Interoffice Memorandum
DATE: March 12, 2026
TO: Mayor Jerry L. Demings and County Commissioners
THROUGH: N/A
FROM: Tanya Wilson, AICP, Director, Planning, Environmental, and Development Services Department
CONTACT: Elizabeth R. Johnson, MPA, CEP, PWS, Acting Manager, Environmental Protection Officer
PHONE: (407) 836-1511
DIVISION: Environmental Protection Division
ACTION REQUESTED:
title
Accept the findings and recommendation of the Environmental Protection Commission and approve the request for variances to Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(1) to construct an enclosed dock with opaque walls and Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 1,000 square feet to 1,232 square feet for the Patricia Doyle Monserez and Matthew Monserez Dock Construction Permit BD-25-10-110. District 1. (Environmental Protection Division)
body
PROJECT: Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) Recommendation for Request for Variances for Dock Construction Permit BD-25-10-110.
PURPOSE: The applicants, Patricia Doyle Monserez and Matthew Monserez, are requesting a Dock Construction Permit, including a request for two variances to Orange County Code (Code), Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(1) (enclosed dock) (also referred to in this report as “Variance #1”), and Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size) (also referred to in this report as “Variance #2”). The project site is located at 533 Ridgewood Drive, Windermere, FL 34786 (Parcel ID Number 17-23-28-9336-02-560) on Lake Down in District 1.
Background:
On October 31, 2025, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) received an Application for Repair of an Unpermitted Dock (Grandfathered), BD-25-10-110, to replace an existing dock with an enclosed boathouse. Based on a review of historic aerial photographs by EPD staff, a dock has existed on this property since at least 1958 and therefore was in place prior to the adoption of Chapter 15, Article IX on December 19, 1988.
The grandfathered dock permit referenced above was utilized prior to an update to the dock ordinance (adopted in 2022) to authorize maintenance and repairs to grandfathered docks. However, once the dock ordinance was updated, this permit type became inapplicable for repair; however, it may still be utilized for authorization of maintenance, up to fifty percent of the dock as discussed below.
Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-323 defines maintenance as “the act of keeping the dock in a safe and usable condition consistent with original design specifications” and repair as “to restore a dock structure to the original design specifications, including the replacement of the entire dock or portions of the dock. Further, Section 15-346(c) Maintenance of unpermitted "grandfathered" docks states, “Docks constructed on or before December 19, 1988, are allowed to remain as originally constructed. Maintenance activities of unpermitted docks constructed on or before December 19, 1988, do not require a permit under this article, unless repair or replacement occurs to more than fifty (50) percent of the dock.” A permit “under this article” means a new dock permit that complies with all design standards and requirements in the updated ordinance.
The proposed project is to replace an unpermitted “grandfathered” dock in its entirety. Therefore, a new permit, reviewed under the Dock Construction Ordinance, is required. On November 24, 2025, EPD received the standard Application to Construct a Dock and an Application for Variance to Sections 15-342(a)(1) (enclosed dock), Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size), and Section 15-342(a)(6) (access walkway elevation). On January 19, 2026, EPD received a revised Application to Construct a Dock and a revised Application for Variance to Sections 15-342(a)(1) (enclosed dock) and Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size). The applicants submitted revised plans on January 22, 2026, depicting that the access walkway will be elevated the required minimum of three feet over wetlands, so the Application for Variance to Section 15-342(a)(6) (access walkway elevation) is no longer applicable.
Based on a review of aerial photographs and a property boundary survey received by EPD on January 27, 2026, the dock is proposed to be rebuilt with the same existing terminal platform configuration. The access walkway is proposed to extend an additional 22 feet landward from the existing condition, where it currently ends below the edge of water, and will be elevated a minimum of three feet over a narrow wetland at the shoreline.
Variance Requests
Variance #1 - Enclosed Dock
Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-342(a)(1) of the Ordinance states, “The dock must be designed and constructed to be open to the environment and without opaque walls, solid panels, or fencing, except for partial walls less than thirty-six (36) inches in height. See-through insect mesh screening is allowed for enclosing the dock.”
The proposed dock will have three solid, opaque walls on the boathouse, located on the western portion of the terminal platform. The plans indicate that no bathrooms, fish-cleaning stations, wet bars, or other similar facilities will be constructed, pursuant to Section 15-342(a)(10).
Variance #2 - Terminal Platform Size
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 100.2 linear feet at the Normal High Water Elevation (NHWE). The calculated allowable square footage for the dock terminal platform for the subject property is 1,000 square feet. The existing terminal platform is 1,232 square feet, based on the signed and sealed survey received by EPD on January 27, 2026. The applicants are requesting a variance to replace the existing terminal platform in the same footprint, with a terminal platform size of 1,232 square feet, which exceeds the allowable square footage by 232 square feet.
Pursuant to Section 15-350(a)(1) - (5), an applicant for a variance must, at a minimum, provide the following:
(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’s responses to each of the above requirements is provided below in italics:
(1) Identify the section(s) of this article that the applicant seeks a variance for and the extent of the requested variance;
“15-342(1) solid walls and (5) terminal platform size.”
(2) Describe the impact of the requested variance on the surface water and the environment;
“Since we are only proposing to rebuild the dock in the same footprint, there will be no additional impact to the lake.”
(3) Explain the effect of the requested variance on any abutting or affected shoreline property owner(s);
“The non-compliant dock has been existing in the same footprint for many years, so there will be no change in viewshed.”
(4) Describe how strict compliance with the section(s) of this article would impose a unique, unreasonable, and unintended hardship on the applicant;
“The owners expected to be able to rebuild their dock in the same footprint, like their neighbor just a few lots to the East did only a few months ago.”
(5) Explain why the hardship is not self-imposed.”
“When the property owner purchased the parcel, they were advised that they would be able to rebuild the boathouse in the same footprint. The new boat dock ordinance was adopted three years after they purchased the property.”
Staff have determined that the oversized terminal platform and opaque walls will have a negative impact on Lake Down. The impacts were evaluated by staff utilizing the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). Pursuant to Sec.15-350(d), the applicants have agreed to provide mitigation for the additional shading impacts with a payment of $826 to the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF), should the variances be approved.
Public Notification
On December 12, 2025, a Notice of Application for Variances was sent to all shoreline property owners within a 300-foot radius of the property in accordance with Section 15-347(a). EPD was unable to confirm whether three of the notices were received. Accordingly, the notices for which delivery was unconfirmed were posted onsite by EPD staff on January 9, 2026. In response to the notices, EPD received one letter of support and no objections to the request. The letter of support states that the neighbor two lots to the west (Richard Irwin at 501 Lake St.) is in full support of any improvements to the boat dock.
On February 11, 2026, the applicants, their agent, and the supportive neighbor were sent notices to inform them of the Environmental Protection Commission meeting on February 25, 2026.
Enforcement Action
There is no formal enforcement action for the subject property.
Staff Evaluation and Recommendation
Staff evaluated the request for variances for compliance with the criteria for approval of a variance in Section 15-350(c). Pursuant to Section 15-350(c), a variance application may receive an approval or an approval with conditions if granting of the variance meets the criteria listed in Section 15-350(c). Each of the criteria listed in Section 15-350(c)(1) - (5) are listed below and are followed by staff’s analysis, shown in italics, of whether the applicants’ request complies with the variance criteria.
A variance application may receive an approval or an approval with conditions if granting the variance meets the following criteria:
(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 15-350(d), if appropriate;
Variance #1 - MET: Staff has determined that there are negative impacts to surface waters associated with the requested variance, as the opaque walls will reduce sunlight reaching the lake bottom vegetation on the opposite side of the dock from the position of the sun. However, the proposed mitigation will fully offset the negative impact on the environment.
Variance #2 - MET: Staff has determined that there are negative impacts to surface waters associated with the requested variance, as the oversized terminal platform will increase shading of lake bottom vegetation. However, the proposed mitigation will fully offset the negative impact on the environment.
(2) Would not be contrary to the public interest;
Variance #1 - NOT MET: The applicants have not demonstrated that impacts to the natural resource have been minimized pursuant to Section 15-322(d), as a dock without opaque walls that does not reduce sunlight reaching lake bottom vegetation to the same extent could be constructed.
Variance #2 - NOT MET: The applicants have not demonstrated that impacts to the natural resources have been minimized pursuant to Section 15-322(d), as a smaller dock that does not reduce sunlight reaching lake bottom vegetation to the same extent could be constructed. Further, the proposed request pre-empts other members of the public from using the 232 square feet above the allowable terminal platform size.
(3) Where, owing to special conditions, compliance with the provisions herein would impose a unique and substantial hardship on the applicant;
Variance #1 - NOT MET: Staff has determined that compliance with the current code does not impose a unique and substantial hardship on the applicants. The applicants have not presented evidence to staff to the contrary regarding a unique and substantial hardship. There are many functional boat docks utilized throughout the County and the Butler Chain of Lakes that do not have opaque walls.
Variance #2 - NOT MET: Staff has determined that compliance with the current code does not impose a unique and substantial hardship on the applicants. The applicants have not presented evidence to staff to the contrary regarding a unique and substantial hardship. There are many functional boat docks utilized throughout the County and the Butler Chain of Lakes that are 1,000 square feet or less.
(4) Where the environmental protection officer (EPO) has determined that the hardship is not self-imposed on the applicant;
Variance #1 - NOT MET: Staff has determined that the hardship to comply with the new code requirements is self-imposed. The applicants are able to meet the provisions of the updated ordinance since they are rebuilding the dock in its entirety and could construct a dock that meets code.
Variance #2 - NOT MET: Staff has determined that the hardship to comply with the new code requirements is self-imposed. The applicants are able to meet the provisions of the updated ordinance since they are rebuilding the dock in its entirety and could construct a dock that meets code.
Furthermore, in response to the applicants’ agent’s statement in Section 4 regarding other applicants that were issued a permit to rebuild their grandfathered docks, the previous Orange County Dock Construction Ordinance, adopted May 18, 2004, allowed for replacement of grandfathered docks, including enclosed structures. There was a transition period of approximately six months duration after the current Code became effective on January 1, 2023, during which time some permits were issued to replace grandfathered docks, which under the new code is no longer applicable to the replacement of an entire dock. For example, a permit (BD-23-04-062) was issued for the property to the east at 613 Ridgewood Drive to rebuild an enclosed grandfathered dock. The permit was issued on June 12, 2023, and a permit extension was granted on August 15, 2024. Additionally, there are several other similar permits that were issued between March and June of 2023.
(5) Would not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this article.”
Variance #1 - NOT MET: The Board’s expressed intent and purpose for Section 15-342(a)(1) is to phase out the construction of “…opaque walls, solid panels, or fencing, except for partial walls less than thirty-six (36) inches in height…” due to the limited ability to regulate storage of hazardous materials (including fuel) or construction of bathrooms, fish cleaning stations, or other prohibited uses within enclosed portions of a dock.
Variance #2 - NOT MET: The Board’s expressed intent and purpose for Section 15-342(a)(5) when they adopted the revised Code in 2022 was to establish a “maximum allowable square footage of the terminal platform…, not to exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet.” The applicants have not demonstrated, pursuant to Sec. 15-322(d), that the impacts to the natural resources have been minimized. Further, the proposed request pre-empts other members of the public from using the 232 square feet above the allowable terminal platform size.
The recommendation of the EPO is to deny the request for variances to Section 15-342(a)(1) (enclosed dock), and Section 15-342(a)(5) (terminal platform size) based on staff’s findings that the applicants have failed to satisfy the variance approval criteria in Section 15-350(c)(2) through (5), as a functional dock that meets the requirements of the Code could be constructed on the subject property.
Environmental Protection Commission
EPD presented the variance request in a public hearing before the EPC at their February 25, 2026, meeting. Sheila Cichra, agent for the property owner, stated that the applicant could rebuild the dock in phases (less than 50% at a time) without an EPD permit. She stated that the applicant’s preference was to rebuild the dock under an EPD permit, which would be better for the environment because then EPD could be involved with checking the compliance of the dock after it is built. She also stated the variances were applied for because the applicant wanted to replace the entire dock at the same time, and they thought the variances would be supported by EPD.
Board members discussed dock building versus dock repair, and the relationship of County regulations associated with building permits issued by the Building Safety Division and dock permits issued by EPD. They also discussed the provision in County code that allows for maintenance of up to 50% of a grandfathered dock, which can also be repaired through a building permit. They discussed that an entire grandfathered dock could essentially be replaced if repaired in stages involving up to 50% of the structure.
Regarding Variance #1 (enclosed dock), Member J. Gordon Spears made a finding that since the dock has been in place since the 1950s, rebuilding in the same footprint would not cause an environmental impact, and that the combination of mitigation and extension of the walkway over the wetland would be an environmental improvement. Further, he made a finding that a hardship would be created by requiring construction be phased into two parts, and that the hardship is not self-imposed because the dock was there when the applicants bought the property.
Regarding Variance #2 (terminal platform size), vice chairman Karin Leissing made a finding that the dock would not negatively impact the environment as sufficient mitigation is proposed, and that it is not contrary to public interest due to no objections from neighboring property owners and one letter in support provided, and that this is a unique situation where the dock has been in existence since the 1950s. Board members discussed whether this was a self-imposed hardship, and found that it is not self-imposed because the County dock ordinance changed after the home was purchased but before the dock could be rebuilt under the previous standards.
Based upon evidence and testimony presented at the hearing for Variance #1, the EPC voted 5-2 to reject the findings and recommendation of the EPO, and made a finding that the request for variance was consistent with Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-350(c) and recommended approval of the request for variance to Section 15-342(a)(1) (enclosed dock) to construct a dock with opaque walls.
Based upon evidence and testimony presented at the hearing for Variance #2, the EPC voted 6-1 to reject the findings and recommendation of the EPO, and made a finding that the request for variance was consistent with Orange County Code, Chapter 15, Article IX, Section 15-350(c) and recommended approval of the request for variance to Section 15-342(a)(5) to increase the allowable terminal platform size from 1,000 square feet to 1,232 square feet.
BUDGET: N/A