HEX Final Decision 2021-14HEX NO. 2021-14
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
March 11, 2021
PETITION.
PETITION NO. PL20200002057 VA -Request for a variance from Section 4.02.03.1) of the
Land Development Code to reduce the required accessory structure side setback from 30
feet to 12.5 feet for a tennis court on Lot 5, Block G, Subdivision of Blocks E, F, G and H in
Pine Ridge Subdivision, also known as 132 North Street, in Section 10, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
Request for side yard setback variance for a tennis court from 12.5 feet where the zoning code
requires 30 feet.
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 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 Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative executed the Hybrid Virtual Quasi -Judicial
Public Hearing Waiver related to conducting the public hearing electronically and in -person.
5. The Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative presented the Petition, followed by County
staff and then public comment. There were no objections at the public hearing. Numerous
nearby neighbors submitted "no objection" forms, including the property owner closest to the
proposed tennis court.
Page 1 of 4
6. The County's Land Development Code, Section 9.04.00 contains the requirements for
variances. Section 9.04.03 lists the criteria for evaluating a variance application: "Before any
variance shall be recommended for approval [the Hearing Examiner] shall consider and be
guided by the following standards in making a determination."'
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 reflects the existence of a large pond that consumes nearly all the applicant's
rear yard.
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
the Variance request?
The record reflects the existence of a large pond that consumes nearly all the applicant's
rear yard.
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 reflects that the Pine Ridge neighborhood is a collection of large lots for single
family homes, many of which have amenities like the applicant's proposed tennis court.
While it is true there are many ponds in Pine Ridge, the shape and size of the pond behind
the applicant's property is unique, making use of the property for anything other than the
single family home difficult.
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 reflects that the west side yard is the only plausible location for a tennis court
with a variance. While the `proposed tennis court surface" is larger than the actual tennis
court (baseline, doubles sidelines, and net posts), County planning staff testified that the
"outermost court fair play line is the point to use for determination of setbacks, "
particularly in this instance since the applicant proposes no fence around the tennis court.
This is analogous to calculating setbacks for swimming pools.
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 reflects the peculiar nature of the applicant's lot, including the very large pond
in the rear yard, leaves no room for an accessory tennis court, which most lots zoned RSF-
I in the Pine Ridge neighborhood would accommodate without a variance.
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 4
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 reflects that the Pine Ridge neighborhood consists predominately of large
single-family lots, many of which have an accessory use, such as a tennis court.
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 reflects the existence of a large pond that consumes nearly all the applicant's
rear yard.
h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan?
The record reflects granting the variance creates no inconsistences with the growth
management plan.
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 Petition.
DECISION.
The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition Number VA-PL20200002057, filed by Brian
Foley, PE representing Myles Samotin, with respect to the property described as 132 North Street
and is legally recognized as Lot 5, Block G, Subdivision of Blocks E, F, G and H, Pine Ridge
Subdivision, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 1.56± acres, for the following:
• An application for variance from Section 4.02.03.1) of the Land Development Code (LDC)
to reduce the required accessory structure side yard setback from 30 feet to 12.5 feet to
allow for a tennis court at this location.
Said changes are fully described in the Survey and Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject
to the condition(s) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A — Survey and Site Plan
Page 3 of 4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
132 North Street, Lot 5, Block G, Subdivision of Blocks E, F, G and H, Pine Ridge Subdivision,
in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. Approval of this Variance will be in accordance with Exhibit "A" with setbacks not to
exceed those shown.
3. Any fence or wall for the subject tennis court must comply with Section 5.03.02 of the
Land Development Code.
4. If the approved tennis court utilizes lighting, such lighting will be directed only onto the
petitioners' property and will be shielded to prevent glare onto neighboring properties.
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. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as
amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners
or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date
the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered.
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 19, 2021
Date Andrew Dickman, Esq.,AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT "A"
r,r rrar a u,rs s..crcH m eor cashrurc D�r<eS,r<
T VEST BCNCHMARK [AST v BENCHMARK Mrc• ,K I ,trvr O ,Hrt SW [r R !0o rrh[ rMAry t9 O�
� rd^ee)pr M20 rLA 9pVt rS
S UR V F, I 0I\E I C H UP: ou u IN L)ARY
"A IN u
SCI PK NAIL A DfSK LB 6569
ELEVATION . 16.9, NAVD
SEI PK "" I 01SK LB 6569
[L[VAr/ON - 16.4• NAVD
PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
NORTH ST
N.89°15'00"E.
905.20' (P)
3
(60' R�W) `� 6.7 NB9'14'34 •E.
5105.40' (C)
Q Q
xo, roe race cas,ncun.
CENTERLINE z1 //
\ _ _ U6
1,
�; rw cursrRscrror
rm u(irtw
n.o
EDGE OF PAVEMCNS6I30.0'
b66 }164
Nr,gg•} ;p 'F 0.00' CPk �3
V
FIR 5/8' —
166
FCM
NO ID 0.9'
X166 XI6.9 I
NO ID
W
o
k ).1 PROPANC
L
VALVE h49.1
STRP.LT ADDRfS3:
X69f
47.1 111.5'
132 NORTH ST
>�,.6
CONE
NAPLES FLORIDA
it
X
02
177
>As'B = SPOT ELEVATION
BASED ON NAVD DATUM
BLOCK G
C192
X466 X
I
I PAVER
- — -631'- — -
t76
r ••
Q
X461 >1T4
'• '
Bt
^
I
°
78.7'
$ LOT 6
LOT a M N
4/32
c) BLOCK G
BLOCK G � 'n
ONC STORY
RCSIDENCE
W
X16.4
N W
L'i 2
---Lo'-
O ^
'o
k3B
�
o 1r)
P
z
�a± kb016
I
11).1 ITS -• = X.-
>n
O
2
jL�l
H
16: EOv ioB 0B zoCONC
I
c�c
IV
SCALC I' ° 30
63 �N
1SB
% I
12) X
66 ISO POND
6.
T� 26
EO�
16] 16] ]6 1 12.9 12.] 124
a VER
164 2
1z 4
162 22
X ]4 1 X1
Xt6.l 423 fOV 124.0L- 1231
>43A
A
FCM
NO ID
FIR 5/8,
NO f0
k61OR 13.7
X62 39
16.I 2013T (MJ
rv0)Y+.
0.4'
V
s.a2•.ro2,r 20I36' cP'
M ....
N,82'35'44
...t.
LE'CAL DESCRIPTION
LOT IS
LaT 14
+"'>""°' __•
LOr 5. BLACK L, tiVJPFWISION OF BLOCKS C,
BLOCK G
3'73£
T, L AND H, PIAC RIDGE SUBDIVISION, IN
BLOCK G
3.88 'P
--•�
ACCORDANCE VITH AND SUBJECT TO THE
PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 29
, a° 1111-1.
m
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
�' '�•
COUNTY, FLORIDA
9uum amol.
an mmr:g
a
y
,.4•, ,. o-a.,, A K•s r.c.,, �. Y .. , ` es r,.4R n.�..
_
�.�„Ma1Nry.i16!_ ew .nmr nuw:rt "„ra nerm:o
~o
.. ,...,a.. ,.... ,..•m. .. ,,... ,arn.n•nrc, ..a�..� rep „ux oo... r..1
.�F.LA. SURVEYS CORP.
T��m
—�Pro-rrrmrulAYCDa�Ermr4NBNA.rcat tI-6539
Ise NORTH ST BOUNDARY AND PARTIAL
sRnT 1 1
•.
SAMANTHA ARDENFRIEND-SAMOTIN
NAPLES, FLORIDA 'TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Variance Request for Tennis Court Side Yard Setback
FOR
132 North St. - Pine Ridge Estates
INDEX OF PLANS
SNEET NO. DESCRIPTION
I COVERSHEET
2 AERIAL PHOTO WITH CONCEPTUAL PLAN
3 SITE PLAN
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT NAME: 132 NORTH ST.
COUNTY PL NO.:
ZONING: RSF-1
FOLIO: 67231360002
LOCATION: COLLIER COUNTY, FL S 10 T49 R''
Prepared for Owner:
Myles Samotin
132 North St.
Naples, FL
MAP
z
tl.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 5, BLOCK G, SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS E,
F, G AND H, PINE RIDGE SUBDIVISION, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE
PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 29,
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA
Blair A. Foley, P.E., LLC
C- 61glNeer Devclopmenl C,jmullam
`9I.dp— W./ S9mh-N.rAo FI 311115
PMw[12)9126 222lt11121912l9— F,,1219t263.IN 21.1n.�1 (nIxWO'n`wl.mm
Digitally signed by
Blair A
Blair A Foley
Foley Date:2020.10.29
08:12:59-04'00'
ClAllleals 01 Auth-1-11— No. 9e69
FI-1d, Reglat9raA Proteaelonal Engines, No. 53756
`C
m
Nam. Dab
132 North St SNEE7
(VA) 01 S
AWLco''i"�
CK
,ter. -� AC• lol `� - ` . I _� -� �1
.' I li ter I :'C17SICRY
S/
• �' i I .::7ClJLC 1
�lJ
r � �F\ _ -:` a •.r �• � �� j
47%
l �1 � � � i t +s � v it � •.Olk��{' n�'.y� • F- .•r . � � .i . r � 4
r 4 ��•;
t `� -
SETBACK TABLE RSF-1
PROPOSED
REQUIRED
FRONT YARD (N)
101,
50'
SIDE YARD (w)
12.5'
30,
REAR YARD (S)
168'
50,
NF/RTH .CT
BK -B1air A. Foley P.E. LLC� M —, MylcsSamolin o ti., ". uun • �wf � _ � �.n
�� J9
x..r Civil Enginccr / Ucvclopmcm Consultant I �._..i�j 132 North St. Sitc Plan ""` siunn
120 Edl'rnfine \Vay Lmfh - N.pks. FI.,J 105 i
.� ph ny?t91?fii.l? C[III?i91?sV 4g Fax1=191:M11 WTlim it lidf wl[um COIIICr County, Florida