Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2026-07Page 1 of 5 HEX NO. 2026-07 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. February 13, 2026. PETITION. Petition No. NUA-PL20250001009 – 119 Jefferson Ave E, Naples, FL - Request for a variance from LDC Section 9.03.03 to reduce the required 7.5-foot side setback on the north property line to 7.2 feet for the renovation of an existing patio and to add a storage shed that will meet current setbacks. This property is approximately 0.16 acres and is located in the Newmarket Subdivision, Block 43, Lots 13 and 14, aka 119 Jefferson Ave E, Naples, FL, in Section 03, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a non-conforming use alteration (NUA) variance to allow for the renovation of an existing non-conforming patio and to add a storage shed. 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. Maria Bottolo, 115 Jefferson Ave., spoke at the hearing and stated that she supports the request as long as it does not impact her fence and/or her property. 5. The Hearing Examiner disclosed reviewing the entire record for the petition and having no ex parte communications. Page 2 of 5 6. The County’s Land Development Section 9.03.03.B.5 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.1 a. The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not increase the density of the parcel or lot on which the nonconforming single-family dwelling, duplex, or mobile home is located. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that renovating the home and replacing the damaged, unenclosed patio on the lot with a new one of similar size and location will meet all Collier County code requirements and will not increase the lot's density, since this is replacing one unit with another and not adding any square footage. Additionally, a non-habitable shed is needed for storage, which will not increase density. The patio is currently being used for storage until the shed is permitted, as it is necessary to protect equipment from the weather. The owners were unaware of the patio's unpermitted status when they purchased the home in 2022. b. The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not exceed the building height requirements of the district most closely associated with the subject nonconforming use. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the renovation and replacement of the damaged patio attached to the home and shed will not exceed the district's building height limit of 35 feet. The current zoning is heavy commercial, but the property and surrounding properties to the East, South, and West are still being used for residential purposes. c. The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not further encroach upon any nonconforming setback. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the renovation of the home and damaged patio will meet all Collier County building code requirements and will not further encroach upon any non-conforming setbacks. The after-the-fact patio will have a side setback of 7.2 feet from the west property line, flush with the home. The proposed shed will meet the accessory setback requirements outlined in LDC Section 4.02.01.A, Table 2.1. d. The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not decrease or further decrease the existing parking areas for the structure. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed alteration, expansion, or replacement will not result in a reduction of the existing parking areas for the structure. Specifically, the addition of the patio and shed will not affect the property's available parking. 1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized. Page 3 of 5 e.The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not damage the character or quality of the neighborhood in which it is located or hinder the proper future development of the surrounding properties. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the renovation of the home and the replacement of the damaged patio, including a new shed, will not damage the character or quality of the neighborhood in which it will be located. The original home and patio were permitted and built in the mid-1960s. The home continues to function as a single-family residence, consistent with the surrounding properties. Bringing the patio up to code and adding a shed will improve the property’s appearance, safety, and maintenance, enhancing the neighborhood. f. Such alteration, expansion, or replacement will not present a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community or its residents. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the renovation of the home and replacement of the damaged patio and new shed will not present a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the community or its residents. On the contrary, ensuring the existing 1960 patio meets current code standards will increase safety for our family, neighbors, and the community. The shed will also meet all applicable safety and zoning regulations GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject property is within the Urban Designation – Urban Industrial District, Industrial Mixed-Use Subdistrict, of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) Future Land Use Map of the GMP. The IAMP does not address individual NUA requests but deals with the larger issues of actual use. The subject site house and unenclosed patio were constructed in 1961 as a dwelling, located within an I-C-3 zoning district. The zoning district, although commercial, allowed residential use because it was pyramidal zoning. The purpose of the Industrial – Mixed Use Subdistrict (IMU) is to provide a transition area from the Industrial Subdistrict to adjacent commercial and residential land uses. Although the IAMP did not specifically list this house as a non-conforming use, the residence has existed as a non-conforming use since 1960. Because the new patio was constructed to the same size and is in the same footprint, the subject use is consistent with the IAMP of the GMP. The requested NUA does not affect this property's consistency with the County's GMP. 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. Page 4 of 5 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 9.03.03B.5 of the Land Development Code to approve this Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. NUA-PL20250001009, filed by Gerry Gonzalez and Laura Gonzalez, with respect to the property legally described as located at 119 Jefferson Ave E, located in the Newmarket Subdivision, Block 43, Lots 13 and 14, in Section 03, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, for the following: •A non-conforming use alteration (NUA) from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 9.03.03.B. Said changes are fully described in the Boundary Survey and Deviation notes attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A – Boundary Survey and Deviation Notes LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Newmarket Subdivision, Block 43, Lots 13 and 14, aka 119 Jefferson Ave E, Naples, FL, in Section 03, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. CONDITIONS. 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 2. All approved structures and fences must not encroach onto an 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. Page 5 of 5 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. March 4, 2026 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner EXHIBIT “A”