Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2025-17HEX NO. 2025-17 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. May 225 2025 PETITION. Petition No. VA-PL20240000608 — 424 Egret Ave -Request for a variance from Land Development Code Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required west side setback from 7.5 feet to 3.25 feet for the proposed principal structure with an attached shed and wet bar located at Lot 5, Block S, Unit No. 3, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, also known as 424 Egret Ave, Naples, FL 34108 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 request to reduce the required west side setback from 7.5 feet to 3.25 feet for the proposed principal structure with an attached shed and wet bar. 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 Code 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 public speakers at the 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 r°ecor°d evidence and testimony f °om the public hearing reflects that yes, the Applicant's property is located along a canal, featuring a home built in 1971 and a pool built in 1978, both prior to Collier County's floodplain ordinance. A privacy fence and hedges are separating the property from the neighbor to the West, and a walkway provides access to the pool from the f ont yard.. Due to increasing storm occurrences and potential impacts on the property, the applicant seeks to take action to protect their personal property from storm surges and to prevent items from washing into the canal or neighboring properties. The home is smaller than many nearby houses, with side setbacks of 11 feet fom the East property line and 15 feet f om the west, and the planned expansion will align with the existing structure and pool access. 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 the conditions, such as the location of the home and pool, existed prior to the applicant's purchase of the house in 2016 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 recor•d evidence and testimony f•om the public hear°ing reflects that the current development standards signif tartly restrict the buildable area for an attached shed. As a result, the applicant is facing challenges in safely and securely storing essential Personal belongings. This limitation is particularly problematic given Collier County's susceptibility to severe weather events, including strong storms and storm surges. Without the ability to construct a compliant attached shed of adequate size, the applicant risks damaging or losing personal property during these events. Therefore, the strict application of the code creates a practical difficulty that could be alleviated by granting the requested variance. 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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that yes, if granted, the variance would represent the minimzrrn necessary change to allow for the reasonable use of the land, considering its existing and long-standing use of the residential dwelling and accessory pool. It will not negatively affect public health, safely, or welfare. The privacy 1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 5 fence and established hedges along the western boundary of the Applicant's property, along with a letter of no objection f 4om the neighboring property owner to the west, guarantee that there will be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. Additionally, the proposed structure will enhance public welfare by securing the applicant's personal property, particularly items that would otherwise be vulnerable in the pool area, within a Cully enclosed space, protecting in the event of a storm or storm surge. 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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that r7o, granting this variance will not confer any special privileges on the applicant. Several properties on the same block have similarly extended their screen enclosures or cages beyond the approved initial footprint. Therefore, the proposed variance aligns with existing development patterns in the area and would not provide a unique or unfair advantage to the Applicant. 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 recor°d evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing r°eflects that g�°anting this variance will be in harmony with the general intent and pur pose of this Land Development Code. It would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed shed structure will improve health, safely, and welfare standards by providing a secure area for the applicant's personal property. It will protect items that might be exposed in the pool area by enclosing them within a fully enclosed space. This design offers added security, especially during storms or storm surges. 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 f°omthe pzrblic hearir�g reflects that yes, there is an existing manmade canal located along the southern rear setback of the property. This canal is the primary physically induced feature contributing to the Flood Management objectives. It was established in 1959, prior to the enactment of the Collier County Floodplain Ordinance. 8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)? The record evidence and testimony fi°om the regulation would be consistent �-With the GIMP. (FLUE), a single family residential structure �Othin the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Page 3 of 5 public hearing reflects that granting this According to the Future Land Use Element is a permitted use for the subject, property GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN LUMP) CONSISTENCY. The subject property is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed -Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. The applicant seeks a variance for the existing proposed principal structure with an attached shed and wet bar in the Residential Single -Family (RSF-3) property, 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 Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) does not typically 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 this Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20240000608, filed by Zachary W. Lombardo, representing the owner Robert A. Martin, with respect to the property legally described as 0.22± acres, known as Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estate Unit 3, Block S, Lot 5, aka 424 Egret Ave, Naples, FL, 34108, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following: • A Variance request fiom Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.O1.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required west side setback from 7.5 feet to 3.25 feet for the proposed principal structure with an attached shed and wet bar. Said changes are fully described in the Conceptual Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and the Copy Of Recorded Plat attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the conditions) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A —Conceptual Site Plan Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B — Copy Of Recorded Plat LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The subject property is 0.22f acres, known as Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estate Unit 3, Block S. Lot 5, aka 424 Egret Ave, Naples, FL, 34108, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CONDITIONS. 1. 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. June 19, 2025 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 5 •• • r'S7t9'AIR ba. pals" �5•dr.n. ...�e� ins.. TTYP. WALL SECT. living MWIAJ 10* Ran AMA VAR, ffiat .t Y RULE GAP YCAMI = smog k 1�.°^OS-ram a�trrlaot!' AIRRoo A N cJIP I Etim t�1olc�Ne�tt• era 17HENW WAM ( 4ray t� r of CK S ttwac •s• FOUND 11• RONROD o Ut,P� Rc9ufred Gao.ck A<tuat Sdba<k Yarhnw R.9uc5t �l :F l: �. i�a.. �. ortoma Door aotmtu m .I 111 EGRET AVENUE A i T�awiimr w R w4cF MY a® ERONT ELEVATION FAIR tit qrAA 46 —I FOUND 1� (n • • A LOU o u BLOCK Or rn r�- FEYI51CW5 O• CORNECTiO15 byJOSEPH SINSK KOSINSKI Date: 2024.07.1 , 21:50:11 -04'00 }§t rJ It, N it to ;i2r' F 4T 4 ' °� ? F h�5 h I ?rEli � gil oc 3ex r�aZ+ ?�}; pL. v`s.5 jai I M } ? S";i d i �} ! - lil f r i ,,ppjjt }?� `z r y4i§ iAll Nz Fli" x !+ �i q. �[<i<Y ( a 3st3 8 yf. Af tot V . j I.t (AZz �/'� jj ,�v �;; e\\\ F Z i,sq °;i y A q Cp p {g`tv A til 'F�'k trot <S =Fc V � li) i��� �j i J CF[a 3� C `�> 0 Coll 6 < vU i``` iS} d V }8i x1 `,ct M FL Nit .` ' x'w t ° 42 �3 g ce a`i� ° p}j-� iyt °j ai�f �i ° "' J: dF o '`;} f.t .: lz. t;' g' ° a 'F �� `t „i a d 0 , v l V an l y[ V eit D Q ` Z~ c e;} y�; ; it igd;ja }� x �p ap f si ^!i ix �e. i pN0 $ 7t F} 'F- ^ �td gL: t F= S Eg.. } 4 gyt� V�e {� tto J S. CO n c i ras,**' ; ? F ; {:'_$ .;� i�;-t � mi l £ F 3 of Z. ,} c %I Z. y ..i i`52r' r ilibif It °r e; q }4tfiL x�y~ Zxy�y9 is aFC 3;2Ft.: e$F ':; s.ta; .. , i1 }i c 'a Vt t: v Ifollow olffll itI L - — _J < fllfff� '= — L --- — _ ,. _--rs•t�c ,—.—e - e: Ir � e _0 or WI to lA, e 'Y:` Wiz', N n W ( > if if F,O if It, If 11 1ii , nt III of mile m n _ r oll e n t, T . — �4 `r , a r n 4 IF 14 � • ( I ,s L look4ti I , s Id n P 1 P of 1 ( I "I le a _ e_ n. n p ( A •e I _ n ' U( — .._-... " n n �F d n a :• jam' „ :� . a 1 - n - n 8 n ,• m A — I -- ol tee lo It —_ d 1 IO N n n la J J- m. w LL lot a ¢ Is S a slet 3 u N N d N • i'�4�A' N ,` 'S\a [ lei U _ i'act ib to tit NpJA��`. ,r tit eP Frw dr -F� mac. �Jr .... I i