Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLETTERS - EMAILSOcean Resorts Co-op, Inc. 5101 N Highway Al SCANNED Fort Pierce, FL 34949-8203 b /�®p��/i�'1 Dlfi,;� 772-464-48Q3 Fax 772-464 070f� �`. LucieC6U�$Y� E-maA ureanrnsunslp�tt�nmeil i>n+ June 28, 2018 Re: Michael Chesanek 808 Osprey Court -Lot # 343 Fort Pierce, FI. 34949 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing this letter in regards to the variance that Michael Chesanek has applied for, for his current deck. The current deck located at 808 Osprey Court, Fort Pierce, Florida 34949 is not infringing on any home owners nor is it a nuisance to Ocean Resorts. The deck is not breaking any By -Laws or Rules and Regulations regarding setbacks within Ocean Resorts Co -Op, Inc. If I can be of any other help through this process, please feel free to reach out to me Thank You, au--T�- '—q� Donna Perez, CAM Ocean Resorts Manager St. Lucie Con* TO: Board of Adjustment Planning an Development Services Department Planning Division MEMORANDUM THROUGH: Mayte Santamaria, Planning & Development Services Assistant Director Linda Pendarvis, Development Review Coordinator FROM: Kori Benton, Senior Planner DATE: January 11, 2019 SUBJECT: A petition of Michael Chesanek for a variance from the provisions of Sections 7.10.16 F. 1. — Setbacks and 7.10.16 Q.1.a.1. (b) & (d), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, which provide minimum building setbacks for all recreational vehicle lots existing on or before August 1, 1990, to allow a raised wood deck, accessory to a mobile home, within the required side and rear yards. ITEM NO. IV GENERAL INFORMATION Location: Parcel ID: Zoning District: Overlay Zoning District Future Land Use(s): Purpose: Parcel Size: Existing Use: Utilities: 808 Osprey Court, Fort Pierce, FL 1410-502-0343-000-9 HIRD, Hutchinson Island Residential District Hutchinson Island — Building Height Overlay Zone A RH, Residential High - 15 dwelling units per acre The purpose of this variance request is to allow a raised wood deck, accessory to a mobile home, with the following encroachments: 1) An 8 ft. encroachment into the required, 8ft., side yard setback for an 1 Ift. linear section of deck; 2) A 4.65 ft. encroachment into the required, 811., side yard setback for a 26.7 ft. linear section of deck; and 3) A 511. encroachment into the required, 511., rear yard setback for a 30 ft. wide section of deck. 0.05 acres Single-family Residence (Mobile Home) St. Lucie County Utilities Water & Wastewater ST. LUCIE WORKS Board of Adjustment r Petition: Chesanek Variance January 8, 2019 Page 2 Adjacent Land Use/Zoning/Uses: River / Ocean Harbour RH, Residential High - 15 HIM, Hutchinson Island Condominium (Docking d/u acre Residential District Facilities) RH, Residential High - 15 HIIiD, Hutchinson Island Single-family Residence d/u acre Residential District (Mobile Home) RH, Residential High - 15 HERD, Hutchinson Island Single-family Residence d/u acre Residential District (Mobile Home) RH, Residential High - 15 HIRD, Hutchinson Island Single-family Residence d/u acre Residential District (Mobile Home) BACKGROUND INFORMATION The subject 0.05-acre parcel, or Co-op site #343, is located within the Ocean Resort Cooperative RV Park, situated within the BIRD, Hutchinson Island Residential Zoning District and'RH, Residential High (15 du/1 acre) future land use category. The subject property also lies within the Hutchinson Island — Building Height Overlay Zone A, which provides for a maximum building height of 120 feet. The encompassing complex is nearly 100 acres in size and was originally developed as a campground by the Bryn Mawr Corporation in the 1970s. Ocean Resorts was-inc6tporated as a Cooperative in 1980, and was labeled as a "residential park for recreational units". Presently, dwellings within the park consist of wood -frame houses, mobile homes, and a collection of empty lots suited for transient or non -transient recreation vehicles (RVs). The Ocean Resorts co-op contains 400 sites. The petition site features a 1,144 sq. ft. double -wide mobile home, Jacobsen Signature Model, Serial # M464, permitted in 2010. County records note the mobile home features 2 bedrooms and 3 baths, and is established within the AE Zone (FEMA Map Service EL 4). Subsequent to installation in 2010, a wood deck was installed across the entire rear yard, extending around the north west comer to the primary, west, entry. The wood deck provides a staircase to grade -level for pedestrian access, and an elevated walkway between the primary and rear doors of the unit. No permit records for this accessory structure exist. The deck, at the time of construction, was adjacent to Co-op site #344 which was utilized by an RV until a mobile home was installed in late 2017 to replace use by an RV. Variance Request The petition seeks a variance from provisions of Sections 7.10.16 F. 1. — Setbacks and 7.10.16 Q.l.a.I. (b) & (d), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, which provides minimum building setbacks for all recreational vehicle lots existing on or before August 1, 1990, to allow permitting (retention) of a raised wood deck (existing), accessory to an existing mobile home, with the following encroachments: 1) An 8 ft. encroachment into the required, 8ft., side yard setback for an 1 lft. linear section of deck; 2) A 4.65 ft. encroachment into the required, 8ft., side yard setback for a 26.7 ft. linear section of deck; and 3) A 5ft. encroachment into the required, 5ft., rear yard setback for a 30 ft. wide section of deck. ST. LUCIE WORKS Board of Adjustment Petition: Chesanek Variance January 8, 2019 Page 3 The minimum yard (setback) requirements for the subject site are presented below, in accordance with LDC Section 7.10.16 F. 1. — Setbacks, and corresponding text of Section 7.10.16 Q. La. 1. (b) & (d): The applicant is requesting relief from the required rear and west side yard requirements of 5ft. and 8ft., respectively, in order to permit and retain an existing wood deck as depicted on a site survey excerpt in Exhibit 1, below. Exhibit 1: Co-op Site 343 Survey — Mobile Home (Blue), Wood Deck (Orange) & Adjacent Units (Red) existing . N 88 54'00" E, '30.03 , seaw.al l t cap j existing. existing .' wood deck concrete f _ 1 J LOT existg..fi in existing' v \ _ 43 z building concrete L in �, o existing m o ' LOT' wood steps o z z ct� i 342 f p LAT 4. a �fi- (occupied); I 1; Oo' 344 p R' oZ Mobile Home` �' Mobile Home installed in installed in P = br'reMome 2006 2017 � ifis{lill@ipfh __ _ rr1 2010 a: eidy:, obte ..mom 29.9530.01 29:97' - 0 SPREY _ - COZ7RT I Pv Photographs of the existing deck, constructed in 2010 without documented building permits, providing pedestrian access to the main structure entry and elevated walk along the west fagade are presented below for context. ST. LUCIE WORKS 1~t law J .. sir° 1 SoothwestComer ofsite/Approach ' Access toE.YisthigDeck&Prinrw-Entrmnce — Looking North West Ytrd — LooldngNortli Existing. Deck & Primary UnitEntn• West Y.2rd — Looking North it, ' Nordimest comer ofAlobtle Home/deck , —Lookjg!eNorthonto .Rearpcck—,�k .Y� North west corner ofsite/deck —LoolkingEast Southeast, Board of Adjustment Petition: Chesanek Variance ` January 8, 2019 Page 6 VfARIrCNCE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH SECTION 10.01.02 ST. UCIE COUNT>Y LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE In reviewing this application for a variance from the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the Board of Adjustment shall consider and make determinations of whether: 1. The variance requested arises from conditions that are unique and peculiar to the land, structures, and buildings involved; that the particular physical surroundings, the shape, or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in unnecessary hardship for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the provisions of Chapter 7, Sections 10.16 F. 1, & Q.l.a.l. (b) & (d), are literally enforced; that they are conditions that are not ordinarily found in the same Zoning District, and the conditions are created by the regulations of Chapter 7, of this Code, and not by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant. The applicant, in his project description, has indicated the subject deck was built during the time his mother owned the property. Said deck, constructed in 2010 without a documented permit, was subject to a notice from the St. Lucie County Building & Code Divisions in 2018. It was further noted that neighbors to the east and west of our property have "similar" decks, to the deck subject to the variance petition, and been in existence for a number of years. The variance to reduce the required side (west) and rear yard to accommodate a raised wood deck does not directly originate by the actions of the property owner, but rather the proposed to retain the deck as - is, in the absence of modification to conform to required setbacks and/or available alternatives. The subject site is -located within a FEMA AE zone, whereas the mobile home features a finished flood elevation several feet above grade, however -this circumstance is experienced by adjacent sites and is not exclusively unique. It would be possible for modification of the wood deck, to be situated at -grade level and accompanied by two (2) landing features to provide reasonable access to both means of ingress/egress to the mobile home. Through this alternative design, which has been implemented at the site immediately to the west, access to the mobile home and an observation area within the rear yard may be maintained. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the unique conditions of the property have caused an unnecessary hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience or cost. Presumably, the filing of permits for construction of the deck, in 2010, would have guided alternative construction options in accordance with provisions of the land development code. 2. The granting of the variance will not impair or injure other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, nor impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, create a hazard to air navigation, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The variance may impair or injure other property or improvements in the neighborhood, if the same setbacks are applied to a future addition to or replacement of the unit situated to the west of the deck, as "a minimum eight (8) feet unobstructed between adjacent units shall be required" per code. Such application would impact the location of such addition or replacement, as this particular provision requires maintenance of an eight (8) feet unobstructed area or yard between adjacent units, as opposed to site, parcel, or lot lines. ST. LUCIE WORKS Board of Adjustment Petition: Chesanek Variance January S, 2019 Page 7 Further, the deck, in the expanse proposed, could increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, as the proximity to an adjacent mobile home unit may provide greater capacity for the spread of fire, if initiated in either structure/unit. The granting of the variance would not, however, impair or injure the supply of light or air to the adjacent public streets or adjacent sites, substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, create a hazard to air navigation, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. The variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structures. modified deck system/footprint may be eligible through alternative administrative remedy in accordance with LDC Section 10.01.14. A - Administrative Variances for the Required Minimum Yard Setback Standards, for Recreational Vehicle Parks. For example, the rear deck could be altered, or re -configured at grade, with an accompanying landing and staircase to provide a similar outdoor space at the waterfront. An example of this concept has been established at the site immediately adjacent to the west, as presented in Exhibits B & C below. This is simply provided for comparison and depiction of an alternative design. The applicant would need to ensure that any proposed design alternative meets County code requirements including setbacks. Exhibit B: Design Plans for Rear Landing and Observation Deck at Grade (Site 344 to West) 5ft. Minimum Setback . _4-- - - _ TYPICAL $rt VY '-tECTW w Ml�Cill C LI/�TAC.FF Minimum -`N-.4B°ABV.i FINISFr GRADE, setback EAR v I f rrp. Site 344 (to the west STAIR r e of Petition Site) _ I Itua7iat;r - = e .leme'tattRr, Not Subject Site of Variance Request Deck at Grade ...�.�u.vmaau--.•t nvx erxrwd 3a�b _ L _ © Landing - Administrative Variance ST. LUCIE WORKS Board of Adjustment Petition: Chesanek Variance ` January 8, 2019 Page 8 Exhibit C: Photo of Constructed Rear Landing and Observation Deck at Grade (Site 344 to West) The presented exhibits highlight an alternative design compliant with established yard and dimensional standards, whereas maintaining ingress and egress to the mobile home via a landing and an observation deck at grade with accompanying safety railings. A modified design, limiting each landing to 4ft. by 4ft., with an accompanying observation deck at -grade may be considered at the petition site. 4. The variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of this Code or the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The purpose and intent of the LDC and Comprehensive Plan seek to preserve, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience and general welfare of St. Lucie County, with the particular guidelines (7.10.16 F. 1, & Q.La. 1. (b) & (d)) providing unobstructed separation between dwelling units within RV Parks of no less than 8 ft. The proposed variances and existing deck, beyond allowable landings, reflects obstructions and spatial relationships intended for avoidance within RV Parks, and similarly implemented for residential development. Alternatively, replacement of the current deck system with 4ft. by 4ft. landings or retention of a minimal width (36"- 42") elevated deck situated at the finished floor elevation which wraps around the rear and western fagade to connect established entrances (landings plus a bridged connection) may provide consistency with the general spirit and intent of this Code or the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested as it does not arise from conditions that are unique and peculiar to the land and physical environment, is not necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structures, and could potentially impair or injure other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located. ST. LUCIE WORKS Board of Adjustment Petition: Chesanek Variance January S, 2019 Page 9 SUGGESTED MOTION(S) TO APPROVE/DENY THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE: 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 MICHAEL CHESANEK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 7.10.16 F. 1. — SETBACKS AND 7.10.16 Q.La. 1. (b) & (d) OF THE ST. LUCIE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR A DECK TO EXTEND WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD IN THE HIRD ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE...... (CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) MOTION TO DENY: 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, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THE PETITION OF MICHAEL CHESANEK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 7.10.16 F. 1. — SETBACKS AND 7.10.16 Q.l.a.I. (b) & (d) OF THE ST. LUCIE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR A DECK TO EXTEND WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD IN THE HIRD ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE...... (CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) ST. LUCIE WORKS :amn Chesanek <kpchewnek@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at4:11 PP o: Jpiinc@bstlucieco.org ' Tuesday November 26, 2019 Property Information: 808 Osprey Ct. Ft. Pierce, Fl- 34949 Parcel31410-502-0343-000/9 Permit # 1907-0149 Residential Renovation Comments SCANNED By Hello Andrew, St. Lucie Coo* Here is a summary from our meeting today, 11/26/2019, as I have understood: 1. Wind Exposure category is "D" (R301.2.4.3). 2. Stair Detail noted on revised plan (A107..2) noted on revised plan and corrections will be made on revised plan. 3. Revised plan drawing shows work to be removed (A102.7). 4. The seawall will not act as concrete support footing for the deck, new columns will be installed behind/off of seawall. 5. Information pertaining to connections and all materials are shown to attached plans (A307.2.1). Hardi Board will not be used due to changes in the 5 foot setback. 6. There is no enclosed space underneath the deck construction, the existing home has met all flood resistant requirements (R322.2). 7. The structural systems of buildings and structures shall be designed, connected and anchored to'resist flotation, collapse or permanent lateral movement due to structural loads and stresses from flooding equal to the design flood elevation. 8. There will be a 5'0" setback from the adjoining site, thus not requiring fire protection. Thank you for your time and clarification of these items. MiclRael Ches(R,n�ek �— anon Chesanek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at4:12 PM o: guevaraj@stludeoo.org l0uoled lem hiddenl aECENED DEC 0 21919 Permltting'� Countml'ent St. luxe Edward F Shinskie 4707 Wild Turkey Rd. Mims, Florida 32754 PE #47515 ;aren Chevnek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:27 Pf b:,guevarmj@s0ucieco.org ' November 26, 2019 To: Josh Guevara, Code Enforcement Officer St. Lucie County Code Compliance Hello Mr. Guevara, My wife and I met with Andrew Manero at 0930 today, 11/26,2019 to discuss the applied -for Building Permit #1907-0149 comments and plans that were submitted on July 8, 2019. At the conclusion of the meeting I feel I have a better understanding of the required information that Andrew is requesting. I told Andrew that I will be re -submitting the revised plans and answers for the comments on Monday, December 2, 2019. It is our hope that we could be relieved of the hearing scheduled for 2 days later, Wednesday, December 4 at 0900. I feel that we have complied and responded to the requests from St. Lucie County in a reasonable time frame. Each trip to St. Lucie requires a nearly full day, driving over 2 hours from our home in Seminole County and we have made 9 different trips for Variance Requests and other related building requirements. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Michael Chesanek — j YW- po.2ztiq osue Guevara <Guevara s0udeoo.org> Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:37 PM o: Karen Chesanek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> Hello Mr. Chesanek, I will forward your request to my supervisor and follow-up with you next week. Regards, Josh Guevara I Senior Code Enforcement Officer Ph: 772-462-1570 1 Cell: 772-323-8347 12300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce 34982 facebook.comMuciegov I twitteccom/s0uciegov I instagram.comrstludegov I youtube. comistluciegov `Y LLCLL 20f6-2019 AD k' Ims is wait <�. Kori Benton From: Karen Chesanek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> SCANNFD Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:51 PM .Lug Y To: Kori Benton Subject: Re: Karen Chesanek Seawall Question Kori, Here is the report from the FDEP that was sent today. Thank you for the information that you sent yesterday. We will see you on the 27th of March. Karen Chesanek On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:38 AM White, David N <David.N.Whitcgfloridadepp.gov> wrote: Mr. and Mrs. Chesanek, I've looked into your question about the seawall and associated deck on your property at 808 Osprey Court, Fort Pierce, FL. It appears that the structure would be an exempt activity per 62-330.051 F.A.C. It appears that the lot is less than 65 feet in length and the water does not appear to be Sovereign Submerged Lands (SSL). At this point with the information provided, it does not appear that the State of Florida setback rules would apply to this property, however the county may very well have their own rules separate from the State's rules. If you have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call or email me at David.N.White(a FloridaDEP.gov or 561.681.6649. Thank you for your question, hope this helps and have a nice day. Looking to file a Notice, Registration, or Selfcertification? Need a permit determination fast? You can even submit a permit application and make a payment! Try DEP's Business Portal. It's easy and quick. Just click the button. Dav'au N. White Environmental Specialist II Florida Department of Environmental Protection Southeast District - West Palm Beach 3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 7210-1 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 David.N.VVhite@FloridaDEP.gov Office: 561.681.6649 New SPGP Effective December 315t - For more information: https://www.saj. usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatoy/Public- Notices/Article/1703359/state-programmatic-general- permit-spgp-v-state-of-florida/ Please visit our NEW Website: hMs://floridadep.gov/southeast I-0.v.S0UTHEASTDJSTFUC7r- SCHEDULEYOURPRE-APP MEETING Permitting Consistency Initiative: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is committed to providing efficient, consistent and quality service to the citizens of Florida. In keeping with these objectives, we are pleased to announce ongoing improvements to our permitting process by standardizing and simplifying our documents M. Lydia Galbraith From: Karen Chesanek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:51 PM To: Kori Benton Subject: Re: Karen Chesanek Seawall Question ` n 01 Kori, St. �UC� �OUP19y Here is the report from the FDEP that Was se,nfit today'. Thank you for the information that you sent .Yrda;1. W e yo on the 27th of March. �"1 Karen Chesanek On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:38 AM White, David N <David.N.WhiteQfloridadep.gov> wrote: Mr. and Mrs. Chesanek, I've looked into your question about the seawall and associated deck on your property at 808 Osprey Court, Fort Pierce, FL. It appears that the structure would be an exempt activity per 62-330.051 F.A.C. It appears that the lot is less than 65 feet in length and the water does not appear to be Sovereign Submerged Lands (SSL). At this point with the information provided, it does not appear that the State of Florida setback rules would apply to this property, however the county may very well have their own rules separate from the State's rules. If you have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call or email me at David.N. WhiteCccFloridaDEP.Rov or 561.681.6649. Thank you for your question, hope this helps and have a nice day. Looking to file a Notice, Registration, or Self -certification? Need a permit determination fast? You can even submit a permit application and make a payment! Try DEP's Business Portal. It's easy and quick. . Just click the button. r \. David N. White Environmental Specialist II Florida Department of Environmental Protection Southeast District - West Palm Beach 3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 7210-1 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 David.N. WhiteOaFloridaDEP.gov Office: 561.681.6649 New SPGP Effective December 31n - For more information: httos://www.sai. usace.army. mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public- Notices/Article/ 1703359/state-programmatic-general- permit-spa o-v-state-of-florida/ Please visit our NEW Website: https://floridadel2.,gov/southeast / SOUTHEAST DISTRICT-- j\�,,,,rJ 5[HEDUCE YOUR `=ff PRE APP MEJTn 46 _....a.._�.m....�..eYY - Permitting Consistency Initiative: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is committed to providing efficient, consistent and quality service to the citizens of Florida. In keeping with these objectives, we are pleased to announce ongoing improvements to our permitting process by standardizing and simplifying our documents �r Gmail (no subject) 1 message Karen Chesanek skpchesanek@gmail.com> Karen Chesanek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> SCANNED Karen Chesanek <kpchesanek@gmail.com> By Case # 94210 St Lucie County The following is a timeline according to my email and mail records. 03/09/18 Received on 03/15/18 Notice of Violation Monica Vargas Barrios 04/03A 8 Phone conversation with Lydia Galbraith 04/05/18 Letter in response to phone conversation received from Lydia Galbraith Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:48 AM Printed Email correspondences between Ms. Galbraith, Ms. Vargas Barrios, Ms. Grubbs and Mr. Benton: 04/05/18, 07123/18, 09/06/18, 10/09/18, 10/16/18, 01/23/18, 01/18/18, 01/07/18, 10/22/18, 10/18/18, 11/28/18, 12/28/18, 3/20/18, 02/04/18, 03128/18, 06/13/19. Numerous phone calls to officials (dates not recalled but will be part of our Case 94210 file). 04/25/18 - We met with officials of SLC with photos of our deck and others in the same area, documents showing that the deck was in existence and with approval of Ocean Resorts management for many years prior to our owning the property. After review of all of the materials we presented, one or more of the officials verbalized that the property was very nice as it was, she explained and even suggested that we apply for a "Variance". We obtained the details and requested the information be sent to us. 09/07/18 Received a "Notice to Appear" Hearing notification from Ms. Vargas Barrios for failing to take action in correcting violation. 1 responded with a letter. 09/20/18 Received an email from Ms. Vargas Barrios stating meeting canceled due to our application for Variance. 10/02/18 Submitted paperwork for Variance, handed to Ms. Grubbs. She examined packet for completeness. We would later email additional photos to her or Mr. Benton. $850.00 fee paid on 10/02/18. 01/23/19 Met with BOA St. Lucie County. It was decided by BOA that we would resume in March meeting. 02/06/19 I met with Mr. Gary Stepalavich L.P.- Mr. Kori Benton, we reviewed plans, _,.°'ons. Mr. Stepalavich offered to me to contact him directly with the plan revisions. 03/27/19 BOA second meeting attended. Was told by Mr. Benton that we would receive something summarizing the recommendations of the Board. 04/05/19 1 emailed Mr. Benton with a request to receive the minutes from the Board Meeting to review as it was unclear what was actually decided and what step would be next. Approximately a week later I called Mr. Benton requesting the same, he promptly emailed the minutes. There were no directions or instructions on what the next step would be. Mid May - I spoke with Mr. Stepalavich, updating him that I was in the process of having revisions drafted and stamped by the engineer. 05/24/19 Notice to Appear sent from Josh Guevara was sent to us, we were out of town and therefore mail was picked up at the post office on approximately June 11th. The letter states we were notified on 03/09/19 to correct violation, insufficient action. We did not receive this letter. We were at the BOA meetings on 01/23/18 and 03/27/18 and there was no mention of this pending hearing. I placed calls that day to Mr. Guevara and Mr. Benton the next day or so, stating that we had not received this notice. Also 1 mentioned to Mr. Benton that we had not received any instructions on what our next step should be after the 2nd Variance meeting, nor did we receive a notice of a deadline to complete. Mr. Benton forwarded the Meeting recommendations to me that day by email.