From: Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:43 AM. To: Subject: 3045 Fort Chalres Drive Variance Petition 16-V6

Transcription

1 Roch Hillenbrand Subject: Re: 3045 Fort Charles Drive Variance Petition 16-V16 Tuesday, January 31, :02:38 AM Ms. Martin, I received another notice for the delayed hearing on this variance petition, whose number has changed to 16-V16 and is now scheduled for February 8. Once again, I will reiterate my opposition to this for the reasons stated below. Regards Roch Hillenbrand From: Roch Hillenbrand <roch@stonybrookhouse.com> Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM "emartin@naplesgov.com" <emartin@naplesgov.com> Subject: FW: 3045 Fort Charles Drive Variance Petition 16-V6 Ms. Martin, I received the recent notice of the City Council hearing on this matter scheduled for December 21. Although I cannot be there in person, I can only reiterate my opposition to this for the reasons stated below. The more I have thought about this, the more problematic I think granting this variance would be. It is absolutely the wrong precedent to set for this, or any community with similar codes to protect property rights and ultimately the value of our properties. Respectfully M. Roch Hillenbrand From: Roch Hillenbrand <roch@stonybrookhouse.com> Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 11:43 AM "emartin@naplesgov.com" <emartin@naplesgov.com> Subject: 3045 Fort Chalres Drive Variance Petition 16-V6 Ms. Martin, I just received this notice and although I am not a direct neighbor of this property I am very concerned about the precedent this may set. The set backs are there for a reason, particularly as it impacts the way we all landscape our yards to preserve the views that exist per code. Additionally, as a boat extends into the setback area (is there a limit proposed on how far they will encroach, I.e. Can they extend all the way to their property line?) there is an additional noise factor both from people who are on the encroaching bow or stern of the boat, and also the noise of the boat itself, e.g. Engines idling closer to the neighbors property, etc. I am concerned that this opens Pandora s box for those who want larger boats than their docks or existing codes would allow. For the reasons above I would oppose granting the variance. Regards M Roch Hillenbrand 3150 Fort Charles Drive

2 bernadine caruso Cc: Michael Caruso Subject: Variance petition 16-V6 Tuesday, January 31, :48:16 AM Dear Ms. Martin, I am aware that the delayed hearing on this variance whose number has changed to 16-V16 is now scheduled for February 8th. As a neighbor who directly abuts this property I am strongly opposed to granting a variance as I stated in a previous letter on 8/5/16. I am very concerned about the precedent this will set. Port Royal Properties remain unique and desirable because of the existing codes regarding docks and property lines. It would seem allowing this variance petition would open a Pandora's box for those residents who want a larger boat then the existing codes allow based on their water frontage. I feel that my property rights would be violated and that property values will be negatively affected by granting this variance. Respectfully, Bernadine Caruso 3065 Ft. Charles Dr. Sent from my ipad

3 January 31, 2017 Robin Singer Planning Director - City of Naples 295 Riverside Circle Naples, FL Subject: Variance Petition 16-V Fort Charles Drive Dear Ms. Singer: The Board of Directors and staff of the Port Royal Property Owners Association, in consultation with our attorney John M. Passidomo, have reviewed the above captioned Variance Application requesting allowance of the subject property s owners to moor a vessel which exceeds the permissible size relative to side yard setbacks. Side yard setbacks exist for the protection of adjacent property owners. These protections include limiting the impairment of waterfront view corridors, ensuring maneuverability of vessels located at adjacent docks, and the prevention of derivative outcomes such as the installation of nonconforming landscape that subsequently arise. Petitioner currently identifies the encroachment as nine and half (9.5) feet in total with a further acknowledgement that the nature of the vessel s moorage may encroach to a greater degree on one side than the other. In prior proceedings on the same matter there was testimony by the city Code Enforcement Officer that the true length of the vessel is approximately 108 feet which generates an encroachment of 20 feet +/- with respect to the setbacks. Use of the Collier County Property Appraiser s web-based measurement tools and other information commonly available regarding the vessel confirms its length overall as approximately 108 feet. Property owners have a duty to conform to relevant deed restrictions and city ordinances in the construction and enjoyment of Port Royal residences to include mooring a vessel. To erode the intent of these restrictions through the variance process not only impacts the rights of adjacent owners, but would invite other requests which place the interest of a single owner above the greater good of the community. Specifically, Petitioner s request does not meet the special hardship requirement peculiar to the land or structure that could be considered unrelated to the owner s identity. Further, it does not meet the requirements of section 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, or 8 of the Variance Application. The Port Royal Property Association seeks to uphold the integrity and value of the community through enforcement of deed restrictions and consistent application of city ordinances. As such, the Association respectfully objects to this Variance Application. Sincerely, Jenna Heiderman Executive Director 1020 Eighth Avenue South, Suite 3 Naples, FL Telephone Fax

4 Fred Irving Cc: Subject: Variance Petition 16-V16 Tuesday, February 7, :47:33 PM We reside at 400 King's Town Drive and received the notice of Variance Petition 16-V16. We would like for the Variance to be declined to assure that all of our properties have continued protected water views and that our property values are maintained. We do not want a precedent to be established with Variance 16 that would be available to erode our neighborhood's aesthetics, neighborly good will and property values. Fred R. Irving Property Owner Dawn D. Irving Property Owner Sent from my ipad

5 Robin Singer Subject: FW: Criswell Variance 16-V16 Tuesday, February 7, :12:41 AM For the file From: Michael Caruso Sent: Monday, February 6, :03 PM Robin Singer Subject: Criswell Variance 16-V16 Robin, Please be advised that I withdraw my support for the Criswell variance and retract my of August 3, Upon further consideration, I feel that the Criswell vessel does negatively impact our property value. Also, I support the Port Royal Association and it's various initiatives to promote and protect our neighborhood. Sincerely, Michael Caruso 3065 Fort Charles Dr. Naples, FL 34102

6 Cc: Subject: Will J. Dempsey Criswell Fort Charles Drive Variance Request Tuesday, February 7, :43:10 AM Good morning Erica. We represent 200 Kings Town Drive, LLC, which owns 200 Kings Town Drive. Thank you for your notice of the pending PAB and City Council hearings on the Criswell s variance request. This reflects our client s formal objection to the requested variance. I will not be available to attend tomorrow s PAB hearing, but will attend the March City Council hearing if necessary to speak in opposition. Thanks, and please feel free to follow up with me as needed. Will J. Dempsey Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer Cheffy Passidomo, P.A th Avenue South Naples, FL (239) telephone (239) facsimile wjdempsey@napleslaw.com This , along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return or by telephoning us (collect) at and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm.