Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVED BOA 012313 MinutesBOA Approved Minutes Page 1 of 6 January 23, 2013 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 1 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 2 January 23, 2013 3 9:30 a.m. 4 5 A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained from the Planning and 6 Development Services Department along with these Minutes. A fee is charged. In the event of a 7 conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall control. 8 9 CALL TO ORDER 10 Chairman Ron Harris called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 Ron Harris ....................................... Chair 14 Bob Bangert ..................................... Vice Chair 15 Ron Knaggs ..................................... Board Member 16 Richard Pancoast ............................ Board Member 17 Buddy Emerson ............................... Board Member 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT 20 Katherine Barbieri ............................ Assistant County Attorney 21 Kara Wood ....................................... Planning Manager 22 Kristen Tetsworth ............................. Senior Planner 23 Beverly Austin .................................. Executive Assistant 24 25 ANNOUNCEMENTS 26 None 27 28 Agenda Item #1 – Minutes of October 24, 2012 29 30 Mr. Pancoast motioned approval of the minutes. 31 Chief Emerson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 32 33 Agenda Item #2 – Petition of Brent Norman for a variance from the provisions of 34 Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow a screened 35 enclosure for a pool to encroach 1.4 feet and 1.75 feet into the minimum side yard 36 setbacks; and 7.35 feet into the rear yard setback. 37 Ms. Tetsworth Senior Planner stated the subject property is located at 6128 Santa 38 Margarito Drive, within the Portofino Shores PUD. Research of the original Final 39 PUD Site Plan reveals that the Lot Typical illustrates the side yard requirement as a 40 minimum of 6 feet in width. The existing home was one of the original sales models 41 BOA Approved Minutes Page 2 of 6 January 23, 2013 and currently meets the side yard setback requirement on both sides of the house in 42 addition to other dimensional requirements for structures in the Portofino Shores 43 PUD. The current survey sketch confirms the side yard on the northeast side of the 44 house as 10.24 feet; and on the southwest side of the house, there is 9.72 foot side 45 yard. This is a quasi-judicial public hearing with proof of advertising mailed to the 46 adjacent property owners. Sixty-seven people were notified of the hearing; 5 47 responded; one person phoned for detailed information and was not in objection 48 after the explanation. Three written responses were not in favor and one in favor. 49 That is approximately a 7% return of the 67 letters that went out. 50 The developer built the home and the swimming pool in 2004. Staff has confirmed 51 that according to the County Property Appraiser’s website the house was built in 52 2004 and the finished building size is 2,853 square feet. The boundary survey 53 illustrates that at its closest point the structure is set back 9.72 feet from the 54 southwest property line. The home has an existing uncovered pool that extends 55 approximately 22.5 feet into the 30 foot rear yard. The Lot Typical shown on the 56 Final PUD Site Plan illustrated a minimum 15 foot rear yard which will require a 57 variance for 7.35 feet from the rear property line to accommodate the screened 58 enclosure. This improvement also requires the proposed encroachment into the 59 side yard setbacks that would result in a screen enclosure location of 5.64 feet from 60 the northeast property line and 5.47 feet from the southwest property line at the 61 closest points. According to the application, the property owner purchased the 62 home as a foreclosed property and will be repairing and replacing pavers and 63 landscaping. In addition, Section 8.00.05 of the St. Lucie County Land Development 64 Code requires that all swimming pools be either entirely screened in or completely 65 enclosed with a fence. The back yard is already completely fenced along the 66 perimeter boundary. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to install the screened 67 enclosure to be in compliance with the LDC and to protect against bugs and pests. 68 The proposed request is for a 1.4 foot side yard variance on the northeast side of 69 the house; a 1.75 foot side yard variance on the southwest side of the house; and a 70 7.35 rear yard variance to allow for the screened enclosure. The enclosure would 71 be on level ground and backs to a lake so it will not interfere with the vista from any 72 other neighboring property. The granting of the requested variance is not expected 73 to impair or injure other property in the neighborhood. The subject home backs to a 74 lake and the Portofino Shores Property Owner’s Association, Inc. has submitted a 75 letter dated December 12, 2012, approving the proposed screen enclosures 76 encroachment into the setback. 77 The variance sought does not arise from conditions that are peculiar to the property, 78 and does not necessarily qualify as a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County 79 Land Development Code. The need for the requested variance is created by 80 BOA Approved Minutes Page 3 of 6 January 23, 2013 Section 8.00.05 and the desire of the property owners to construct a screen 81 enclosure for protection from bugs that will encroach 1.4 feet and 1.75 feet into the 82 6 foot side yard setbacks; and 7.35 feet into the rear yard setback. The applicant 83 indicates that this variance is the minimum needed to accommodate existing 84 landscaping and trees while providing for the use of the pool and patio by providing 85 a screen enclosure. However, this improvement is not necessary to make 86 reasonable use of the land. Section 8.00.05 of the St. Lucie County Land 87 Development Code requires that all swimming pools be either entirely screened in 88 or completely enclosed with a fence. The requested variance is not inconsistent with 89 the intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. However, the intent of 90 the variance provisions are to provide a mechanism when, owing to special 91 conditions, the literal enforcement would impose an unnecessary hardship that can 92 be mitigated without conferring on the applicant any special privilege. The variance 93 sought arises from a condition that is not unique and peculiar to the property 94 involved. The variance sought does not arise from conditions that are unique, and is 95 not considered as a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development 96 Code. 97 Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict 98 interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie 99 County Land Development Code, but is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and 100 policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends denial of 101 the requested variance. 102 Chairman Harris opened the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 103 Mr. Knaggs asked if the association approved the project. 104 105 Ms. Tetsworth stated the property owners association voted to approve it which is a 106 requirement of the application process. 107 Mr. Knaggs asked about the objections and if any of the immediate adjacent 108 neighbors objected. 109 Ms. Tetsworth stated most checked the “not in favor” box; one with a note stating 110 the setback requirements are there for a reason and are reasonable… There were 111 no objections of the neighbors. 112 113 Chief Emerson stated the POA letter in the packet is not signed and it does not 114 acknowledge what the petitioner is here for. It does not say anything about 115 encroachment into side yard setback, it gave conditional approval to begin screen 116 enclosure which could be a technical glitch. 117 118 Ms. Tetsworth stated the minutes from the POA meeting were attached to the letter 119 but they were not excluded. They spoke specifically to the exact request of Mr. 120 Norman. 121 Chairman Harris closed the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 122 123 BOA Approved Minutes Page 4 of 6 January 23, 2013 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing 124 Brent Norman of 6128 Santa Margarito Drive, Fort Pierce was sworn in and began 125 to explain the variance. The HOA understood the setbacks that were being asked 126 for. The architectural review board also understood the setbacks. 127 128 Mr. Harris stated confusion regarding the dimensions-was it a typo. 129 130 Mr. Norman tried to explain the dimensions. 131 132 Mr. Pancoast asked about the rear property line. 133 134 Ms. Barbieri, county attorney stated she has not seen the document but currently 135 staff is saying that there is a setback and they don’t meet the setback. 136 137 Mr. Norman approached the board to explain the unusual enclosure. He stated he 138 had a drawing from the company that will be doing the work. 139 140 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Norman to give the document to the secretary to be placed in 141 the record. 142 143 Mr. Harris stated there was a problem; the variance that is being proposed to grant 144 to what would be the rear property line is not a 100% variance. Mr. Norman is 145 proposing to encroach 7.35 into the rear, now you are going all the way to the rear 146 for a portion of the screen. That puts the Board in a position where we cannot grant 147 it because of the way it was advertised. 148 149 Ms. Tetsworth stated the manner in which the language was stated for the 150 advertising and sign did not include the dimensions specifically. 151 152 Mr. Harris stated he read the sign and advertising but the packets have specific 153 distances to the tenth. He asked the county attorney what position does this put the 154 Board in. The documents are requesting an encroachment into a rear setback for 155 ‘blank” feet, yet we know for a portion of it-it will go all the way 100%. 156 157 Ms. Barbieri looking at the public hearing notice, it states that the encroachment of 158 1.4 and 1.75 feet into minimum side yard and 7.35 into the rear yard setback. So 159 that is all that everybody is on notice about. 160 161 Mr. Harris stated he does not see how a ruling can be made on this. He asked the 162 county attorney based on what she just said, the Board cannot act on this at this 163 time or do we just deny. 164 165 Ms. Barbieri stated the Board can grant it as outlined but it will not accomplish what 166 the petitioners want; the Board could deny or continue it to provide proper notice 167 and to give staff time look at the other document that he now has. 168 169 Mr. Pancoast suggested a continuance. 170 BOA Approved Minutes Page 5 of 6 January 23, 2013 171 Mr. Harris suggested continuing to a date certain. 172 173 Chief Emerson stated he has no problem with a continuance but in the meantime 174 clarify with the association that he gets a signed letter stating the encroachment and 175 they acknowledge it. 176 177 Mr. Harris stated to Mr. Norman that is the position the Board is taking. That is the 178 easiest instead of denying. 179 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing 180 181 Chairman Harris returned to the Board for discussion or motion. 182 Mr. Harris requested a motion to continue this to February 20, 2013 at 9:30am or 183 soon thereafter. 184 185 NOTE: Due to a typo error on the 2013 meeting schedule, the next February meeting will 186 be on the 27th. 187 188 Mr. Bangert moved that the Board of Adjustment continue to a date certain in 189 February. 190 The applicant is instructed to provide a screened enclosure drawn on to the survey; 191 the entire copy of the POA Declaration of Covenants and a signed copy of the POA 192 letter. 193 194 Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion. 195 The roll was called: 196 Mr. Pancoast Yes 197 Chief Emerson Yes 198 Mr. Knaggs Yes 199 Mr. Bangert Yes 200 Chairman Harris Yes 201 The motion to continue passed unanimously. 202 203 AGENDA ITEM #3 - Election of Officers 204 Nomination for chair: Ron Harris 205 Mr. Pancoast motioned 206 Chief Emerson seconded. 207 208 The roll was called: 209 Mr. Pancoast Yes 210 Chief Emerson Yes 211 Mr. Knaggs Yes 212 Mr. Bangert Yes 213 Chairman Harris Yes 214 The motion to continue passed unanimously. 215 216 Nomination for Vice-Chair: Mr. Bangert 217 Mr. Pancoast motioned. 218 BOA Approved Minutes Page 6 of 6 January 23, 2013 Chief Emerson seconded. 219 220 The roll was called: 221 Mr. Pancoast Yes 222 Chief Emerson Yes 223 Mr. Knaggs Yes 224 Mr. Bangert Yes 225 Chairman Harris Yes 226 The motion to continue passed unanimously. 227 228 Nomination of the office of Planning & Development Services to assign a secretarial 229 staff to assist the Board. 230 231 Mr. Pancoast motioned. 232 Mr. Bangert seconded. 233 234 OTHER BUSINESS 235 Mr. Harris requested a moment of silence for Linda Pendarvis’ family bereavement. 236 237 ADJOURN 238 Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05am. 239