Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2026-08Page 1 of 6 HEX NO. 2026-08 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. February 13, 2026 PETITION. Petition No. VA-PL20250003358 - 569 Portsmouth Court within the Audubon Country Club - Request for a proposed variance of 9.6 feet from the required front yard setback of 25 feet allowing the garage addition to be 15.4 feet from the front property line, a proposed variance of 0.2 feet from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet allowing the garage extension to be 7.3 feet from the east property line, and an after-the-fact variance of 0.2 feet from the side yard setback of 7.5 feet allowing for the existing garage and home to remain with a minimum setback of 7.3 feet from the east property line for a single family home at 569 Portsmouth Court within the Audubon Country Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district per Ordinance 91-53, as amended, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider variance requests to the front yard setback and side yard setback to allow for a garage addition and to consider an after-the-fact variance from the side yard setback to allow for the existing garage to remain. 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. There were no public speakers. Page 2 of 6 5. The Hearing Examiner disclosed having reviewed the entire record and having no ex parte communications. 6. 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.1 a. 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 hearing reflects that the after-the-fact variance of 0.2 feet from the side yard setback of 7.5 feet, allowing for the existing garage and home to remain with a minimum setback of 7.3 feet from the east property line is a special condition peculiar to the building involved. This encroachment was revealed by an updated survey; this is a special condition because the home was built in 1994, and it is due to the heightened precision of today’s technology that the survey reveals a slight encroachment. No concerns have been raised over the 32-year period that this encroachment existed. The proposed variance for the garage extension to encroach 0.2 feet into the side yard is also a special condition, resulting from the alignment of the extension with the pre-existing encroachment. The proposed variance for the garage extension to encroach 9.6 feet into the required front yard is created by the circumstances of the home layout. The request to extend the existing garage is for aesthetic and functional continuity. The alternative of placing the third garage stall in a conforming location on the front of the house (with the new garage stall facing the existing garage) would result in garages dominating the façade of the home and would not be as functional given the layout of the home. b. 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 after-the-fact variance of 0.2 feet from the side yard setback of 7.5 feet is not a result from the action of the petitioner. This encroachment is a pre-existing condition that was revealed by an updated survey; the home was built in 1994, and the survey reveals a slight encroachment due to the heightened precision of today’s survey technology. No concerns have been raised over the 32-year period that this encroachment existed. 1 The Hearing Examiner’s findings are italicized. Page 3 of 6 The proposed variance for the garage extension to encroach 0.2 feet into the side yard is also due to circumstances that were not the result of action of the petitioner; the extension of the proposed garage aligns with the pre-existing encroachment into the side yard. The proposed variance for the garage extension to encroach 9.6 feet into the required front yard is created by the action of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to extend the existing garage for aesthetic and functional continuity. The alternative of placing the third garage stall in a conforming location on the front of the house (with the new garage stall front- loading facing toward the street or side-loading facing toward the existing garage) would result in garages dominating the façade of the home and would not be as functional given the layout of the home. c. 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 from the public hearing reflects that a literal interpretation of the requirement for a 7.5 foot side yard setback would require the existing home and garage to conform by demolishing and/or reconstructing the home to correct for the 0.2 foot encroachment, which would be an unnecessary and undue hardship on the petitioner. A literal interpretation of the requirement for the garage addition to conform to the front and side yard setback would mandate a design alternative with the third garage occupying the front yard in a position that is either front-loading or facing the existing garage. The petitioner argues this would be an undue hardship and a practical difficulty resulting in a garage that is intrusive and contrary to neighborhood character. d. 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 from the public hearing reflects that the proposed arrangement of the third garage bay is the most reasonable arrangement because it is an extension of the existing garage. There should be no compromise to health, safety and welfare resulting from the proposed use of the land, building or structure. e. 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 granting the proposed variance is not a special privilege denied to others in that the process to seek a variance is available to all property owners as outlined in the Land Development Code. Page 4 of 6 f. 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 the proposed variance is to allow a 9.6-foot encroachment of an additional garage bay into the front yard, while recognizing minor existing encroachments of 0.2 feet from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet. Attachment B is a letter from the Audubon Country Club Foundation, Inc. dated March 13, 2025 indicating approval of the request for a garage addition. Letters to property owners within 150 feet of the subject property have also been mailed by the petitioner, and no objections have been received by staff, which indicates the neighborhood has not found this request to be injurious. Expansion to accommodate a third garage bay for the existing single family home is generally in harmony with the intent and purpose of the LDC and applicable PUD Ordinance. g. 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 natural conditions ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation. The homesite is bounded by Common Open Space and Golf Course to the rear, which makes the logical option for a building extension to be positioned toward the front of the property. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the GMP is silent to the issuance of variances; the use of the property for a residence with an expanded garage conforms to the Future Land Use Element, and therefore the granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the 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. 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 this Petition. Page 5 of 6 DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20250003358, filed by David Brogdon of Green Mountain Builders, representing the owner/applicant Gerhard and Maria Albrecht, Stefanie Albrecht, and Lilia Bull, with respect to the property legally described as located at 569 Portsmouth Ct., Naples, FL 34110, Collier County, Florida, for the following: •A Variance request from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 9.04.03 Said changes are fully described in the Conceptual Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and the Boundary Survey attached as Exhibit “B” and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A – Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit B – Boundary Survey LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Lot 14 of Block A of Unit One of the Audubon Country Club 1 Subdivision (Plat Book, 15 Page 31), on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida CONDITIONS. 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. Page 6 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. March 5, 2026 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “B”