HEX Final Decision #2026-01HEX NO. 2026-01
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
DATE OF HEARING.
January 8, 2026
PETITION.
Petition No. VA-PL20240011679 — 1287 Rainbow Ct, Naples, FL -Request for a variance
from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.01.A. Table 2.1 to reduce the required
front setback from 25 feet to 21.4 feet on the east property line for the existing staircase being
renovated on approximately 0.15 acres known as Lot 44 of Gulf Harbor subdivision, aka
1287 Rainbow Ct, Naples, FL, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION.
To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a variance request for a deviation
to reduce the required front setback from 25 feet to 21.4 feet on the east property line for the
proposed accessory unenclosed stairway.
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 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, ar•
Page 1 of 5
modify any request for a variance from the regulations or restrictions of the Collier County
,and Development Code.I
1. 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 fr°om the public hearing reflects that yes, the current
staircase setup poses several issues. it occupies the drivei4)ay, leading to vehicle damage
and hindering access. Homeowners must navigate aWlMardly to exit their cars, making it
hazardous to back out of the drivei4wy due to poor visibilio. Additionally, relocating the
stairs within the setback would require raising the riser height to 8 inches, which increases
the risk of tripping and does not comply with the 7.5-inch standard per the Florida Building
Code.
2. 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 thcrt the existing stairs
in their current location damage vehicles and limit parking space on the homeowner's
drive~ -nay. Accessing the car requires inconvenient movements, and the stairs are hard to
see, making it dangerous to back out. To meet the setback requirements, the riser height
�i)ould need to be 8 inches, ii�hich is higher than the standard of 7.5 inches, increasing the
risk of tripping and falling.
3. 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 recor°d evidence and testimony from t1�e public hearing reflects that yes, the staircase
is crtrrently located in the Iway, narking parking for nearby vehicles a challenge.
Exiting a parked car becomes a hassle as it requires maneuvering to the other side, which
isn't very convenient Moreover, the stairs block visibility when backing out of the
driveway, posing a safeo; risk. If the stairs ti-nere relocated within the existing setback, the
riser height would need to be adjusted to 8 inches. This increase poses a greater tripping
hazard, since it exceeds the Florida Building Code standard height of 7.5 inches.
Additionally, the current steps need repair due to damage from multiple hurricanes.
4. 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 fi4orn the public hearing reflects that yes, installing stair
risers at the standard height of 7.5 inches 1��ill improve the drivel-vay's fitnctionalit��,
minimize potential vehicle damage, and enhance safelyfor anyone using both the driveway
and the staircase. Currently, parking in the drimii- oy obstructs access to the front
1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized.
Page 2 of 5
staircase, making it difftczilt to exit the vehicle. To use the staircase, you must park at the
end of the driveway or in the garage.
5. 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 cind testimony f om the public hearing reflects that no, granting t1�e
variance hill not confer any special privilege.
6. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
Land Development Code (LDC), and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare?
The recoi°d evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that yes, granting the
variance will be in harmony with the LDC and will not be otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
7. 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 tJ�e ptiblic hearing reflects that no, there dire none.
8. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)?
The record evidence and testimony fi•om the ptiblic hearing reflects that granting this
variance would be consistent i-Oth the GMT. The Urban Residential Subdistrict, according
to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), permits a single family residential structure as
a use for the subject property.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY.
The record evidence and testimony°om the public hearing reflects that the subject propert)� is
located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict land use classifcation on the County's Future Land
Use Map (FLU". Thepurpose pose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with
fewer natural resource constraints and ioMere existing and planned ptiblic facilities are
concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban
Mixed. Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density
Rating System, but shall not exceed 16 dioyelling units per acre except in accordance with the
Transfer of Development Rights Section of the LDC.
The applicant seeks a variance for the existing unclosed stairway in the Residential Midti-Family
6 (RMF-6) Zoning District, 1-vhich is an authorized kind rise. The Gr•o�-vth Management Plcrn
(GMP) does not address individual land -use variance requests. Hoivever, the current use of the
subject property is consistent with the GMP.
Page 3 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION.
The r°ecoi d evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the EAC does not normally
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-PL20240011679, filed by the
applicant Mark Arrigo, representing the owner Danna Breeden, with respect to the property legally
described as the 0.15±-acre parcel known as Gulf Harbor Subdivision, Lot 44, aka 1287 Rainbow
Ct, Naples, FL 34110, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.,
Collier County, Florida, for the following:
• A Variance request for a deviation from Section 4.02.O1.A. Table 2.1 of the LDC, to reduce
the required front setback from 25 feet to 21.4 feet on the east property line for the proposed
accessory unenclosed stairway.
Said changes are fully described in the Conceptual Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" and are subject
to the conditions) set forth below.
ATTACHMENTS.
Exhibit A —Conceptual Site Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
The subject property is a 0.15�-acre parcel known as Gulf Harbor Subdivision, Lot 44, aka 1287
Rainbow Ct, Naples, FL 34110, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
CONDITIONS.
1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement
of the development.
Page 4 of 5
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,
January 22, 2026
Date
Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP
Hearing Examiner
Page 5 of 5
0 IL
10
DAINKON
le
m 3� z%Q .ytawiE
Ow
Lou)
ijcol:
�lw W oQ�Zc°]zi otigqq7 �yo/11QQ� y°owJi w?�Ig-1�2riil1�m0
3LIJ Q � U()oq xOFN § gZpi t¢B¢ y'
�g
WC�mazME arqqm7J 5h4R�124aRi a��
95
a 8�
'z,<UaiW a0 Q2 'c)cd
O �xU KrdO' I�-'�Y °d .,sa yp; u a ° W� 4g1J� 'co)
o as
LLc9� �a�
pd a$� w° woz,wya
o�ppO rr++ $aa CO =)gym Zoe
�mLu
WR �1iiJ- a�gSOwZaz0i�� a mzZ �wz
iQ4ZO7u
l2o U' o.w:op On Q
0ogZwZO Z3 vtQ;3z°°&m 0 a ;
,zzffi]
0oaoaoV RU0o2
Uy NZ
iur >yW �yrz"� " m3 w �'ut W o��a tiWOW 8
t`}
C�
.J
{„ 1 b6JTD� �� n utrrv1Vey
11"v 1��anw s nu
4° 4114DS
wv -
4 .tn .rrr 4
Ahif
Pw
4i
pi ca
z
Quw Lnt
i .rOr
.Q 1
1n .t
CdXXV9HI AGNV
;b
b�(
xWo
J
m