Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-23 BOA Meeting Minutes Generated 12/20/2018 10:15 AM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Regular Meeting October 23, 2019 Convened: 9:30 AM Adjourned: 10:38 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:31 AM by Chairman Ron Harris. LIST ATTENDEES, TITLES, AND ARRIVAL TIME Attendee Name Title Status Arrived RON HARRIS Chair Present 9:30 AM ROBERT LOWE Vice-Chair Present 9:30 AM MICHAEL JACQUIN Commission Member Present 9:30 AM CHIEF DEREK FOXX Commissioner Member Present 9:36 AM ALEXANDER TOMMIE Commissioner Member Present 9:42 AM OTHERS PRESENT Attendee Name Title KATHERINE BARBIERI Assistant County Attorney LESLIE OLSON Director BENJAMIN BALCER Assistant Director LINDA PENDARVIS Planning Manager KORI BENTON Assistant Planning Manager BETHANY GRUBBS Planner TAHIR CURRY Associate Planner KRIS MCCRAIN Associate Planner VANESSA DESNOYERS Recording Secretary 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 2 | Page 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chair Lowe disclosed a conversation with the applicant (Friedrich). Chair Harris stated that he listened closely to the conversation and acknowledged the statement. Mr. Jacquin made the motion for the approval of BOA meeting minutes from July 24, 2019. Vice-Chair Lowe seconded the motion. The motion passed. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT (excluding Public Hearing items) There were no comments from the public. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM A. Hernandez Residence Variance ‐ 5402 Hickory Drive ‐ A petition of Leydi Hernandez and Yeimy L. Cruz, for a Variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01 and Table 7‐10 Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code within the RS‐4 Zoning District. Tahir Curry, Associate Planner, stated the applicant seeks a variance to permit the construction of a single-family residence, which proposes a total lot coverage of 3,366 square feet, or 33.7%, of the 10,000 square foot lot, thereby exceeding the maximum 30% lot coverage, by 3.7%. The variance pertains to standards of review of the RS-4, residential single-family zoning district. In accordance with public notice, Land Development Code Section 11.00.03, notices were mailed to 71 adjacent property owners, located within 500 feet of the subject parcel. The Planning and Development Services Department received six responses, five not in favor, and one no opinion. Mr. Curry pulled up a map reflecting responses stating that the property highlighted in red represent the five homeowners that were not in favor. The property highlighted in yellow represents the one homeowner with no opinion. The subject property is located within the Indian River Estates. The site is located within the Residential Single Family-4 zoning district and conforms to the minimum lot standards for this district. The surrounding properties are also located within the RS-4 district with the property NE is zoned Institutional. The survey submitted to the Planning Department shows the proposed 3,366 sq. ft. Single-Family Dwelling of lot coverage. Staff recommends denial of the request as the variance is not consistent with the standards of review as set forth in St. Lucie County’s Land Development Code Section 10.01.02., as it does not arise from conditions that are unique to the site and is not a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Chairman Harris opened the floor for discussion and questions for staff Mr. Jacquin questioned if there were previous variance’s approved in the vicinity. Mr. Curry stated that there had been approvals in the area further south, but nothing in the immediate area surrounding parcel. Vice- Chair Lowe questioned if there had been any variances within 500 feet. Mr. Curry stated that there hadn’t been. Vice Chair Lowe questioned if there was a Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Curry stated that there isn’t an active HOA for Indian River Estates, therefore there is no separate application or approval process. Vice Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 3 | Page Chair Lowe questioned if homeowners that disapproved of the variance request. Mr. Curry stated that one of the homeowners expressed not wanting to have a zoning change to within their community. Ms. Hernandez of 3924 Sabal Way, Ft Pierce, FL 34981 was sworn in and gave reasons for the request. Mr. Jacquin questioned if Ms. Hernandez had the floor plan on her person and confirmed that it was a four bedroom home. Ms. Hernandez stated that she owns the adjacent lot and is just looking to build her family home. Vice Chair Lowe questioned which neighbor was in favor of the variance request. Leydi Hernandez and Yeimy L. Cruz own the corner lot just immediately north of the subject property at 5400 Hickory Dr. The applicants can file for a unity of title with the Clerk of Court or a parcel combination through the Property Appraiser office to combine 5402 Hickory Dr. with their vacant property (5400 Hickory Dr.) to increase the land area, further increasing their allowable building area. Figure 1, below, presets the Hernandez ownerships with the adjacent lot. Mr. Curry stated that there was no response in favor, just one with no opinion. The board members determined that Ms. Hernandez owns lots 1 and 2 on the map. Vice-Chair Lowe questioned if the applicant had any plans to extend the plan to her home. Ms. Hernandez stated that she did not at the time and that she plans to invest here and build her dream home. She thought everyone would be in favor of the home being built because it would raise property values, but that is not the case. Mr. Stewart Mencer of 5312 Palm Drive, Fort Pierce, FL 34982 stated his objections to the applicant’s petition. Mr. Mencer stated that the board has a responsibility to maintain the area and neighborhood as it is. Mr. Mencer loves his neighborhood and questions why the board would allow a home twice the size of other homes to be built. Mr. Mencer lives at the corner of Palm Dr and Howard St stated that he fears that once this request is approved, for a home of this size, with the petitioner owning two lots, it will open the door for several homes to be built at this size. Mr. Mencer also brought questions for the board to consider: Is the owner/ builder going to pay twice the millage rate? Is the owner/ builder twice the property taxes? Is the owner/ builder going to pay double impact fees? Mr. Mencer states that granting this petition will place an undue burden on the property and the neighborhood he lives. Mr. Mencer stated that there is a water issue along Howard Street. There is a main drainage ditch at Palm Drive and Howard Street. There is still water that stands, and there is more water coming in than what can be processed. A four-bedroom home will put additional burdens on the land and sewer system and the neighborhood itself. Mr. Mencer stated that with the addition of improvements on the area and sewer system, and the drainage on Howard itself, these reasons are enough for the Board to consider rejecting this proposal. Mr. Mencer stated that he lives 500 feet away and was never notified of the variance request, aside from a sign in Ms. Hernandez’ yard. Mr. Mencer believes that people at a greater distance of 500 feet will be affected. Mr. Mencer stated that Ms. Hernandez has not kept the property or the lot in proper maintenance. Mr. Mencer says to Ms. Hernandez’ credit, the lot was cleared, but there are weeds along the back of the property as tall as the fence. In addition, there is a pile of trash along the corner of Howard and there has been no attempt to remove it, or maintain the property. Mr. Mencer stated that these are the kinds of neighbors he would have and he doesn’t appreciate what’s happening there. Mr. Mencer states that he appreciates the consideration of the Board. Vice Chair Lowe stated that this person can build a 3,000 square foot home, so its only the 366 feet that are an issue. Vice-Chair Lowe questioned if the Board denies the variance, if the applicant would still be able to build the home. Mr. Curry confirmed that the 3,000 square feet would conform to that lot coverage. Mr. Jacquin questioned how long the property owner owned the lot, and followed up with an additional question as to where they are in the permitting process and if they have contacted the health department. Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 4 | Page Mr. Curry confirmed that they had been in touch with the health department for approval of the septic tank. Mr. Jacquin found the sale date August 31, 2018 and stated that they have owned the lot for about a year. Mr. Jacquin stated that in his personal opinion that if Ms. Hernandez stated that this is the house size she needs, and we’re going to knock it down by that much, it isn’t a big deal. Chairman Harris closed the floor for discussion Chair Harris stated that he seriously doubts an additional 366 square feet would have a huge impact on the drainage system with the Indian River Estates. The county spent a large amount of money in there to improve the drainage, utilizing the pump systems and everything else. Chair Harris stated that in his personal opinion he doesn’t view this as a big issue at all. The land owner to the south did not respond into the negative, but didn’t respond in the positive either, but one assumes that if they didn’t respond in the negative, then they have no issue with this. Mr. Jacquin made the motion to approve, 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, I hereby move that the Board Of Adjustment approve the petition of Leydi Hernandez and Yeimy L. Cruz, for a variance from the provisions of section 7.04.01 (Table 7-10) Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code within the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family – 4 Du/Ac) Zoning District, to permit the construction of a single-family home which proposes a lot coverage by building of 3,366 square feet, thereby exceeding by 3.7 percent (366 Sq. Ft.) of the maximum 30 percent lot coverage by building required in the RS-4 Zoning District, on the subject property consisting of 0.23 acres which is located at 5402 Hickory Drive, Fort Pierce, Because it is not seen to have an additional impact greater than what is currently there with regards to drainage traffic, etc.. Mr. Tommie seconded The roll was called: Chair Harris Yes Vice Chair Lowe Yes Chief Foxx Yes Mr. Tommie Yes Mr. Jacquin Yes B. Percy Garage Variance ‐ 11298 Muller Road ‐ A petition of Rebecca Percy for a Variance from the provisions of St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 7.04.01 (Table 7‐10) Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements of the AG‐5 (Agricultural 1du/5ac) Zoning District. Bethany Grubbs, Planner stated that the purpose of this variance application is to allow an existing detached garage to encroach into the required 50-foot front yard setback by no more than 29.2 feet and an existing pump house to encroach into the required minimum 50-foot front yard setback by no more than 37.4 feet. In accordance with public notice, Land Development Code Section 11.00.03, notices were mailed to 188 adjacent property owners within the required 500 foot radius. An ad was placed in the local newspaper on October 11, 2019, and a sign was placed on the property by the property owner for today’s Board meeting. Proof of advertising for this public hearing can be found in the agenda packet. Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 5 | Page The subject 2.83-acre parcel is located at 11298 Muller Road, Fort Pierce. The aerial shows existing residences to the south and to the east. To the north the property abuts Ten-Mile Creek. The zoning of this property is AG-5, and is surrounded by properties with similar size and are likewise agriculturally zoned as AG-5 and AG-2.5. The zoning is compatible with the Residential Conservation Future Land Use. The parcel is improved with a one- story, single-family residence that was constructed in 2013, according to records of the Property Appraiser, but the property does not meet the 5-acre minimum Lot Size requirement of the AG-5 Zoning District, however research concluded the subject property is a non-conforming lot of record, providing eligibility for an accessory structure in accordance with the provisions of the Land Development Code. The parcel is improved with a one-story, single-family residence that was constructed in 2013, with a pool, dog kennel, and a detached garage with pump house. Following a complaint received by the County on June 17, 2019, a Notice of Violation was issued by the St. Lucie County Code Compliance Division for the construction of a 1,233 square foot detached garage with an adjoined 97 square foot pump house without an application for a building permit. As a result the existing pump house encroached 37.4 feet, and the detached garage encroaches 29.2 feet into the required 50 foot front yard setback. The subject site is located within a AE - Regulatory Floodway. On September 6, 2018, the applicant applied for a building permit (BP# 1809-0086) to construct a 2,880 square foot garage at which time the Zoning division noted that the proposed structure was not meeting the required finished floor elevation, nor did it meet the front setback requirements. The FEMA No Rise Certification, prepared by Coastal Waterways on June 22, 2019 stated that while the proposed structure did not meet required finish floor elevations, the proposed improvement would not result in an increase in flood levels within the community because the small amount of fill associated with the improvement below Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 18.0 feet (NAVD) is de minimis and can be offset by the onsite excavation of an equal volume of storage; in this case approximately 40 cubic yards at approximately Elevation 17 feet NAVD. The compensatory storage area was never installed and all incomplete review comments remain outstanding and unsatisfied; construction of the detached garage proceeded without being issued a building permit. As shown on the survey, on the eastern side, a 10’ x 22.5’ (225 sq. ft.) dog kennel was constructed without a permit and encroaches 6.5 feet into the required east side yard setback. For this review, the dog kennel shall not be included as part of this variance request. The applicant is to apply for a demolition permit to remove this unpermitted structure, or permit the structure, to achieve compliance. Ten-Mile Creek is subject to the shoreline buffer regulations as set forth in Section 6.02.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. All existing structures have been examined by Staff for compliance with the required 75’ foot buffer width and it does meet that requirement. Staff recommends denial of the variance as the petition does not arise from conditions that are unique and peculiar from the land and physical surroundings, and the proposed improvement has been created by the actions of the property owners. The variance sought does not qualify as a hardship as defined in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Chairman Harris opened the floor for discussion and questions for staff Vice-Chair Lowe stated that one of the complaints for this application was that the view would be blocked, and if that is accurate? Ms. Grubbs stated that it was correct from the property just to the south on the corner of Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 6 | Page Muller Road. Chair Harris questioned if anyone from engineering looked at the application for a line of site issue. Ms. Grubbs stated that engineering has reviewed the application as they are a part of the Development Review. Rebecca and Joel Percy of 11298 Muller Road, Ft Pierce, FL 34945 were sworn in and gave reasons for the request. Ms. Percy stated that she is going to start out by admitting that she did the wrong thing. That they did propose a 45’ by 60’ garage. Ms. Percy owns a 5-wheel, a boat and a part of that was dedicated to being a dog kennel. The structure was built 3 years prior for the applicant’s daughter, in anticipation of housing the pig and dog owned by the applicant. Ms. Percy stated that in the letter from the neighbors it was said that she tried to compromise by taking the structure down. Ms Percy defended that she was not trying to compromise, she didn’t realize it was too close to the neighbors until a survey was done. Ms. Percy stated that it is a shed, she is not seeking a variance on a shed that can easily be moved. An old block building by the road, previously used as the original garage and does not suit the needs of Ms. Percy’s family. Ms. Percy intended to use that structure for storage and to move the barn to that location. Ms. Percy stated that the floodway has become an issue in that area. When her home was built, she hired Culpepper and Terpening to do a study of the property. The original plans that St. Lucie County Building department has for the house showed the floodway analysis, along with a proposed barn, a proposed pool, and a proposed house and the County allowed her to build the house. Ms. Percy stated that she added an 8-foot addition to the house and was asked by the county to get a No Rise Certificate. Ms. Percy shared that the original survey from Culpeper and Terpening was $6,000 and the No Rise Certificate was $2500. When Ms. Percy came in apply for building permit to build the pool, Plans Examiner, Ed Rosenberry would not accept the original floodway analysis, because of the term “proposed pool” and that was not accepted. There was a couple of years in between the original analysis and applying for the building permit. Ms. Percy stated that is difficult to fight with the county, so she went back and got another floodway analysis to cover the pool. Ms. Percy stated that when she came back to address the garage, she was told the same thing, that the garage permit , previously approved she was told no that because of the term “proposed” it that was could not be accepted. Ms. Percy states that the house was “proposed” as well on the original plans, and floodway analysis but was allowed to be built. Everything had been proposed, but it was all encompassing the original floodway analysis. Ms. Percy stated that when she went to apply for the barn, she hired Coastal Waterways for Vero Beach, and had to do another floodwater analysis and it cost her $7500 because it had been several years since the original analysis. She was instructed by coastal waterways to place the barn in the front of her home, this was originally where the a 45’ by 60’ garage was supposed to go, but it would have taken out some very large oak trees. When Ms. Percy submitted to build garage she was advised the same solution from the County to place the barn in the front because of the compensatory storage. Ms. Percy stated that because it’s a garage it wouldn’t be a big deal if it flooded because her house is high, but the County would not let her go away from the 18 inches above the crown of the road for her garage, so she decided to put it in the front yard and submitted the permit application and after conversations, she was not going to be approved. Carl Peterson, former St. Lucie County Building Official told her that she could not continue to build in the floodway. Ms. Percy stated that she hired an engineer, and paid for this analysis. Ms. Percy took the existing slab that was there from an old building and built up the walls and placed, what she thought was a nicer building and a neighbor turned her in a year after the fact. Mr. Jacquin questioned how big the parcel is, and Mr. Percy said it was 2.83 acres. Mr. jacquin subsequently asked how big the existing slab was that the structure was removed from and what the had been previously been built on top of the slab. Mr Percy answered stating that it was a one car garage and the outside was almost like a patio slab from the house and it was next to the pumphouse which bumped out. It was almost like a sidewalk. Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 7 | Page Mr. Tommie questioned what the specific issue the neighbors had with the structure. Ms. Percy responded stating that it was said to be “unsightly”. Mr. Percy stated that the newer structure was more nice-looking than the previous garage. Mr. Percy stated that there was a comment about the roadway, but the building has the same specifications as the previous structure. It wasn’t pushed any closer to the road. Mr. tommie commented that he rides past this road daily and it does look better than before. Mr. Percy ststed that they just made a mistake and didn't know for sure that the original setback had changed from when that was built originally built in the fifties or sixties. Vice-Chair Lowe questioned the Board denied it, what will they have to remove? Have they ever done any kind of get a permit for it? . Ms. Grubbs responded there's a 50 foot required set back. So essentially they would have to remove the pump house and the garage. Mr. Jacquin asked a follow-up question if there were two road frontages. Ms. Grubbs stated that 11-mile road is considered the side corner. Mr. Jacquin stated that he remembers having a conversation about a trailer one time about that , where it was gotta be uniqueness out on the Island. Where they considered one apart it was a somewhat similar because if you look at on the one side, 67 and the others, you know, the grain isn't assuming as the hog pen is the 20.9 feet. Ms. Grubbs stated that if you viewed it that way, Staff did take that into consideration. The pump house would be encroaching into the side corner setback. Vice Chair Lowe questioned if there was a permit for the pump house and pole barn. Ms. Grubbs replied tha there had not been a permit issued for the pump house or the pole barn. The pole barn however, does meet setbacks and the shoreline protection setback, the pole barn meets those setbacks. Ms. Grubbs confirmed that Ms. Percy is going through after the fact permitting which meets setbacks so it does not need to come before the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Percy is willing to apply for a demolition permit to remove which encroaches in aside set back right now. For this petition, the only thing that is unpermitted that does not meet setbacks is this garage and pump house. Vice Chair Lowe questioned if it will stay ok, the board giving the exception. Ms. Grubbs clarified that Ms. Percy would have to construct through the building permit process following Board approval to approve this request and install the compensatory storage to mitigate the impacts for not meeting finished floor elevation. Chief Foxx questioned the outstanding review comments regarding the storage room not being installed. Ms. Grubbs replied stating that one of the, the review comments included in your packet essentially stated that they weren't meeting setbacks. They had to install the compensatory storage of 40 cubic yards. Those are all the final inspections for the review comments. Chief Foxx questioned where the storage was supposed to go. Ms. Grubbs stated that she didn’t the information available, but believes she has the no rise for our coastal waterways, but was unsure. Chair Harris stated that they have plenty of land in order to place that, He is sure they have a designated area for it. Ms. Percy stated that there has been a new floodway analysis that has been performed based on what is there now. Chair Harris questioned if Ms. Percy had that information on hand, Ms. Percy did not. Ms. Percy stated that she was proposing a 45 by 60 garage. The garage she had on the picture is 30 by 41 and was whatever the slab was there before. They utilized that and just built up, so it is smaller than it was before. She stated that the floodway guy says that this is de minimus so if they have to do the compensatory storage, he says it’ll be on the County because in his report it’s a de minimous to the waterway system. Chair Harris closed the floor for discussion Vice Chair Lowe questioned Staff as to what Ms. Percy would have to do to be granted a permit. Ms. Grubbs stated that they would have to provide an engineered analysis to the building department stating that the structure meets the 2017 Florida building code. With that they would receive all their inspections, including electric. Ms. Grubbs stated that she doesn’t believe that there is any plumbing, and then of course the compensatory storage. Vice-Chair Lowe stated that he feels that maybe if this agenda item is tabled for a month Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 8 | Page or so and let the Board allows Ms. Percy to go back to the County and see if they can get some of these issues taken care of and then come back to the Board. Vice Chair Lowe stated that that would be how he would like to vote. Chief Foxx agreed. Mr. Jacquin stated that this is a code issue, in the 1950’s there was no code and this structure needs to be brought up to current code. He questioned if the pump shed was in the foot print of what was existing. Ms. Grubbs stated that it was too hard to tell. Ms. Grubbs has an older survey from Culpepper Terpening did not have all the site conditions on it. Vice-Chair Lowe stated he agrees, that it could finally be permitted, but he thinks if Ms. Percy went in and cleaned some things up, it might look better. Chair Harris stated that the Board can condition, this approval based on securing all the required permits, building permits, any permits associated with this construction and that if Ms. Percy has to expand large sums of money to retain an existing structure that they constructed without a permit, then that would be her financial decision to make. Ms. Percy would have to meet the county’s requirements including Building Dept. and any other outside agencies associated with the county. Vice-Chair Lowe agreed. Ms. Pendarvis confirmed that Chair Harris is correct in that we could condition this variance, it is on the applicant's responsibility to meet all building code requirements. Because at this point at the variance, we are just looking at the setbacks, and whether we'll go to prove the structure encroaching into the setback. The county is not looking at the construction, not that it’s in a floodway, or that it needs to make compensatory. These are storage of just the fact that it is encroaching into a front setback. If the board would like to condition be variance, it can be managed through this approval. Ms. Grubbs put up the aerial and stated that it shows what existed in 2012 and what existed in 2014 to answer Mr. Jacquins previous question. Mr. Jacquin stated that he wanted to know whether the slab was there based on the area shown from 2012 to 2014. Chair Harris stated that if it was just a slab it would not be impacted by setbacks, but once the walls and the roof were put up, it would be subject to the setbacks. What they had there before is unclear and cant be discerned from the phot provided. Vice Chair Lowe made the motion to approve after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including comments and the Standards of Review as set forth in section 10.01.02 of the St Lucie County Land Development code here by move that the Board of Adjustment approve this petition of Rebecca Percy, for a variance from the provisions of section 7.04.01 (Table 7-10) of the St Lucie County Land Development Code and allow for an existing pump house to encroach into the required minimum 50 foot front yard setback. And by no more than three 37.4 feet and existing a detached garage to encroach into the requirement 50 foot front yard setback by no more than 29.2 feet or where a property located at 11298 Muller Road and would like to add would like to also add the condition that Ms. Percy complete all required permits by the County. Mr. Tommie seconded. The roll was called: Chair Harris Yes Vice Chair Lowe Yes Chief Foxx Yes Mr. Tommie Yes Mr. Jacquin Yes C. Petition of Richard and Nicole Friedrich for a variance from the provisions of St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 7.04.01 (Table 7‐10) Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements, to allow the construction of a pool within the rear setback. Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 9 | Page Mr. McCrain stated that the purpose of this variance application is to allow for the construction of a pool to encroach the required minimum 15 foot rear yard setback by no more than 4.7 feet providing a totally rear yard setback of 10.3 feet within the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/ac) for residential single family Zoning District. In accordance with Public Notice Land Development Code Section 11.00.03, notices were mailed to 188 adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and was placed in the local newspaper on October 11, 2019 for today's board meeting and a sign was placed on the property by the property owner. Proof of advertising for this public hearing can be found in your agenda packets. Mr. McCrain displayed an aerial showing the subject property outlined in red in this slot, which roughly eight 8,800 square feet is located within the Coral Cove subdivision on North Hutchinson Island. The RS-4 Zoning District allows for a 30% maximum lot coverage by buildings. As depicted on the Zoning Map, the Hutchinson Island Residential district is located to the North of the subject property, with the residential, The RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family – 4du/ac) zoning district surrounds the subject property to the east, south, and west. This is the second variance sought for the subject parcel. On September 27, 2017, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow for the construction of the existing single-family dwelling to exceed the 30% maximum lot coverage by 5%, creating a maximum lot coverage of 35% within the RS-4 Zoning District. According to the most recently submitted survey, the single-family structures structure over the prop, approximately 33% of the subject property. The surveys submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department on August 28th, 2019 depicts the existing two-story single family dwelling with the proposed setbacks for the pool and patio. St. Lucie County measures setbacks for pools from the edge of the water when the associated deck or patio is constructed at grade. At this time, the applicants are not proposing to construct a screening closure, but have stated the required fencing will be constructed pursuant to Land Development Code section 8.00.05. In accordance with Public Notice and Development Code Section 11.00.03 notices were mailed to 188 adjacent property owners located within the 500 feet of the subject property of the 188 mailers, the Planning Development Service Department and received a total of 16 returns response forms, 9 in favor and 5 are not in favor and 2 have no opinion. Staff did receive a letter of no objection from the Coral Cove property owners association and a copy of this letter was provided to the Board prior to the meeting. The requested variance does not arise from conditions that are unique and therefore does not qualify as a hardship as defined by the St Lucie County Land Development Code staff has reviewed this petition and determined it does not conform to a strict interpretation of the Standards of Review as set forth in the Land Development Code section 10.01.02, therefore, staff has recommended denial of the requested variance. Chairman Harris opened the floor for discussion and questions for staff Mr. Jacquin asked Mr. McCrain to display the pole picture because he didn’t see dimensions there. He questioned how big the pool is, because it has a 15 foot dimension. Mr. McCrain responded that it was proposed at 9 by 19. Vice-Chair Lowe questioned if there have been previous variances granted in this area he remembered approving another variance in the area. Mr. McCrain pulled up a slide that shows the previously approved variances. Vice-Chair Lowe asked if they were all pools and Mr. McCrain responded that property outlined as numbers “3” and “8” on the map were pools. Vice-Chair Lowe questioned if there would be an enclosure, siting that neighbors may have an issue with obstructed views. Mr. McCrain responded that the applicant has stated that no screening closure is going to be proposed for this. Richard Friedrich, of 260 Marina Drive, Ft. Pierce, Fl 34949 was sworn in and gave the reason for his request. Mr. Friedrich stated that he here is to add a pool to the house. He stated that he was unable to do so previously. Mr. Friedrich stated that he wants to build a pool just large enough to for the kids to go in and out of. Mr. Friedrich states that it is more of a glorified hot tub and he is not going to go on any screen closures. Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 23, 2019 9:30 AM 10 | Page It's going to be open to the environment and it will be the last ting he does to the single family home he lives in. He is simply attempting to make his forever home comfortable for his children. Mr. Jacquin stated that he recalls when the Board approved the additional lot coverage for the neighbor to the east they are now in favor of the variance, He questioned if Mr. Friedrich worked it out with the neighbor. Mr. Friedrich confirmed they’re on good terms now. Vice Chair Lowe questioned the neighbor to the West had an objection, Mr. Friedrich stated that the neighbor is actually in favor to keep the kids out of his pool. Mr. Jacquin questioned if there would be any lighting because the Board doesn’t want any accidents and Mr. Friedrich responded that he put up new dock lights, that he has lights everywhere. Chair Harris closed the floor for discussion Vice-Chair Lowe made a motion to approve, after considering the testimony presented during this public hearing and including staff comments in the Standards of Review set forth in section 10.01.02 of the St Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition Richard and Nicole Frederick for a variance from the provision of section 7.04.01 (Table 7-10) Lot Size Dimensional Requirements of the St Lucie County Land Development Code permit to construction of a pool to encroach into the required minimum 15-foot rear yard setback by no more than 4.7 feet providing a total rear yard setback of 10.3 feet for this structure within the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family-4 du/ac) Zoning District because it will not injure anyone in the neighborhood and there will be no view. Anybody viewable will be not blocked and it will add to the property. Chief Foxx seconded The roll was called: Chair Harris Yes Vice Chair Lowe Yes Chief Foxx Yes Mr. Tommie Yes Mr. Jacquin Yes 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Harris addressed the Staff, stating that last month these agenda items were supposed to be heard, but we did not have a quorum. Chair Harris asked the Board members try to be present in these meetings as to not inconvenience the public. Vice-Chair Lowe questioned if there is a Board meeting planned for November. 7. MOTION TO ADJOURN There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Please Note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books that are filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and available for inspection upon request.