HEX Final Decision #2025-38HEX NO. 2025-38
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
October 9, 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240013775 —Dawn Brown requests the following variances from the
Collier County Land Development Code for (1) a variance from Section 5.03.03.D.1, to
reduce the minimum lot area for guesthouses from 43,560 square feet to 13,576 square feet;
(2) a variance from Section 5.03.03.D.2, to reduce the minimum lot width for guesthouses
from 105 feet to 100 feet; (3) a variance from Section 5.03.03.D.4, to reduce the building to
building setback for detached guest houses from 20 feet to 14.87 feet; and (4) a variance from
Section 4.02.0l.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 16 feet; located on a
0.31 +/- acre property at 1201 Ridge St., in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance request for the following
variances from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC): (1) a variance to reduce the
minimum lot area for guesthouses from 43,560 square feet to 13,576 square feet; (2) a variance to
reduce the minimum lot width for guesthouses from 105 feet to 100 feet; (3) a variance to reduce
the building to building setback for detached guest houses from 20 feet to 14.87 feet; and (4) a
variance to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 16 feet.
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.
Page 1 of 5
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 was one public speaker, Bebe Kanter, who resides outside of Petitioner's
neighborhood and expressed concerns regarding variances in general but did not oppose 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
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 recor°d evidence and testimony from the public hearing �°eflects that there ar°e no
special conditions or circumstances that exist that are peculiar to the location, size, and
characteristics of the land, structures, or building 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 from the public hearing reflects that yes, the property
owner wars not made aware of the exact setback encroachments, reductions in lot area, and
lot ii)idth to situate the garage and second -story guesthouse per LDC regulations for
guesthouses until the December 2024 pre-app meeting with county staff.
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 testimon}� from t1�e public hearing reflects t7�at yes, the cup°�°ent
code requir°es a pr°oper•tj� to have one acr°e, a minimum lot �-Width of 105 ft, 20 ft setback
from other structures, and a 25 ft rear setback to be allowed a guesthouse. Imposing a
literal interpretation of the current code would create practical difficulty for the prope7V
owner to build the garage with a guesthouse and would not be possible. As such, the
properoowner° is requesting these variances to effectuate the building of this proposed
structure.
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 fr•om the public hearing reflects that yes, the variances
proposed would be the minimum var°lances to allow reasonable use, alloy -ring for a net-n
two -car garage with a second -story guesthouse using a similar setback layout to the prior
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
garage. This new two -car garage with the second -story guesthouse will allow for
functionality of the property and further allow the property owners to have their daughter
live on the same property in the guesthouse. Approval of the variances would not have a
negative impact on the standards of health, safety, and welfare.
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 yes, by definition,
a variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site.
Mowever, LDC Section 9.04.02 provides relief through the variance process for any
dimensional development standard, such as the requested reduced rear yard setback. As
such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar request
and would be given equal consideration on a case -by -case basis.
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 cmd testimony from the public hearing reflects that these variances
will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The agent has submitted letters of no objection
from the adjacent neighbors to the west and east of the subject property for these variances.
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 r°ecor•d evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no
natural conditions or physically induced conditions that arnelior ate the goals and
objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that approval of these
variances 1��ill riot affect or° change the r•equirements of the Growth Management Plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that t1�e subject proper°tJ� is
located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Counry's Firtirr°e Land Use Map (FLUM)
of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The GMP does not address individual
variance requests but deals with the larger issue of the actual use. As previously noted, the
petitioner requests a reduction of the minimum lot area, a reduction in lot width, a reduction of
the building -to -building setback, and a reduction of the rear setback for a guesthouse. The subject
Page 3 of 5
use is consistent with the FL UM of the GM-P. The requested variances do not have any impact on
this property's consistency ilOth the County's GMP.
ANALYSIS.
Based on a review of the record including the Peon, application, exhibits, the County'0 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-PL20240013775, filed by Zachary
W. Lombardo, Esq., representing the owner Dawn Brown, with respect to the property legally
described as located on a 0.31 +/- acre property at 1201 Ridge St., in Section 22, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A variance request for the following variances from the Collier County Land Development
Code for (1) a variance from Section 5.03.03.D.1, to reduce the minimum lot area for
guesthouses from 43,560 square feet to 13,576 square feet; (2) a variance from Section
5.03.03.D.2, to reduce the minimum lot width for guesthouses from 105 feet to 100 feet;
(3) a variance from Section 5.03.03.D.4, to reduce the building to building setback for
detached guest houses from 20 feet to 14.87 feet; and (4) a variance from Section
4602601.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 16 feet.
Said changes are fully described in the Plot Plan Markup attached as Exhibit "A", and are subject
to the conditions) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Plot Plan Markup
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is located on a 0.31 +/- acre property at 1201 Ridge St., in Section 22,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. The existing sheds shown on the Plot Plan will be removed after the new garage
receives a certificate of completion.
2. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement
of the development.
Page 4 of 5
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,
October 24 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
«A»
wou Wad
Hape
A.00Q1N in
IDMIGIS69H AMOH9
!
a
d
Iroue^VOWN Pop..
I a
c
FoI
,u.,,o
n^a
w��nni
Hon
snlorau39
amrct
b7DZIQ
OQM -.
LL
�g
U
12
7
P
Nqq
W'
6
N
Ems"
E
i
=g
,06'Srl M,Of,f0.00S
,06'Sr! M,r0,00.005
(d) .96'Sr! 3,Or4r0.00N