issues ivith the residence.
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?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
The record evidence and testimony Jrom the public hearing reflects that a literal
interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 4.02.OI.A.1. Table 2.1 and Sec. 4.02.03.D., the RSF-
4 setbacks for the principal residential structure and the accessory fi°ont porch setback,
Mich is the same as the principal structure (SPS), would 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 variance specified since the principal residential structure is an
existing structure. The owner was misled by a contractor that built the porch without a
permit. There will be no additional encroachment on what already exists, and it is
anticipated to have no effect on the standards of health, safety, or welfare and ivill make
possible the reasonable use of the land.
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 crud testimony from the public 77ear°ir2g reflects that granting this
variance hill not confer a special privilege. The variance being sought is in line ivith the
intent of the code to provide a property owner with the ability) to avoid unnecessary and
undue hardship due to special circumstances, such as 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 fr°om the public hearing reflects that �°crating this
variance will be in line lvith the intent of the LDC section 9.04.00, as allowing it ���oidd
prevent unnecessary and undue hardship on the propery) owner ivhile having no
measurable impact on the public interest, safety), or welfare. The residence has existed
since 1966; the only code issue recorded was for the unpermitted porch. There have been
no complaints by the neighbors, and they have provided letters of support for the purpose
and intent of the variance for the front porch. Lastly, the improvement to the subject
pr•opero) assists in improving the value and beautifying the property.
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 from the public hearing reflects that the only conditions
on the subject proper•t�, would result ji°om phi>sically induced conditions for a legal
Page 2 of 6
nonconforming lot in the RSF-4 zoning district. The lot width is 10 feet less than the
nn*nimum requirement, yet the legal setbacks still apply for this zoning district. The
minimum side setback for the subject property is 7.5 feet, and this is not enough spacefor
maneuvering the necessary medical equipment for the owner's granddaughter around the
house if the porch were located in the rear of the structure. No other natural conditions
exist.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that granting this
regulation i4�ould be consistent i0th the GMP. According to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE), a single family residential structure is a permitted use for the subject property in
the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is located in the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict land use classification on
the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide
transitional densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south of
the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north of
the Subdistrict). The Subdistrict comprises those Urban areas south of US 41, generally east of the
City of Naples, and generally west of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands, but
excludes Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and comprises approximately 11,354
acres and 10% of the Urban Mixed -Use District. The entire Subdistrict is located seaward of the
Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. In order to facilitate hurricane evacuation and to protect the
adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation designated area, residential densities within the
Subdistrict shall not exceed a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed in
the Density Rating System to exceed four (4) units per acre through provision of Affordable
Housing and Transfers of Development Rights, and except as allowed by certain FLUE Policies
under Objective 5, and except as provided in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Overlay. New rezones to permit mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited.
Rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development.
As stated, the applicant seeks a Variance for the existing residential structure, the existing
accessory lanai and the existing unpermitted accessory- front porch for the RSF-4 zoned subject
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 subject property
is 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.
Page 4 of 6
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including Lite 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-PL20230014809, filed by the owner
Carmen Palmisano, with respect to the property legally described as the 10.17-acre property
located ±680 feet southwest of the intersection of US41 and Osceola Avenue at 3 512 Okeechobee
Street, Naples, FL, 34112, also described as Lot 17, Block E, South Tamiami Heights subdivision,
in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance request from the Land Development Code Section 4.02.O1.A. Table 2.1, to
reduce the required RSF4 zoning district front yard setback from 25 feet to 15.9 feet on
the east property line and the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north
property line for the proposed accessory attached porch, to reduce side yard setback from
7.5 feet to 7.2 feet on the north property line and the front yard setback from 25 feet to 24.7
feet on the east property line for the existing residential structure, and to reduce the side
yard setback from 7.5 feet to 7.3 feet on the north property line for the existing accessory
covered lanai.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A" and the Conceptual
Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B" and are subject to the conditions) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Zoning Map
Exhibit B —Conceptual Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is a 10.17-acre property located �680 feet southwest of the intersection of
US-41 and Osceola Avenue at 3512 Okeechobee Street, Naples, FL, 34112, also described as Lot
17, Block E, South Tamiami Heights subdivision, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
• All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
Page 5 of 6
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.
November 21, 2024
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
SITE LOCATION MAP
o rn w r+ co
r• T
T (�f
M V tf7 I'00 W N N
p a) co t�" (0 Lr) qqw M N T
T
Z00000 0
0
F� --
r1S aa�ao4�
p W 1+ LL'D tI) Olt
M N
2IQ wltid 4��- 4
U
aj
� � a
a
o _ aI �►
f L aaa�Ip 1J
I
a,� aa�Ioaaq� 1�1
e v 0
° �u p a A3 su!e; eJ 1
ce 0 `r —
°' -+ Is
' AV IsugJ C �-
VA-PL20240014809 - 3512 Okeechobee ST Page 2 of 8
October 17, 2024
a` �edd0 to
ti U R mno ,'to
40 \Otow
d.,9 ti O N
i F'� F o Indoc�i rQ �° W" O
OQ ,`i�J W N.�'. b�' i;c� .n Q � W6 m WWN o � n N
Ev d, �. q�, o N `°$ d 6� s0 �i °z in ,.' . 2 n o o z o o o
a' F N O °6 37, << as I^z
ti h�wp c'y oqw W..� !i°$�'M � � go
�n< bom N�zo y N
U h g h U W W Ip N 7 Kolb ''$va13111. .o•`` w Fez 9 a y n CUB c i
w OgGLtia' ooN cq(`'Wo owo< ,L_°m noJ a 'off Ou OFz "'Fez i 2� '<'�
A r7pO.lq 0tav Eti\ ps'�� rn=�«M��&' �>uF w 'o'
`J+ U O W kI C1 F- >>�� Ci a o � 'u4] €� i� 6OW M � w
h Wr4 64 w�� �� 'MW N z° <N o<0 3dE� w�wo Ld O b o4 o ��� N o0 o N J g >� o' M
0. w 0. 0 �, «Y a. h g o�z bgw$ o o g � W Z 3
w U G� W p "^ ,`¢�, � o q z' OLQJ vim ZH, awz F3a�i o y � � �, o o Z x �J � Ll. o 'o
0 N�'�.'(7 OR
c" NSF U d nQx<§ E cLr low Ip0 loBa 3F��<�'m i c° Yi M E
a 04 a A � z c aj
�ffiwwo i�3 m <src Li>az�'�� Q ��1 J
00 El
Na�q W � �3�ya�a � .V so ����'d ��� RIM trc12MW M`Z9 o_ ° Mn a
�1 wV U Vt� qW W 4Zi ��m<ejW6dG (6 j< rx 3irc o0ffi ww 00°� ��X W0E "� V1 mZ I v
�1 hWocY Nao%6 ¢ <o < � € �aw bb o��0W m
t3ro `o
TFM �m €a fix z W omz \ M °
�womPaa�
m1- `2maE Ij o
wa
�oS�d" 8zW W W N '�I d
W m K 1- ? W= z 12
la o
�iaS �z1 z}0 E E
OS }w.00QZN
W K 3n LL p�p
W W W W W W z>
Z d I Ll ° F 2 0
Mia
F90M4' 3w44-
cJ M W N b ri m
<
a
aa b
N 6
oa� �
I:Zz
Y Z
('M'021 809) aY
LLLYLYW,LS LYLYBOH�yffXO J No 0
—_ _ e' _ _ _�_ _ <
s V)
`I a Z
1� O N
N�
a 'd io �Z
O Z
6
00
i �.,WJ) £00
09 3„00, O.00S n I o�
to
�4 0600S 11 i
II a O 2� �i (d) ,SL'IOC
OR
q ���� 'o s d d m m sa.
Wm p nZ Sao
00 O W �ZZ W rd ' a^ o .00
zn
rM'r, o ai N0mm °� wwww
Nsc�—tea a 2e ° OSXV3NO2p��
--- Aa w vs a� W a o 3No2 Q00-
d - pV9l3YZNDNi ,SZ f I d 'B
te
a SIC Q
O _ a
d 990AVN 1906 =13
NOTU HSINIA 4
W Oo 0 30N30IS38 ANO1S
^� a�s�
�i- 9
O W W I' O #� ^
Irww Y a zvf I O 00 c
FUO W WW • I•S'B 00)
pOU z Ar I ter- WO
'J 0 9'8 ='A3Si I 07 W
Jm0 6 PIP io ^_'ud rfW Mtimw a $F �i Vj
`r dt '. �' `°'' I o s' 3 0 O U
rn rn ,C'L 0rc om I?' O CO J J U
g WN i� m I,9.Bo q;N mp
a s d
I, Z`w 1 rnrn
n 1 ro ro Ld
ZZ
U
e O j "a
N -_ )OYS-C€11Y31T.SZ _� y ---��.
"a �o os
toMID
ztl >�
°n Te
ag
'a
Z (d) 00409 3„OO,OO.00N o
NZ N boM
On 0 0 ��
O O
O K O K ¢
LOZ CAW CZOZ :Z 1ZOZ 9L C n3 d /1 f Z 2 C Y
t-
w
Y
U �
¢ U
�-
M
M
M
cV
iV
a;
o
o
o
�
Li
Li
w�
W
U
w
w
�
at
iV
tV
�
iM
i7
�
ri
r
N
ri
t`
W
w
�
o
0
J
�
N
N
N
SI
N
iO
0]
w�
w
r
I�
~
O
ZO
�
U
OZ
O
O
U
Q
�
>
W
W
W
IS+I
O
o
z
N
N
o
0
U
U
U
O
I~L)
w
w
3
U
¢
Q
�
N
Z
w
3
W
}
Y
U
U
U
Z�
o
0
o
g
w
W
(N
fn
N
K
O
W
O
O
O
1>J
N
N
U
U
I
I
N
I
U