Resolution 1980-255November 18, 1980
BOX 057 PAce335
RESOLUTION 80 - 255
RELATING TO PETITION FDPO- 80 -V -13 FOR A
VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD
ELEVATION REQUIRED BY THE FLOOD DAMAGE
PREVENTION ORDINANCE (FDPO) NO. 79 -62.
WHEREAS, the petitioner, Edwin Shepherd desires to build a
single family home at 931 91st Avenue, North (Lot 17, Block 46, Unit 6,
Naples Park Subdivision) and has requested a variance from the Minimum
Base Flood Elevation required by the FDPO No. 79 -62; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing
as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed Petition
FDPO- 80 -V -13 in accordance with Section 18, Paragraphs (5), (6) and
(7), and has made a finding that the granting of this petition, in its
opinion, complies with the intent and purpose of said Section of Ordi-
nance 79 -62 as follows:
(5) The 2.S7 feet reduction from the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) 12' National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) require-
ment to 9.43' NGVD is the minimum variance necessary, con-
sidering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
This co- elusion is ba-ted on the following facts:
The adjoining home on the east is at an elevation of 9.63'
NGVD and the adjoining home on the west is at 9.41' NGVD.
The requested variance will put the elevation of the peti-
tioner's home at approximately the same elevation.
This is reasonable in order to control drainage• on-site,
allow for reasonable access and provide for an appearance in
keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
(6) The 2.57' variance is issued upon:
(a) A showing of good and sufficient cause based on review
of considerations contained in (7), following.
(b) A determination that failure to grant the variance would
result in exceptional hardship to the applicant and his
neighbors.
(c) A determination that the granting of a variance will not
result in increased flood heights, additional threats to
public safety, extraordinary public expense, create
nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
(7) In passing upon this variance, the Board of Zoning Appeals
has considered all technical evaluations, all relevant factors,
standards specified in other sections of this ordinance, and
the following; (The Board's findings are noted in paren-
theses) -
(a) the danger that materials may bo swept onto other lands
to the Injury of others. (such danger will not be signit- .
scantly affected by the granting of this variance)
! i J ?
November 18, 1980`
(b)
the danger to life and property due to flooding or
erosion damage; (not applicable )
(c)
the susceptibility of the proposed facility and Its con-
tents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on
the individual owner; (susceptibility hold to the minimal)
(d)
the' Importance of the services provided by the proposed
facility to the community; (not applicable) .
(e)
the necessity to the facility of a waterfront location,
where applicable; (not applicable)
(f)
the availability of alternative locations, not subject to
flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use; (no
alternative location is possible)
(g)
the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and
anticipated development; (granting of 2.57' variance
determined to be compatible)
(h)
the relationship of the proposed use to the plan and
flood plain management program for the area; (consistent
with County's flood plain management program)
(1)
the safety of access to the property. in times of flood
for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (access will not be
significantly affected by granting of this variance)
(J)
. the expected heis•tts, velocity, duration, rate of rise
and sediment transport of the flood waters and the
effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the
site; (not significantly affected by the granting of this
vnritlncA-)
(k)
thn costs of providing gLvernmentai su'•vi, as during and
after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of
public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electri-
cal, and water system, and streets and bridges. (nor-
mal cost as per surrounding residences)
(1)
Variances shall not be issued within any designated
floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base
flood discharge would result. (Not applicable, not in
designated floodway).
(m)
Generally, variances may be Issued for new construction
and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of
one -half acre or less in size contiguous to and surround-
ed by lots with existing structures constructed below the
base flood level, providing items (a - 1) have been fully
considered; (this application conforms with this provi-
sion).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Zoning Appeals,
that Petition
FDPO- 80 -V -13 is hereby granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. The variance
shall be for the reduction of the Minimum Base Flood
2 BOOK 057 racE 336
12
&VOU 057 PAGE*337 November•'18; 1980
Elevation required by FDPO No. 79 -62 from 12 feet NGVD to 9.43
feet NGVD.
2. The Chief Administrative Official shall mall a copy of this Resolu-
tion to the petitioner by registered return receipt and' such mailing
shall constitute compliance with Section 18, Paragraph (10) of
FDPO No. 79 -62 which reads as follows:
"Any applicant, to whom a variance Is granted,
shall be given written notice that when a
structure is permitted to be built with the
lowest habitable floor elevation below the
base flood elevation, the cost of flood insur-
ance will be commensurate with the increased
risk resulting from the reduced lowest habitable
floor elevation."
3. The granting of this variance has been predicated principally on
the engineering data and information provided by the petitioner
and a review of same with respect to the considerations required
by the FDPO No. 79 -62.
The granting of this variance by the Board of toning Appeals
does not make or imply any assurances that the subject property
or structures are not subject to flood damages. '
Further, the granting cf this variance shall not create liabil-
ity on the part of Collier County or by any officer or employee
thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this
variance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
In accepting this variance, the petitioner assumes ail I'nSNOl1-
sibility for any property damage resulting from its application.
Commissioner Brown motioned, seconded by Commissioner
wimer for the adoption of this Resolution. Upon call for
the vote, the motion carried.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: November 18. 1980 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST: BY: Ot�-
WILL! /CHAIRMAN PISTOR,
r:
r�
r
v �
JI. Cy•!��10
NJS /sgg /65 -E
Planning Dept.
10/9/80