HEX Final Decision #2025-25HEX NO. 2025-25
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
June 269 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240012113 — 2200 Curtis Street -Request for a variance from Land
Development Code Section 4.02.0l.A, Table 2.1, and section 4.02.03 to reduce the required
front setback from 25 feet to 15.16 feet for the proposed principal structure; 11.83 feet for
the front steps/entry feature; and 10 feet for the attached outdoor bathroom, pool equipment,
A/C pad, and stairs, and for the proposed accessory structures, 15.25 feet for the pool and
enclosure/deck, regarding the proposed Lot 1 of 2200 Curtis Street Plans & Plat
Construction (PPL) - PL20240000374, Naples, FL 34112 in Section 11, Township 50 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 front setback from 25 feet to 15.16 feet for the proposed principal structure; 11.83 feet
for the front steps/entry feature; and 10 feet for the attached outdoor bathroom, pool equipment,
A/C pad, and stairs; and the proposed accessory structures, 15.25 feet for the pool and
enclosure/deck.
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
Page 1 of 6
representative. There was one public speaker at the hearing, Jeff Collignon of 2201 Church
Avenue, who also submitted an email with concerns regarding the stormwater drainage.
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 from the public hear•ir�g r°effects t72at yes, the lot will
become a corner lot upon approval of the proposed subdivision, making it subject to aw
f °ont and two side yard setbacks. Curtis Street is an active right-of-way, while Church
Avenue is a "paper street" only shown on the original Bay Park plat dated April 6, 1931
but not constructed For the past 93 years, Church Avenue has served only as a driveway.
A portion was vacated by Collier County Resolution 2005-228, and it no longer connects
to Sandpiper Street, providing access only to 2201 Church Avenue,
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 from the public hearing reflects that yes, all the
previously described conditions did not arise from the actions of the Applicant; they are
pre-existing conditions. The Property Appraiser shows that the current owner acquired the
property on September S, 2024.
3. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary
and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical diffculties for the applicant?
The record evidence crud testimony f •om the public hearing reflects that yes, a literal
interpretation of the Collier Cozrnty LDC creates unnecessary crud undzte hardship for° the
Applicant and results in practical difficulties. If Church Avenue did not exist on paper, the
Subject Property would meet the RMF-6 side yard setback requirement of 7.5 feet. A
driveway alone does not trigger a 25 foot front yard setback and treating it as such imposes
an unreasonable burden.
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 f 4om the public hearing reflects that yes, the variance,
rf granted, is the minimirrn necessary to alloy-t� reasonable use of the land, r°educing the
setback only to the standard RNIF-6 side yard requirement. It will not negatively impact
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 6
health, safety, or welfare. Although Church Avenue exists on paper, it functions only as a
driveway. An application is being processed to subdivide a parcel into three lots, with one
of the resulting lots becoming a corner lot. The reduced front setback for this corner lot is
to optimize land use and maintain consistency with the adjoining interior lots.
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 from the public hearing reflects that no, granting the
variance will not confer any special privilege on the Applicant. The request is consistent
with standard side yard setbacks in the area and does not exceed the permitted limits
elsewhere. County staff noted in its report that it believes this request is reasonable and
aligns with the intent of the zoning regulations while maximizing the functional use of the
new lots.
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, 8'r°anting the
variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Collier County LDC and will not
harm the neighborhood or public welfare. The requested setback matches what would be
allowed if Church Avenue did not exist on paper. Additionally, a 40 foot setback will still
be maintained to the nearest property to the south. The existing structure, which has not
met the 25 foot setback since 1979, has caused no negative impact, demonstrating that the
variance would not be detrimental.
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 or physically induced conditions, such as preserves, lakes, or golf courses, that
affect or support the goals and objectives of the regulation in this case.
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 the
variance will be consister�t with the GMP, as a single family residential development,
along lvith its accessories, is an allowable use for the subject property in both the Future
Land Use Element and the GMP.
Page 3 of 6
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The record evidence and testimony f •om the public hearing reflects that the subject propee°ty is in
the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict land use classification on the County's Future Land Use
Map (FL UNl). 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.
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 cis allowed by certain FLUE Policies tender Objective 5, and
except as provided in the Bayshore Gateivoy 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.
The applicant seeks a variance for the existing pe•oposed single family residence, wlzr.'c1� features
an attached fe°ont stairway and entry, an outdoor bathroom, pool equipment, an A/C pad, stairs,
and a pool with an enclosure and deck, located in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF-6) propery),
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 preserved 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
repar t, 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-PL20240012113, filed by Zachary
W. Lombardo, Esq., representing the owner/applicant E & I Curtis LLC, with respect to the
property legally described as the approximately 0.72 acres, identified as Folio 00387280006 in
Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
Page 4 of 6
• A Variance request from LDC Section 4.02.O1.A, Table 2.1, and section 4.02.03 to reduce
the required front setback from 25 feet to 15.16 feet for the proposed principal structure;
11.83 feet for the front steps/entry feature; and 10 feet for the attached outdoor bathroom,
pool equipment, A/C pad, and stairs; and the proposed accessory structures, 15.25 feet for
the pool and enclosure/deck.
Said changes are fully described in the Conceptual Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and the
Proposed Subdivision Plat attached as Exhibit "B", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth
below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit B — Proposed Subdivision Plat
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is approximately 0.72 acres, identified as Folio 00387280006 in Section 11,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
The parcel cun•ently has a subdivision application (PPL) PL20240000374 in review to subdivide
the parcel into three lots. This variance would apply to the proposed Lot 1.
CONDITIONS.
1. Ali other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement
of the development.
2. All stormwater drainage requirements will be complied with at the administrative
permitting phase.
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.
Page 5 of 6
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 25I 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 6 of 6
VA
Q
N
O
O
L6
N
L
N
t`
uwreoweggeryawdomuap
opuol •saldoN
❑$
Z I IY£ DPPOIJ 'soldoN
G•
4
ry
'^
�
OZ I4£ j
ylJoN pn1g sapolB1an3 I99
4aaalS si}ano OOZZ
C�
•0�l 'SINvilnSNOO NOIS34
l — +off aouapisad si}�no
k
al 'oN
NAd 'QNJ
d'3'd
��� � (ltlld ?J3d AtlM d❑ 1H9I21 ,OS'.^S6'SI � 1ltlHdSV)
H 899 - M..6E.B1.00 N ' i s s e a l I� AYL V
S .
sl a ate
S — .B[.91�OJ !1
S ,9/s VNJ .9/S Velf I — — — •�% YJIf
Y
Q
I I
---fi- - - § ---- 3rw.01 -L----
I
I I a I Q�
I
SS.U'O L
2 Nb � I I
5�
c '� I I �__ __ _ I •01-.N
I I
I I I I L J �i I
RFT I I <LL
I It -IQ
UJI
I„. I
� I I
i
I aa'
_ Ss
r��'!�
I l.��Irk 1
=L❑o I
oLL
x Nx I-
N-r
r—
L___ 1
I
I
� I
I
I
Aso 4 I I
�b{ r
td
W Ism
v I N0
n
I I
a--�3o,u I
jh I I
Lto -al 9l I-
e/s n — i
S?Wal el .CVt - A .aa.9190 N UI VI b�
'U M9 - A .5C8(2'A�p 11 •B/S UNf
Eve
� I^
w>
w
B
;^
o.
in
Q
a
5
N
m
c
�
�y
ti
a
0
N
0
N
y
h
N
W
�
�
a
s
�
o
?
N
`.yj LC,J JVj >..I—sL'LL'Jia\(_L'Lli'1_UZZI _ S,ltn: C97z - Ci )s?ez A2v s
.s =
LU
TE
ley E >
mW in VLu zpl
anW n
74 ,8
cc zS
2
O W O sj Leh irz� 5r tiC¢<� 4 O
2 (ce
if
zi
5 js S z ZS R Zah
O O„ O s O Imp O aN.k
3 9
r
r
Z
IS WQ ��s I Lgq_`r)
�
F— Ln Q.,Y L t_
W W 4J
(n(DO
ZZLL
J
_ 2 hh xL L C, UFIIII
O cj c
O00 ' tstrrve U _ C`C iOPf
J
Z O n>raiaaaaa �, ���� �:= O C� cJ i
W lssuana Z cry oy f = L O� Z
C j
Li
O 19
IS dgdrdaNY5
Zt
.e Ef
It
"a z4
W } t O h 4x I,
O
'yY �� Y y B 6z:4 i3 3 Iti k
ohL xi o g a o�� €: zk2k htx
Qt.�yZI IV
u
N
N
r
r
Z Q
O uj
U N �
w uj
r+^Jzzq
�
ELL
�y
D
�000
—i U) U
UZoQ�
OLOw
U J
0
�zU
u O
Q
`o
Ll
Ea
S L E 2 $
LP iTd 'Z %T 1MIJ
L 107 8107 HVWONI 6107 01107
0 N0078
� is SI1H/10
I
i
_4____________________J
'
se I'—�z
oi
—30S1
}-30s'4
)O,t ^,
--
i
-----}-
---
3i-
-----------------i
K
O
a
p
Qfi