HEX Final Decision #2025-01HEX NO. 2025-01
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
January 23, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240010641—Wentworth Estates PUD - 9457 Rialto Drive -Request for
a variance from Section 3.5 of the Wentworth Estates PUD, Ordinance 03-51, as amended,
to reduce the Low -Density Residential required side setback from 6 feet to 0 feet on the south
property line for the proposed accessory screen enclosure on approximately f0.17 acres
known as Lot 1 of the Ponte Rialto subdivision, aka 9457 Rialto Drive, Naples, FL, 34114 in
Section 30, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance request for a variance
From Section 3.5 of the Wentworth Estates PUD, Ordinance 03-51, as amended, to reduce the
Low -Density Residential required side setback from 6 feet to 0 feet on the south property line for
the proposed accessory screen enclosure.
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 %J 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.
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
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 r°eflects that yes, the cir°ea
adjacent to the parcel has a 10 foot Public Utiliiy Easement, cis well cis a large common
area, and is located right before Casor•ia Court. Apart from that, no special conditions or
circumstances are unique to the location, size, and characteristics of the land or the
structure involved.
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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that to the south,
landscaping would need to be removed and replaced with pavers. However, enough land
is available for a 6 foot extension, and it will not impact any neighbors, as there are no
homes to the south and existing landscaping and trees to the ivest rear of the property).
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 pzrblic hearing reflects that according to
Ordinance 03-S1, as amended, Section III, Exhibit "A, " the development standards limit
the buildable area for the lanai to allow the owner to extend the lanai cage by only 40 feet
in ii)idth. This limitation poses practical difficulties for the applicant, as safeo) concerns
regarding the risk of falling into the pool ivould still be present without modifying the cage.
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 a1/7d testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, the variance,
f granted, 1a�ill be the mir�imitm variance that will make reasonable use of the land possible.
The new extended structure ivill promote higher health, safety, and welfare standards by
providing more space around the pool area, which reduces the risk of accidents.
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 40127 the public hearing reflects that gr•anting this
variance �-vill not confer a special privilege, as several other homes on our block have
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
extended their cages. Therefore, the Owner would not be receiving any privileges unique
to them.
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 granting this
variance will be in line with the intent of LDC section 9.04.00, W0111d be in harmony with
the general intent and pzir pose of this Land Development Code, and would not be injurious
to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The newly extended
structure ivill enhance health, safely, and welfare standards by adding more space around
the pool area, which reduces the risk of accidents. This extension will be directed away
from neighboring properties.
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 yes, there is
existing vegetation, landscaping and trees to the west rear setback of the property. This is
the main reason why the owner requests to extend to the south side setback.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony from the
r egulation would be consistent WWI the GMP
(FLUE), a single family residential structure
the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict.
pzrblic hearing T°effects that granting this
According to the Future Land Use Element
is permitted use for the subject property in.
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)4 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 US41, 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
Page 3 of 5
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.
The applicant seeks a variance for the existing accessory lanai in the Wentworth Estates PUD
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, and it did not hear this petition since the
subject variance doesn't impact any preserve area.
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-PL20240010641, filed by Randall T
Shaw, as Trustee of the Randall T. Shaw Declaration of Trust dated February 25, 2014, and Donna
L. Shaw, as Trustee of the Donna L. Shaw Declaration of Trust dated February 25, 2014, with
respect to the subject property legally described as ±0.17 acres, known as Lot 1 of the Ponte Rialto
subdivision, aka 9457 Rialto Drive, Naples, FL, 34114, in Section 30, Township 50 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance request from Section 3.5 of the Wentworth Estates PUD, Ordinance 03-51, as
amended, to reduce the Low -Density Residential required side setback from 6 feet to 0 feet
on the south property line for the proposed accessory screen enclosure.
Said changes are fully described in the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", the Conceptual Site
Plan attached as Exhibit "B", and the Copy of Recorded Plat 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 — Copy of Recorded Plat
Page 4 of 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is ±0.17 acres, known as Lot 1 of the Pome Rialto subdivision, aka 9457
Rialto Drive, Naples, FL, 34114, in Section 30, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
• All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
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.
January 30, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
w
F ad ollela �.; m > o
O ' o co w SreV�� c
N
a
Q7
o
° m o
[a
w o w U
J 2>w
o
v r� m
o
o >
�0
my UH
O U
J �
�o
N �
xc� �cmcn�
;JrTT
z
W
O
�
a
do
J
VA-PL20240010641 — 9457 Rialto DR
December 31, 2024
A
ISiFncasa
9457 Rialto Drive
Required Setback = 6 feet
Actual Setback = 0 feet
Variance Request = 6 feet
1 N
-1
.2o 1 '4'Eo AlAE
AR
vww�
L•8•J
rv~r zC=mm0
N !�ZN0
C:Mm
O
ni i Vnm
z m �j
v Jso~toot
'� �D F` ,
1>0
P (R/w; AAe ' R
U' E'r AfV p D� E 3
= Existing Screen enclosure
21'8 x 40'
=.Proposed enclosure extension
41'8 x 0'1
LLJ
d
k
N�
Q
OM Qo
O
mw
g=
d V)
^ W ce)
a
as";?
8
-.e
x
8no
°.Fk
8S
^R
8
+.
Eh$
0R
R,$x
"88RRR&:R�-'i
,.BR'.r..
X_8R"R.fi"°==
Son�T.8&
$,.�E�.",ARSi
5,7E?8=8".,
AA'
..
i..
3.WN
.
.
pp
ZI
3'
88A
R
,�
.p
R
R8$
:°^Q°R?8�R
'&
$.;
^RR
R8a
"BSBR
7-SSR808
.Rn.e..91^.�3
.8
�E:
.aa
88
8$.;3�
.8_%d'8R^°mAr
^$ra�36°^a"^h8°
-d'7°n„ape
__8^n
i
«=
8
8
°R
R
«8S
..�.a
88,.
R
:aa=88
RER°d
""-g
_$"86RSa_R°aR-
a'1A_e�°A".;n"°n8'A,;A
.°
xBa
$
.8888:
88A8
$:a
8p
88g
RR88$8g8888888g888
p+8888%88888g8g
88
gg88888888888888�888888888888
$888888888888888.8888888g
:aE
Finaa:$:grRR
888
B�Aa
Rr$�p28
_^
^h"RBF�r2��
_
AEC8e8RR�RRRR.:
to
00isle
y
g:
L£lad88GE8'°'°G��co'L000&a6ca^sciz35�33��535a5883"saaaa�n8D3cB$o$ae�aae^saeccc�aaa6c6�aE�s>��"s�°sEe@ee
�O[0—ExHaZ~g��Za
aOxO
E C0U)oLo
�4' P0P�
E !Ael! C)C,
Zo
0:)E-
a�O
�aOp"r
QCDcoC)C)Fd�Q~
pc�og?
���wqm
zw�o
o�e
C2gill
wo o
1111
'�
�
w
A
fR
lI I
Lj
Lq
uj
wa
�
g
P�IIII
wJ
Wbe
83 °
o
�rocc
r`cai mate�zc.,
44
o
u =
I
U
J
II
1
to 3ri
:
ON
I
i
;
JR a
a
,
F4 a U
0
-
_
SEE SFEOF
E�
RIVE
1
a
��
n
I
t
eJ
' ;
w
I
'�
�
w
A
fR
lI I
Lj
Lq
uj
wa
P�IIII
wJ
Wbe
83 °
o
�rocc
r`cai mate�zc.,
44
o
u =
I
U
J
II
1
to 3ri
:
ON
I
i
;
JR a
a
,
F4 a U
0
-
_
SEE SFEOF
E�
RIVE
1
a
��
n
I
t
eJ
' ;
w
I
u =
I
U
J
II
1
to 3ri
:
ON
I
i
;
JR a
a
,
F4 a U
0
-
_
SEE SFEOF
E�
RIVE
1
��
n
I
t
eJ
' ;
w
I
t
eJ
' ;
w
I
k
F
c U��
H—$ y�F27b