Interoffice Memorandum
DATE: October 8, 2025
TO: Mayor Jerry L. Demings and County Commissioners
THROUGH: N/A
FROM: Tanya Wilson, AICP, Director, Planning, Environmental, and Development Services Department
CONTACT: Renée H. Parker, LEP, Manager, Environmental Protection Officer
PHONE: (407) 836-1420
DIVISION: Environmental Protection Division
ACTION REQUESTED:
title
Accept the findings and recommendation of the Environmental Protection Commission and deny the request for variance to Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 934 square feet to 1,382 square feet for the Julio A. Calderin and Sandra I. Deniz Dock Construction Permit Modification BD-24-05-034-MOD2. District 4. (Environmental Protection Division)
body
PROJECT: Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) Recommendation for Request for Variance for Dock Construction Permit BD-24-05-034-MOD2.
PURPOSE: The applicants, Julio A. Calderin and Sandra I. Deniz, are requesting a Dock Construction Permit Modification with a variance to Orange County Code (Code), Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size). The project site is located at 12598 Kirby Smith Road, Orlando, FL 32832 (Parcel ID Number 20-24-31-0000-00-027) on Lake Whippoorwill in District 4.
Previous Permitting and Permit Modification:
On July 11, 2024, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) issued Dock Construction Permit BD-24-05-034 to the applicants, Julio A. Calderin and Sandra I. Deniz, to construct a dock with a terminal platform size of 832 square feet. Subsequently, on November 25, 2024, EPD received an application to modify the dock. The modification included the addition of 128 square feet to the terminal platform. During a routine site visit on December 2, 2024, EPD staff noted that the dock was already constructed, including the additional 128 square feet proposed in the modification. Accordingly, an administrative penalty of $1,160 was assessed for failure to obtain a permit before modifying the dock. The penalty amount was remitted on January 15, 2025. Subsequently, an after-the-fact dock construction permit modification, BD-24-05-034-MOD, was issued on February 24, 2025.
Current Request:
On June 25, 2025, EPD received a second Dock Permit Modification Application, BD-24-05-034-MOD2, and an Application for Variance to Section 15-342(a)(5) for the dock located on the subject property.
Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(5) of the Ordinance states, “The maximum allowable square footage of the terminal platform is the calculation of twelve (12) times the linear shoreline frontage, not to exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet.”
The applicants have a shoreline that measures 293 linear feet at the Normal High Water Elevation (NHWE). The calculated allowable square footage of terminal platform for the subject property is the maximum of 1,000 square feet. The existing dock is 934 square feet, based on the as-built survey received by EPD on April 2, 2025. The applicants are proposing to add 448 square feet to the terminal platform to construct an additional boat slip and catwalk. The upper deck is also proposed to be extended over the new boat slip. The total terminal platform size after the proposed addition would be 1,382 square feet.
Pursuant to Section 15-350(a) Variances, in order to apply for a variance, "the applicant must (1) Identify the section(s) of this article that the applicant seeks a variance for and the extent of the requested variance; (2) Describe the impact of the requested variance on the surface water and the environment; (3) Explain the effect of the requested variance on any abutting or affected shoreline property owner(s); (4) Describe how strict compliance with the section(s) of this article would impose a unique, unreasonable, and unintended hardship on the applicant; and (5) Explain why the hardship is not self-imposed.”
The applicants’ agent (Alexa Parada) provided the following responses to the criteria in Section 15-350(a), Variances:
To address Section 15-350(a)(1), the applicants’ agent states, “Section 15-342(a)(5) - Terminal platform size.”
To address Section 15-350(a)(2), the applicants’ agent states, “The requested variance will have minimal to no impact on surface water and the surrounding environment. The proposed project will not affect wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other environmentally sensitive areas.”
To address Section 15-350(a)(3), the applicants’ agent states, “The requested variance will not negatively impact any adjacent or shoreline property owners. The proposed improvements will remain fully within the applicant’s property lines and will not obstruct neighboring views, access, or usage of adjacent properties. There will be no encroachment upon riparian lines or shared shoreline rights.”
To address Section 15-350(a)(4), the applicants’ agent states, “Strict compliance with Section 15-342(a)(5) creates an unreasonable and unintended hardship, as the platform has already reached the maximum size allowed by code, limiting further functional improvements. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property and does not result from any action of the applicant.”
To address Section 15-350(a)(5), the applicants’ agent states, “The hardship is not self-imposed. It results from code restrictions, not from any action by the applicant. The applicant is simply requesting to build a reasonable and functional dock on the property.”
Pursuant to Sec.15-350(d), the applicants have agreed to provide mitigation for the additional shading from the terminal platform with a payment of $1,268 to the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF), should the variance be approved. The surface water impacts were evaluated by EPD staff based on the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method.
On August 7, 2025, a Notice of Application for Variance was sent to all shoreline property owners within a 300-foot radius of the property. EPD was unable to confirm whether one of the notices was received. Accordingly, the notice for which delivery was unconfirmed was posted onsite by EPD staff on August 21, 2025. EPD has received no objections to the request.
On September 10, 2025, the applicants were sent a notice to inform them of the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) meeting on September 24, 2025.
There is no formal enforcement action for the subject property. The existing boat dock is in compliance with Article IX.
Staff has evaluated the request for variance for compliance with the criteria for approval. Pursuant to Section 15-350(c), Variance criteria. A variance application may receive an approval or an approval with conditions if granting the variance: (1) would not negatively impact the surface water or the environment or if there is a negative impact, sufficient mitigation is proposed pursuant to paragraph 15-250(d), if appropriate; (2) Would not be contrary to the public interest; (3) Where, owing to special conditions, compliance with the provisions herein would impose a unique and substantial hardship on the applicant; (4) Where the Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) has determined that the hardship is not self-imposed on the applicant; and (5) Would not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this article.”
The recommendation of the EPO is to deny the request for variance to Section 15-342(a)(5) based on findings that the applicants have failed to meet Section 15-350(c), including failure to demonstrate that the hardship is not self-imposed, failure to identify special conditions that demonstrate compliance with the provisions herein would impose a unique and substantial hardship on the applicants, and failure to demonstrate that an oversized dock is not contrary to the intent and purpose of Chapter 15, Article IX, as a functional dock meeting the requirements of the code has already been constructed and is being utilized on the subject property.
EPD presented the variance request in a public hearing before the EPC at their September 24, 2025, meeting. The applicants and their agent were not present at the meeting. Chairman Peter Fleck commented that if this variance was to be approved it may set a precedent for allowing oversized terminal platforms under the current dock code. Chairman Fleck also commented that the applicant had not demonstrated that the hardship was not self-imposed. Based upon evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the EPC voted unanimously to accept the findings and recommendation of the EPO, and made a finding that the request for variance was inconsistent with Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-350(c) and recommended denial of the request for variance to Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 934 square feet to 1,382 square feet.
BUDGET: N/A