HEX Final Decision #2025-45HEX NO. 2025-45
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
November 135 2025
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20250000214 - 4160 1st Avenue SW -Request for an after -the -fact
variance from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the
required western side yard from 30 feet to 26.3 feet to allow for the continued existence of a
12400t by 24-foot utility shed and to allow a further reduction of said side yard to 24.8 feet
to accommodate the structure's 1.6400t roof overhang within the Estates (E) Zoning District.
The subject property is located at 4160 Ist Avenue SW and further described as the East 165
feet of Tract 90, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 1, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider an after -the -fact variance fi•om
.and Development Code (LDC) Section 4,02.01.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required western side
yard from 30 feet to 26.3 feet to allow for the continued existence of a 1246ot by 2446ot utility
shed and to allow a further reduction of said side yard to 24.8 feet to accommodate the structure's
1.5- foot roof overhang within the Estates (E) Zoning District.
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 public hearing was conducted in the following manner: 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 for this item.
Page 1 of 5
5. The Countys 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 f •om the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
agent stated, "The property contained a pre-existing 12 x 12 foot concrete pad housing
pool equipment, which influenced the decision to expand the structure to 12x24 feet. The
encroachment into the side yard requirement resulted from practical considerations
regarding the placement of the garage door and man door, cis well as a minor engineering
misunderstanding during construction. The expansion accommodates the existing layout
while ensuring the water filtration system remains untouched The garage door and man
door were oriented to face the front of the property for functionality and accessibility, as
alternative plans, such as facing the back, would have been impractical. "
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 the applicant's
agent stated, "The existing concrete pad, which houses the hater° filtration system, created
constraints on how and where the expansion could be placed. Practical considerations,
including maintaining the integrity and functionality of the equipment, heavily influenced
the design. "
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 a
The record evidence and testimony fi•om the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
agent stated, "Yes. Compliance with the zoning code art this stage would requrire complete
demolition of the structure, which is neither practical or f nancially feasible. The structure
has been constructed using block and r•ebar reinforcement, with complete electrical
systems, windows, doors, and roofing. This could create unnecessary hardship by
r endering the investment in the completed structure unusable and wasting significant
r esouirces. The structure does not negatively impact the surrounding area. "
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?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
agent stated, "Yes, the requested variance is the minimum adjustment needed to enable
reasonable use of the property. The design avoids unnecessary changes and maintains
functionality, health, safety, and welfare. " County staff noted that the requested variance
will accommodate both the footprint of the encroaching structure and the related roof
overhang. There is no reason to believe that the existing structure tivoitld impair the
standards of health, safety, or ivelfare,
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 the applicant's
agent stated, "No, granting the variance will not provide any special privilege denied to
others in the same zoning district. It ensures compliance ivith zoning
regulations ivhile resolving unavoidable constraints. "
Cozrnty staff provided analysis that, "Yes, by definition, a var°fiance bestows some
dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. LDC Section 9.04.02
allows relief through the variance process for any dimensional development standard As
such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar request
and would be conferred 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 ctnd testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
agent stated, "Yes, gaming the variance aligns YJ/ith t1�e intent and purpose of the zoning
code by addressing unique properly conditions while maintaining functionality and
accessibility. The variance will not har•nz the neighborhood or public welfare. " County
staff concurred.
7. Ai•e 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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
agent stated, "No, there are no natin•crl conditions or physically induced conditions that
ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation in this case. The variance
request is based on property -specific structural and design considerations. " County staff
noted that the structure is located ilvithin the rear yard, 11vhich is substantially uncleared,
and there appears to be sufficient vegetation to screen the structure from the view of
neighboring properties.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the applicant's
cogent stated, "Yes, granting the variance is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
The variance accommodates unique property conditions lvithout
compromising the plan's overarching objectives, including orderly
development, land use efficiency, and preservation of community standards. " County staff
concurred that approval of this variance will not affect or change the requirements of the
GMP concerning density, intensity, compatibility, access/connectivity, or any other
applicable provisions.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The record evidence crud testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject property is
designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict within the Urban -Golden
Gate Estates Sub-Elemient of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. This land use category is
designed to accommodate single family residential development at a maximum density of one unit
per 2.25 acres, or one unit per legal non -conforming lot of record. The petitioner seeks a Variance
for an existing storage shed that is accessory to a single family divelling unit, which is an
authorized land use. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance
requests related to land use.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the EAC does not typically
hear variance petitions. Since the subject Variance doesn 't 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 fiom 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-PL20250000214, filed by Angel
Arturo Mosqueda Matos, of Astrum Am Construction, LLC, representing the owner/applicant
Kristin N. and Michael A. Varaly, with respect to the property legally described as Property ID
No. 36616360001, located at 4160 1st Avenue SW, AKA: the East 165 feet of Tract 90, Golden
Gate Estates, Unit No. 1, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, for the following:
• An after -the -fact variance from LDC Section 4.02.0I.A, Table 2.1, to reduce the required
western side yard fiom 30 feet to 26.3 feet to allow for the continued existence of a 12-foot
Page 4 of 5
by 24400t utility shed and to allow a further reduction of said side yard to 24.8 feet to
accommodate the structure's 1.5- foot roof overhang within the Estates (E) Zoning District.
Said changes are fully described in the Boundary Survey and Construction Plans attached as
Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Boundary Survey and Construction Plans
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property, Property ID No. 36616360001, is located at 4160 1 St Avenue SW, AKA:
the East 165 feet of Tract 90, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 1, in Section 10, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East, Colli Rer County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All required inspections for Building Permit No. PRAC20240834556 must be
favorably completed and a Certificate of Completion must be obtained.
2. 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.
December 11, 2025
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
; Ef)
y o N I yxuyyy � ' ' b Q ° r �-., yy�� r' of
�. E"',t., N ttt����q++ O z a. i a' i c ?_ iiim m re z N
�iEt�IZ,yl� "��• yc OL' .� �,�zz%�c5
O i. G tc, O p FOF 0 z r'F wa- Rs < z If
w z c z
W Q� F' C to,
r v }}eq m--� w `j� a U �? %y a did oho III p -
cm)
��Y�o a ENs .¢ oJQ1 i5Y a�e�gEV`q ti� �a� $
IT � '
m
C
_rCDOZIt
7DtNV �o
toIII,t.a
O ?. 4, " Dv zO<& z uwa p
z u o'o 'N Z ooCsW raa k,= "
(Z)k.•Witt, 1aOI cm a o caz F Ion
.nJ C'oz oY 4O acob U Y <lot) w ZIANJ
�-
v or) 0
INV rWy< apq CC
IN u tomm, ti .7Ywn "-'
i
_ U z w E o
O 4>?d `oEn'MINIM,
oemw
:
ot: .' 0 0 1� L 1]
io-
Z a Z 6 u :/v na �`y
y V O <oi Chu It
�iw� w ut E
p Z T F Z
t°1 7 N 330 O Q` N W
tl o�Nkn�i,.
N w y W V 'n to w
a-ZIkQ , O
IN J Z n Z O < Z
Lq 4 K K > F
loi�'346
�Oh... __ IN
_J p au
NN It
Q IN
o
w
_ <o S
W
1n Z
Ir
..�,or
•S p a'f ^
_ 4 J e
Q D-I
_ m
� .,
IV
L7 to
IN
VIt--.
r
i p
5
1
c/i
d
a
p r
in' N Z
O Z
m�N Rlit
w
N 5 Z
NI5
oG ((I �CJwIN
mUmO
O Lit, f7� I i es 4 3E ViZN
} I'v ry •'d V 'kl i Y
Yv:
Q, ,00'099 M „01,6la00 S a '"
l+ _
3 S Oi J,L9Y7IL
j ] ( {�
r i! { 4 W -4 bi ti /� k� I7,O
{
g Ln
IN t _ 04.
kay¢ �
�.7a1 t) "N� za< ice- .� t0 0)
NNI,IN
a
.x
n ,C
� r
Will CmI\
ot q� a=>y�, !,00.099 3 „01,61.00 NMV
z
ALI
ITS
ri on It
la < n z 1"3ir1f1;):}G c INN, itOld
,
W0
� on s 06 IDvW .. am o u
ITZ —a 10 Ni�MNIV1NPJVAN
G
LN
y 4aY_�i k ,61,61. Gtl S
/9
p
�s
. - S
on
aasx N
2 i
N
W �ryC
ti
'S�'tdVN'AAS 3AV 1St Mt
f( Q
03143 A134 N01130av
L Pe F n �ao�an G u' sss�_vt1 a,:ftaf
W
O
a
611
a
h=-
w
0
V
15
t E a
I
j
Iz�
Q i
c
'Q
w.
m'
j
U
Q
a,
I
r
f
e
�
}'
s
Y
f.
Sy
3
r
¢
6tttE`lj'S3ldvN'M53Atl1StOlt 4
�1
�\Op,
/
ti
�j (t
t-y
ii?�jr�
o
J
E e
w
li
j
i�l ltil
03HS
✓%b
�
"
b
c
n
�
5 !�
gq.
r
r k i 4
}� i ��
1A; i�
N
1
q^�
I M3N NbW!>QV
;
�
�OZ
G
M.8
�
�v„
`
r
o
fu��{1y
�1
t
_
F
PRO
,.
•- 0
�m�.
8
I OE
T1
[� { 77q
�) �` �� �iti�i�)�
66
n
9 0
v
I
o
u�
CNL85213M
/ •EI 1 i t
to
GI
k
0
O
Q
O
7
�€
to
WO
<
N
C
O
5
2a
F
L
O
w
w
a
plat
lu
z
prt
a
O�
i7
6p
S
O
<
$
uz
u
W
H
a
D
a
W
U
cc
Y
(n
K
C'
2
S
N
��
lA
N
W
O
lh
y7y,
=
Sr
t
0
W
S+x
p
pqp
u
0
c
zr�
`a
0
ti
Oz
�."
mto
to
N p
0z
cc
n:j
�N<
N
�px2
>
Wm
a
aaO
LL<
u-0
ai�
Z
ZO
ao
�<
p
LL�
<0
a
0
p�
<to
wLL
a
..
pWm
Up
O�
>V
zd
z
MLL
N
aQ
Oww
to
S>
L
Low
pU
Q
ffim
'.'
>
pW
aa--
7
j
I.W. O O
O
O=
ti
rt
h
=
2
t
1:':fiil�]'Olia 7NNM7AD
d
to
�
O
Q
S
C
>
b
N
UZ
g
o
5
�
V
N
w
t2l00�� 1S6)
A00H
9 „€ 6IM'1l'S3'ldVN'MS 3AN 1S t Ol l7
s 0314S M114 Nlk1laav
' k =
a
i•
x
• pFp z � u
I Z'i,
'0
>
J
W
of
LL
drInv yb� Y �wn
y
t'
w
i
�
I
1
� I
ws
G J
Ill �
t � I
L)
W W I
i
w
iU
O�
�2?
oz
rW
ttad' m
CJ a
r-
�W
p
O
WU
N2 '
_4
�Icf i
Ni�dv>q
24wz c=:
o U m d G
4la��W
?nsee
a Qt�wc
a �OpS
4ladw� I
cn U=w
d p2N0
y nUW4
CaI 01
,�2�Qti i
H p�'Qa
C 1
L
2 •- tJ . -i U j
Ir