Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVED BOA 022713 MinutesBOA Approved Minutes Page 1 of 4 February 27, 2013 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 1 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 2 February 27, 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 Development 6 Services Department along with these Minutes. A fee is charged. In the event of a conflict between the written 7 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 Leslie Olson .......................................... Planning Manager 22 Kristen Tetsworth .................................. Senior Planner 23 Beverly Austin ....................................... Executive Assistant 24 25 ANNOUNCEMENTS 26 The Chair welcomed Leslie Olson as the new Planning Manager of the Planning & 27 Development Services department. 28 29 Agenda Item #1 – Minutes of January 23, 2013 30 31 Mr. Knaggs motioned approval of the minutes with corrections of page 4 of 6 32 line 120 which should read included instead of excluded and line 145 of same 33 page to read is instead of is not. 34 Mr. Bangert seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 35 36 Agenda Item #2 – Petition of Brent Norman for a variance from the provisions of 37 Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow a screened 38 enclosure for a pool to encroach 1.4 feet and 1.75 feet into the minimum side yard 39 setbacks; and 7.35 feet into the rear yard setback. 40 Ms. Tetsworth Senior Planner stated this petition was presented at the January 23, 2013 BOA 41 public hearing and was continued to the February BOA public hearing to allow: 1) the 42 applicant to provide a signed copy of the POA letter; 2) for the applicant to draw the enclosure 43 on the survey; and 3) to allow staff time to authenticate the new information presented by the 44 BOA Approved Minutes Page 2 of 4 February 27, 2013 applicant at the public hearing. In the original application packet, the applicant provided a letter 45 from the POA dated December 12, 2012, without a signature on it. When BOA Members 46 noted that the letter was not signed, the applicant presented Minutes from the Architectural 47 Committee dated December 11, 2012 as evidence that the POA approved the encroachment. 48 The BOA Motioned to continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow for the applicant 49 time to get a new letter specifically noting that the POA acknowledges the encroachment. The 50 applicant provided a new letter to staff, however it was the same letter as submitted 51 previously. The only change was it had a signature on it and did not include the revised 52 language requested by the Board. The letter dated January 11, 2013 does not meet the 53 requirement. Again staff requested the letter to specifically include the language as requested, 54 that the POA acknowledges the encroachment. The second request from the Board was for 55 the proposed enclosure to be drawn on to the survey to illustrate more clearly what is 56 requested. That survey sketch was attached for review. 57 Lastly, new information was presented at the public hearing regarding the rear setback as 58 Page 2 of 6 of the Portofino Shores PUD Design Guidelines dated March 25, 2002. The 59 setbacks were illustrated in a matrix showing the side yard setbacks to be 6 feet from each 60 side property line and 15 feet from the rear property line. Pools and screened enclosures are 61 required to be 5 feet from the rear property line. A note at the bottom of the page states that 62 the rear setback for screened enclosures and decks can be reduced to 0 feet when contiguous 63 to lakes or common open space greater than 50 feet in width. Staff has been able to secure 64 the original copy of the PUD Design Guidelines dated March 25, 2002. The document was 65 date stamped by the Community Development Department on March 26, 2002 and is attached 66 for your review. Therefore, a variance from the rear yard setback is not required. 67 Chairman Harris opened the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 68 None 69 Chairman Harris closed the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 70 71 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing 72 Theresa Norman of 6128 Santa Margarito Drive, Fort Pierce was sworn in and began to 73 explain the reason for not securing the HOA’s signature. She stated the HOA never signs 74 their letters or put specifics in letters for reasons of not being “trapped” into situations. 75 76 Mr. Pancoast stated last month the Board asked for the screen enclosure to be drawn on the 77 survey; should the Board accept the survey that was turned in with the drawing specifically 78 because that’s what was asked for and be more clear in the future about what we want. 79 80 Mr. Harris stated the matrix was confusing, in the future, when things are placed on the survey 81 drawing, the surveyor needs to put in on there. Not the property owner, not the pool contractor. 82 Or have documentation from the surveyor stating he allows them to alter his drawing. 83 84 Chief Emerson stated in past cases where instances in staff’s opinion that there were 85 questions regarding hardship; the Board has looked to HOAs for the impacts relative to the 86 community and weigh whatever the HOA has to say in the decision making process. When 87 documentation is provided from a HOA that is unsigned and does not speak to the issue at 88 hand which in this petition is the encroachment; there is nothing to weigh. That is a significant 89 problem. 90 91 Mr. Pancoast stated there needs to be a clear definition between the applicant and the HOA. 92 The County should not be in the middle between what the county is trying to provide what the 93 applicant wants and what the HOA would accept. 94 95 BOA Approved Minutes Page 3 of 4 February 27, 2013 Mr. Harris concurs. 96 97 Mr. Bangert stated he does not see the problem; the pool has been ok’ed, the enclosure is 98 going outside the pool area. 99 100 Mr. Harris stated it is going all the way to the rear property line and encroaching into the side 101 setbacks. When they install the enclosure, the setbacks come into play. Normally in the past, 102 we have always received signed approvals from the POAs or the HOAs. 103 104 Mrs. Norman stated it was outside of their procedure. The problem is they just brought these 105 questions to us within the last week. There was a board meeting last night and it was brought 106 up last Thursday night and they are with their attorneys this morning making clear that they 107 approved this in December. We started this process, and according to the documents, they 108 have 30 days whether to disapprove or bring up any questions. They want to start over again 109 because we are in this process so that they can re-evaluate and decide. 110 111 Mr. Harris asked if the applicant is requesting a continuance from the Board. 112 113 Mrs. Norman stated yes. 114 115 Mr. Knaggs stated he had two questions--He sees where they are dropping the request for the 116 setback towards the water; so we all agree that can be withdrawn without further 117 consideration. Second question is - can we get from the HOA minutes and what they 118 submitted showing the encroachment; if that would be sufficient. 119 120 Mr. Harris stated an attachment to the approved letter would be sufficient as long as it was 121 initialed so we know that they looked at it. 122 123 Chief Emerson stated he was looking for a legitimate document outlining the decision. 124 125 Mr. Harris stated the petitioner is requesting a continuance to March 27, 2013; he asked if that 126 would be enough time. 127 128 Mrs. Norman stated she believed so. 129 130 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing 131 132 Chairman Harris returned to the Board for discussion or motion. 133 134 Mr. Pancoast moved that the Board of Adjustment continue to March 27, 2013. 135 Mr. Bangert seconded the motion. 136 137 The roll was called: 138 Mr. Pancoast Yes 139 Chief Emerson Yes 140 Mr. Knaggs Yes 141 Mr. Bangert Yes 142 Chairman Harris Yes 143 The motion to continue passed unanimously. 144 145 BOA Approved Minutes Page 4 of 4 February 27, 2013 OTHER BUSINESS 146 None 147 148 ADJOURN 149 Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:44am. 150