HomeMy WebLinkAbout26-005 - BOA - sent to Recording on 4/13/26 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-005
File No.: VAR-2603-000069
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH
ENCROACHMENTS OF 2.8 FT. INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FT. MINIMUM
FRONT YARD, 7.2 FT. INTO THE REQUIRED 7.5 FT. SIDE YARD
(EASTERN), AND 1.5 FT. INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD, A 22.2
FT. FRONT YARD (SETBACK), A 0.3 FT. SIDE YARD (EASTERN), WITH
A 13.5 FT. REAR YARD AND A DRIVEWAY WITH A 2 FT. SETBACK,
FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Special Magistrate, serving as the Board of Adjustment of St. Lucie County,
Florida ("Board of Adjustment"), based on the testimony and evidence, including, but not limited
to the staff report, has made the following determinations:
1. AJS Realty II LLC petitioned for a variance to allow deviations from the following
sections of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Section 7.04.01 (Table 7-10) -
Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements for a proposed single-family home with
encroachments of 2.8 ft. into the required 25 ft. minimum front yard, 7.2 ft. into the
required 7.5 ft. side yard (eastern), and 1.5 ft. into the required rear yard, a 22.2 ft. front
yard (setback), a 0.3 ft. side yard (eastern), with a 13.5 ft. rear yard and a driveway with
a 2 ft. setback within the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family — 4 du/ac) Zoning District, as
to the property described in Paragraph B below.
2. After publication of a notice of such hearing, installation of a sign on the property, and
notification by mail to all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property, this
Board held a public hearing on March 25, 2026.
3. After consideration of the testimony presented during the public hearing, including that of
the petitioner, staff comments, exhibits, and the standards of review for granting
variances set out in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the
Board of Adjustment has made the following determinations:
a. The circumstances presented are unique and unfortunate, involving a long history
and series of unrecognized mistakes as more fully explained at the hearing and
discussed herein.
b. A variance was previously granted to allow the pool and enclosure in the current
location. It turns out, however, that the variance was based on an erroneous survey
and/or conclusion of the location of the eastern boundary of the subject property
which resulted in the improvement being located closer to the eastern property
boundary than intended, and the pool deck actually encroaching onto the
neighboring property to the east.
BOA Resolution No. 2026-005
File No. VAR-2603-000069 Page 1
c. Additionally, on a similar misunderstanding of the boundary location, a garage was
permitted to be located almost on the property boundary.
d. Petitioner, prior to acquiring the property, did conduct title and survey review and
secured seller disclosures as part of the process; but, none of these disclosed an
issue concerning location of the structures.
e. The evidence further indicates that at a point prior to issuance of the permit and
starting construction, petitioner submitted a plan showing removal of the eastern
garage wall; and, at that time, it was not recognized by staff that the wall(s) would be
demolished and reconstructed rather than retained and that, arguably, if the wall had
remained in place, it could have been used in renovation or repairs of the garage
without creating the need for a variance.
f. Petitioner designed the new structure, submitted plans and applied for a building
permit to construct a replacement structure in the same footprint as the then existing
structure.
g. A building permit was issued for the replacement structure as designed, the original
structure was removed and construction started based on the approved plans.
h. After construction started on the new residence, questions arose concerning the
location, setbacks and nonconformity, and a partial stop work order was issued.
i. The matter came to this Board for hearing on the variance request described herein
with staff recommending approval, subject to conditions which are designed to
remove or limit impacts on the neighboring property to the east.
j. At hearing, the neighbor to the east ("the neighbor") argued that the standards for
granting a variance were not met and objected, particularly as pertains to the garage,
arguing in part that allowing a 3-car garage encroaching into the side setback was
not the minimum variance required for the owner to enjoy reasonable use of the
property.
k. Concerning negative impact of the requested variance on this adjacent property, the
neighbor argued that the variance would allow essentially a zero-lot line scenario on
his west boundary, whereas clearly the code anticipates a 7.5 side yard; however,
staff testified that there was no applicable County regulation which required a
setback between structures on neighboring properties, and it was noted that the
structures as proposed, subject to the conditions recommended, were less intrusive
than what had previously existed.
4. Based on the evidence and foregoing determinations, the Board of Adjustment
concludes as follows:
a. The variance requested arises from a condition that is unique and peculiar to the
land, structures and buildings involved. in particular, the structure on this lot is
currently under construction and sited in accordance with approved plans on which a
permit had been issued based on a misunderstanding of the location of the property
boundary, an issue of which the property owner was unaware.
BOA Resolution No. 2026-005
File No. VAR-2603-000069 Page 2
b. Given the investment in the property, design and construction of the residence,
which has been started based on the approved plans and siting, it would create a
hardship, not a mere inconvenience, to require a change in the plans and siting at
this time.
c. The condition to be remedied by the variance arises out of the application of the
code to this unique situation which was not created through any fault on the part of
the property owner.
d. Granting the variance will not impair or injure other property or improvements in the
neighborhood or endanger public safety. As to the neighbor's property, this
conclusion relies substantially on (i) the lack of a setback requirement between
structures on neighboring properties in this zoning district, (ii) the building footprint
now in question having already been used for an extended period of time and(iii) the
current plans and conditions of approval on the variance reducing encroachments
and addressing potential impacts and, in that sense, representing an improvement
over the preexisting condition.
e. The variance requested is not the minimum variance necessary to make reasonable
use of the land; however, in the circumstances presented, it is the minimum variance
necessary to make reasonable use of the buildings or structures.
f. The neighbor points out that the Code clearly anticipates that, over time,
nonconformities will be eliminated and the current project, proceeding after removal
of the nonconforming structure, is at odds with the general spirit and intent of that
Code.
g. Staff notes that, based on Land Development Code Section 10.00.03, replacement
or reconstruction of nonconforming structures on the original foundation is consistent
with the Code; and, that is true even though the cited provision does not literally
apply to the current situation. It is also acknowledged that the garage was not part of
the "original" foundation; but, it was subsequently permitted and established, years
ago, in the location now questioned and the reconstruction is based on that same
location.
h. Accordingly, the variance requested is not opposed to the general spirit and intent of
the Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of St. Lucie County,
Florida:
A. The Petition of AJS Realty II LLC , requesting variance from Section 7.04.01 (Table 7-
10) — Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code to allow the proposed single-family home with encroachments of 2.8
ft. into the required 25 ft. minimum front yard, 7.2 ft. into the required 7.5 ft. side yard
(eastern), and 1.5 ft. into the required rear yard, a 22.2 ft. front yard (setback), a 0.3 ft.
side yard (eastern), with a 13.5 ft. rear yard and a driveway with a 2 ft. setback for the
property described in Part B below, and as depicted on Boundary Survey from KMA
Engineering & Surveying dated February 10, 2026, attached herein as Exhibit "A-1", and
BOA Resolution No. 2026-005
File No. VAR-2603-000069 Page 3
Driveway Design Plan dated March 12, 2026, attached herein as Exhibit "A-2', is
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The home reconstruction shall not include any projections or overhangs that extend
beyond the property boundary;
2. The garage design shall be modified to not feature any accessways or doors exiting
upon the neighboring property, unless an access easement is obtained through
mutual property owner consent (not via a court action);
3. The garage roof shall be designed and sloped, or feature gutters or similar treatment,
as to prevent rainwater from the roof from routing directly to the adjacent property;
4. The garage height shall not be increased within the minimum side setback beyond
what is currently proposed;
5. The driveway replacement shall be designed in a manner that routes stormwater
away from the adjacent lot to the east; and
6. Should the existing pool deck and safety fence/railing be modified in the future, the
modifications shall include trimming the pool deck and relocation of the railing to
eliminate all encroachment(s) on neighboring lot.
B. The petition site is described and located as follows:
Legal: Being all of Lot 16, Block 5, according to the PLAT of CORAL COVE BEACH,
SECTION ONE, as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 30, of the Public Records of St.
Lucie County, Florida
Address: 278 Marina Drive, Hutchinson Island, FL 34949
Parcel Identification Number: 1425-701-0129-000-0
C. This Resolution shall become effective upon the date indicated below. An appeal from
the Board of Adjustment's action may be processed within thirty (30) days following the
rendition of the decision of this resolution in accordance with Section 10.01.07, of the St.
Lucie County Land Development Code.
D. This Resolution shall be recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this /.3I day of ► 2026.
BO OjiDT
ATTEST: ST. CLE / Y, FLORIDA
Secretary Dat Special Magistrate
BOA R olution No. 2026-005
File No. VAR-2603-000069 Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND CORRECTNESS:
ACT tq
Clerk Filing �Date County Attor
BOA Resolution No. 2026-005
File No. VAR-2603-000069 Page 5
LID O
0cb
. m
IB
O
N
LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS •
4 [ANAL — vc nralrP fLW AMAXii: N;E
�. e w must..s l
Z
.•• r ,.M,.m„rnN una.t ..▪w.u..um.v, C
0
.4;L,. KMA D
I• M,.a
AM
cn
• n..uo.:nw n0
m• p w n reoe.
rvn..�VF- W` m. 1r Ott. nnm•cs c.I cc w' rr•,i.
uus ..
1 MM.MMA
n+ •to wn .nl�a
..• • AZT
I ,r .TIR• E
17.�.!q�t I A.'viwr MM..
1,....
,, x!
3ee , ... g
_ re Lu
Q u// Nz; MP CC a
G Q
oCC
4.0 iz) . , 77)./.C.7....7,- a N 1 2
• I._ Ir La-
12
O U
DRIVE_ —
■� °' w
CO 1 -- ea.ere l`
nu ci
X
W �
LL 1, L
y
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGEND OF SYMBOLS SURVEY NOTES ♦ r co
rr+ xin`'le`n:r chat r�a 'c i' r wilm i �!v.�....c eew..e},ww . ."M-v. 'K VAIN
MM.
....w�o:. � O=
..cc,l m .R"a.'.W..'v ;ac.,m. In MKT
ST ur't r•...n.ni%. .my rrie i Si. .........w„ r, w .._. <. +• C. Z�
prL�r[ �M.P a- .�w 1..View.Pr-M ww er I..ML slur .......cl ...r..I .-,mm�.1
twrMNn n:..nVn+n.e r.lR. .cV rpR L L. U{'p v,.-e,on
IA MAME Li •..b.A IMP...r....1 AAA.,,.L MIN.... F.p_M IM.7'• MAT'„NI. O(r�
i.vMiYC.r.}cN Wi.M 'an...n.,.n At a... L=n..ry) m X
LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS w<.7.47• P, �*,n+r:..�i i:.:%v"e"w1w ior.i.wry Q 0
..le.•r,.•..e .vL vu ,.n u.. ;'Mt"n°....n`roi..n.... culx:.rro O
..'pl v.i ' .,.a m ^•. .u..n: . r ..n us rtWh l lu, T9 O
P ,I M••• .f '• WAY,: cM.wh.d I.a.l vwvw ~~�.'. M aLSL rioa�wra.••t yy Am IMAM
�rA AMP.M ..nail M �'TO Da
�'
'[•�R'!![ M{{r L r M sr cuTIMIC.,MOM...c.ls.NOWA.nb,.AI w on.........17.
0.AMY m MINIM �•wnw.M O
i IT wnr 'L r_�.l t VTo+IrMr MAIM± .eur..%K+a�60.1..-q+K ..d e.'� �� ..•
I. Yin"„ n c.6' T ..Owsw n1
r' :7e...0 R ':t.., r•••L x aeon-.n.l M IU•r•n..01.T...... N.I. .o.ra.sarm sena w.
CL
i•Y1 K` L,.T, r [�•� MI.M. r r.r..an l 4lm h ♦ .y4pn..n.+.0 T. ) rMPCq N.000TTIM Q
V.
1
....... w..u, t i.., IT.Z.•.'..,."lc's.. n MA C.n N: .SO tsslo iL.V.tend.uct wPl >
sure Of FLORIDA M.P..
•
Z
O)
U-
Exhibit A-2
Driveway Exhibit
1
• I .i
- s7' •
;' t
�!
;t. r S
t. fig
1! :� - - , .
i
Y
/ I ti .� I
i • `. I jt j WI, I ' ;ti ••.
Si
r .1 / '� �_ Hn{{. : } ry1 i i}
r ~ ,
D"L1 '� j
- D ' ; d r T f
•
—1
in
m
x§
4
fz , 1001
MI tsr
4 Hi ._, li di IFIMlIP
i, _; .-i H �H
flH
i�;til ;vit
tI! 1 • ` t
}
I' ill.
ill F U
t I 11 I i •�w_
1 , s
IAA
I
! r 1 , Residential Grading Plan ®Unroe Engineering,Inc -
` r„e saa,ovelea ae..��rwa d �••�•�'—_ ••• •e r' _
I- ; . -
. a ; .,.....«-............—......—. - .r...�. r i. ...' .. y-.—
BOA Resolution No. 2026-005
File No. VAR-2603-000069 Page 7