Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-05 BOA Minutes revisedST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Pancoast, Bob Bangert, Ron Harris, and Diane Andrews. ABSENT: Buddy Emerson. OTHERS PRESENT: Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, Linda Pendarvis, Planner; Dennis Grimm, Code Compliance Manager; Paula Busby, Zoning Supervisor; Jeffrey P. Gellerrmann, Growth Management/Extension Agent II and Veronica Torres, Office Assistant III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Pancoast led the Pledge of Allegiance. Announcements: Mr. Pancoast stated in the past month he has had two conversations with Ben Fillichio. He called regarding the project on South Hutchinson Island. They did not discuss any particulars on the case. He basically was trying to get a feel about whether he should come back. He told Mr. Fillichio that he could not tell him what he had to do and that he needed to talk with staff. If he came back, if he built an orange he would know it if he saw it, but he couldn’t tell him what it was until he saw. He tried to talk some particulars to him about what he was trying to do with the project and he told him he really couldn’t listen to it. Heather Young said it was good that it was on the record and we will make sure that is noted if they do come back. Mrs. Andrews said that Charles Grande approached her on behalf of the Fillichios. Basically he wanted to know what her objections were to voting it down the last time. She explained to him that she was concerned about the precedent. She told him she would reconsider if she could be convinced that there was no other property that could fall into that category. Heather Young stated that will be part of the minutes of this meeting and we will carry it forward. They are planning on coming back in September and we will see what they bring us. 2 Public Hearing Wesley & Thanh Gillette File No.: BA-05-017 This is the continuation of the Petition of Wesley and Thanh Gillette, for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, to permit the development of property into single-family lots which would lack 60 percent of the minimum 60 feet of roadway frontage as required in the AG-2.5 (Agricultural - 1 du/2.5 acres) Zoning District for property located at 11505 Palomino Drive. The Gillettes own a 21.816 acre parcel with approximately 52 feet of road frontage and would like to subdivide this parcel into two separate lots. The resulting lots would each have approximately 26 feet of road frontage. At the July 27, 2005, Board of Adjustment meeting, the applicants were directed to work with their neighbor to the west to determine how the property could be subdivided. The Board of Adjustment recommended that the 26 foot wide road frontage be increased to 46 feet once inside of the property’s boundary to allow for an additional 20 foot buffer. Subsequent to the hearing, the Gillettes met with the Sloans and they have agreed to keep the request as originally proposed at 26 feet. The Gillettes have stated that they would provide a 16 foot buffer on the west side of the property with the driveway being contained on the remaining 10 feet. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the requested variance. Public Comment Mr. Gillette said he met with the Sloans and they have agreed to keep the request as originally proposed at 26 feet. They would provide a 16 foot buffer on the west side of the property with the driveway being contained on the remaining 10 feet. Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman Pancoast closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Pancoast asked if they knew what they were doing and if anyone else wanted to speak on the petition. Mrs. Andrews asked if there was a motion on the table from the July 27, 2005, meeting. Mr. Pancoast asked if they had amended the motion. Heather Young said that it was continued until this meeting but did not know if there was any other type of motion other than the continuance. Mrs. Andrews stated there was a motion to approve. Heather Young stated that she did not know if the board wanted to include language that they agreed upon for the 16 foot buffer. If you do that we will put that in the recorded resolution which they indicated in their joint letter that they would like that information recorded. You can attach conditions to the variance and the 16 foot buffer would seem to be okay. Mr. Andrews made a motion to approve. 3 Mr. Harris seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0 in favor. 4 Public Hearing Walter E. Saitta File No.: BA-05-024 Petition of Walter and Lori Saitta, for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), to permit the construction of a single-family home, which would encroach a maximum of 15 feet into the required front setback of 65 feet (which includes a 15-foot easement and a 50-foot setback) required for a lot in the St. Lucie Gardens Subdivision for property on the south side of the extension of Tilton Road, approximately 400 feet east of Shana’s Trail and on the southeast corner of Bobcat Run and Tilton Road. (Resulting setback for the proposed structure would be 50 feet from the property line) The subject property is located in the St. Lucie Gardens Subdivision and has two easements along its north and west boundary lines. These easements are for the purpose of access to the lots in the St. Lucie Gardens Subdivision. The easement along the north property line (Tilton Road) is 30 feet in width. The easement along the west property line (Bobcat Run) is 60 feet in width. Half of each respective easement is located on the subject property. Therefore, the subject property has a 15-foot easement on the north property line and a 30-foot easement on the west property line. When determining the placement of a structure, the St. Lucie County Building Division generally takes the setback from the property line. In the case of the lots in St. Lucie Gardens with recorded easements, however, the setback is taken from the edge of the easement; therefore, the required front setback for the subject property is 65 feet: the 50 foot setback required by the AR-1 Zoning District plus the 15 foot easement. The Saittas would like for the entrance of their proposed home to have direct access onto the Tilton Road easement, which is a semi-improved, unpaved roadway. The Bobcat Run easement located on the western boundary of their property is not improved, but could provide access for the proposed home. The need for the requested variance arises from conditions that do not necessarily qualify as a hardship. The subject property has 346 feet of frontage on Tilton Road and is 165 feet deep. In order for the home to be situated on the property as proposed a variance would need to be granted. However, the footprint of the proposed home could be revised in order to meet the required setbacks. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance. Mrs. Andrews asked if there was any reason the home could not be moved back 15 feet Hank Flores stated he thought the pool would possibly encroach on the rear setback. Ron Harris said it looks like the pool deck encroaches into the 20 foot setback. Hank Flores said he believed the deck did. However, he had e-mailed Mr. Saitta and he indicated that the edge of the pool itself would be within the 30-foot setback. They do not plan to screen in the pool so, therefore, they do not have to meet that 30 feet. Mr. Saitta presented an aerial to the board members. He pointed to Tilton Road, Shana’s Trail, the extension of private easement on Tilton Road, and then showed Bobcat Run as it exists 5 today. There is an easement down the west side of his property which could be Bobcat Run if developed. Elizabeth and Marty McCabe own this house, and two other lots around him and they have no desire to open Bobcat Run. Frank Knott owns the lot behind him so he has no desire to open Bobcat Run. Tina Guillotti lives here and Laura Guillotti lives here. He went and spoke with the neighbors. Ms. Guillotti said she faxed in the form with no objection. Tina Guillotti said she had no objection unfortunately she is not present but she had given it in but she did give it to him when he went and spoke to her. Marty and Liz McCabe stated on the form that they did not have any objection to it. Frank Knott said he has no object to it either. As you will notice the extension of Tilton Road goes to Guillotti Place. There are 20 homes on that private easement and there appears to be no extensions because it dead ends into state park territory. There is additional property but he thought most of it is tied into other property out there so there will be no more development because of non-conforming lot deeds there. That is the maximum the road will be. There is very little chance that it will become a right-of- way or extension or anything of that nature. All the vacant land you see to the east is the state park preserve boundary. Mr. Pancoast stated the only question he had at this point is somewhere he remembered reading on the Lennard Road extension that they were going to tie in Tilton Road and come back out to Prima Vista. It was going to run up and tie into Kitterman. He did see a trailer park, but he was not sure which one it was. It was pointed out that it was Spanish Lakes. Heather Young stated that Ron Harris who is the county surveyor will be familiar with it. At one point one of the proposed alignments was to run through this parcel. Mr. Saitta commented that it split his lot. Heather Young stated that was no longer an option being considered. She did not know where it was going or how close it is but they did look at that and it shouldn’t really impact his lot at all. Mr. Pancoast said he just wanted to make sure that the board would not be approving him for something and in six months they are looking at something else. Ron Harris asked if Mr. Saitta was of the belief that this road will never be improved. Mr. Saitta replied he was. 6 Ron Harris stated if you look into the future possibly 30 or 40 years from now there is a possibility that people living on that roadway will request that it does get improved, paved and proper drainage. There is that outside possibility. Mr. Saitta replied yes. John Temple stated they had heard a one sided explanation and he wanted to give the other side. Pointing to the aerial he said this is a semi-improved road. It is a semi-improved road because he put $10,000 into it. They have equipment and he has brought in a lot of fill. There was no road when they moved in. They had to get the easements straightened out. They have fought a constant uphill battle. There is a real bad drainage problem. Matter of fact they were knee deep in 3 inch centrifugal pump, pumping that road in front of his house when he built his pad so they could pass through to get their cars in during this last rainy season that just came up. The houses that he named have no concern as to whether he enters off Tilton or not. Of course, they wouldn’t because it doesn’t affect them. There are two other homeowners down where he his. There are several others that need the road to get in. They need the easement. There is also a problem and he was not sure if the board was aware but the property directly across from him where he refused the right to build on because he did not have enough room without closing down the easement. Mr. Saitta stated it was a non-conforming lot and he could not build because the parcel is part of another property owned by Meehans on the corner. Meehan sold off the parcel as a non- conforming lot. He is not allowed to build on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Temple asked if they could build an entrance or something off of the road. Then he thought they were back to non-conforming and what the board recommended that he be asked to move his pool or enter from Bobcat. They need that right-of-way. It does determine the value of their house and what they can drive; they do not have a road. You can’t keep closing down those easements. Mr. Pancoast stated they were not closing down an easement, what they are doing is shortening up his setback. Mr. John Temple stated he already has a fence up there on the easement. Mr. Saitta commented that that was incorrect; his fence is 5 feet in from the easement. His site plan clearly shows that. Mr. Temple stated someone needs to go out and survey it and look at it. If his house is five feet inside the easement when they put in the proposed swale he has there will be no roadway left. They are all deed restricted. He had to build his house in a certain place. The county came in and told him, Mr. Temple you will put this house here. You won’t face it the other way. He said okay, he had bought this lot and if that is what he has to conform to that is what he will do. Therefore he went along and played by the rules and he built his house there and now he has $500,000 worth of home back there. You are going to let people start shutting the road off and people can’t get to. Mr. Pancoast stated they were not trying to shut the road. 7 Mr. Temple stated that someone needs to go out and look at it then. The county has not enforced any easement out there. Heather Young stated she wanted to explain. The proposal is not to shut the easement; it is to move the house closer to the easement. The house would not be permitted to be built in the easement and nothing would be permitted to be built in the easement. What impact it will have on the drainage she did not know but she wanted to make sure it is understood that nothing is being actually being put in the easement. Dennis Grimm stated he was out there and took the pictures just to verify what was out there. He is responsible for the Zoning Department for permitting the structure. He went out there to look at it. Mr. Pancoast stated he did see part of a fence in the picture and wanted to know if it was on the property outside the right-of-way. Dennis Grimm stated he was not sure of the date that he went out to take the pictures. Dennis gave a brief description of pictures. 1. East to west along Tilton Road, the fence they were talking about is just an L shaped thing on one corner and another one on the other corner. He thought there was a fence on the back of the property. 2. This is directly in front of their house, Tilton Road looking at the pad. 3. This is looking southeast and Tilton Road going this way (pointing to picture) This will give you an idea and the other fence they are talking about is just an L to mark the property line. 4. This picture was taken from the pad itself looking on and pointed to where they were talking about the swale being put in. 5. Another picture from that direction looking toward the pad. 6. This is looking from the pad to rear of the property. Bobcat doesn’t go through so you have to go down Shana’s Trail to Bobcat and go back around and then Guillotti is in the back that way. Mr. Tim Sneider stated the concern they have is that fence comes out into the easement. Prior to this they were grading that road to keep it clear; prior to his putting the pad down. With all that rain they had to grade that. Now it is all flat and they have the water run off. It is going nowhere. They need that spot for the fence post to put back, back off the road because when you come off the crest of the road it is not back. There is no swale in there. His pad is right on the road. John Temple said he hated to meet his new neighbor this way. They are back there and they have to be able to drive back there. He did agree with the county it is causing problems; they need to have it open. 8 Dennis Grimm stated that it is a historical drainage problem in that area. They are showing a swale on the site plan. Mr. Sneider stated that right now the way the fence is set up the swale will be right in the road. That fence post is right on the road. It is physically on road. Mr. Temple stated what Mr. Saitta did was establish his property line. That is what he intended to do at least that is what he thought. Maybe I misread his intentions by putting that corner fence up he was establishing his property line which brings it way out into the right-of-way. Mr. Sneider stated that the fence puts the swale in the road. Dennis Grimm said technically the property line goes to the center of the road. Then the easement is there for them to set back off the center of the road. Mr. Sneider commented you are not going to do that. You are not following the path. Ron Harris asked if they could see the corner where the surveyor set on the easement line; actually out in the road that is the limit of the 15 foot easement on his property. The road just meanders and that is where the corner is. That is the post out of the easement; he happens to be in the road but the road is out of the easement. Dennis Grimm stated if that is the case the whole development, the roads are not accurate. Mr. Pancoast asked if on the blueprint, was the dotted line the meandering road. Ron Harris stated the dash line is the existing dirt road and then it comes up, passes behind the corner, and then they don’t know what happens. Mr. Pancoast asked if the corner was where his fence is. Mr. Saitta said no, if you see the fence line it is shown on the drawing as 5 feet in from the corner. Ron Harris stated he did not know where he set the fence. Mr. Saitta stated it was 5 feet in. Mr. Pancoast asked if there was going to be a swale inside or outside the fence. Mr. Saitta said outside the fence. Ron Harris commented that there was not a lot of room there without relocating the road and centering it on centerline of the easement. Mr. Sneider commented, then you are going to start messing with the median if you try to center that road out that is going right into the median. 9 Mr. Temple stated if it meanders over the wrong way on Mr. Saitta’s property then so be it but then they have a right-of-way problem with the people across the street. Either way if they close the road they can’t get out. Mr. Pancoast stated the road is not getting closed that is not going to happen. The only thing they have to determine is that there are 2 – 15 foot right-of-way easements from the property line. This shows that the road is completely on the south side of the easement. The last he knew was the county is not responsible at all for these roads, is that still the way it is? Mr. Temple replied yes. Mr. Pancoast stated he did not want to upset anyone but understand that you have your property rights that you want to keep and maintain and so does Mr. Saitta. Mr. Saitta stated he did not want to have the drainage problem in front of his house, he wants to live there. He wanted to improve the road. There is no pitch to it right now, it is flat so water goes onto it and it stays. He would like to pitch the road in front of his house so that he can get water into the front swale. Run the swale down. The easement is an ingress, egress and drainage easement. He has total intent on improving the roads but he was not allowed to do any excavation at this time. Mr. Pancoast said the board will often upon approval put things that people want to accomplish. Suppose they put something on this. He did realize it was not his fault. He felt the road is where it is because there was a palm tree there at one time; you had to go around the palm tree and maybe it died and it is gone. Suppose they put something in this that you have that swale where you propose it to be. You are somewhat responsible, that you are responsible for moving that road and centering that road. Mr. Saitta said then they would have the issue of dealing with the Meehans’ property and he was not sure if he was allowed to do that. Mr. Pancoast said it actually didn’t because there was an easement and they are responsible just as much as you are responsible for yours. Mr. Saitta stated that on the Meehans’ side of the easement there is a small ditch which is not connected to anything so once water fills this ditch you can’t get anywhere. He would love to center the road back out. He was just concerned that he will be filling some of that little ditch. Again it doesn’t do anything but hold until it is full because there are no pipes connecting it to anything. He has no problem with centering the road that would not be an issue to him. Mr. Pancoast wanted to know what that did as far as the 3 gentlemen were concerned. Perhaps there could be a community effort. Mr. Temple stated he hates to meet a new neighbor this way. Mr. Pancoast commented if this swale is going to connect to something it sounds like it might improve the drainage. Mr. Temple said they are going to be encroaching on the Meehans’ on the other side as Mr. Saitta said. Jack Meehan use to live there and he actually came out and threatened people with a gun. He did not want anyone living back there but him. Jack since then has done time and he 10 is no longer in that house, there is a little old lady living there and they did not want to upset her. The center of the road needs to be straightened out. Mr. Pancoast stated what the blueprint shows is the north edge of the road is only a foot or two over the actual center line. Mr. John Temple stated that he in would actually much rather see it centered. At his end he had it surveyed and he would give a 15 foot easement, plus 15 foot for drainage. If you go to his fenced post, across the street to his fence post there is 30 feet to the center of the road. From Ronnie’s to the other side there is 30 foot road. Mr. Pancoast commented he should understand how Mr. Saitta got where he is today; he was going from a blueprint, vacant land. Mr. Saitta stated from out there over the years he has seen the problem and met with a lot of the neighbors. Laura Guillotti is now furious with the new guy building back where it is one of the few lots that did not get sold to the state. He cleared the 15 foot section of easement on her property and forgot to tell her about it. He then placed fill in it and what it use to drain down Guillotti into Hawkman’s Slew is now being held up on the corner. He has done engineering for 20 years, in Martin and St. Lucie County and now he is doing environmental work. His goal was once he was given a permit to build, build a swale in front of his house; continue the swale within the easement down to the corner of Guilloti around Guillotine and to the south a little bit. Just south of there the county owns a lot of those lots. Lennard Road is supposed to go through there, go through his lot and go to here pointing on the survey. It is the low area by directing the water off Tilton and Guillotti with a minor swale what he showed was just a foot deep it would not take much. Just enough to take the water out it would improve the drainage on Tilton and no longer have the huge puddles. You could attest to which fills up to Guillotti because of the fill. He was going to take that on just because he is like the rest of neighbors he wants to improve the drainage in front of his house. He does not want to deal with the potholes and unfortunately the road out there has been graded flat. For a dirt road to work it has to have some pitch to it and a little bit of slant. The water has to go off the road. John Temple said they will take shovels whatever it takes. Ron Harris said there is still the issue of 30 years from now that road will probably be improved we are going to need room. If they take the setback the variance that he is requesting; our new standard for a local road is going to be a 70 foot right-of-way. When we do that we are only going to have 15 feet. That will happen in the future, you know that will happen. That was his concern because that will happen. Mr. Saitta stated what would have to happen is the larger tracts, most of the tracks back in this area are 5 acres or less. On Guillotti are there any that pass the 5 acre mark? There is 2 ½ acres, he did not know of any down Guillotti or on Meehan. You would have to change the zoning, allow the non-conforming lot to change and have right-of- way placed. There is no right-of-way. When using the standard county right-of-way if you want 11 to go to 70 because he knew they changed it to that by changing the zoning the setbacks would then therefore change as well. Right now there is a 50 foot front setback. The setbacks most likely would go to 25 like it is in other residential areas. What he was requesting is that his front porch is 35 feet from the easement, his residence or living quarters of his house is 45 feet. If you go to typical Port St. Lucie zoning setbacks he would meet standard Port St. Lucie residential zoning because even with the 70 foot easement. If you took 35 feet off the road, not quite, it would be 15 to 20 feet to his knowledge which is the standard side setbacks. He would not meet the front setbacks. In his opinion it is big speculation down the road. He did agree it is a possibility that everyone will have or quite a few would have to sell out in such a way that someone would want to come in and put, first you would have to rezone all of it and the county is not. It is one development per acre right now, so you would have to rezone a lot them. Is it a possibility, yes it is. Ron Harris said he wanted to counter; the county would not necessarily have to rezone. These people would come in requesting MSBU because they want to improve their paving and drainage. We have been through this before at the county. Usually it happens on a substandard roadway so then we have to go in and request donations for the people for additional right-of-way. In this case here we are and if this happens like he said 20 or 30 years from now all of a sudden the right-of-way is 15 feet from the front of the house he did not think he would want that. Mr. Saitta replied by then he would move. Ron Harris commented that then you have the next person. Perhaps if you could shorten your request of a variance. Mr. Saitta stated he had some other things that he wanted to bring up. He wished that Chief Emerson was present, but unfortunately he was not. He was asked to reposition his house so he went and looked. He presented a plan, pointing out that he rotated the house, now using Bobcat Run as his front drive. What you are seeing there is now because he is rotated his side setbacks would be 20 feet. He would have to be 20 feet from the easement on Tilton Road. He would be within all of the setbacks required by the county and he would have no issue. The problem became he would be the only house on Tilton Road with a Bobcat Run address. Bobcat Run will only extend in front of his yard with an easement on his property. The neighbors around him have no desire to open up Bobcat Run so, therefore, he could have a driveway so when the police department, paramedics, fire department wanted to find his address on Bobcat Run. If you went by the aerial they would come to Shana’s Trail and go south and to Bobcat Run and drive around for hours looking for his house because no one would know where it was. Mr. Pancoast said that he knew that there are houses in this county that face one street and their address is on the other street. He wanted to know if there was something in the code that requires the house to be addressed to the street that it is faces. Hank Flores stated he was not sure. He did know that sometimes in the past we have had the address switched around, say if it faced Tilton and they have other people say it will have a Bobcat address. 12 Mr. Pancoast said he knew because of what he used to do there are a lot of houses that face one street and their address would be the other. He knew of houses where people have been there for a number of years and move and the next guy that moves in says he wants the address the other way. He moved the mailbox and changes the address. He did not know if official permission or if he picked a number that he thought was nice. Mrs. Andrews said that they had an incident in Queens Cove some years ago where the corner house with a circular driveway so they could come in either way. The person wanted to change it and the post office wouldn’t let them. Hank Flores stated the addresses are assigned by Joyce Braun. Mr. Saitta stated the point that he wanted to bring up playing around and trying to fit the county code and to make it work the reality is suddenly now that this diagram you will see two site plans. The grayed out site underneath the shaded site plan is what he proposed originally, facing Tilton Road. That house is 35 feet from the easement to the front porch, 45 feet to residence. It is 15 feet further back than the legal and could be approved site plan coming in off Bobcat Run. Being on Tilton and you are concerned about the widening of Tilton in that case you would have to buy my house, if the county widens Tilton Road. If he came in on Bobcat Run because you would need some of his house as right-of-way. He agreed with Ron Harris he would not care to have the right-of-way 15 feet from the front of his house. It is a situation that happens on a lot of roads in Port St. Lucie and in the county as well. It is not a good scenario, but if that happens he would not want it and he didn’t think any of the neighbors out there now would consider building the neighborhood like that. He knows he would be gone; he would have sold the house and moved on. This was just to show that his request is that he wants to fulfill the limits. He went to the code and there was a misunderstanding in the code to what the setback was. The code read from the property line. He planned out the house, paid for architectural plans of the house that he designed. He does have a desire to have a pool behind his house. It all worked out. Then he got stubborn and there was dispute over the setbacks. It wasn’t in the code it was an interpretation of the code. He was before the board because he accepted the fact that this is how the county does it and he is willing to do it. Now he needs a variance. Mr. Pancoast said he for one was not against the variance. The only concern he had was the concern that the other neighbors have and that is what they have discussed. He did not think the road was Mr. Saitta fault, in some respect it has become his problem now. Mr. Saitta stated that some of the drainage in front of his house is due to the fact that when his lot is vacant property a good bit of water would be stored on that property. He has displaced that water and he did know that he was required to take care of that, but he is not allowed to dig anything yet. He could not excavate on the property until all the building permits. He cannot build his swales, but once his swales are built it will alleviate the issue of drainage in front of his house. The road in front of his house will be in good shape and drain. He did totally intend to work with the other neighbors to improve the drainage out there because they all drive those roads. 13 Ron Harris stated that he understood what Mr. Saitta was saying and the county would not want to buy his house. What he was questioning is if there was any way they could squeeze it back another 5 feet, under the design on Tilton to get him back just a little further, 20 is a whole lot better than 5 off the right-of-way line. Mr. Saitta commented if he was to back the house up would he be able to walk out of this meeting, with a variance. His fear is if he does not get what he requested right now the variance he would have to come back in a month. He has already been delayed two months in the construction of his home. Mr. Pancoast stated that they could make the adjustment. Mr. Bangert stated that he did not understand why Mr. Saitta if he moved the pool to the side that he could set the house back a little. Mr. Saitta stated he owns 1 ¼ acres and he would really like to have the pool behind his house off the porch. Mr. Bangert said he could still have it behind his house. Mr. Saitta could just move it to the side. Mr. Pancoast asked if they were going to try to move this back 5 feet would he have to have the petition re-advertised and would he have to pay another fee and everything or do we make this part of this. Mr. Saitta asked if he could get a letter from the one resident that he would be impacting the McCabes, stating that they have no problem. Mr. Pancoast stated that the board had not taken a vote and perhaps it could go through without a problem. Heather Young stated he probably would because the people and she did not know at this point, the people behind might not be concerned with how far the front of the house is from Tilton. They may be concerned if the pool was closer to them. You never know. She wonders if it would be possible for him to begin construction, get the permit for the house while he was working through a variance for the pool. Mr. Pancoast stated the only problem with that is for some reason if he doesn’t get the variance for the pool. Mr. Saitta said he would be coming to the same board if he could prove that the neighbors have no issue. He could easily bring a letter from the neighbors saying they have no issue with his pool being 15 feet from the property line instead of 30 feet from the property line. Mr. Bangert stated he had a big problem with that. How will the neighbors feel about it have no bearing on how future neighbors would feel? What if the property is sold or the property of your present neighbor died and somebody else has the property. Mr. Pancoast stated that is true every time they do a variance. Hank Flores stated a regular setback in residential zoning for pool on rear is generally 15 feet. 14 Mr. Saitta stated if you were going to develop the neighborhood into more homes and heavier density the zoning would change and then setbacks will change. He will probably stay within the setbacks. Right now you can be 5 feet for a deck, a pool. Mr. Pancoast said that he had seen or someone brought up that the deck was inside the setback. Mr. Saitta said the pool itself is within the setback and that is all that is required; you are allowed to have sidewalk and deck. Mr. Pancoast asked how much deck is there. Is there enough deck there to push the pool back a few more feet? Hank Flores replied no, it looks like it is right at the 30 foot edge of the pool. There was discussion as to what can be built there. Ron Harris stated he already expressed his feelings, he understood the situation that there is time and money that he has put into it. Mrs. Andrews asked if Mr. Harris would feel differently if they realigned the road. Ron Harris said he was still looking for that extra 5 feet. He is just looking to the future. He is seeing so many problems that they have had in the past going in. While he is saying they will increase density, we don’t have to increase densities. All these new neighbors come in and say we are tired of the roads being flooded; we want you to put down millings. You can’t put millings down unless you have a proper drainage system. We don’t have a lot of room for a proper drainage system. Ron Harris stated MSBU where the neighbors come in and petition the county. Mr. Temple commented it is coming to that because 10 years ago there was nothing there and now they have quite a few neighbors. Everybody who came in here moved in with Mercedes and Volkswagens. Now they all drive pick up trucks because of the roads. They understood the road needs drainage and it happens to be a curved road. He could only afford $10,000 a year. The other guys that came in within the last two years have donated to the road. As the road goes and as people go the further you get out and the closer you get to a paved road the less they care about the person at the other end of the road. He is all the way in the back of the road so he is concerned about the entire road because what it does to his property value. What he read was that it is an old neighborhood, it is just not true. Most of those homes are less than 10 years old back there. It shouldn’t affect him, but it did. He knows that Mr. Saitta wants to build his house where he wants to build his house. The property is an old neighborhood with only a few homes, the variance will not affect any traffic on the road. That is not true and he would be back with an attorney if it is true. He could assure you of that because he is just not going to get pushed out of the neighborhood. If the road is off one way or the other and just like what was mentioned he had a fence permit. He had been through that with the county too. 15 He called up and asked why did people put a fence right down the middle of the right-of-way and block off the road. He was told the county only gives a fence permit they do not tell them where to put the fence. In other words if he takes his 30 feet of road and Mr. Saitta takes his 30 foot of road; they put their fence right out in the middle with the fence permit and then the people behind them can’t get in or out their houses. What does that mean? You can do it He says that is not reasonable. He is a reasonable person. He is not one to block the people behind him from getting in or out. Mr. Harris said in defense of staff he did not think anybody would have told him that. Mr. Temple said that they did. He could take Mr. Harris to the fence and show him the fence and show you the permit. Mr. Saitta stated if you look at the survey what you will see is an existing fence right on the easement line his proposed fence. As he has said it is 5 feet back adding because he understood. Because of this neighbor the road is 100% on the south side of the easement. He tried to take that into consideration and be a good resident of the neighborhood so that when he added a 5 foot swale it would be inside his property but provide drainage for the road for the rest of the residents back on Tilton and Guilloti. The fact that they own the road but they get to take care of it and maintain it and everything they have no rights to it other than access. One last thing there is an agreement with the county that states very clearly if you are a buyer out there, the roads are your responsibility. The county takes no responsibility in any way shape or form. That said right-of-way shall be improved by the seller and shall not be the responsibility of St. Lucie County to improve, maintain or in any way become responsible for said right-of-way. If the board goes with denial he wanted to know if he had any option to change anything, will he walk away with a building permit or was it done and said? Heather Young stated he could adjust his request so it has less of an impact, that you would require less of a variance. You are asking for 15 feet now. If you ask for 10 or 5 or something like that, you could reduce your request. You couldn’t increase it. Mr. Saitta wanted to know if he had to do that before they vote since he did not know how they feel at this point in time. Mr. Pancoast stated usually at this point you could usually see how they feel. Mr. Saitta asked if the vote happened did he have an option. What if he backed it up, what if he did this? Heather Young stated normally that would come as part of the discussion with the petitioner. Mr. Pancoast stated that is why Ron was asking if he could back it up 5 feet. Mr. Saitta stated he did not have a problem with that. He just wants to build a house in St. Lucie County. 16 Mr. Pancoast asked if there was anyway he could change the way it sits in there. Mr. Saitta stated he might be able to or he might have to go for a variance in back of the pool and see if anyone has a problem with that. He only knew the residents didn’t have a problem with that but he did not have that in writing so he couldn’t back it up. Mr. Pancoast said if they could push the house back another 5 feet, what effect would it have on the pool? Ron Harris said it pushes it back five feet. He thought Mr. Saitta could get creative; he thought he could work it in. As Mr. Bangert suggested they could move it to the side of the house. He has an odd shaped piece of property. Mr. Saitta stated he may be able to fit it in. The lots out there are all based on 1 ¼ acres, they are 330 or somewhere close to that by 165 feet. The majority of houses are along Shana’s Trail, Guillotti, and Bobcat Run. All the others are 165 feet wide by 330 feet deep they have no problem meeting the setback. His lot is one of the very few odd lots that is 345 wide by 165 feet deep. If you take a 65 foot setback in the front and a 30 foot setback from the rear for a 1 ¼ acre that is a substantial amount property being taken. He is more than willing to back the house up 5 feet; he did not have a problem with that. if that will give him an approval on the variance. The pool is a separate permit he did not have the dimensions. Ron Harris and Mr. Saitta discussed various lines and notations on the survey. Mr. Saitta asked if he could get an approval by backing up the 5 feet. Ron Harris stated he was willing to comprise on that, that would give us 5 feet and he has already been gracious enough to put the swale on his property, 5 foot outside the easement on his property. Public Comment Closed Mr. Bangert stated that the pool, if it circled around a bit there would be no problem. Mr. Pancoast said from what they see the pool is not designed yet, so if they push the house back 5 feet he has room. Mr. Bangert commented pushing the house back five feet do not settle what the board was deciding on at this time. Mr. Harris and Mr. Pancoast stated that it did because he was asking for a variance but for not as much. Heather Young stated he would be going from a 15 foot variance to a 10 foot variance and that would move the house back. Mr. Pancoast stated he thought it would be a long time. It will probably be 10 or 15 years before we see any real demand from people to do something with the roads. 17 Mrs. Andrews asked if the board could stipulate that the swale be on his property. Heather Young stated that Mr. Saitta had that on his plan already. Mr. Pancoast stated he already has the swale inside his property outside the easement. If the board so desired they could tack something on there about the road, he did not think it needed to be centered. The board could even put on there to put the road over to the north 5 feet or something. Mrs. Andrews stated that would be fine with her. Ron Harris said if he was willing to work with the county. Mr. Saitta asked if he had legal right, it is someone else’s property? He knows there is an easement there but does he have legal right? Ron Harris asked Heather Young if they all have rights on those easements. Heather Young stated they were for all the property owners. She did not know what the neighbors’ reaction is going to be. That maybe a problem including that because it is already established but if you have the swale language and the reduction of 10 feet. Maybe they can work it in the neighborhood to try and change it. Mr. Pancoast commented whenever they bring dirt in push the tractor down the road and just inch over to the north a little bit. Mr. Harris made motion. After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the Petition of Walter and Lori Saitta, for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(a), to permit the construction of a single-family home, which would encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the front setback of 65 feet (which includes a 15-foot easement and a 50-foot setback) required for a lot in the St. Lucie Gardens Subdivision. (resulting setback for the proposed structure would be 55 feet from the property line), because it will fit with the community and the petitioner has acquiesced to look to the future and give up the additional 5 feet and he does have support of the surrounding land owners. The board would like to include the proposed constructed swale be set on Mr. Saitta’s property outside of the easement. Mrs. Andrews seconded motion. Motion passed 4-0. 18 Agenda Item #3: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING OF JULY 27, 2005. Mr. Bangert made motion to approve minutes with corrections. Mr. Harris seconded the motion. July 27, 2005, approved unanimously. Other Business: Next meeting to be held on September 28, 2005. Adjourned 10:45 A.M. Corrections to minutes: On Page 28, last paragraph, last part of first line it says 17,000 it is inverted it should read 71,000. On Page 42, near the top it says Mrs. Bangert it should be Mr. Bangert. Probably right before the last paragraph on page 42 should be the vote that the board took on the first motion which was defeated 3-2.