Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVED BOA 042413BOA Minutes Page 1 of 9 April 24, 2013 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 1 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 2 April 24, 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 Jeff Johnson…. ..................................... Senior Planner 24 Beverly Austin ....................................... Executive Assistant 25 26 ANNOUNCEMENTS 27 None 28 29 Agenda Item #1 – Minutes of March 27, 2013 30 31 Mr. Bangert motioned approval of the minutes as written. 32 Mr. Pancoast seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 33 34 Agenda Item #2 – Petition of Wayne & Lisa Wuttke for a variance from the provisions of 35 Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code for the construction of 36 an approximately 1,040 s.f. pool screen enclosure to encroach 7.06 feet into the 37 required 15 foot rear yard setback and for an existing swimming pool to encroach 3 38 feet into the required 15 foot rear yard setback. 39 Mr. Johnson stated a variance is being requested to construct a 1,040 square foot pool 40 screen enclosure that will encroach 7.06 feet into the required minimum 15 foot rear 41 yard setback and for an existing swimming pool to encroach 3 feet into the required 42 minimum 15 foot rear yard setback. The subject property is approximately one quarter 43 acre in size and is located in the River Park Subdivision at the southeast corner of Oak 44 BOA Minutes Page 2 of 9 April 24, 2013 Street and Arbor Avenue. The property is zoned RS-4, Residential Single Family – 4 45 dwelling units per acre and is surrounded by the same zoning district. This zoning is 46 consistent with the RU, Residential Suburban land use which allows a density of 5 47 dwelling units per acre. 48 Legal advertisement for this public hearing was placed in the St. Lucie News Tribune 49 and a public hearing notice sign has been placed on the subject property. As of this 50 date staff has received a total of 18 response forms from property owners within 500 51 feet of the subject property…16 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 with no opinion to this 52 request. The applicant recently purchased this property a few months back. Staff has 53 received compliments from some of their neighbors on their efforts to improve the 54 exterior appearance. There is a shed that currently encroaches into the street side 55 yard setback. The applicant has worked and complied with our code enforcement staff 56 and has removed the shed from the property. As previously mentioned, there are 2 57 variances being requested. 58 The proposed pool screen enclosure is to be constructed around the perimeter of the 59 pool deck. Aerials indicate that an existing pool screen enclosure was constructed on 60 the property in the early 2000’s by a previous homeowner without an approved 61 building permit and was destroyed by the 2004/2005 storms. The swimming pool is 62 currently being secured by a fence around the perimeter of the rear and side yards. 63 The applicant would like to provide added security by constructing an enclosure and 64 has obtained FP&L authorization that allows the existing deck and proposed screen 65 enclosure to encroach into the 10 foot utility easement adjacent to the rear lot line. 66 The variance for the screen enclosure is the result of the property owner to construct 67 and encroach in the rear yard setback. This situations is not unique…..there are a 68 number of swimming pools that have been permitted in rear yards on single family lots 69 that meet applicable setback requirements but cannot be screened due to the fact 70 screening setback requirements cannot be met and therefore remain as open air 71 pools. 72 In regards to the existing swimming pool – this pool was constructed in 1977. At a 73 time, that the Building Division did not require surveys and relied on plot plans for 74 permitting. The pool currently encroaches 3 feet into the required minimum 15 foot 75 rear yard setback….requiring the property owner to re-locate the pool to meet this 76 setback would be a hardship. 77 Staff recommends approval of the variance for the existing swimming pool due to the 78 lack of accurate permitting requirements back in the late 1970’s. 79 Staff recommends denial of the variance for the proposed screen enclosure as it 80 arises from conditions that are not unique to the property and are imposed by the 81 applicant. As previously mentioned, the pool is currently secured by a perimeter fence. 82 83 Chairman Harris opened the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 84 None 85 Chairman Harris closed the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 86 BOA Minutes Page 3 of 9 April 24, 2013 87 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing 88 89 Wayne Wuttke of 750 Oak Street was sworn in and explained the reason for the pool 90 enclosure. 91 92 Mr. Knaggs and Chief Emerson asked about the screened enclosure of his adjacent neighbors 93 and if the neighbors were in favor of his request. 94 95 Mr. Wuttke stated yes the neighbors were in favor. 96 97 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing 98 99 Chairman Harris returned to the Board for discussion or motion. 100 101 Chief Emerson motioned to approve: After considering the testimony presented 102 during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as 103 set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. I hereby 104 move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of Wayne and Lisa Wuttke for 105 a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land 106 Development Code to allow the construction of an approx. 1,040 s.f. pool screen 107 enclosure to encroach 7.06 feet into the minimum required 15 foot rear yard setback 108 and for an existing swimming pool to encroach 3 feet into the required 15 foot rear 109 yard setback located at 750 Oak Street in the RS-4 (Single Family, Residential – 4) 110 zoning district because the pool itself is an existing structure that pre-dates the 111 requirements for the survey information that is required today. Also the screen 112 enclosure itself will not impair the neighbors and the closest neighbors have similar 113 structures. 114 115 Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion and added that no one close is against the petition. 116 117 118 119 The roll was called: 120 Mr. Pancoast Yes 121 Mr. Knaggs Yes 122 Mr. Bangert Yes 123 Chief Emerson Yes 124 Chairman Harris Yes 125 126 Agenda Item #3 – Petition of Ernest Rondeau for a variance from the provisions of 127 Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code for the construction of 128 a 720 square foot detached garage to encroach 13 feet into the require 15 foot rear 129 yard setback and for an existing 64 square foot utility shed to encroach 8.2 feet into 130 the required 10 foot interior side yard setback. 131 132 BOA Minutes Page 4 of 9 April 24, 2013 Mr. Johnson stated the applicant, Ernest Rondeau is requesting a variance to 133 construct a 24 by 30 foot or 720 square foot detached garage that will encroach 13 134 feet into the 15 foot rear yard setback and for an existing 8 by 8 foot or 64 square foot 135 shed that will encroach 8.2 feet into the 10 foot interior side yard setback. The subject 136 2/3rds acre lot is located approximately four tenths of a mile north of Midway Road on 137 South Indian River Drive. The property is zoned RE-2, Residential Estate – RE-2 138 zoned properties are to the south and north and directly behind the property adjacent 139 to the 100 foot wide FEC railroad right-of-way lies IX, Industrial Extraction and R/C, 140 Residential Conservation zoned lands. This zoning is consistent with the RS, 141 Residential Suburban land use which allows a density of 2 dwelling units per acre. 142 There are single family residences to the north and south of the subject property. 143 144 Legal advertisement for this public hearing was placed in the St. Lucie News Tribune 145 and a public hearing notice sign has been placed on the subject property. As of this 146 date staff has received a total of 4 response forms from property owners within 500 147 feet of the subject property…4 in favor and 0 opposed this request. 148 There are 2 variances being requested….The proposed 720 square foot detached 149 garage is located in the northwest corner of the rear yard and will replace an existing 150 219 square foot shed that is placed 1.7 feet from the rear lot line. This variance does 151 arise from conditions that are unique and peculiar from the land and physical 152 surroundings. The applicant does not have an existing garage (attached or detached 153 on the property) and does not have sufficient space in the interior side yards to 154 construct a garage and comply with the minimum 10 foot setback. 155 There are existing overhead utility lines (approximately 6 feet in width) that run north-156 south in the rear yard and are approximately 30 feet from the rear lot line. Title work 157 provided by the petitioner does not reference any easement for this utility in the rear 158 yard. There is also an existing septic drainfield that is located adjacent to the concrete 159 patio. It is the desire of the property owner to construct the garage in an area that 160 avoids the structure from being located under the power lines and away from the 161 septic drain field and allows reasonable use of the rear yard. 162 It is not anticipated that the proposed detached garage will harm or have a negative 163 impact on the adjacent properties. Staff recommends and the petitioner is agreeable 164 to a condition of approval that requires the exterior finish and roof of the proposed 165 garage to be compatible with existing single family home which consists of a stucco 166 finish and a metal roof. 167 In regards to the existing 64 square foot utility shed, research conducted by staff 168 indicates that the shed was constructed between 2000-2002 without an approved 169 building permit. Mr. Rondeau was unaware of these circumstances when he 170 purchased the property in 2003. 171 It should be noted that the County’s Code Enforcement Division has not received any 172 complaints regarding this shed. The shed is used for the storage of pool supplies and 173 equipment and can be re-located in the same general area to meet the minimum 10 174 foot interior side yard setback. 175 BOA Minutes Page 5 of 9 April 24, 2013 Staff recommends approval of the variance for the proposed detached garage due to 176 existing on-site conditions that exist and are unique to the property. 177 Staff recommends denial of the variance for the existing utility shed as there is 178 reasonable space in the rear yard to re-locate the structure and comply with the 179 minimum building setback requirement. 180 181 Chairman Harris opened the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 182 183 Mr. Knaggs stated he was confused about the garage/shed. 184 185 Mr. Johnson stated there is an existing shed that will be removed from the property 186 and the proposed detached garage will replace the shed. 187 188 Chairman Harris closed the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 189 190 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing 191 192 Ernest Rondeau of 4525 South Indian River Drive was sworn in and explained the 193 reason for requesting the variance. The variance for the garage was because of the 194 power lines. The 8 by 8 utility building; he was unaware that it was not up to code; 195 recently he invested money in a water filtration system for his home which is stored in 196 the shed. The neighbor to the south has given him a personal letter saying he has no 197 objection to the building and the neighbor to the north said the same thing. 198 Mr. Pancoast stated at first he was concerned about doing such a large 199 encroachment. But since the neighbors on both sides are happy with the applicant, he 200 is alright with it. 201 202 Mr. Knaggs stated the major encroachment to the west is abutting the railroad tracks 203 so there is no one there nor or the other side of the railroad tracks. He asked if the 204 shed were to remain in place with exception of the setback, could it be permitted. 205 206 Mr. Rondeau stated it was well constructed and a permit could be pulled. 207 208 Mr. Harris stated he understood where Mr. Knaggs was going with his questions and 209 stated he would leave that to staff to work out. He asked if there were any code 210 violations. 211 212 Mr. Johnson stated he has not been sited and is very cooperative and wants to work 213 with staff. The resolution could address that issue. 214 215 Chief Emerson wanted clarification regarding what is in the shed. He asked if the 216 water softener was in the shed; how long the well had been there; if there was a pool 217 on the premises; was there power at the location. The reason he is asking the 218 questions is that at some point there had to be a permit for electricity. 219 220 BOA Minutes Page 6 of 9 April 24, 2013 Mr. Rondeau stated yes the water filtration system, pool pump, softener, tank—221 everything is in the shed. The pool pump is outside the utility shed; everything in the 222 shed is mostly for the water treatment. The well was there when he bought the 223 property and recently converted it to a better system and there is power. 224 225 Mr. Johnson stated no information was found. The shed is there to protect his 226 investment but absent the shed, the equipment could sit there without a permit. 227 228 229 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing 230 231 Chairman Harris returned to the Board for discussion or motion. 232 233 Mr. Knaggs motioned to approve: After considering the testimony presented during 234 the public hearing, including staff comments and the Standards of Review as set forth 235 in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move 236 that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of Ernest Rondeau for a variance 237 from the provisions of Section 7.04.01 of the Land Development Code to allow the 238 construction of a detached garage to encroach 13 feet into the minimum required 15 239 foot rear yard setback and to allow an existing shed to encroach 8.2 feet into the 240 minimum required 10 foot interior side yard setback, located at 4525 South Indian 241 River Drive in the RE-2 (Residential Estate – 2) zoning district because the neighbors 242 approve of it; the land to the west is Industrial and unoccupied and the permit for the 243 shed will be pull within the required one year. 244 Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion. 245 246 Mr. Johnson reminded the Board of the aesthetic condition of the detached garage. 247 248 The motion was amended. 249 250 The roll was called: 251 Mr. Pancoast Yes 252 Mr. Knaggs Yes 253 Chief Emerson Yes 254 Mr. Bangert Yes 255 Chairman Harris Yes 256 257 Agenda Item #4 – Petition of Denis Perron for a variance from the provisions of Section 258 7.10.16 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow an existing mobile 259 home to encroach into the minimum front yard setback; and to allow an existing deck 260 to encroach into the minimum rear yard setback in the project known as Venture Out. 261 262 Ms. Tetsworth stated the subject property is located at 10701 South Ocean Drive Unit 263 # 686 in the Venture Out Condominium. The current owner purchased an existing 264 mobile home in an existing mobile home park. The existing home is positioned on the 265 lot at an angle as all of the units in the entire Venture Out Condominium are. Section 266 7.10.16 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Figure 7-32 requires that the 267 BOA Minutes Page 7 of 9 April 24, 2013 front yard setback be at least 10 feet; the side yard setback be at least 8 feet; and, the 268 rear yard setback be at least 5 feet. 269 270 The unit currently meets the side yard setback requirement with a full 12.1 foot side 271 yard on the west side of the house. The current survey sketch illustrates that the 272 mobile home meets the front yard setback at one corner because it is located nearly 273 20 feet back from the front property line. However, it is only 9 feet 1 inch on the other 274 corner due to the angle of the unit on the lot. Therefore, the unit encroaches into the 275 front yard 11 inches. A previous owner built the rear deck which also sits at an angle. 276 The survey submitted by the applicant dated January 8, 2013 illustrates that the 277 portion of the deck that encroaches into the rear yard setback covers approximately 278 50% of the rear yard. Staff has confirmed that according to the County Property 279 Appraiser’s website the house was located here in 1987. 280 The proposed request is for a 0.9 foot front yard variance on the southwest corner of 281 the house; and a 5 foot rear yard variance over half of the rear yard to allow for the 282 existing deck to remain. There is a Code Enforcement Case Number 68270 due to the 283 need for an “after the fact” building permit. However, the deck was constructed by a 284 previous owner. Staff spent considerable time and effort to verify the dates of when 285 the bulk head was rebuilt as well, which is why the Title Report was provided. Mr. 286 Perron acquired the property in June 2008. 287 The variance sought for the front yard may be peculiar to the shape of the lot. 288 However, the variance sought for the rear yard arises from a condition that is not 289 necessarily unique and peculiar to the property involved, and is not considered as a 290 hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 291 292 Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict 293 interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie 294 County Land Development Code, but is not necessarily in conflict with the goals, 295 objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is 296 recommending approval of the front yard variance and denial of the requested rear 297 yard variance because it does not fit the strict definition of a hardship. 298 If the Board of Adjustment decides to grant the variance, it would result in a 100% 299 variance in the rear yard and approximately a less than 8% variance from the front 300 yard setbacks. 301 Chairman Harris opened the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 302 303 Mr. Knaggs asked about the documents within the packet; the titles and insurance 304 copies. Also a letter in the packet from the association from this community that 305 agreed with the two variances that is being requested but with the stipulation that 306 property be returned to compliance if the owner changes or if the building changes. 307 Would this structure be properly permitted? 308 309 Ms. Tetsworth stated there was a question regarding who technically owns that land 310 that was created. She explained the reason in detail. As a matter of practice, a letter 311 BOA Minutes Page 8 of 9 April 24, 2013 from the homeowner association is required because it is a PUD type project. They 312 already have their building permit applications in which is what triggered the need for 313 the variance. 314 315 Ms. Olson stated the variance runs with the land; the variance from the county will 316 provide this variance for that type of structure in perpetuity beyond this owner and 317 beyond this structure. However, the homeowners association can choose to not 318 permit that construction. That is a civil matter. 319 Chief Emerson asked about pictures of the rear of the property. He was curious of how 320 it tied in with the improvements that were made. 321 Ms. Tetsworth stated no improvements were made in the rear deck. 322 323 Mr. Harris made a disclosure that as his capacity as county surveyor he was provided 324 the documentation to review to ascertain ownership or interest in the seawall. He 325 does not live in Venture Out; he knows no one living in Venture Out so he has no 326 interest in this and will cast a vote. 327 328 Chairman Harris closed the meeting for discussion and questions of staff 329 330 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing 331 Denis Perron of 10701 South Ocean Drive Unit 686 was sworn in and explained the 332 need for a variance. The house was bought in 2008 and the deck was there since 333 2002. 334 335 Mr. Knaggs wanted a confirmation that this is not a new deck. 336 337 Mr. Perrone stated it is not new. 338 339 Mr. Emerson asked where the primary entrance to the home. 340 341 Ms. Cheryl Brisson of 10701 South Ocean Drive Lot 687 was sworn in and stated she 342 was a member and officer of the Board of Directors of Ventures III Inc. which is the 343 management company for the community; she is also a member and officer of the 344 Venture Out of St. Lucie Inc. which is a condo association in which the unit in question 345 is located. She is at the meeting primary because she owns the adjacent property– 346 she is their next door neighbor. On March 18, 2013, Venture Out of St. Lucie 347 unanimously passed a variance regarding Unit # 686. The association has no 348 objection if St. Lucie County granted a variance. She also has no objection as a 349 neighbor. 350 351 Ms. Janet Mount of 10701 South Ocean Drive Lot 683 was sworn in and stated she 352 was at the meeting on behalf of the applicant. She has been staying in the park for 30 353 years; as long as she can remember the deck has been on the back of that property 354 as it is now. It does not obstruct her view. 355 356 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing 357 358 Chairman Harris returned to the Board for discussion or motion. 359 BOA Minutes Page 9 of 9 April 24, 2013 360 Mr. Knaggs wanted clarification of what triggered the violations and was a permit 361 pulled. 362 363 Ms. Tetsworth stated the screen enclosure was not required to have a variance. It 364 was enclosing the screen enclosure into living area so that it now has to have a 365 variance. When the application for the permit was submitted and when reviewing the 366 plans it was discovered that the deck needed to have a variance. It was through the 367 permitting process. 368 369 Chief Emerson stated Venture III and Nettles Island are very unique properties and 370 this is not uncommon. 371 372 Mr. Bangert motioned to approve- After considering the testimony presented 373 during the public hearing, including staff comments and the Standards of 374 Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie County Land 375 Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the 376 petition of Denis Perron for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.10.16 of 377 the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit a mobile home to 378 encroach 0.9 feet into the minimum front yard setback and 5 feet into the rear 379 yard setback as required in the project known as Venture Out III, because the 380 majority of the neighbors are not against and the few that are against it are not 381 close to the property. 382 383 Mr. Knaggs seconded the motion. 384 385 The roll was called: 386 Mr. Pancoast Yes 387 Mr. Knaggs Yes 388 Chief Emerson Yes 389 Mr. Bangert Yes 390 Chairman Harris Yes 391 392 OTHER BUSINESS 393 Next meeting will be May 22. 394 395 ADJOURN 396 Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:24 AM. 397