HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-28-2008
1
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
2
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
3
May 28, 2008
4
9:30 a.m.
5
6
CALL TO ORDER
7
Chairman Ron Harris called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M.
8
9
10
ROLL CALL
11
Ron Harris...................................Chairman
12
Bob Bangert.................................Vice Chairman
13
Diane Andrews............................Board Member
14
Richard Pancoast........................Board Member
15
16
17
ABSENT
18
Buddy Emerson...........................Board Member
19
20
OTHERS PRESENT
21
Aneela Ansar...............................Senior Planner
22
Lawrence Szynkowski................. Senior Planner
23
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith.........Assistant County Attorney
24
Veronica Torres ..........................Senior Staff Assistant
25
26
27
ANNOUNCEMENTS
28
None
29
30
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
31
32
Approval of the Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 23, 2008.
33
34
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Pancoast seconded.
35
36
The motion carried unanimously.
37
38
39
40
41
42
Page 1 of 15
Public Hearing Shepherd and Patricia Richard
1
May 28, 2008 BA-220081412
2
3
Shepherd and Patricia Richard
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of
4
Section 7.04.01(Table 7-10), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit
5
continued use of a swimming pool screen enclosure that encroaches a maximum of 1
6
foot into the minimum side setback of 5 foot required in the PUD (Planned Unit
7
Development) Mystic Pines Zoning District. The subject project is located within the
8
Mystic Pines at “The Reserve DRI”.
9
10
On December 31, 2002, County staff informed the applicant that the as built pool survey
11
does not meet the 5 foot setback requirement of Mystic Pines Zoning District. According
12
to the Property Appraiser website, the pool and screen enclosure have been in
13
existence since 2002. A notice of violation was issued by the Code Compliance Division
14
on May 11, 2007. Upon receipt of the notice of violation, the Richards submitted a
15
request for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(Table 7-10), of the St.
16
Lucie County Land Development Code.
17
18
The variance sought arises from conditions that are unique, but not necessarily a
19
hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The need for the
20
requested variance is created by the desire of Mr. and Mrs. Richard to be allowed the
21
continued use of their screen enclosure on the edge of the pool deck and full use of the
22
swimming pool deck.
23
24
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict
25
interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie
26
County Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
27
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending
28
denial of the requested variance.
29
30
Mr. Ron Harris stated he did not see an approval from the POA in the packet and
31
wanted to know if there was one.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews stated that was one of the issues that she was going to raise. In general
34
when there is a PUD and a mandatory Home Owners Association she wanted to know if
35
staff advises the petitioner that they have to get that HOA approval.
36
37
Ms. Aneela Ansar stated that she had a map and the final PUD plan approval. She did
38
not have the resolution.
39
40
Mr. Ron Harris stated that they were not after the resolution what they were after was a
41
letter of no objection to granting this variance from the Property Owners Association or
42
the Home Owners Association.
43
44
Page 2 of 15
Ms. Aneela Ansar stated they did not have that letter.
1
2
Mr. Ron Harris had one question regarding on December 31, 2002, County staff
3
informed the applicant that the as built pool survey does not meet the 5 foot setback
4
requirement then all of a sudden a notice of violation was issued by the Code
5
Compliance Division on May 11, 2007, why the time lag of five years?
6
7
Ms. Aneela Ansar did not know why there was a time lapse.
8
9
Mrs. Andrews commented that the one thing that bothers her about this petition is that
10
the only person who could possibly be affected the few inches they are talking about
11
wasn’t notified because there was a sale in between the time that this list was run and
12
today. The neighbors next door at 7307 that is a new neighbor, they have been in there
13
a month. They have apparently have not been notified unless they are in the audience
14
today, she would favor continuing.
15
16
Ms. Aneela Ansar commented that they were notified.
17
18
Mrs. Andrews stated that there is another name on the list, the name on the list at that
19
address is no longer there. Mr. Louis D’Angelo is thinks is a previous owner, he sold
20
that house in April to Mr. John Menechino.The list is old and not up-to-date.
21
22
Ms. Aneela Ansar commented that the list is provided by the GIS Department.
23
24
Mrs. Andrews stated that if Ms. Ansar got the list today, it would be a different list.
25
26
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to know when the notification was sent out to all the surrounding
27
property owners, how far in advance of the meeting.
28
29
th
Ms. Aneela Ansar stated the letters were sent out May 16.
30
31
Mrs. Andrews stated the sale was April 28, 2008.
32
33
Mr. Pancoast commented that he supports a continuance.
34
35
PUBLIC COMMENT
36
Mr. Jeff Richard stated that he is the oldest son of homeowners Pat and Shep Richard
37
and was before the board to speak on their behalf because they are unable to attend
38
the meeting so they have asked him to speak.
39
40
Mr. Jeff Richard stated that he had a prepared statement to read and he could certainly
41
go through that but there has been some discussions on a continuation based on the
42
notification of the new homeowner. His family did speak to the previous homeowner
43
prior to this hearing, they did not have an objection but obviously there is a new
44
Page 3 of 15
homeowner there next door at 7307. He understands the concern regarding a
1
continuance. He would like to go through the prepared statement and maybe give a
2
little more insight into what has happened.
3
4
On July 19, 2002 they contracted with Mahaffey Pools to build their pool, decking and
5
screen enclosure. Mahaffey Pools submitted plans to the Building Department that met
6
setback requirements. The plans were approved and permits were obtained on August
7
30, 2002. In December 2002, the pool, decking and screen enclosure build outs were
8
completed. On April 3, 2003, Mahaffey Pools was issued the last payment for the work
9
completed.
10
11
On October 12, 2004, they received a copy of a letter addressed to Keith Mahaffey
12
informing him of an expired permit. This letter was sent by St. Lucie County Public
13
Works Department. They immediately called Mahaffey Pools to inquire as to why they
14
received a copy of this notice. They never heard another word from Keith Mahaffey.
15
Mahaffey Pools staff or the County. They were confident that the problem had been
16
addressed and there were no further issues.
17
18
Nearly 2 ½ years later, in May of 2007, Code Enforcement Officer Monica Barrios
19
showed up at their home regarding a problem with their rebuilt screen enclosure(post
20
hurricane of 2005) it had never been permitted. They were not aware of this permitting
21
problem; however, they pursued that issue and have never received any feedback from
22
the screen enclosure company, Screen Professionals, Inc. They subsequently went
23
before the Code Enforcement Board on March 19, 2008 to have their license
24
suspended. The board agreed with them and suspended their license and forwarded
25
the suspension information to the state.
26
27
In January 2008, they met with Code Enforcement again to further discuss the screen
28
enclosure permitting problem and at that meeting, they were also informed by Kathy
29
Cicio and her husband that they also had a setback issue on the pool enclosure. They
30
explained that the SW corner of their pool enclosure was approximately 1 foot too close
31
to the side property line and that their pool builder, Mahaffey Pools, had failed the final
32
survey and had incomplete final inspections that dated back to December 2002. This
33
was the first time they learned of the failed survey and lack of final inspections. There
34
was no notice from Mahaffey Pools or the County regarding the setback issued. They
35
were astonished that this had occurred and then obviously knowing about 5 ½ years
36
later.
37
38
Following their January 2008 meeting with code enforcement, they obtained a new
39
survey at their expense which confirmed the setback problem existed at the SW corner
40
of their pool enclosure. Keith Mahaffey also had a survey done of the SW corner of the
41
pool enclosure and is aware of the results confirming non-compliance with the setback
42
requirements and has communications with Code Enforcement on this matter. They
43
subsequently applied for a hardship variance.
44
Page 4 of 15
They have spoken to their neighbor, at the time who is June D’Angelo to the south of
1
them on the side of the pool where the setback problem exists. She is not concerned
2
about the setback and, in fact, had built her home after their home was built and the
3
pool was already in. In addition, the setback error will have no effect on any of their
4
other neighbors.
5
6
Based on this they respectfully request a hardship variance be granted by this
7
committee so Mahaffey Pools can complete the job they paid them for 6 years ago.
8
They also respectfully request that, if the committee grants the variance, the committee
9
immediately instruct Mahaffey Pools to fully complete the necessary surveys and
10
inspections required by the County within a timeframe acceptable to the County,
11
keeping in mind the surveys and inspections should have been completed 6 years ago.
12
13
Mrs. Andrews stated she had one thing that she would like to emphasize that his
14
parents should also get the Home Owners Association approval.
15
16
Mr. Richard commented that they may not have been aware of that. He knew with his
17
discussions with them over the last several weeks about this issue there was no
18
mention of any Home Owners Association requirement for approval at all. He was not
19
sure if that is in the original notice that was filed by them with the County that was
20
required.
21
22
Mr. Ron Harris stated that would be better if he would do that.
23
24
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
25
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
26
27
Mr. Bangert made motion.
28
After considering the testimony present during the public hearing including staff
29
comments and the Standard of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie
30
county Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve
31
Shepherd and Patricia Richard
the petition of for a variance from the Provisions of
32
Section 7.04.01, of the St. Lucie county Land Development Code to permit continued
33
use of a swimming pool screen enclosure that encroaches a maximum of 1 foot into the
34
minimum side setback of 5 feet required in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Mystic
35
Pines Zoning District. The subject property is located within the Mystic Pines at “The
36
Reserve DRI” because there has been no problem with the screen enclosure in the
37
past years. He can see and the neighbors can see no foreseen problem in the future,
38
the property backs up to a lake and so there is no one in the rear that would be
39
bothered by this.
40
41
No motion to second.
42
43
Page 5 of 15
Mr. Ron Harris stated that the motion is going to die, so he will entertain another motion
1
for a continuance.
2
3
Mrs. Andrews made motion to continue the petition until June 25, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. or
4
soon thereafter as possible in order to give the applicant time to get his neighbor’s
5
approval and the Home Owners Association approval.
6
7
Mr. Pancoast stated that he will second that and he would like discussion on it. He
8
would like to expand Mrs. Andrews’ statement; he is not against approval of this
9
petition. He supports it and looks forward to voting in favor of it and a motion similar to
10
Mr. Bangert’s but he does believe that they need two very important things and one is
11
the next door neighbor’s notification and the other is the Property Owners.
12
13
He thought some period back that they had made it mandatory as far as staff was
14
concerned that when there is a PUD that they had the Home Owners Association
15
notification in that and if that hasn’t been done that he thought it needs to be done. He
16
thought it was already done.
17
18
Mrs. Andrews commented that they are on the mailing list as Marsh Landing The
19
Reserve HOA, if that is the one, they are on the mailing list; it looks like a returned
20
envelope. They do have an office.
21
22
Mr. Ron Harris stated that he did concur with Mr. Pancoast and his statements, he does
23
agree. He understands Mr. Bangert’s thoughts on it that it is only 1 foot but however,
24
we do have certain procedures and criteria that they have been following for the past 5,
25
6, 7, 8, 9 years and it is always required a sign off from the POA or HOA. He was willing
26
to support the continuance.
27
28
Mr. Pancoast stated he would like to make an apology to Mr. Jeffrey Richard for another
29
trip here. He was sorry they had been through this; he could not imagine this dragging
30
out this long.
31
32
Mr. Jeff Richard commented that they did appreciate the board’s consideration in this
33
matter. Obviously this has been going on for about 6 years and it is going to be very
34
difficult going forward from this point for his parents to make it. His mother has been
35
diagnosed with a fairly serious illness at this point. He can probably make it back up
36
here, he has to take time off work to do so, and it is about 1 ½ to 2 hour trip up here for
37
him. They have an approval from Mr. Bangert, they are talking about less than 1 foot on
38
one side of a screen enclosure that isn’t going to impact anyone and he understands
39
the rules behind the Board regarding the HOA. He is not sure of any documentation
40
that was sent to the HOA, is there any record, anything sent to the HOA regarding the
41
need for approval.
42
43
Mr. Ron Harris stated that they appear to be on the mailing list.
44
Page 6 of 15
Mr. Richard wanted to clarify that it is possible that they did receive something but just
1
did not reply.
2
3
Mr. Harris commented that is very possible.
4
5
Mrs. Andrews wanted to say that she also supports the variance. She did not know that
6
it was necessary that he come back in June, he had represented his case to the Board.
7
8
Mr. Pancoast commented that Mr. Richard was on the record, they cannot tell him not to
9
come because you should always be there but in a circumstance like this one, it looks
10
like this would sail through.
11
12
Mr. Richard inquired what did they need to do at this time, asked if he needed to go to
13
the Home Owners Association. He asked if he had a copy of the same letter that they
14
would have received.
15
16
Mr. Ron Harris stated that Mr. Richard needed to go to the Home Owners Association
17
and get a letter, signed by one of their officers. In the letter be sure to specify the
18
amount of variance that it will be, 1 foot that needs to be in there.
19
20
Mr. Pancoast commented that he could actually get a letter from them that says they
21
support it.
22
23
Mr. Bangert asked if there is an opportunity in this case if they come back with a letter
24
from the Home Owners Association and gives it to staff it is automatically approved
25
without going all through this again.
26
27
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated the Board could condition approval upon
28
receiving that documentation.
29
30
Mr. Harris stated the Board will retract Mr. Bangert’s motion and have him modify his
31
motion to make it contingent upon the approval from the HOA and the adjoining land
32
owner to the south.
33
34
Mrs. Andrews seconded the motion.
35
36
Motion passed unanimously.
37
38
Mr. Harris commented that if Mr. Richard got the documentation he would not have to
39
come back.
40
41
Mr. Richard stated he would try to get it that day.
42
Page 7 of 15
PUBLIC HEARING Keith Mahaffey Pools, Inc
1
May 28, 2008 BA-330081420
2
3
Keith Mahaffey Pools, Inc.
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of Section
4
7.04.01 (Table 7-10), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit
5
continued use of a swimming pool that encroaches a maximum of 8 inches into the
6
minimum rear setback of 5 feet required in the Portofino Shores Planned Unit
7
Development (PUD) Zoning District
8
9
The subject property is located at 5745 Sterling Lake Drive. According to the County
10
Property Appraiser website, the construction of the house was completed on March 25,
11
2004. On July 18, 2006, the Public Works Department, Building Division staff received
12
a building permit application for the swimming pool. Permit # 06020633 did not receive
13
a final inspection. The County Building Official notified the applicant by mail in
14
December 2007 of this deficiency.
15
16
On February 18, 2008, Keith Mahaffey Pools, Inc. submitted a request for a variance of
17
8 inches from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(Table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County
18
Land Development Code to permit the continued use of a pool. According to the
19
boundary survey submitted by the applicant, the pool encroaches approximately 8
20
inches into the minimum rear setback of 5 feet required in the PUD (Planned
21
Unit Development) Portofino Shores Zoning District.
22
23
There were mailings sent out to the property owners listed on the ad valorem tax roll
24
within 500 feet. Staff has received 10 responses from the property owners on the list, 9
25
were in favor of the variance and one had no opinion.
26
27
The variance sought arises from conditions that are unique, but not necessarily a
28
hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The need for the
29
requested variance is created by the desire of Jennifer and Charles Kaplan to obtain
30
permission for continued use of a swimming pool.
31
32
He researched the Portofino PUD file and found the matrix that requires pools to have a
33
rear setback of 5 feet which is applicable in this case. The other aspect that he might
34
mention is also listed as a 3 foot for deck and patio. That was not requested although
35
the deck does encroach 1 foot into the 3 foot setback requirement.
36
37
The mailing list did not include the Portofino Property Owners Association as mentioned
38
in the prior case; he would be more than glad to ensure that any future PUD and POAs
39
are directly mailed the notice of the variance request.
40
41
Mr. Ron Harris inquired what the staff recommendation was.
42
43
Page 8 of 15
Mr. Szynkowski stated it was the staff recommendation to approve. Although,
1
technically the recommendation would be not to approve because conflicting with the
2
appropriate code.
3
4
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict
5
interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie
6
County Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
7
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending
8
denial of the requested variance.
9
Mrs. Andrews commented that apparently the HOA is not involved again as they should
10
be and she was unable to determine the address of the house that would be affected
11
that backs up to this house. When she tried to pull it up she was told it was out of
12
range. She is not sure if that person has responded or not, could staff tell her who that
13
is and if that person responded on the list.
14
15
Mr. Szynkowski responded that he was not aware of that directly at this time.
16
17
Mrs. Andrews asked staff if he could pull up what the address is of that house, she was
18
unable to do that. The address that backs up to this property the only one that would be
19
affected possibly.
20
21
Mr. Szynkowski responded that he could not because it was by lot number.
22
23
Mailings sent out within 500 feet received 10 and 9 were in favor and 1 had no opinion.
24
Found the matrix for Portofino Shores also 3 feet for deck and patio although the deck
25
does encroach into the requirement.
26
27
The mailing list did not include POA and HOA variance request. Recommendation
28
would be to approve
29
30
Mrs. Andrews stated apparently the HOA is involved. Requested staff to pull up the
31
address of the house that backs up to this house and is possibly the only one that can
32
possibly be affected.
33
34
PUBLIC COMMENT
35
36
Mr. Keith Mahaffey stated that there is a situation that is unusual in his business,
37
normally they run afoul or have some difficulties with deck and screen setbacks and
38
staff particularly Mr. and Mrs. Cicio if they run into a situation at the completion of the
39
project where they have a difficulty they are notified in a relatively timely manner.
40
Starting in the late 2006 the county was working on diligently cleaning up any final
41
inspections that were remaining outstanding and they brought three of them to their
42
attention that they are subsequently trying to deal with. The previous case they weren’t
43
even aware of until they had been contacted by the homeowner as far as a violation
44
Page 9 of 15
goes and he is handling that a little different way and they are not really involved. He
1
has been out there and concurs pretty much with what Mr. Richard has said, there are
2
some problems with the screen enclosure.
3
4
In this particular case however, especially with the three feet but when they had sent in
5
the approved plans to St. Lucie County the deck was listed as two feet. It was approved
6
and he was unaware of a three foot setback, he would have to research that. However,
7
the water setback in this particular case was five feet, it is a very irregular shaped pool
8
and they honestly made an error of less than 8 inches in putting the water portion of the
9
pool into the setback. It was their thoughts and the way it was designed that the deck
10
did actually meet setbacks as well as the white fence behind the pool which the owner
11
had installed and finaled just leaving the pool not finaled if you will.
12
13
They did have the property resurveyed showing exactly what the encroachment was
14
and submitted it along with their variance application to the County for a possible
15
variance to make the pool compliant with the amended approvals. He was unaware
16
because it has been 11 years since they have had to do this in front of this board, He
17
was unaware of the necessity of a Home Owners approval for a PUD and would have
18
absolutely no problems submitting that. The PUD if they have not been submitted and
19
would respectfully ask for a continuance if necessary.
20
21
He is not sure however that a continuance to the next Board Meeting would grant them
22
enough time depending upon how soon or how often the Home Owners Association of
23
Portofino Shores meets; would possibly request a 60 days continuation. If they miss the
24
deadline to get an application into the PUD they might not have it back for either
25
approval or rejection, hopefully not in time for the June meeting. He is not aware of the
26
homeowner owner’s name behind the property, they were very gracious during
27
construction. They actually damaged a little bit of their sod which was replaced and
28
they really had no problems with that particular customer whatsoever. He would be
29
happy to go directly to that neighbor and seek their approval if they are not one of those
30
9 or 10 that have responded to the request.
31
32
Mr. Pancoast stated that he would support a similar motion that the board just made, he
33
was not sure. We seem to be missing the same things, a next door neighbor and a
34
Home Owners Association. Some years ago they use to do form board surveys on
35
swimming pools before they were poured. He knows we came to a period of time that
36
we didn’t and this board ended up seeing swimming pools before the board almost
37
every month and he thought we had gone back and said that we needed to do form
38
board surveys again. He thought that was three or four years ago. Are we doing form
39
board surveys and if we are not and this board had requested that it be done why aren’t
40
we doing it.
41
42
Mr. Ron Harris commented that there was no one from the Building Department and we
43
can get that answer why, at the next meeting or before perhaps.
44
Page 10 of 15
Mr. Pancoast stated it would be fine at the next meeting, it is not an emergency but he
1
thought if we are not doing form boards surveys he knows this board had made a
2
request for it. It had to be at least three or four years ago.
3
4
Mr. Ron Harris stated he would concur with Mr. Pancoast on that and the reason for
5
them of course is that it is easier to move the boards than it is the concrete.
6
7
Mr. Keith Mahaffey stated as a pool builder he has been in St. Lucie County for 18
8
years, they have never been required a form board on the pool structure but about 4 or
9
5 years ago the county started requiring deck form board surveys. It may not have
10
been that long ago, but the deck is what has been required. Port St. Lucie up until last
11
year required the form board surveys on the pools and they have subsequently dropped
12
that requirement and have gone to a deck requirement as well.
13
14
Mr. Pancoast wonders why a deck requirement because can’t the deck encroach, he
15
might be wrong but he believes a deck can encroach in the setback and that is not a
16
problem, it is the pool that can’t encroach.
17
18
Mr. Harris commented with no screen enclosure that is correct.
19
20
Mr. Bangert inquired if we are certain that Portofino Shores has a Home Owners
21
Association.
22
23
Mr. Ron Harris commented most certainly, it is a PUD and is required by the County.
24
25
Mr. Keith Mahaffey commented that they had to submit for approval prior to obtaining
26
the Building Department permit from the Home Owners Association.
27
28
Mr. Ron Harris had a question for staff, there is a rear setback on the deck of three feet
29
and yet the slab obviously is in violation of that setback are we going to require this
30
individual to come back at another time and petition to get a variance on that. He did
31
not think the board could include on this variance.
32
33
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith asked what the notice said, if it was general enough
34
that put everyone on notice that you sent then you could.
35
36
Mr. Bangert commented that one of these that the Board talked about in past cases the
37
County is measuring the setbacks from the water instead of from the edge.
38
39
Mr. Ron Harris stated in this case there are setbacks that are set out by the Portofino
40
Shores PUD that is true the water edge of the pool has a setback but the deck and patio
41
structure also has a setback as outlined. We are bound to honor these.
42
43
Page 11 of 15
Mr. Bangert stated that he still doesn’t think it makes any sense to measure the setback
1
from the water.
2
3
Mr. Ron Harris stated that he agreed and it never did, he did not know why we do that.
4
The petition does not reference, it just talks about the 5 foot rear set back on the pool.
5
6
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith commented that the notice is very specific.
7
8
Mr. Ron Harris stated that he did not think that they could; they would have to end up
9
coming back. Additionally, he was looking at the surveyor’s dimension on what he
10
would consider the front of the building Sterling Lake Drive it shows a 24’ 87 and yet the
11
front setback should be 25’, now that is very minor but there are just holes all in this
12
thing.
13
14
Ms. Jennifer Kaplan stated that she was unprepared to speak. She did not know much
15
about any of this to be honest she just knows she received a letter and was confused,
16
she did not understand. The pool has been in use for two years and they did not know
17
that it wasn’t finally inspected; she just wishes that they could continue to do so. The
18
neighbors behind her, she has their name and number at her house and did not have it
19
with her. She would know their name if she saw their name.
20
21
Mrs. Andrews suggested that perhaps Ms. Kaplan could take a look at the list, she
22
might recognize it.
23
24
Ms. Kaplan commented that she does speak to them every once in awhile because they
25
do not live at that address but they do own that address.
26
27
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated that he had look up the St. Lucie County website and found
28
5860 Sunberry Circle.
29
30
Ms. Kaplan commented Herold and Gauty Athouriste.
31
32
Mrs. Diane Andrews asked Ms. Kaplan to follow the name across and see if there are
33
any check marks.
34
35
Ms. Kaplan stated that there were not. They have an address of Miramar, and she did
36
know that they were in Miami. Actually the house behind them was rented to her sister-
37
in-law and brother-in-law for about a year when the pool was being put in. She would
38
get in contact with them if the board wanted her to do so. She did not know that she
39
needed approval for this variance from the Home Owners Association. She was sure
40
she could get that also. It has been up for two years, the pool has been in use for two
41
years, there hasn’t been any problem and no one has complained about it. She did not
42
even know that there was a variance problem until she received the letter. She will do
43
whatever the board wants her to but she would love to keep her pool in use. She has a
44
Page 12 of 15
three year old that she taught to swim in that pool and she did not want her backyard
1
dug up, not for 8 inches.
2
3
Mr. Bangert made motion to approve because none of the neighbors has objected; and
4
with the condition that a letter of approval.
5
6
rd
Mrs. Andrews commented that Herold Athouriste, 15796 SW 53 Court, Miramar is the
7
address of the next store neighbor, so that property address is 5860 Sunberry Circle.
8
9
Mr. Ron Harris stated that he saw that they were sent something but they did not
10
respond.
11
12
Mrs. Andrews commented it was sent to Miramar.
13
14
Mr. Ron Harris stated that they were put on notice and they had an opportunity to be for
15
or against and obviously they declined.
16
17
Mrs. Andrews stated she would support a similar motion.
18
19
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
20
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
21
22
Mr. Bangert made a motion.
23
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff
24
comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St.
25
Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment
26
approve the Petition of Keith Mahaffey Pools, Inc. for a variance from the Provisions of
27
Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development code to permit continued
28
use of a swimming pool that encroaches a maximum of 8 inches into the minimum rear
29
setback of 5 foot required in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Portofino Shores
30
Zoning District because there appears to be none of the neighbors in objection.
31
However, his motion to approve would include the applicant submitting a note from the
32
Property Owners Association showing that the Association has no objection.
33
34
Mrs. Andrews seconded the motion.
35
36
Mr. Ron Harris commented that he would like to add to that a little bit that the
37
correspondence should be specific on what they are approving regarding the County’s
38
notice. The language should be similar.
39
40
Mrs. Andrews commented before the vote is taken, the issue that was raised about the
41
5 foot and the 3 foot setbacks, can the board allow the petitioner to amend his petition
42
to include deck setbacks so he does not have to come forward with another $500.
43
44
Page 13 of 15
Mr. Ron Harris stated he did not believe they could because that is how it was
1
advertised, and verified with the attorney.
2
3
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated it was very specifically advertised.
4
5
Mrs. Andrews asked if the board was going to force him to come back.
6
7
Mr. Harris stated he was not going to force him that would be up to the land owner to
8
make that decision. It is still hanging out there, all they wanted to do was bring it to the
9
forefront, and it will have to be cleaned up sooner or later. It will stop the sale of the
10
property if the property ever sells.
11
12
Mrs. Andrews seconded with the condition.
13
14
Motion passed unanimously.
15
16
Mr. Ron Harris stated that Mr. Mahaffey got his approval with a condition that he provide
17
the documentation from the HOA and/or POA, it needs to be specific as advertised on
18
the variance. Information can be provided to the Growth Management Department.
19
Regarding the other issued the 3 to the 2 that would be between him and the landowner
20
when you plan to come forward with that because that will have to be advertised
21
separately.
22
23
Mr. Mahaffey stated that he wanted to thank the Board for the continuance but as far as
24
the issue of the deck he is going to have to research that with Planning and the Building
25
Department. When they submitted this permit for St. Lucie application it was permitted
26
with a rear deck setback on the plan of 2.14 feet and they were at 1.93, 1 ½ inch – 2
27
inches so he was not sure. He was obviously going under a different code at the time
28
this pool was applied for or they would not have received a permit. Granted mistakes
29
can be made but when we are dealing with such tight variances we usually work pretty
30
closely with Joe Cicio in particular who handles most of the pool applications. He will
31
research the deck situation and they will do what they have to do obviously but
32
something must have had to happen or they wouldn’t get a permit showing a deck at 2
33
feet and missing it by an inch. He will research that with the County as well.
34
35
Mr. Ron Harris commented to Ms. Kaplan that she heard everything that has gone on
36
so she knows what her situation is and thanked her for coming.
37
38
Mr. Bangert stated that he thought it would be proper for the Board at this time to again
39
recommend to Code Enforcement that setbacks not go from the water but from the
40
project around the water.
41
42
Mr. Ron Harris stated that particular setback will have to be changed in the Code by the
43
Building Department; it will have to go before the Board of County Commissioners to
44
Page 14 of 15
make that revision. Since everyone feels strongly about that perhaps we could draft a
1
letter to the Growth Management Director, have staff do that requesting they look into
2
that. This is not a quick process; it does take a little bit of time for them to make those
3
adjustments.
4
5
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to bring up that we need to notify all these individuals up front
6
and he thought we have been doing so in the past. When they are in a sub-division that
7
has a Home Owners Association or a Property Owners Association they must have that
8
approval. There may be architectural codes that the board is not aware of and we need
9
to honor those.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews stated she would like to extend that to the Building Department as well
12
when they issue permits because the board has had a lot of problems with setbacks. It
13
should be part of a check list.
14
15
Adjourned 10:30
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page 15 of 15