Loading...
HEX Final Decision #2026-04HEX NO. 2026-04 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION DATE OF HEARING. January 8, 2026 PETITION. Petition No. VA-PL20230016958 — 2592 Santa Barbara Blvd -Request for a variance from ,and Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.15. D., to reduce the minimum project size requirement to the existing lot of record of .26 acres, which will allow the continued commercial use of property zoned Residential Multi -family 12 within the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay (RMF42-SBCO) described as the North 44.66 feet of Lots 1 and the South 45 feet of Lot 2, Block 225, Golden Gate Unit 6, aka 2592 Santa Barbara Blvd., Naples, FL, in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. To have the Collier County Hearing Examiner (HEX) consider a minimum lot size variance to build a one-story commercial structure on a 0.26-acre lot where 1 acre minimum is required. 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. 8a00 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. Two public speakers, owners of the abutting properties, expressed a desire for proper buffering (privacy fence) and access from Santa Barbara and not from the neighborhood street (Tropical Way). Page 1 of 5 5. The Countys 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 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 from the public hearing reflects that there are specific conditions related to this site. It is a legal nonconforming lot that is currently vacant as a i°esult of afire and was purchased for its potential commercial use. Residential units constrain the subject lot's size to the north and south, and roadways to the east and west. The neighboring properties are not for sale, and the current Land Development Code (LDQ Section 4.02.1 S.D does not allow for development on this lot for commercial uses unless it is a minimum one -acre parcel, nor can the subject lot revert to residential uses. Residential development would be nonconforming under the SBCO's regulations. A variance is needed to permit the proposed commercial development, which, based on the included conceptual site plan, has been designed without necessitating a larger lot size or deviations to the building setback or perimeter buffers. 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 pZtblic hearing reflects that there are certain conditions and circumstances that do not arise from the applicant's actions, such as pre- existing conditions related to the property pertinent to the variance request. The subject site has limitations in expansion due to existing roadway configurations and nearby residential duplex units. While the SBCO overlay standards promote lot aggregation, it may not be necessary to mandate it for independent business oivners, particularly if their business can operate on an existing lot. 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 record evidence and testimony fi°om the public hearing reflects that the inlerpretation of this zoning code's provisions poses potential challenges for the applicants, particularly regarding the SBCO overlay design standards of the one -acre lot size requirement. It's essential to recognize that many existing lots within the overlay may not meet this size criterions, potentially limiting development opportunities for property owners. Allowing variances when a proposed use aligns with the site's characteristics could help address these practical difficulties. 1 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page2of5 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 from the public hearing reflects that the variance is the minimum necessary to allovn reasonable use of the land to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the area as per the LDC Section 2. 036 07 SBCO. 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 and testimony from the pzrblic hearing reflects that granting the variance will not confer any special privileges on the Applicant. The site is in a unique situation; it is vacant due to casualty, is legally nonconforming, and is unable to expand in any direction. The Variance request is reasonable and aligns with the intent of the zoning regulations while also maximizing the functional use of the vacant lot. 6. 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 fi°om the public hearing reflects that granting the variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the LDC and will not harm the neighborhood or public welfare. The intent of the zoning overlay is to convert this corridor into a commercial corridor, which the proposed business will be harmonious with. Appropriate buffering will be provided where adjacent to residential uses. 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 ji°orn the public hearing reflects that there au°e not any natuural or physically induced conditions, such as preserves, lakes, or golf couu°ses, that affect or support the goals and objectives of the regulation in this case. S. 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 one-story commercial building str°actor°e is an alloivable use for the subject property in both the Future Land Use Element and the GMP. Page 3 of 5 ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County'3 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. PL20230016958, filed by Tocia Hamlin of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing the owner Nivia Perez, with respect to the property legally described as located at 2592 Santa Barbara Blvd., Naples, FL 34116, Collier County, Florida, for the following: • A Variance request from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.02.1 SD allowing for a lot size smaller than the required 1 acre. Said changes are fully described in the Conceptual Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A." ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A —Conceptual Site Plan LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The North 44.66 feet of Lot 1 and the South 45 feet of Lot 2, Block 225, Golden Gate Unit 6, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 124, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. CONDITIONS. 1. Access to the subject commercial building shall not be from the interior neighborhood street and there shall be a privacy fence/buffering for the abutting properties. 2. 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. Page 4 of 5 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. February 5, 2026 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 5 of 5 SANTA BARBARA BLVO R/GNTOF WA Y VARIES »mom ovo 8 I n 2 N Ix T LI0 0:0 0 0 f �x kA ►�� 4 �m a � i fV 4 D Z �32�Ro'g? m a c � z ^ � 0 O " a:g om Eo ��yy5 mo s w