HEX Final Decision #2026-13 HEX NO. 2026-13
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
INSTR 6795059 OR 6561 PG 2869
RECORDED 3/10/2026 11:08 AM PAGES 7
February 26, 2026 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
REC$61.00
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20250011116; 900 Grand Rapids Blvd. is a request to have the Collier County
Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance (VA) request from R-2 Development Standards in
Section IV, 4.06, Table II A, of the Orange Tree PUD, Ordinance 12-09, as amended, to reduce
the required side yard setback for an existing accessory screen enclosure on a single-family
detached home from 5.5 feet to 4.01 feet on the northwest property line.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
This is an after the fact variance request to reduce the required side yard setback for an existing
accessory screen enclosure on a single-family detached home from 5.5 feet to 4.01 feet on the
northwest property line.
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 objections at the public hearing.
5. The Hearing Examiner disclosed having reviewed the petition's record and having had no ex
parte communications.
Page 1of5
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.'
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 Applicant's
property is an irregular, pie-shaped lot on a curved section of the street. The converging
side property lines limit the buildable area, resulting in a smaller
rear yard than a rectangular lot. Strict enforcement of the side yard setback would restrict
the use of the rear yard for a pool enclosure, similar to those on nearby lots. Therefore,
the property's shape, size, and location present specific conditions that warrant
consideration for the requested variance.
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 special
conditions associated with this property did not arise from the current owners'actions. The
lot's unique shape and the construction of the pool and pool enclosure were established by
a contractor for a prior owner approximately 15 years ago. This construction did not
follow the approved plans, and a final survey to close out the building permits was never
submitted. The issues remained unnoticed until the current owners obtained a new
boundary survey at closing, which revealed that the pool enclosure encroached on the side-
yard setback. The Applicants are now seeking a variance to recta this condition caused
by the previous contractor's actions.
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 Collier County LDC imposes unnecessary and undue hardship on the
Applicant and creates practical difficulties. The pool and enclosure, constructed more than
15 years ago by a prior owner, have not adversely affected the community. Enforcing the
full side yard setback would impose significant financial strain on the Applicants. Granting
the variance would permit continued maintenance of the pool enclosure while ensuring
compliance with zoning requirements for fairness.
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?
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the variance would
permit reasonable land use without affecting health, safety, or welfare.A privacy hedgerow
protects the neighboring property, and there have been no complaints about the existing
pool cage. The variance will legalize this condition for compliance without expanding the
structure or increasing nonconformity.
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
variance will not give the petitioner special privilege since many properties in the PUD
have pools and pool cages, and the pool does not violate setback requirements. All
properties can apply for a variance; it is not a special privilege if the necessary factors are
met.
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 granting the
variance is consistent with the Collier County LDC and will not adversely affect the
neighborhood or public welfare. It allows land use that reflects community patterns without
imposing undue hardship on the property owner.
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 there are physical
conditions that serve the regulation's goals and objectives, such as vegetation that provides
privacy between the Applicants'property and the neighboring property to the west.
h. 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 consistent with the GMP, as a single-family residential development,
along with its accessories, is an allowable use for the subject property in both the Future
Land Use Element and the GMP.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the subject property is
situated within the Rural Settlement Area District, which falls under the Agricultural Rural
designation as indicated on the county-wide Future Land Use Map (FL UM) of the Growth
Page 3 of 5
Management Plan (GMP). According to the Density Rating System outlined in the FLUE, this
designation allows for a base density of one and one-half(1.5) dwelling units per acre (DU/A).
Originally approved in 2012, the Orange Tree PUD was found to be in alignment with the GMP
at that time. While the Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not specifically address individual
variance requests related to land use, it's important to note that the current use of the subject
property remains consistent with the established guidelines of 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.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. VA-PL20250011116, filed by Logan G.
Wardlow, Esq., representing the owner(s)/applicant(s) William Kennedy & Tara Gillespie, with
respect to the property legally described as located at Lot 119, Waterways of Naples Unit Three,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 31, Pages 35 through 38 of the Public Records
of Collier, also known as 900 Grand Rapids Blvd., Naples, FL, 34120, Section 14, Township 48
South, Range 27 East, Collier County„ Collier County, Florida, for the following:
A variance (VA)request from R-2 Development Standards in Section IV, 4.06, Table II A, of the
Orange Tree PUD, Ordinance 12-09, as amended, to reduce the required side yard setback for an
existing accessory screen enclosure on a single-family detached home from 5.5 feet to 4.01 feet
on the northwest property line.
Said changes are fully described in the backup documents in the record and the attachment listed
below, and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A - Survey/Site Plan
Page 4 of 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
Lot 119, Waterways of Naples Unit Three, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 31,
Pages 35 through 38 of the Public Records of Collier, also known as 900 Grand Rapids Blvd.,
Naples, FL, 34120, Section 14, Township 48 South, Range 27 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.
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.
ld.2-...1-1------
March 9, 2026
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
• E. a z NCV� w ••1v.w"''W
F �..7x O Oo fig: CQ�7z �,,, w l0
m a a w i
Q U W c7 0. n
W CW< `R o Ex"-4ap!C'1 g so'1 zP. . 6zz •Csi a• wzmm U N W w ow y# Ulw G] z O Ww; .4-
0 0. WX a zE,` k.a FFO O x
W mEA
Q ? lw-,E.0(0 ,47 `ME ,WYW�Y.o'"�x z0"z z azF•-'
IX a ▪ I Mama 6R. N F� 6W NwF aWO : x O� .., ..
WwU FiV�Ia 0. ow FfA.w-,G.'zz,U'-,]mm wmJ. v dr rc
aam i wW"q Ees w o Fx �ndmN[.7 z a waxy' � ogy a w
WOm �7 ofa.]w a0. a mF fAm Ex.,W7. 0 w aFa „v'^Y a } o
�p< WwQ • �i z UfUa FoF. ao aa ' Fa aaxa cxioF PRE W °
>wyp Sawa z wfa`"-z W0. W�7 o z�wF,w wa C o o[��77 G'6 °� > mQ ,-
•
Q. awx � zO o0 a E .—z k07Fxz--oo- N �'.]Fx OrO� o � � ��
<0 CO tnWp xF. mU maU Fla W �a''O E:,W F O OW W��U F.� D I- CI W
o NWm> A ww�UW EFa�C y r/�r/],.,fra l0QoWaza DaoUz U 6 co Z a-I
MCI'
zMz N <E. OLs. E. `-'ag WZ CO. a'L)*0W6W 06a Z �l0.aEa Cl) � Q IL
CK D F; o/Pa� owNva�N zN y aaFN ox z� w o aarW � el Q ZW
OD Z m www a. xaw o pop a rzz z 26w6wl� N arw� O tc+ `w' -•Qd
Q~� '" � E. ri,.'E,a cA 4r4•. 6 as zZZ„;4E'041 aw nO 70 a0UF C �" Z
CC
Z�WJ d WpO U fn w wWSE o1:4 rnz m WX.]pE�XL1F 3f/W]6E G� maa,mN Vl 6 O O
��J 0 a FF�1 o U z" 6 ..4 WW�Fa U Ciw xMZ
Z6 Ll m O
OZO ai 0 �OXO F P az Qsa 0. :tl Woa�a wU,,x zw WU E. a g
m00 W 0. z88 Cl) 2 o 4.O za0 C- z FQa0a Ex•,n.zE. 41=2 6"z m a
F o Wamm waaFWm ›� o za zo Door ] o a .E 3 G
U o ... -oFo o.w-.amx U ov{..wo Pxw, m ww �°1ow• om sawa �a mow Qza U L1dFUE�p QN > 0.� PPx�0 n
w W W w Q 6 a 6 WW vaa1 Eaa"w
0 U, a N6 wF EEJEn0. 0. ,"m p0,0.]N6`.OW0CW >regi 0 aaF,a7
0 Z t° ao02mo'4om�m aFazaa�zES,=xw°x r4 Q U$waz
OmxwiWcmimz w5� 1"'maarao E �a,oF J 7
O w wm6zz i mw2amauil3cti � l3wag''4amc,9w F ww a" _,
d > `mxwow,n�.. � r�,xwogaoxarp^xzxw x rt a0.WiaN ,
c, FUFm NUCOV]mm,°la FaN UF0. FOFa FzFELE z0aa
Q CO; ��� �� UamomE
N f7 7,O m t` ai W
/� Y1 a(�.aU oCo�4 3
V N MS m $ � w
w 3 3 3 3 3 u w w w z c
t0 M• , b /�<go. r n ,mn ,m.,c"Vi z 0.z m
J 1�1 H "� v/2 W off`^ ONN N00 a J W ww
4s, r.m S. Ysa aaa ,n,n,n W WwL�Luu�>
0 4,, +,,; zzz zzm zzz • O-. o� zoz5�a
Uro o aLLaa� .1 9 qq
c��y�y 8 GV/ y Doti "c O o' W
�P�`' f< ` 4° . Sd• °/e t� 8`� ° ^Ay o.1 _>o 4-. "y C7 lb, '
,-, O�Poo •�s�oti 1 4 ro �br o d/•e.e.et..s f > off e•e�`'c,34,1 o. o F. t- w
O ?�C°�• 4o<• �> 'i:N. 41•2 se°ees 0,irVial,'
oo¢~2oy,I., c,' Q g
�' - �' o f s y e ti�_ Q' 3
!' 11 eS Oe4r J�ryyy y�'
���go, ee"• �� ems• •good oNOJ mk ` + O �i i
•
• Q8 F; oa Q 3 e
`Q`'° °s �o�o�� •
•moo e. '0di `Q�2 U .n z
m a trl
, O 0yy�"� y b +tik, 0 yQ2 ,.,e,o/� Q
6..7144t
•
44,'
�O� �lg. oo g; seodr1 `• • • QP 5� u
•s '9e ^r
G fee.,0 4 sse` 6�`�f o° bir :' �cv 0— g
O w aJtr`e 'os J� 4 ��
U a� rs mr rs ,o ?" 0 / i 1 i i i 9 0
• L6.2
.. 0 w 3 �1, `1�a t r9�e �q,, ,0_V _0 yJ0�� Syr d 00 o
'' , .0.I \�. Q. a•s Q L N I
'-
4-" 6mm*a^6mmz. €mwm?o •
.�,a 41 C'-* 4 .0., 0�j1 g In
m u i'C!�'g� Py cy/ E
• Q cS0.aucm,aJ0. i,oa 3aacicm,e \ �`0 �P, �: F
~• N w w m 1�� 'k G et 15 S
^� < z. gmf. � coFa �„ Q u y
at F �ime II er� �4y' GM;;?o e°' fc pT��
m u u c o
y 3c7s acicm,a omo'cm,e 3aauoa �, �0 3 3 3 w E W
45 VD O w w 3 .CO4Q,' J,$. p N• ry z i
v) Trr No et-,,:t 5° g�gr- g"m$ 8V2�e 8M'^8x • 9
g 2 g_ `" o g8' � gem �• ���:p°'° � € �^ozo M" .o d w
it N ,nm , a mmlaCH';.o m,� mu m" m„ a. p
0 °,°" c��auUa 3¢¢�oa c�rrauUacSrcauoa
0 0 dmaci curia m„ 3auu" Q'. •�
• �•,� (SQUUG 3 m 3 w
A w re os m o ry i
as ce m z aQ s-N a- oo 'E,`g, VD'. o. ,8S g 1 9 m m
▪ 0 z " J ? mre dOro �X;;V° CIT7,i•um, �g7 x?M vm .,�m;n 8 .
O 0 W wz z O) ¢a dd o 3 "m" 3"�JOH 3" m,o, umo
N ' 3 �z p zwu6Warcou �d•�i ���°a m Uoa m<OCS¢acic,a
m EU' zKOO f a.Q W>w \�'>
4.,.,, Pa .0 Z HE 3HOz0 �003 W jo Y 6Z
y t� O mo ULLa�Z�mF<oijo •sya� 3 3 N w
U Ci "0 wm o0U_O¢i wrKyU �!• 6i a g
q � wLL a F"�
' I
IX 7, n1, "OLLN"OU� „ nm y&,A 7,z`° g:A°:°�ry �6Qg,rvry No a A„ „ „'8 CSS' 3w
O '� O. m m C700 KK Y DU ° mY V�.'Ql.,(m)Q 3K000G V KQUUG (S Q UUG V Q 0 U U
Q aaw0._LLmw....5.. ..rc am