HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-25-2008
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
June 25, 2008
3
9:30 a.m.
4
5
6
CALL TO ORDER
7
Chairman Mr. 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
Buddy Emerson...........................Board Member
15
Richard Pancoast........................Board Member
16
17
18
OTHERS PRESENT
19
Kristin Tetsworth..........................Planning Manager
20
Linda Pendarvis...........................Planner
21
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith.........Assistant County Attorney
22
Veronica Torres ..........................Senior Staff Assistant
23
Deanna Givens……………………Senior Staff Assistant
24
25
26
ANNOUNCEMENTS
27
None
28
29
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
30
31
Approval of the Minutes of Regular Meeting of May27, 2008.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Bangert seconded.
34
35
The motion carried unanimously.
36
37
38
39
40
41
Page 1 of 29
Public Hearing John and Carol Koval
1
June 25, 2008 BA-320081433
2
3
4
John and Carol Koval
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01
5
(Table 7-10), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit continued use
6
of a swimming pool, fountain and deck that encroaches 5 feet into the minimum rear
7
setback of 3 feet required in The Reserve POD 27 – A Planned Unit Development
8
(PUD) Zoning District.
9
10
The subject property is located at 8432 Muirfield Way.
11
12
The variance sought arises from conditions that are unique, and not a hardship as
13
defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The need for the requested
14
variance is to allow the continued use and the permit documentation that was submitted
15
to the Building Department indicated that the pool and deck met the 3 foot setback. The
16
permits did not receive a final inspection and the Building Department notified the
17
applicant in December 2007. A boundary survey and final tie in was then submitted to
18
the Building Department indicating the encroachment into the rear setback as well as
19
beyond the property line by 2 feet into in the Property Owners Association easement.
20
21
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict
22
interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie
23
County Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
24
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending
25
denial of the requested variance.
26
27
Mrs. Andrews inquired whose easement is it?
28
29
Ms. Tetsworth stated that it was staff’s understanding that it is a lake maintenance
30
easement around the lake that is owned by the Property Owner’s Association of the
31
Reserve. She did believe that they received a no objections letter from the Property
32
Owners Association.
33
34
Mrs. Andrews replied from last year’s President, 6 months before the application. Her
35
question is if it is an easement, from what she was able to find out the Property Owners
36
Association owns that property PGA Reserve owns that property not PGA Village. The
37
Master Association in other words owns the property not the sub association, you don’t
38
give yourself an easement so she figures someone else must have that easement. It is
39
their property, if it is their common property they do not have to give themselves an
40
easement. That is what was confusing.
41
42
Mr. Ron Harris stated that this one has caused him a lit bit of confusion too because
43
clearly the limits of the lot are defined on the plat and outside it is owned by the PGA.
44
The PGA probably granted themselves a lake maintenance easement. He believes in
45
the correspondence it said that South Florida required that. The Board cannot grant a
46
Page 2 of 29
variance beyond the platted property line. Should the Board choose to approve it the
1
language has to change, the enclosure that encroaches a maximum of 3 feet, we
2
cannot go beyond that because it is private property. That is an issue that the applicant
3
would have to work out through either a property exchange, an easement of use but
4
that would be a private matter.
5
6
PUBLIC COMMENT
7
8
Mr. John Koval stated they had contracted with a contractor out of West Palm Beach to
9
build a pool and also contracted with the screen enclosure company to go ahead and
10
put the screen enclosure up after the pavers. The pool contractor had gone ahead and
11
contacted them that the process was done. As they went through the check list as you
12
all understand from the Building Department that at different stages they come in and
13
check to see how far they have progressed and check off on the okay to proceed.
14
Unfortunately, the last issue to be taken care of was the final survey before the final
15
inspection was done. At that point when that survey was done they noticed that they
16
were over the easement area, that they had been talking about earlier.
17
18
At that point they did not know what to do, they went back to the Building Department
19
and they instructed them to go ahead and file for the variance. At that point they also
20
instructed them to contact the Master Association so they could get a letter from them
21
so they could review it and give them the letter which was obtained. He believed it was
22
in the packet of information that has been submitted. The Master Association did
23
approve and they did not have a problem with that going beyond the property line into
24
that easement. That letter was submitted with their application.
25
26
At that point in time Kolter Development was the Master Association and had the Board
27
appointees for the majority of that. That is where that letter originally came from. Also,
28
he spoke to Pamela Hammer, who is the President of the Association because that has
29
been handed over to the community as far as the Master Association. She also made a
30
recommendation that he contact South Florida Water Management District and talk to
31
them about the situation. He has done that and spoke to the gentlemen who is in
32
charge of the area. He basically said that he abstained to the community ownership of
33
that land stating whatever they would agree to they were fine with that. If they would go
34
ahead and grant the variance then they were fine with that. He had a note and a letter
35
from them if the Board would like to have that.
36
37
Mr. Koval submitted the letter as Exhibit 1. At that point they recognized that the
38
ownership and that land was basically deeded to and managed by the Master
39
Association and that was the reason for their deferring to the Property Owners
40
Association with regards to any issues or conflicts with that easement.
41
42
They are in a quandary, he has contacted the pool construction company several
43
months ago there were some issues for maintenance and warranty. He was informed
44
him that he was filing for bankruptcy. He was in the process already and was closing
45
his business. Unfortunately as an innocent third party he is in a bad situation without
46
Page 3 of 29
the variance for any future conveyance of the property and on going use of the pool
1
structure.
2
3
He knows the petitions had been sent out locally to all the people around, who live in
4
the community. As far as he knows he was told everything was positive for the granting
5
of the variance. The Home Owners Association and the Master have granted him the
6
letter stating that they did not see a problem with it, there was no restriction of any
7
vehicles or maintenance of the lake and also the South Florida Water Management
8
District has also granted a letter stating that they did not see a problem with it as long as
9
the Association was in favor.
10
11
That is his dilemma, they are new to Florida. They are from Pennsylvania, they try to
12
follow and take people’s faith and word for what they were doing and them being
13
competent. Unfortunately, they are in this dilemma today. So they are asking for the
14
Board’s understanding and the granting of the variance.
15
16
Chief Emerson had a question for legal, whose issue is it really if the Board grants a
17
variance they could only grant a variance up to 3 feet. As far as the County is
18
concerned, they are out of the matter; it is a matter between the home owner and the
19
Home Owners Association.
20
21
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith commented that was correct and the bankrupt pool
22
builder.
23
24
Mrs. Andrews stated that she did not seem to have a copy of the letter of okay from the
25
Master Association; she did have from the PGA Village Property Owners Association
26
but not the PGA Reserve.
27
28
Mr. Koval stated that the one from PGA Village, that is from Kolter Communities which
29
would be the Master at that point in time on record.
30
31
Mrs. Andrews questioned whether Mr. Koval was speaking of the Project Manager.
32
33
Mr. Koval replied no he was not.
34
35
Mrs. Andrews stated that the letter was from the PGA Village Property Owners
36
Association, they are not the Master.
37
38
Mr. Koval stated they were the Master at that point in time. On July 1, 2008 that
39
organization then turned it over to the community. It changed from that organization to
40
the Master that is involved right now.
41
42
Mrs. Andrews wanted to know how they approved this variance several months before
43
he applied for it.
44
45
Page 4 of 29
Mr. Koval stated that the Building Department instructed him before doing the
1
paperwork and applying for the variance to go ahead and seek a letter of approval from
2
the Master Community and then present that letter with all the forms and documentation
3
for the variance. That was their instructions and it took him a period of time for them to
4
go through their process and grant him that letter.
5
6
Mrs. Andrews inquired if the Property Appraiser’s record is correct when they say that
7
property, the easement or that land behind his house belongs to PGA Village or belongs
8
to the Master. According to the records it is the Master Association.
9
10
Mr. Koval stated it is the Master Association but before that Kolter Communities which
11
was PGA Village was the overall Master for the community. That is why he had to go to
12
them to seek that letter at that point in time.
13
14
Mr. Ron Harris mentioned that Chief Emerson had brought it up, and he brought it up
15
earlier that this is not, he read the application and this is not going to clear up his title
16
problems, only a portion of them. He wanted to make sure Mr. Koval was aware of that.
17
18
Mr. Koval mentioned that he was learning that as Mr. Harris spoke, he is not an attorney
19
so he was just going by what he was being told now and then he has other avenues to
20
proceed with.
21
22
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
23
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
24
25
Mrs. Andrews inquired if any other variances been granted into the 3 foot easement that
26
staff knew of.
27
28
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated not to her knowledge and not being able to research the
29
st
files at this point in time. There is one point of clarification, it was not July 1, it was
30
January 1, 2008 when the Master Association took over and it took over just this year.
31
32
Mr. Pancoast commented again, the form board issue that they have been up and down
33
about. Form boards could have solved this.
34
35
Mr. Bangert made motion.
36
After considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff
37
comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St.
38
Lucie County Land Development Code, move that the Board of Adjustment approve the
39
John and Carol Koval
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01,
40
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit continued use of a swimming
41
pool, fountain, and enclosure that encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the minimum rear
42
setback of 3 feet required in the reserve POD 27 – A Planned Unit Development Zoning
43
District because there are no problems to any rear property owners, no problem with
44
the Association and South Florida Water Management District has no objection.
45
46
Page 5 of 29
Chief Emerson seconded the motion but under discussion would like Mr. Bangert to
1
amend it to 3 feet.
2
3
Motion passed unanimously.
4
5
6
7
Page 6 of 29
PUBLIC HEARING Cheryl F. Suggs
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081452
2
3
4
Cheryl F. Suggs
Petition of for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01 (Table
5
7-10), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow the construction of a
6
single family residence that exceeds the required 20% maximum lot coverage by
7
buildings by 1.37% in the RS-2 (Residential, Single Family - 2du/1ac) Zoning District
8
9
The subject property is located at 1520 Pineburke Lane in Timberlake Estates
10
11
The variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique, but not necessarily a
12
hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The need for the
13
requested variance is created by the desire of Cheryl F. Suggs to construct the house
14
according to the plans that she has purchased from the builder.
15
16
The variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique, nor a hardship. Staff
17
has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict
18
interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie
19
County Land Development Code and is in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
20
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending
21
denial of the requested variance.
22
23
24
Chief Emerson inquired if there were any other setback conflicts with the increased
25
building coverage or anything like that.
26
27
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth commented there were no other, just primarily only the lot
28
coverage ratio.
29
30
PUBLIC COMMENT
31
32
Ms. Cheryl F. Suggs commented she was going to defer to Mr. Mike Lovell to give the
33
information.
34
35
Mr. Mike Lovell stated as mentioned what they were looking for is 1.37%. To further
36
clarify the area that is making it go over the allowable amount is simply a covered porch
37
as opposed to no porch at all in the rear of the home. In Florida that goes along with the
38
spirit of the house.
39
40
There is a pool area in the back; it is basically an area that is going to be screened in
41
with pool pavers now but with the variance they are simply putting a roof over part of the
42
area so that they have an area in the rear of the home to enjoy the outdoors without
43
being in the beating sun. It is not adding a bathroom, bedroom anything like that
44
helping to increase any kind of traffic to that area. It is simply to conform to a normal
45
home in that area.
46
Page 7 of 29
PUBLIC HEARING Cheryl F. Suggs
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081452
2
3
The lot as you can see, there is a chunk that is taken out of that lot due to the cul de sac
4
which hurts it right there. The uniqueness of that lot whereas if it was a rectangular
5
shape he did not believe they would have an issue with that. He had plenty of things
6
showing the area in question if they need. It is not a living area that would be going
7
over the allowable amount.
8
9
Mr. Neil Simons commented that he is opposed to the variance. In 2006 a variance was
10
brought before this Board and it was denied. This variance comes after the house is
11
85% complete which is probably why a lot of home owners didn’t understand why they
12
got it. They were looking at the house and saying this is done, brick pavers are down,
13
driveway is done, the house is stuccoes.
14
15
The Board had denied a variance to Mr. Beckling in 2006. He believes the current
16
variance is about 200 feet difference between the two. The concern he has is if this
17
variance is granted does Mr. Beckling have the right to come back and other home
18
owners have the right to come back because there are still empty lots within the
19
community. That allows other people to come back and say they want a variance for
20
either an oversize or undersize lot. That is his concern about this variance.
21
22
Mr. Ron Harris commented that perhaps the Board could get him an answer to his
23
question.
24
25
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith statedthe gentlemen who has been denied his
26
variance his time to appeal it has passed; obviously other lots as they are built would
27
have a right and need to apply for one.
28
29
Mrs. Diane Andrews inquired if the variance that was denied if it was for lot coverage or
30
was it for something else.
31
32
Mr. Simons stated it was for lot coverage.
33
34
Mrs. Andrews questioned by how much.
35
36
Mr. Simons stated it was 500 feet at that time.
37
38
Mrs. Andrews also inquired if Mr. Simons remembered the percentage.
39
40
Mr. Pancoast stated he did not remember that case in particular but he does remember
41
that all the cases are heard on their own merit. He finds it hard to believe knowing the
42
members of the Board as long as he does that there wouldn’t have been some
43
particular reason if they had denied it why they did.
44
45
Mr. Simons commented that it was 2.6.
46
Page 8 of 29
Ms. Linda Pendarvis stated that she was the Planner on that petition and the overage
1
was 2.6 percent over the lot coverage allowed and the Home Owners Association spoke
2
up against the petition at that time. They were not in favor of it.
3
4
Mrs. Diane Andrews inquired if the Board had a Home Owners Asssociation opinion.
5
6
Mr. Ron Harris replied yes.
7
8
Mike Lovell stated that he did have a letter from the President of the Home Owners
9
Association stating that they have been in contact with a majority of the people in the
10
500 feet perimeter, approving and not testifying against it.
11
12
Mr. Harris commented that the Board had it in their package.
13
14
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
15
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
16
17
Mrs. Diane Andrews made motion.
18
After considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff
19
comments, and the Standard of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie
20
County Land Development Code, hereby move that Board of Adjustment approve the
21
CHERYL F. SUGGS
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01,
22
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit construction of a single
23
family house that will exceed the required 20% Maximum lot coverage by buildings by
24
1.37% in the RS-2 (Residential, Single Family-2DU/1AC) Zoning district, because it is a
25
very minimalincursion and it is she agrees necessary to have some kind of a screened
26
in enclosure to enjoy any home in Florida and it affects no other person.
27
28
Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion. He requests that it be added there was approval
29
from the Home Owners Association.
30
31
The motion was approved unanimously.
32
33
Page 9 of 29
PUBLIC HEARING Wade and Michelle Smith
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081457
2
3
Wade and Michelle Smith
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of Section
4
7.10.03(B) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit continued use of
5
a barn to house animals other than household domestic pets that encroaches a
6
maximum of 55 feet into the minimum one hundred (100) feet required from the property
7
line in the AR – 1 (Agricultural Residential – 1du/1ac)Zoning District
8
9
The subject property is located at 7201 Shana’s Trail. In the AR-1 district, animals other
10
than household domestic pets may be kept provided they are not housed within one
11
hundred (100) feet of any property line. According to the application the barn, in which
12
the horses are housed, is sixty-five (65) feet from the nearest property line to the south
13
side. The normal side yard setback for a structure is 20-feet. If there were no horses
14
housed in the barn, it would meet the setbacks.
15
16
Staff has requested to verify this, have requested some surveys that were unable to get
17
from the petitioner. Staff was relying primarily on aerials from the Property Appraiser’s
18
office in order to make their determinations.
19
20
The variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique, and not necessarily a
21
hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The need for the
22
requested variance is created by the desire of Wade and Michelle Smith to house their
23
horses within the 100 foot setback that is required from the south property line.
24
25
Staff is therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance.
26
27
Mrs. Andrews asked if the structure as it exists today is still considered a pole barn.
28
29
Ms. Tetsworth commented that the structure is considered a pole barn and the structure
30
itself is not encroaching into the side setbacks; it is only the fact that there are horses
31
within it.
32
33
Mr. Ron Harris had a question of staff, when staff read the report it was indicated that
34
we did not have verification for the location of the structure, staff did not have a survey
35
and that we were assuming that it was 65 feet. He wanted to know if he understood
36
that correctly.
37
38
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated that was correct, there were several attempts to get them to
39
provide more definitive information and was unable to obtain that from them.
40
41
Mr. Ron Harris stated that the packet that the Board received there was a survey but he
42
cannot see the date of it. He did see the date of 5/01/96 and wanted to know if there
43
was an up-to-date survey that would tell them the exact location of the structure. He
44
wanted to know if they should rely on Property Appraiser’s aerial to determine that.
45
That may not be good because the accuracy of those aerials is not always survey
46
Page 10 of 29
PUBLIC HEARING Wade and Michelle Smith
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081457
2
3
grade. If the Board was going to grant a variance of a specific distance then they need
4
to know the specific encroachment. He did not know how other Board members felt
5
about that and he would defer to the County Attorney and ask if he was on solid ground
6
in requesting that.
7
8
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated the Board could request information they need to
9
make a determination so the Board can continue it, asking them to come back with that
10
information.
11
12
Mr. Pancoast stated that he personally felt if they were to come before the Board for a
13
variance that they would have wanted to provide the accurate information. He does
14
agree with Chairman Harris that he would be real unhappy and not feel comfortable
15
about granting a variance that the Board does not really know what the size is. His first
16
request of the owner would be an accurate survey, and his second thought would be a
17
continuance.
18
19
Mrs. Andrews stated she was in total agreement, the Board needs a continuance.
20
21
Chief Emerson commented that when he built a pole barn he had to have a locational
22
permit, it is not a survey, was that not required in this case?
23
24
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated that a survey is required but the one that was provided was
25
out of date and the applicant did not give an updated survey showing the exact location
26
of the structure.
27
28
Chief Emerson commented for a shed or other structures that don’t have to be quality
29
survey information, you didn’t in this case require a locational permit. Just where they
30
go out and determine location.
31
32
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated in order to move forward with the variance application that
33
should be the responsibility of the owner to meet the obligation requirements of the
34
applicant and provide the survey. We have requested that and the applicant has refused
35
to do that.
36
37
Mr. Bangert wanted to know how long has the structure been there.
38
39
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated she believes the applicant purchased the property and staff
40
has tried to determine if it was there prior to the point in time that they purchased it or
41
were they the people who actually built it. Staff was unable to determine that as well.
42
43
Mrs. Andrews, point of clarification, Ms. Tetsworth did you say they refused to provide
44
this information?
45
46
Page 11 of 29
PUBLIC HEARING Wade and Michelle Smith
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081457
2
3
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated that was correct, a certified letter was sent requesting it as
4
we went through the process and were trying to prepare the packet and doing the
5
normal review. Staff had sent an additional letter to receive that and they did not
6
comply with the request.
7
8
Mr. Ron Harris stated the petition was advertised so it will have to be opened up.
9
10
Public Comment
11
12
Mr. Ron Harris stated he thought there was a consensus on the Board that Mr. and Mrs.
13
Smith did not provide enough information to make a proper decision. They would not
14
be comfortable doing that. If you have a current survey that you wish to display now it
15
would help change their minds, if you don’t then you can see the direction the Board is
16
going in.
17
18
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated she spoke with Mr. Larry Szynkowski the first week of June,
19
he requested a survey at that time. We have never received a certified letter that she
20
remembers from the County. If there is a receipt for that she would like to see it
21
because they have never received a certified letter.
22
23
Second of all she has never refused Mr. Szynkowski’s attempts, in fact the exact same
24
day that she spoke to Mr. Szynkowski she called the surveyor who on the bottom of the
25
survey that the Board has on the right hand side shows that in January 2006 it was a
26
revised survey. That was the most updated survey that they had.
27
28
Mr. Harris commented that he could not see that date, that is what caused him some
29
concern, he sees that its says something but he cannot read this because it just is not
30
legible at all. If you have the original the Board would like to see it.
31
32
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated they had the original.
33
34
Mr. Harris asked that Mrs. Smith give it to the secretary so it could be given to the Board
35
members.
36
37
Mrs. Smith stated that Mr. AllenBecksurveying company was bought out by a
38
gentlemen named Alex Piazzaand she spoke to him that day and he provided
39
another survey which is the same exact survey as the contractor, which she also had
40
and is in the Board packet. He stated that survey should be plenty because it was
41
updated when the barn was built.
42
43
Mr. Ron Harris commented what he was looking for is a survey showing the actual
44
location, the note there is at proposed new pole barn so he put it on the survey, drew it
45
in and we assumed it was constructed at that location and it probably was. If you have
46
Page 12 of 29
another survey that we can read, here again what is in his packet he cannot read the
1
dates showing that he physically went out and physically located the structure.
2
3
.
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated that MrAlex Piazza told herthat Mr.Allen Beck did not on a
4
regular basis go out to resurvey after he has plotted it.
5
6
Mr. Harris stated that he would not do it for free; you would have to pay him.
7
8
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated the contractor told them that they did not have to get another
9
survey which Mr. Robert Baum Contractingwas offered to come here by invitation and
10
is not there.
11
12
Mr. Harris stated that he understood but they were applying for a variance and they
13
need to know for sure, what they have says proposed, it doesn’t say existing. If it said
14
existing then they could rely on the dimension that they see before them. He does not
15
know if it is there, that is the problem. He was hoping that they had something, the
16
sketch that is in their information he could not read the dates but if it is the same as this
17
only reduced then that really doesn’t give them the information they need.
18
19
Mrs. Michelle Smith commented that she thought they had a copy of the big survey in
20
the back of their information.
21
22
Mr. Ron Harris stated that was the one they could not read.
23
24
Mrs. Michelle Smith commented that is the same one as you have.
25
26
Mr. Harris stated what they have is a survey that shows a proposed structure but do not
27
have a survey that shows the actual location and that is why the Board would be
28
uncomfortable granting a variance of a very large amount, 35 feet and not knowing the
29
actual distances that they were dealing with. He wanted to know if she understood their
30
position.
31
32
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated that she did.
33
34
Mr. Harris stated that the Board Members would like to continue this to a date certain
35
which would be next month. He did not know if they were agreeable to that, that would
36
give you time to get a location survey.
37
38
Mrs. Smith inquired what the date would be.
39
40
Mr. Harris stated he believed it would July 23, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. or so thereafter.
41
42
Mrs. Michelle Smith commented that would be okay but she wanted to mention about
43
the refusal of getting a survey, again that is not accurate. They never received a
44
certified letter from the County. If the County has that she would like to see the signed
45
receipt for that. They never received a certified letter; she did however speak to Mr.
46
Page 13 of 29
Szynkowski about the survey on the phone. Again, the same day she got back to him
1
after speaking to Alex from the survey company.
2
3
Mr. Harris commented to staff that he did not know the staff would have to answer that
4
regarding the certified document.
5
6
Ms. Tetsworth confirmed that they did not receive the green card back but it was mailed
7
out with the return receipt card on May 30, 2008.
8
Mr. Ron Harris stated it was apparently mailed out perhaps it did not get to her location,
9
which is always a possibility.
10
11
Mr. Bangert commented that the only thing he would change is if they are not able to
12
get a survey in a month they could check with staff and bring this back in at a later date.
13
14
Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Bangert meant granting them another continuance.
15
16
Mr. Bangert replied, “yes”. It is not always easy to get a surveyor on the day you want
17
them.
18
19
Mr. Harris stated he felt that would be fair and he did agree with Mr. Bangert, because
20
the Board did not want to create a hardship for them but this information is needed.
21
22
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated when she spoke to Alex he said there would be no way he
23
could get out to the home and have it surveyed and done in less than two weeks.
24
25
Mr. Harris asked if Mrs. Smith thought she could have it done by July 23, 2008.
26
27
Mrs. Smith stated they would sure try.
28
29
Mr. Darrell Dunhill stated they were before the Board because they are the neighbors
30
directly next door to mentioned property. The proposed pole barn was applied for 12-
31
20-05 for a permit and the date issued was 3-21-2006 for the construction of it.
32
33
Since this pole barn was built at that time they have since enclosed it as a horse stable,
34
four stables in which he and his wife have their master bedroom is on the property line
35
closest to their barn. We are continually subject to the horses at night when they are
36
stabled up, kicking the stalls, waking them up out of their sleep. The Smiths’ work
37
nights and in the mornings when they come home they have gas blowers out there,
38
blowing it out, waking them up whether it is Saturday, Sunday morning it doesn’t make
39
any difference. Their sleep is being deprived also.
40
41
Mrs. Page Dunhill stated that the whole thing is that the area that they live in is
42
obviously agriculture; a lot of people had to comply with the code and the laws that were
43
set forth. They have talked with several of the neighbors out there where they were not
44
granted a variance per se or they had to incur additional cost in building their home or
45
barn. There is one in the neighborhood where they had also built it illegally or not as it
46
Page 14 of 29
was suppose to be and were made to tear it down to the poles. Mr. and Mrs. Smith
1
were fully aware when they built the barn they were going to have it for the stables,
2
there were the concrete pads poured at the time of the poles. She did not think it is fair
3
that they should have a variance for such a large square footage that they are off if
4
other people have to comply and pay additional fees or whatever they do. It is just not
5
right. The code has been set forth for almost 20 years, they were well aware of that.
6
They asked that the variance be denied.
7
8
Mr. Dunhill stated it should be put back to what it was permitted for. It was permitted
9
for a pole barn, not for horses and goats. When the horses are stabled up at night they
10
start getting hungry 2 a.m., 3 a.m., they want to get out and start kicking. That is a fact
11
that they wouldn’t know because they work evenings and they are the ones subject to
12
the noises and what they have to do. They would really like the stables to be removed,
13
put back to the pole barn that they had permitted for. That would be fine with them but
14
they do want stables removed at this time.
15
16
Chief Emerson said he had a question but it would involve a little help from staff.
17
Wanted to know if staff had the pictures provided by the Smiths’ that shows the pole
18
barn?
19
20
Ms. Tetsworth commented that there were some in the packet that were black and
21
white.
22
23
Mr. Dunhill asked if he could approach the bench with copies of the pictures.
24
25
Ms. Tetsworth stated staff was looking to see if they have them scanned in
26
electronically but they did have just one set of the color copies. If the Board wishes they
27
could pass them to the Board for their review.
28
29
Chief Emerson stated all he was trying to do is identify the house that they are talking
30
about relative to the barn. The one picture he thought showed their house but he was
31
going to ask the Dunhill’s if that was their house.
32
33
Mr. Dunhill stated he had submitted a packet of pictures the week earlier.
34
35
Chief Emerson stated if staff could not get the technology working perhaps staff could
36
just ask the Dunhill’s and inform the Board.
37
38
Ms. Tetsworth stated if the Chairman did not mind the staff would like to just present the
39
photographs that staff had in the file. She does apologize but can’t seem to get the
40
electronic version.
41
42
Mrs. Diane Andrews inquired if Mr. Dunhill was making a distinction between a pole
43
barn and a barn; and did he consider what is there today to be a barn and not a pole
44
barn.
45
46
Page 15 of 29
Mr. Dunhill stated the pictures that the Board just viewed originally that is what is was, a
1
pole barn, poles and a roof and a storage room.
2
3
Mrs. Page Dunhill stated they had changed it after they got their final.
4
5
Mr. Dunhill stated after they got their CO they went ahead and closed in and put more
6
stables in, complete stables, with concrete walkways.
7
8
Mrs. Andrews inquired from staff if there is a definition of a pole barn.
9
10
Ms. Tetsworth commented that there is not a definition of a pole barn but there is a
11
distinct reference to housing animals that are other than domestic pets.
12
13
Chief Emerson commented that it is not the structure; it is the use, is that what staff was
14
saying.
15
16
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated that is correct, there is no objection, the side setback would
17
be 20 foot setback and this particular structure as far as we could tell is 65 feet from the
18
property line. It needs to be 100 feet from the property line if it has animals other than
19
domestic pets that is the distinction.
20
21
Mrs. Dunhill stated that the barn itself is not a problem; it is that they house their horses
22
in the stables that is encroaching on their line.
23
24
Mr. Dunhill stated that the stables were built illegally after the fact.
25
26
Mr. Bangert asked how long Mr. and Mrs. Dunhill had been living in that house.
27
28
Mr. Dunhill stated that they have owned the property since 2000 and they built their
29
home in 2003.
30
31
Ms. Tonya Ebright stated that she use to live at 7210 Shana’s Trail which is directly
32
across street. They moved in there in 1997. When they purchased their home across
33
the street there were some other people living there. The point that everybody is
34
forgetting to bring up is that there was a full barn there with three stalls. The gentleman
35
who lived there had a horse a long time ago and when they built their new barn they just
36
put it in the same spot, it is just turned a different way. It is about 5 feet different from
37
the other barn, so she does not understand why the Dunhill’s have such a problem with
38
it.
39
40
When they moved in, that other barn was there and there were horses. Mr. and Mrs.
41
Smith kept their horses in the other barn and it was fully enclosed, a tack room and
42
everything, there was not a complaint brought up on this until just this past year when
43
they have been having problems with other things. She does not see a problem
44
because there are so many people out there that have horses that have closed in barns.
45
Page 16 of 29
She just wanted to bring the point up about the other barn that was previously there
1
since before 1997.
2
3
Ms. Elizabeth Breezes stated that she knows Mr. and Mrs. Smith, she knows that they
4
purchased their home in 2002 and as the previous person spoke that there was an old
5
barn there. She can’t see the problem either because they built a new barn where the
6
old barn was.
7
8
Unfortunately, as she mentioned there are other issues going on and she just feels that
9
it is a personal vendetta that her neighbors have now against her that they are bringing
10
this issue to point and waiting this long to do so. They purchased their property; they
11
built their house when the old barn was there. If you are building a house and you think
12
a barn is going to bother you, you have all that property, why build your house so close
13
to that. Personally she feels it is a personal vendetta that they have against her. You
14
build a barn; you are just restoring it because of the hurricane damage. They built a
15
new barn where the old barn was. As someone from St. Lucie County she cannot see
16
why the County would have a problem with granting a variance for their new barn to
17
house their animals. That is where they housed their animals in the old barn.
18
19
Ms. Bakerstated that MichelleSmith is her niece; they had an old existing barn and the
20
hurricane had torndown their barn. They had horses in the old barn and they had them
21
out in the weather and they built a new barn exactly where the old barn stood, no
22
different, right in the same place. There were no complaints when they had the old barn
23
and when they had the old horse. There were no complaints when they were putting up
24
their new barn which was obviously noticed by the neighbor, they took pictures. Why
25
didn’t they say something at the time? There have been problems in the last two years
26
which are and she is not going into that but it seems that they are purposely picking on
27
the barn and if it wasn’t the barn it would be a different issue. They are more or less
28
grandfathering where the old barn stood, they built their new barn.
29
30
Ms. Michele Kopelstated that she lives directly across from the Smiths’ and she doesn’t
31
understand they have a barn; it is in the same spot where the old barn was. She is
32
there a little over a year. Mr. and Mrs. Dunhill have a barn and their barn is less than 25
33
feet from the property line and they house animals in there. They have all kinds of
34
animals in there. If it okay for one person she does not understand why it is not okay for
35
another person to have their horses in the barn. She does not hear any kind of noises
36
from the barn, no kicking, nothing.
37
38
Mr. Dunhill stated that he has aerial photos of their old barn that they keep saying was
39
in the same exact place, it was not. If they do have to return here he will bring an aerial
40
photo from 1999, the old barn was not in the same exact place that they are saying it is
41
and he just wanted to let the Board know that.
42
43
Mr. Ron Harris stated the Board understood that, he loves aerial photographs but they
44
are not survey grade.
45
46
Page 17 of 29
Chief Emerson asked if Mr. Dunhill had a barn on his property that is within 100 feet of
1
the property line that you also house animals in.
2
3
Mr. Dunhill stated that he had Code Enforcement that Mr. and Mrs. Smith has called on
4
him several times out to his property; they have signed off. He has complied and the
5
buildings that he has on his property, he had bought an old tree nursery. It use to be St.
6
Lucie Tree Nursery years ago, all the structures, Monica from Code Enforcement has
7
been out with also MelissaBrubaker. Theyhave both signed off that he has complied.
8
The building structures that he has on his property are over 25 years old.
9
10
Mrs. Michele Smith stated that she did not want to make this a personal vendetta, the
11
Dunhill’s do they are before the Board strictly for the barn, that is what this is all about.
12
However, there have been personal issues that are between Mr. and Mrs. Dunhill and
13
her and her husband. That is why they were here and that is why they are opposed to
14
it.
15
16
As far as Code Enforcement being called Mr. Dunhill has called Code Enforcement
17
along with South Florida Management, along with the Department of Environmental
18
Protection on her and her husband in the past year. This is only the past year; this is
19
not prior years also. Mr. Dunhill has several animals on his property. They have four
20
horses and three goats that is all they have on their property.
21
22
Mr. Dunhill has a multitude of animals including horses, lamas, emus, chickens, goats
23
and other animals that she probably doesn’t even know about. Just to give the Board a
24
history of what is going on here; it is not about the barn. Although, that is what they
25
were before the Board for, the barn.
26
27
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
28
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
29
30
Mr. Harris stated back to their discussion that the Board was going to continue this item
31
to a date certain.
32
33
Mr. Pancoast made a motion that the Board continue to a date certain of July 23, 2008
34
unless the Smiths’ cannot get the appropriate paperwork and then they will work out a
35
date with staff.
36
37
Mr. Bangert seconded.
38
39
Motion passed unanimously.
40
41
Mr. Harris stated the Board will look for them to come back July 23, 2008 with a survey
42
so they have some had numbers they can look at.
43
44
45
46
Page 18 of 29
Public Hearing Matthew Reeves
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081459
2
3
Matthew Reeves,
The request of for a Variance from the following Provisions of the St.
4
Lucie County Land Development Code:
5
?
Section 7.04.01(A) to allow the construction of a single-family residence and a
6
detached garage, which would exceed the maximum 30 percent lot coverage by
7
buildings and the minimum front, side and rear setbacks allowed in the RS-4
8
(Residential, Single Family – 4 du/acre) Zoning District,
9
?
Section 7.05.06(C) to allow construction of a driveway less than five (5) feet from
10
the side property line, and
11
?
Section 8.00.04(A) to allow a fence to exceed the maximum six (6) foot high side
12
and rear height restriction by one foot in a residential zoning district.
13
14
The subject property is located in Coral Cove Beach Subdivision; the address for the
15
subject property is 247 Bimini Drive.
16
17
In 2006 the Board of Adjustment granted two Variances for the subject property to allow
18
the construction of an addition to the existing single family residence, which would
19
encroach 1.5 feet into the minimum side setback of 7.5 feet and also to allow
20
construction of a garage, which would encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the minimum
21
rear setback of 15 feet.
22
23
Pursuant to these approvals granted, the property owner decided to demolish the
24
existing home and to construct a new home.
25
26
The need for the requested variances is created by the desire of Mr. Reeves to
27
construct a home and detached garage larger than is allowed on the subject property
28
with structures that do not meet the Land Development Code requirements.
29
30
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards
31
of review as set forth in St. Lucie County Land Development Code and may be in
32
conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
33
Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance.
34
35
Mrs. Diane Andrews wanted to know why the March meeting Minutes were included in
36
the packet and also she had a problem with the notice. She noticed when she read it in
37
the newspaper that the notice tells the public absolutely nothing except that this man
38
wants to build a house on his property. It does not say it is for setbacks, it doesn’t say it
39
is for lot coverage. It quotes sections of the Code which is meaningless to the public.
40
Most of the notices give the Code for a 3 foot variance or 2% lot coverage or something.
41
This has nothing on it. Their neighbors don’t know what is going on.
42
43
Ms. Pendarvis stated that it can be re-advertised if the Board feels a proper notice did
44
not go because of the extent of the request staff tried to condense it and perhaps we got
45
to a point where we condensed it too far. We can re-advertise and send out notice.
46
Page 19 of 29
Public Hearing Matthew Reeves
1
June 25, 2008 BA-420081459
2
3
Mrs. Andrews commented to do it properly; this one page letter will have to go to two
4
pages, since we are talking about three different variances.
5
6
Chief Emerson stated that he was somewhat confused also. The variance that was
7
granted in 2006 was for the same property?
8
9
Ms. Pendarvis stated it was for the same property and there was an existing home on
10
the property at that time and that was what the variance was for on the additions to the
11
existing home.
12
13
Mrs. Andrews stated that the Board will remember this because they fiddled with the
14
garage so the oak tree wouldn’t have to be torn down. That was a different situation
15
that variance is history.
16
17
Mr. Harris agreed.
18
19
Mr. Harris commented that Mrs. Andrews brought up an interesting point, she feels this
20
was not advertised properly and would like it re-advertised. He would like other Board
21
members to weigh in on that.
22
23
Mr. Pancoast stated that he agreed with Mrs. Andrews.
24
25
Chief Emerson wanted to ask legal staff if it was advertised correctly.
26
27
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated the content of the notice is suppose to have a
28
description of the substance of subject matter that will be discussed at the hearing and
29
that seems to the general public that might not be in this notice. It would probably be
30
safer to readvertise.
31
32
Mr. Ron Harris stated that it was advertised so the hearing must be opened.
33
34
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated if there was anyone present from the public the
35
Board could hear from them at this time. It might be easier if the Board is going to
36
continue it to a date certain even though it is going to be readvertised but it wouldn’t
37
require that you do it that way.
38
39
Mr. Harris asked if the Board continues on July 23, 2008 was there enough time to get
40
the ad out appropriately.
41
42
Ms. Pendarvis stated it will be enough time to readvertise.
43
44
45
46
Page 20 of 29
PUBLIC COMMENT
1
2
Mr. Reeves stated the house was existing and the variance that was passed prior to this
3
meeting is the same house, same footprint, same structure, same everything. The
4
problem arose when he went to apply for the permit to demolish the house; once he
5
took out one of the walls they realized there was no steel in any of the walls. The house
6
would not meet code, rebuilding the old structure. He had to tear down the whole house
7
in order to meet code and rebuild it. He has his closest proximity neighbor present;
8
there is an empty lot across the street on the other side of him to the east that is another
9
empty lot. There are not really many people to inform in proximity. His closest neighbor
10
next to him is present and the ones across the street everyone is aware of what is going
11
on. He has been trying to rebuild this place for 3 plus years.
12
13
Mrs. Andrews commented that Mr. Reeves stated it is exactly the same house that he
14
was putting back up but she recalls the driveway on the other side.
15
16
Mr. Reeves stated exactly, what had happen due to where the garage was located his
17
neighbor talked to him and said he would prefer to have the garage on opposite side
18
and so he complied, whatever it takes. The whole floor plan is just reversed.
19
20
Mrs. Andrews commented flipped.
21
22
Mr. Ron Harris stated that Mr. Reeves knew what the Board plans to do based on
23
procedure, they feel there was a procedural error that this will be re-advertised to a date
24
certain and will see him on July 23, 2008.
25
26
Mrs. Melissa Murdock stated that she was there to support Matt Reeves. Mr. Reeves
27
lives right next door to her; he has a nice plan for a house that will beautify their
28
neighborhood. There would have been more neighbors there but two of the neighbors
29
are actually in the hospital, one is having an operation and her husband is working.
30
They are all in favor of it, just wanted to let the Board know. The reason probably for all
31
the permits and things in the demolishing of the house is because the hurricane
32
destroyed that house. It could not really be rebuilt, it was just a mess.
33
34
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
35
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
36
37
Mrs. Andrews made motion to continue until July 23, 2008 pending readvertising.
38
39
Chief Emerson seconded the motion.
40
41
Motion passed unanimously.
42
Page 21 of 29
Public Hearing Clifton and Maurleen Sullivan
1
June 25, 2008 VA-520081474
2
3
Clifton and Maurleen Sullivan,
Petition of for a Variance from the Provisions of
4
Section 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the
5
continued use of a barn/storage building which encroaches a maximum of 14 feet into
6
the minimum side setback of 20 feet required in the AG-5 (Agricultural – 1 du/5 ac)
7
Zoning District.
8
9
The subject property is located at 1980 South Brocksmith Road. The Sullivan’s would
10
like to obtain a building permit for the building which was constructed without the benefit
11
of a permit in the same location.
12
13
The variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique and not a hardship as
14
defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. The need for the requested
15
variance is to allow the continued use of a barn/storage building constructed without a
16
permit.
17
18
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the standards
19
of review as set forth in St. Lucie County Land Development Code and may be in
20
conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
21
Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance.
22
23
Mr. Pancoast wanted to know since there was no permit to begin with have they applied
24
now for a permit and has the building passed requirements?
25
26
Ms. Linda Pendarvis stated they have not applied yet for a permit, they were cited by
27
Code Enforcement and this was their first step to try to go through the permit process.
28
29
Mrs. Andrews wanted a point of clarification. How come we have AG-5 land use and a
30
parcel size of not quite two acres, how does that happen?
31
32
Chief Emerson commented non conforming lot of record. Who is their closest neighbor
33
most impacted by the encroachment?
34
35
Ms. Pendarvis stated it is Rolando Lantigua.
36
37
Chief Emerson wanted to know if that was the neighbor to the south or neighbor to the
38
back.
39
40
Ms. Linda Pendarvis believes that is the neighbor to the back, so it would be the
41
neighbor to the south which is Triple C. Grove LLP. We have letters from both adjacent
42
property owners.
43
44
Page 22 of 29
Public Hearing Clifton and Maurleen Sullivan
1
June 25, 2008 VA-520081474
2
3
Mr. Harris stated that the Board is being asked to grant a variance of 14 feet but we
4
don’t know where anything is. There is no survey in his package, if there is a survey
5
that is good. He does not know the distance is and who came up with the distance.
6
7
Ms. Pendarvis stated that Mrs. Sullivan was requested to supply a survey and because
8
of the expense it was her decision to go forward with the variance knowing that this may
9
be questioned at the time. She supplied the photographs hoping to answer any
10
questions toward the setback issue.
11
12
Mr. Ron Harris stated the Board just went through one particular case and they
13
determined that they had to have a survey in order to be sure that they were making the
14
right decision based on the granting the size of the variance. He did not see the Board
15
wavering from that particular item. He will look to the Board and ask them how they feel
16
about this again.
17
18
Mrs. Andrews commented that she totally agrees particularly because this is 70%
19
variance.
20
21
Mr. Pancoast stated he was with Mrs. Andrews.
22
23
Chief Emerson commented that he has a little different perspective and what he has
24
said in the past in past cases is that he believes you should be able to get along with
25
your neighbor. In this particular case unlike the other one they heard in this particular
26
case the two properties most directly impacted have provided letters saying that they
27
are okay with it. It is really irrelevant what the distance is if the two closest neighbors
28
don’t mind the encroachment. That is the only caveat he would put in there.
29
30
Mr. Ron Harris commented that was fine argument except then what they are suppose
31
to be granting are they not going to attach a number to it? Are we just going to reach
32
around and pull one out of air and grant them a full blanket variance? That is his
33
problem.
34
35
Chief Emerson commented that they are not pulling it out of the air they are going by
36
what they requested.
37
38
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to know how the Board would know that was correct.
39
40
Chief Emerson stated that is a Code Enforcement issue.
41
42
Mr. Ron Harris questioned if that was the applicant’s responsibility to provide the Board
43
with all the information for them to make the correct decision.
44
45
Chief Emerson commented if that information is required for you to make a decision.
46
Page 23 of 29
Mr. Bangert wanted to hear from applicants.
1
2
Mrs. Maurleen Sullivan stated she provided as much as possible and just the fact that
3
all of the neighbors said they did not mind. To the north and west is all pasture land
4
and swamp. The barn is to the right side because of the people who were to the south
5
of them. They put the barn up because they all purchased this property at an auction;
6
the Branscomb family owed all this property. The people next to them also had a horse
7
farm, so they brought all these horses up and she cared for their horses. They put the
8
little barn up to house their feed and whatever she needed, an even put a gate right
9
next to the barn so she could have easy access in and out to go take care of the horses
10
on his 75 acres.
11
12
Out of total ignorance at that time they went by what was being said in the
13
neighborhood, it was AG-5 you didn’t need a permit, it was just a barn to house the
14
feed. Their other barn was right up against the property as well and they came to find
15
out that the Branscomb family owned all that property. Years ago, they went in and cut
16
out those two acres right where their home sat. When it came time to sell that was just
17
a separate section. That was just a piece of yard they cut out and it went right behind
18
the big barn. She is tired and ready for this to be over.
19
20
Mr. Ron Harris asked Mrs. Sullivan if she saw the Board’s position, they were probably
21
planning to continue this. He did not want to create a hardship on her but they have to
22
be consistent with their requirements. He did not know if she would be able to get
23
anybody to come up with any survey information that the Board could accept by July 23,
24
2008, if not then he knows the Board would be agreeable to continue it to give her
25
enough time.
26
27
Mrs. Sullivan stated that they did have a survey done when they purchased the property
28
and for some reason she cannot locate it. She does not know if the bank has it when
29
they refinanced or what. She tried to contact the company who did the survey and that
30
man has since passed away. The folks who have the company now they never got
31
back to her. She called them several times.
32
33
Mr. Ron Harris inquired if she recalled the name of the person who did that original
34
survey.
35
36
Mrs. Sullivan stated that she did not and hoped that she had it written down because
37
her husband knew him personally.
38
39
Mr. Harris inquired if it was Weatherington.
40
41
Mrs. Sullivan said it was not.
42
43
Mr. Harris inquired if it was Kirby.
44
45
Mrs. Sullivan stated it was Kirby.
46
Page 24 of 29
1
Mr. Harris stated that it was his understanding that Culpepper & Terpening purchased
2
Jim Kirby’s records. He would like her to contact them and talk to James Fowler; he is
3
over surveying at the present time at Culpepper & Terpening and see if he can lend
4
some assistance. The structure was there at the time of the survey, is that correct.
5
6
Mrs. Sullivan stated that she thought it was.
7
8
Mr. Harris commented perhaps they would give her a courtesy copy, perhaps they will.
9
10
Mrs. Sullivan stated she called several times and they kept saying they would get back
11
to her and it had to be stored away somewhere in his files and she never heard back.
12
13
Mr. Harris stated that he knew they have all of his records now, he does not know
14
where they are keeping them. He did not know if they have gone through to index
15
them. To save her a few dollars he would badger them a little more.
16
17
Mr. Pancoast commented that Mrs. Sullivan might want to mention to him that the Board
18
of Adjustment asked her to ask him because he use to be a member of this board. It
19
might go well, he might say, okay from past experience and give you a little help.
20
21
Mr. Harris asked Mrs. Sullivan if July 23, 2008 was agreeable.
22
23
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
24
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
25
26
Mr. Bangert made motion.
27
28
Mr. Harris stated the whole motion was already said, that the Board will continue this
29
item to a date certain, July 23, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. or continue it out if Mr. and Mrs.
30
Sullivan have been unable to obtain a survey during that timeframe.
31
32
Mrs. Andrews seconded the motion.
33
34
Mr. Pancoast wanted to have some discussion. He is known to under persuasive
35
argument to change his mind. He did hear some persuasive argument and it brought to
36
mind a question. That question is has the Board in the past approved anything where
37
they did not have a survey? He knows a lot of times they get into that mode in
38
particular with swimming pools where the Board hears it, agrees with it and passes it.
39
Can anyone answer that question?
40
41
Mr. Harris stated he could answer for the time he has been on the Board, no because
42
he is a stickler for that particular item.
43
44
Page 25 of 29
Chief Emerson stated he agreed with Mr. Pancoast and he does not believe he needs
1
that information to grant the variance as requested but that is only in this particular case
2
based on the information provided by the two closest neighbors.
3
Mr. Pancoast commented that every case flies on its own merit.
4
5
Mr. Harris agreed with that.
6
7
Vote was 3 to 2 not to continue.
8
9
Mr. Harris commented that the petition will not be continue. Mrs. Sullivan this is
10
probably good news for you which now means the Board will entertain a motion to
11
approve or deny.
12
13
Chief Emerson stated that he wanted to make sure that the public was given an
14
opportunity to speak one last time.
15
16
PUBLIC COMMENT REOPENED
17
18
Mr. Cosmano stated he did not have much to say other than to say that they support the
19
applicants. They did not know that they were going to be there, they had seen the sign,
20
and they came on their own in support of these folks. They are victims of afeud of
21
neighbors that they have. That is all they are, victims. They support them 100%.
22
23
Mrs. Cosmano stated she is of the same opinion.
24
25
Chief Emerson wanted to ask Mr. Cosmano one question, he had appeared before the
26
Board and their variance was denied was it not?
27
28
Mrs. Cosmano stated it was.
29
30
Chief Emerson commented the reason he thought that it was not looked upon favorably
31
is because he couldn’t reach an agreement with their neighbor.
32
33
Mrs. Cosmano stated that was correct.
34
35
Chief Emerson stated that is what is different with their case; he just wanted to let the
36
Cosmano’s know that.
37
38
Mr. Cosmano commented that what was upsetting to them is that they have seen the
39
person that brought them before the Board in the first place shaking hands and being
40
friendly with some of the folks up there, and they did not appreciate that. They think if
41
you knew that person you should have asked yourself to be excused from the hearing.
42
That is their opinion.
43
44
Mr. Henry Anderson stated he lives across the street, he has been living out there since
45
1989 the house in question was there since before he was there. The house that Mr. &
46
Page 26 of 29
Mrs. Sullivan live in was part of a 500 acre piece of property. The old man, Mr.
1
Branscomb cut out two acres so that the boy could build that house. When they built
2
that house they built the barn on the north side. The barn was within 3 feet of the
3
property line. He kept his tractor and feed in that barn. When the land was sold after
4
the old man died Bobby Branscomb decided that he would sell that house along with
5
the rest of the property. That unit was surveyed then and it was cut out of the 500
6
acres.
7
8
The barn was there when the property was sold and bought. I guess nobody gave it a
9
thought that it was an encroachment on the property line; no one had a complaint with
10
it. When the man south of them had the property and he wanted Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan
11
to take care of it they did. They built a barn, without a barn it is a shed, it is about a 20 x
12
20 shed, and it has a roof on it, sides in it. You can keep feed in there to keep the rats
13
out.
14
15
The intent was not to try to get away with anything but just to do something to protect
16
what you do have. Based on a pole barn being 2 feet or 3 feet from the property line
17
they put the shed up there, and they thought they were suppose to do that. If you look
18
at his property across the street it looks like his barn is on the property line. Well he
19
came to find out that he is 20 feet, but that shed was there when he bought the
20
property. The only thing that wasn’t there was the house. They have a lot of problems
21
in St. Lucie County about encroachment but if you look at the new developments and
22
you have 8 feet between houses here we are we have a barn, a little old shed that is
23
not even close to a house and yet they want them to tear it down. That is ridiculous.
24
25
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
26
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
27
28
Chief Emerson made motion.
29
30
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff
31
comments, and the Standards of Review as Set Forth in Section 10.01.02 of the St.
32
Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby move that the Board of Adjustment
33
Clifton and Maurleen Sullivan
approve the Petition of for a variance from the
34
Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to
35
permit the continued use of a barn/storage building, which encroaches a maximum of
36
14 feet into the minimum side setback of 20 feet required in the AG-5 (Agricultural –
37
1du/ac) Zoning district because it does not impair any of its closest neighbors. The
38
neighbors have provided letters of support for the encroachment.
39
40
Mr. Bangert seconded.
41
42
Mr. Harris stated he would like to amend that motion if the Board did not mind. He
43
wouldn’t like to hold that to 14 feet, he would like it to read 14 feet more or less. That
44
gives a little leeway in there in case a survey is ever done and it be determined that it
45
Page 27 of 29
turned out to be 14 ½, 13.9 or something like that. It would give the applicant a little
1
more room.
2
3
The Board members were agreeable with that.
4
5
Motion passed unanimously.
6
7
Open Discussion
8
9
Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Chris Lestrange, Building Official was before the Board to
10
speak to members regarding certain items regarding pool setbacks.
11
12
Mr. Chris Lestrange stated he was invited to attend but did not have anything formal
13
prepared but he knew the Board had some questions about form board surveys and
14
setbacks.
15
16
Mr. Pancoast stated that pretty much says it all, earlier there were two cases, one
17
involving form boards and one with permitting. Some time back 4 or 5 years ago he
18
thought they had resolved this issue where form boards were going to be required
19
before they actually put the pools in. All of a sudden they starting getting a rash back of
20
cases involving pools.
21
22
Mr. Lestrange stated he did change the process in November of last year but up until
23
that point they were just requiring final surveys which at that point is too late the
24
concrete is poured. In November the process was changed to require a form board
25
survey prior to placing any concrete so they submit that with the compaction test,
26
everything upfront.
27
28
Chief Emerson commented that he knew that was true from personal experience
29
because his pool has been held up for a least one week because he had to get a form
30
board survey.
31
32
Mrs. Andrews stated that she was happy to hear about the form board surveys. One
33
other thing that has come up is that notifying Property Owners Associations. We have a
34
mandatory association and we have talked about it in the context of variances but she
35
has also talked with Peter Jones about this and several others in years past, it should
36
be made a part of checklist. When someone comes in with an application, if they are in
37
a mandatory Home Owners Association situation should inform them at that point that
38
they need to get their Home Owners Association approval; from her own personal
39
experience she lives in Queens Cove and they require a 10 feet side setback as
40
opposed to your 71/2. That has been a problem time and time again and the party has
41
to go back and get their architect to redraw, so if you could make that part of your
42
checklist at the counter.
43
44
Mr. Chris Lestrange stated that they have put a notice out on web site and they are also
45
incorporating that into the application package. They do make the applicants aware that
46
Page 28 of 29
the Home Owners Association may have requirements that they have to meet that is
1
where it gets difficult they can’t legally hold up a permit over a Home Owners
2
Association issue. The best they can do is to inform them that those rules are out there
3
but they cannot deny them a permit because of it.
4
Mrs. Andrews commented that they could tell them that it will be denied by someone
5
else.
6
7
Mr. Chris Lestrange commented that was correct.
8
9
Mrs. Andrews stated it was for their own benefit to know that right up front.
10
11
Adjourned 11:10 a.m.
12
13
14
Page 29 of 29