HEX Final Decision #2025-21HEX NO. 2025-21
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 129 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240014059 — 547106th Ave North -Request for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 5.03.02.C.2.b to increase maxi Dthe mum allowed RMF-6 zoned
Fence height from 6 feet to 8 feet on the north, west, and east property lines on approximately
L0.23 acres located at 547106th Ave North, also known as west V2 of Lot 12 and all of Lot 13,
Block 76 of the Naples Park Unit 6 subdivision in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
A request for a variance to increase the maximum allowed RMF-6 zoned fence height from 6 feet
to 8 feet on the north, west, and east property lines.
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 %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 no objections for this item at the public hearing. There were three
letters in support of this 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
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 r°ecord evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, the elevation
of the property has been raised to comply with the current flood elevation requirements.
The house previously on the property, built in 1968, was on a slab with an elevation of 10.8
feet. The current code requires a minimum slab elevation of approximately 12 feet, which
meets the 18 inches above the crest of the road. The new slab is at an elevation of
approximately 12.4 feet, slightly above the required elevation. Due to the increase in
elevation, a fence allowed by current code with a maximum of 6 feet above original grade,
is inadequate for allowing appropriate privacy for the applicant and the neighboring
residents.
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 recor°d evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, at the time of
the purchase in Februaiy 2024, the elevation of the land was inadequate to meet current
flood elevation requirements for the slab of the new house. This required significant fill to
be added to the property. The land elevation at the time of purchase ivas not a result of any
action taken by the applicant.
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 fr°om the public hearing reflects that yes, a literal
interpretation of the LDC creates a hardship for the applicant. According to the LDC
Section 5.03.02. C.2. b., the maximum fence height in the side and rear yard for the subject
property interior lot in the RMF-6 zoning district is 6 feet. Due to the required elevation of
the new house, this fence height is insufficient to provide the necessary privacy to the
subject property as ivell as the neighboring properties.
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 fiAorn the pzrblic hearing reflects that yes, if gr°anted, the
var•iance will be the minimum variance that tit�ill make possible the reasonable arse of the
land, building, or str •ucture and which promotes standards of health, safety, or welfare.
This variance request is minimum dire to the fence maintaining a height of 6 feet as
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
permitted by the code, however, it will be installed on 2 feet retaining wau along the north,
east, and west property lines.
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 r°ecord evidence and testimony f°om the public hearing reflects that no, granting the
variance will not allow any special privileges, as a fence and retaining wall are permitted
within the RMF-6 zoning district, similar to the adjacent property to the east at 554106th
Ave N.
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 yes, granting the
variance will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zoning code. It will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or be otherwise detrimental to public welfare. The fence
variance will allow for privacy for the applicant's residence as well as the adjacent
neighboring residences. Without the variance, this may negatively impact the
neighborhood due to diminished privacy.
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 no, there are no
natural conditions that create a an hardship. Hoti>>ever, the var°fiance r.`s r egzcested dice to
the current code, which stipulates the elevation of the new slab on the property, the impacts
of the increased elevation on the privacy of the applicant and neighboring properties, and
the increased height of the slab of the adjacent property.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence rind testimony from the public hearing reflects that yes, granting the
variance will be consistent with the Gr°owtJ� Management Plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The subject property is located in the Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) Zoning District and the
Urban Residential Subdistrict designated area as identified in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
of the GMP. The GMP does not address individual variance requests but deals with the larger issue
of the actual use. As previously stated, the subject petition seeks a variance for a single-family
residential dwelling to increase the maximum allowed RMF-6 zoned fence height from 6 feet to 8
feet on the north, west, and east property lines, which is an authorized use in this land use
Page 3 of 5
designation. This land use category is designed to accommodate residential uses, including single-
family homes. The single-family residential use and fence is consistent with the Future Land Use
Map of 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. Because of the new elevation requirements
to mitigate for potential flooding, without the variance, the code would only allow the owner and
applicant to build a fence at a maximum height of 3.5 feet over the elevated slab, which would
deprive the homeowner of any possible privacy.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20240014059, filed by the
applicant/owner Thomas Regner, Trustee, of the Thomas Regner Living Trust, with respect to the
property legally described as ±0.23 acres located at 547 106th Ave North, also known as west '/2
of Lot 12 and all of Lot 13, Block 76 of the Naples Park Unit 6 subdivision in Section 28, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.02.C.2.b to increase the maximum
allowed RMF-6 zoned fence height from 6 feet to 8 feet on the north, west, and east
property lines.
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 ±0.23 acres located at 547 106th Ave North, also known as west''/2 of Lot
12 and ail of Lot 13, Block 76 of the Naples Paric Unit 6 subdivision in Section 28, 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. No part of Petitioner's fence shall encroach on abutting property.
3. The installation of Petitioner's fence shall not cause any runoff or flooding on abutting
property.
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.
July 10, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
SITE LOCATION MAP
0
oar
z
d-
,d
w
o
M
s
M
M
z
M
N
M
M
(�
w
t
0
M
�'�
0.
um
M
0
M
t,
0
M
..
M
CM
M
0
�o
HQ
o
�
��
O
M
H
v
O
J
CD
O
M
M
o
T
l�**Io F' Z �—
S W O i
0 Q
OC V
� O
I --z —
w C _y
00 z
Z
Ja jilaae ueA
IMP
W W wII cs: , W' Z Q
Qom' c Q! < H I a a
I u
1 00 _ mi U
I � �
VA-PL20240014059 — 547 106th Ave N Page 2 of 7
May 20, 2025
3
0
a.
FIC
tl
8
=
o pppgY
�E
a �a
�a
g HH
ryj
@
� oYo �,�oro o
�
QQQ
@, Mid
OFF,
999 g it
M
IBM
W
8 $�
�a
AE�$a�j
ag¢g¢ pp�zz pp pp
o00
a
i zoo �an�ho m o:
ROQPona
Bzo0QiWFo v
Jyg 9000i e9 Z
/it.-TVv- o
ON $
OFF
Ud EW
O - v
0 p 6
O O>Zo
�LL2It
LLU
a R
H 6g8� , p�p€62d K
O TRW ��R €a "s ue d 5
�s ,
,z.
.� � �� beds a��e N���
r.
'N'3nV H190I
OZ{'3'3a
.99'LL 3'd'3
Ta3H10 AB IOOd
-_ A730100d
g 8 9 g 8
_
}
��
�
2 mo
e
eT
)
I
<
I■ I I I
w
�w
¢EE¢
z
W
d'O'3
saanva
N
lP
W 3AING Y NIVM 4458Y6
T
Z I�
� a
U® ZUZ-w
W � rcLL
Q >'rio
NNW o ¢az
p m o�W - o
o }}LL N U W N Q W
WO
F OpOYp
WN
0
o�
U
I �
U® ZUZ-w
W � rcLL
Q >'rio
NNW o ¢az
p m o�W - o
o }}LL N U W N Q W
WO
F OpOYp
WN
0
o�
U
I �
S
AA
Im
RO
Q
CO
Z
ggk O
3e �� w
t0
��w
aWm
W
z
�z
ao
xmo