HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-23-2008
1
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
2
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
3
July 23, 2008
4
9:30 a.m.
5
6
7
CALL TO ORDER
8
Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M.
9
10
11
ROLL CALL
12
Ron Harris ..................................Chairman
13
Bob Bangert.................................Vice Chairman
14
Diane Andrews...........................Board Member
15
Buddy Emerson...........................Board Member
16
Richard Pancoast........................Board Member
17
18
19
OTHERS PRESENT
20
Kristin Tetsworth..........................Planning Manager
21
Larry Szynkowski.........................Senior Planner
22
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith.........Assistant County Attorney
23
Veronica Torres ..........................Senior Staff Assistant
24
25
26
27
ANNOUNCEMENTS
28
None
29
30
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
31
32
Approval of the Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 25, 2008.
33
34
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Bangert seconded.
35
36
The motion carried unanimously.
37
38
39
Page 1 of 39
Public Hearing Matthew Reeves
1
July 23, 2008 BA-420081459
2
3
4
Matthew Reeves,
Petition of for a variance from the following Provisions of the St.
5
Lucie County Land Development Code.
6
?
Section 7.04.01 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow the
7
construction of a single-family residence and a detached garage, which would
8
exceed the maximum 30 percent lot coverage by buildings and the minimum
9
front, side and rear setbacks allowed in the RS-4 (Residential, Single Family – 4
10
du/acre) Zoning District;
11
?
Section 7.05.06(C) to allow construction of a driveway less than five (5) feet from
12
the side property line; and
13
?
Section 8.00.04(A) to allow a fence to exceed the maximum six (6) foot high side
14
and rear height restriction by one foot in a residential zoning district.
15
16
The subject property is located at 247 Bimini Drive. This item came before the Board at
17
the June 25, 2008 regular meeting and was continued to July 23, 2008.
18
19
Staff does not support the plot plan for the layout of the proposed home on the lot. Staff
20
objects to the proposed gate in the rear wall leading to private property. Unless the
21
applicant can provide evidence of a recorded cross-access agreement the gate needs
22
to be removed from the plot plan.
23
24
Further the owner needs to understand that he does not have approval for the removal
25
of the large oak tree at the rear of the lot. The vegetation removal permit does not allow
26
the removal of any native vegetation outside the building footprint of the home.
27
Therefore, the oak tree is to remain.
28
29
In conclusion
30
staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to the
31
standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie County Land Development Code
32
and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County
33
Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of the requested variance.
34
Public Comment
35
36
Mr. Matt Reeves stated, “It is what it is”, we have been here a few times with this. The
37
wall is really not an issue as far as the height is concerned for him. Six foot is fine; he
38
did not realize that was still in there or seven feet which was the original architect’s
39
proposal. Once they looked at the Code and realized it was 6 feet that is totally fine for
40
him. The gate he thought was omitted as well. He would be happy to answer any
41
further questions.
42
43
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated that Mr. Reeves may or may not remember that she was the
44
one who motioned to approve both of the variances the last time. She did not know that
45
she would be so generous at this time.
46
47
Page 2 of 39
Public Hearing Matthew Reeves
1
July 23, 2008 BA-420081459
2
3
One of the things that she based her actions on was the answer to a question that she
4
posed to his architect or builder Mr. Menard.
5
6
Mr. Reeves stated that he was no longer the architect, he was very lacking in a lot of
7
ways and not very helpful.
8
9
Mrs. Andrews stated her question was at the time since he needed to expand because
10
of the size of his family, he needed more space, why didn’t he go up. His answer was
11
because the slab would not support a second story. Now you are starting with a whole
12
new slab however, it is a whole new story, a whole new situation. So her question
13
again is why can’t he build up rather than have all these variances.
14
15
Mr. Reeves stated he would rather not, if he did go up it would block the view of the
16
neighbors that have two story homes around him. He prefers to have a single level
17
home; just for ease of access. His folks are getting older as well and they like to come
18
and visit and stay for a few months on end. They cannot get around very well, any kind
19
of stairs or something like that would be a hindrance to them as well. Other than that
20
Florida is known for single family ranch style homes; especially in a high wind area
21
where they are on the island.
22
23
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated that he has 2,880 feet allowed, if he even had a 1 ½ story,
24
a split level he could have more than enough room, he could probably do away with the
25
separate garage. He would not have all these variances that would be required.
26
27
Mr. Matthew Reeves mentioned that they had gone over the garage a few times and he
28
has moved it three times since then. He did that just to fit it in, remember we went back
29
and it wasn’t right in the first location, then things had moved around and then it was
30
agreed to put it there. He had a discrepancy with a neighbor that said he would prefer
31
to have it on the other side if possible with doing that he basically flipped the whole floor
32
plan in order to make this whole thing work.
33
34
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated that she still did not see how he was going to get a car or a
35
boat in there. The other neighbor who owns the vacant lot has not responded; wanted
36
to know if Mr. Reeves spoke to him.
37
38
Mr. Reeves said he had not.
39
40
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to know how he will negotiate around that oak tree which is
41
rather large.
42
43
Mr. Matthew Reeves commented that actually there is plenty of room, where the tree is
44
in his opinion is an inaccuratedepiction on where it will actually end up. The space on
45
either side of it from the north to the south is actually larger than it looks. As far as
46
Page 3 of 39
putting the car in the garage that is really not his intention to put a car in the garage. It
1
is basically for storage, mechanicals and things of that nature.
2
3
Mr. Ron Harris wanted Mr. Reeves to explain what mechanicals.
4
5
Mr. Reeves commented basically the garage is air conditioned for storage and things of
6
that nature; any type of hobbies and things of that nature, tools, and workshop.
7
8
Ms. Tobi Shelton stated that Matt is a valued neighbor of theirs. She and her husband
9
live directly across the street from Matt’s property. He had gone through a lot after the
10
hurricanes as they all did in their neighborhood. There are homes in their neighborhood
11
that have still not been repaired or livable. First of all it had been a home that was
12
destroyed for a couple of years and now basically is an empty lot. They are very
13
anxious for this to be approved because they know that Matt will build a quality,
14
beautiful home that will enhance the neighborhood. They are very anxious for this to
15
happen.
16
17
It would be a different situation if those of them who live in the vicinity of Matt’s property
18
felt that he did not care for his property, that he was going to build something that was
19
going to be in conflict either in its presentation, its appearance etc. or from the character
20
of what their neighborhood is. They have all looked at Matt’s floor plan and talked about
21
what he was going to do over time and they are very pleased that he wants to build a
22
quality home on that property. Again, she speaks only for herself and her husband but
23
she can tell the Board that the buzz in the neighborhood is that they are happy that Matt
24
wants to rebuild his home and they are anxious in fact for him to rebuild. They would
25
really prefer that the approval not be withheld any further.
26
27
Reeves’
Ms. Melissa Murdock stated they live on the west side of Matthew property and
28
know Matt for about 6 years. He has been nothing but a good neighbor and his house
29
was completely demolished in the hurricane, the roof came off and then the rest of it
30
molded and basically fell apart. They are eager for Matt’s house to be rebuilt and he
31
has very good sensibility about construction and they have no problems with what he
32
wants to do. She had just wanted to second what Mrs. Shelton had to say and just say
33
that she hopes the Board goes ahead and passes this.
34
35
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
36
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
37
38
Chief Emerson wanted to make sure that notice went out to the neighbor on the east
39
side as well and wanted to know if that property could be identified.
40
41
Ms. Kristin Testsworth stated that was one of the main reasons why the petition was
42
continued. It was at the request of Mrs. Andrews because staff wanted to be sure that
43
all the proper noticing was done. Staff did re-notice all of the neighbors. She had a list
44
that was provided in the Board’s packet as well as the 247 which is the subject property,
45
249 Bimini Drive, 235, 240, 257, 252, 238, 248 and 69 letters were mailed out.
46
Page 4 of 39
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated the owner on the east side is Mr. Brian Trumbower and
1
apparently lives in Allentown. He did not respond according to this list.
2
3
Mr. Ron Harris asked that his name be repeated and noted that Mr. Trumbower was on
4
the list.
5
6
Mrs. Andrews stated that Mr. Trumbower is the vacant lot owner.
7
8
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated that staff did not receive any response from him.
9
10
Mrs. Andrews wanted to know if staff knew if a return was received and are the returns
11
listed if it is an incorrect address.
12
13
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth commented that it is on the chart and if it was returned it would
14
have been marked received. There is confirmation from the secretary that would have
15
happened.
16
17
Mr. Bangert 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 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie
20
County Land Development Code move that the Board of Adjustment approve the
21
Matthew Reeves
Petition of , for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A) of
22
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the construction of a single-
23
family home and detached garage which proposes a lot coverage by buildings of
24
3,673.67 square feet, thereby exceeding by 9.03 percent the maximum 30 percent lot
25
coverage by building and to allow the construction of a single-family residence and
26
detached garage, which would encroach into the minimum front, rear and side setback.
27
In the front by 4 feet, left side by 1.4 feet and the rear by 3.33 feet. As required in the
28
RS-4 (Residential, Single Family – 4du/acre) Zoning District because the Board has
29
been over this several times and there is no objection by the close neighbors. This is a
30
home that was destroyed in the hurricane. The only objections are two of the people
31
who don’t even live here and the other two that object don’t even live on the same
32
street. The close neighbors have no objection, so he moves approval.
33
34
Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion.
35
36
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to make some additions to the motion. One is to secure that the
37
gate will be removed from site plan and the site plan will be corrected to indicate a 6
38
foot CBS wall not a 7 foot and the oak tree not be disturbed unless they have approval
39
from St. Lucie County Environmental Department.
40
41
Chief Buddy Emerson stated he had just a couple of comments. It is not that he thinks
42
Mr. Reeves doesn’t deserve to rebuild his home but he just has a slight issue in that he
43
had not attempted to contact his neighbor to the east. He says it time and time again on
44
the Board he thinks you have to be able to get along with your neighbors especially
45
when you are granting variances to the code requirements. You did modify your plan to
46
Page 5 of 39
accommodate your neighbor to the west, and who is to say that your neighbor to the
1
east even though they don’t live here on this vacant property might have a suggestion
2
that you could implement. He was not going to vote in favor of it but it is only because
3
of that slight technicality, not that he doesn’t think he is deserving.
4
5
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated that she agreed that the neighbor should have been
6
contacted. Also, since he is rebuilding from scratch it is too much footprint for this lot. It
7
could have been a different design.
8
9
Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion
10
11
Motion passed 3 – 2 vote.
12
13
Mr. Bangert, Mr. Pancoast and Mr. Harris voted in favor. Mrs. Andrews and Chief
14
Emerson voted against.
15
16
Mrs. Andrews stated that the Board had two other votes, one could be withdrawn, and
17
the one for the fence but there are three separate motions.
18
19
Mr. Harris stated it was mainly the coverage issue and the side setback issue.
20
21
Mrs. Andrews stated it was also the rear setback.
22
23
Mr. Harris stated that was correct, those were all placed in the first request and the
24
asked if the County Attorney agreed that Mr. Bangert covered that appropriately.
25
26
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated it was her understanding that he was trying to
27
cover them all.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Page 6 of 39
PUBLIC HEARING Wade and Michelle Smith
1
July 23, 2008 BA-420081457
2
3
4
Mr. Ron Harris stated Agenda Item #3 – Wade and Michelle Smith BA-40081457 was
5
continued from last month due to the lack of an appropriate survey.
6
7
8
Wade and Michelle Smith
Petition of for a variance from the Provisions of Section 7.10.03(B)
9
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit continued use of a barn to house
10
animals other than household domestic pets that encroaches a maximum of 55 feet into the
11
minimum one hundred (100) feet required from the property line in the AR – 1 (Agricultural
12
Residential – 1du/1ac)Zoning District.
13
14
LOCATION:
7201 Shana’s Trail
15
16
The petitioner was before the Board on June 25, 2008 where a public hearing was convened,
17
testimony was heard and the public hearing was continued to a date certain, July 23, 2008
18
when the applicants could provide an accurate boundary survey. That has been provided by
19
the applicant.
20
21
The barn without the horses is allowed within the side setback but the case before the Board
22
allows horses within that 100 foot setback that is required under Section 7.10.03 B.
23
24
There were three actual responses in writing directly to the Growth Management Department
25
who are not in favor, one was in favor. There were 24 other letters but not from neighbors
26
within that particular 500 foot area for notice. The indication was that a 35 foot variance would
27
be required and it could not be determined at that time without the survey. Staff presently has
28
the survey for 7201 Shana’s Trail. The map showing the 500 foot distance was shown.
29
30
The survey that was provided shows on the east end of the barn there is 57 plus feet from the
31
side property line and on the west side 55 plus feet from the neighboring property line and 57
32
feet on the opposite end of the barn.
33
34
The neighbor that is most affected by this barn being placed with horses within 55 feet of the
35
property line has responded negatively, he has called and also provided a letter stating that this
36
interferes with his property and has a negative impact on his family and property.
37
38
Staff has recommended that the variance been denied based on Section 7.10.03 B and the
39
neighboring property owner having a response not in favor of the variance.
40
41
Mr. Pancoast stated he needed to make a disclosure. Last month he was not aware, but as
42
they went through the meeting he became aware that he and Mr. Dunhill have done business in
43
the past, not on a monetary scale. About 4 – 41/2 years ago he was looking for a good home
44
for his daughter’s horse and a mutual friend of theirs but them together and part of his family
45
now lives in his back yard. He does not believe this would interfere with his decision but if the
46
Smiths were uneasy with him being on the Board he would recuse himself, if they would want
47
that.
48
Page 7 of 39
1
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated she had spoken to Mr. Pancoast and he has no
2
monetary interest with the applicant or anything so she told him if he could make an impartial
3
decision it was up to him and he could vote.
4
5
Mrs. Andrews wanted clarification that it is a 45 foot variance as opposed to the 35 foot
6
variance.
7
8
Mr. Larry Szynkowski responded that was correct.
9
10
Mr. Ron Harris stated that he looked at the advertisement and it calls for a maximum of 55 feet.
11
12
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated that he was unsure of the exact distance at the time without the
13
valid survey so he made an estimation.
14
15
Mr. Ron Harris commented that was a good exercise. This is the purpose for getting a valid
16
survey, the other survey showed it at 65 feet, we find out it is between 55 and 57 feet, that is a
17
substantial difference.
18
PUBLIC COMMENT
19
20
Mr. Wade Smith stated on the survey with the difference in the 55 to 65 feet when Mr.
21
Piazza came out to do the survey he said it had been so long since the survey had been
22
done that they use to do measuring types of surveys and now they use GPS. It is a lot
23
more accurate now than it has ever been before.
24
25
Mr. Ron Harris asked Mr. Smith to stop, he is a surveyor and he disagrees. He can go
26
out and get the same results with a steel chain as he can with a GPS; he just has to do
27
it more often, redundancy of measure. He does not buy that argument, that doesn’t
28
wash, if he said that he should not have said that, he knows better.
29
30
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated that was what Mr. Piazza told them. He had said when
31
surveys were done back then you were not exactly sure of the property lines even
32
though they looked at them and that there could be a discrepancy.
33
34
Mr. Ron Harris stated he was surprised that Alex said that, he does know him. That
35
would be a foolish statement for somebody licensed to make, very foolish.
36
37
Mr. Wade Smith stated that he had a letter from the builder stating that he is unable to
38
make it so he presented a letter. The letter from Robert Baum Construction Inc., dated
39
7-21-08 was presented as Exhibit 1.
40
41
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated basically what they were before the Board to say is when
42
they bought the property back in 2002 there was a barn in place on that property, it was
43
advertised to them, to bring your horses, it had stalls on it, a barn on it and as you can
44
see from Mr. Baum’s letter it states that he built the barn in the exact footprint of the old
45
barn, other than the length of it. It is the same width as the old barn had been.
46
47
Page 8 of 39
Last time they were before the Board there had been questions as to what the
1
difference was between a horse barn and a pole barn. She went on the internet and
2
looked up in several dictionaries, encyclopedias to see if she could find any differences
3
between a pole and a horse barn.
4
5
Basically a pole barn in North America is a barn that is essentially a roof extended over
6
a series of poles. They are generally rectangular. The roof is supported by the poles
7
which make up the outside barrier of the barn. The roof can be gabled or hooped. Pole
8
barns are most often used for hay storage or livestock. The advantages of pole barns
9
include their low cost and their ability to store quantities of hay and easily be accessible
10
by vehicles, machines and people. This type of barn is very common in modern
11
agriculture.
12
13
The design of most pole barns is simple. Poles make up the outer walls and support
14
the roof, usually light, of metal or canvas. Depending on the function of the barn there
15
can be a slight difference in style. For instance, a barn used for storing hay may lack
16
lower or exterior walls while a pole barn used to house livestock would have some form
17
of wall meeting the roof.
18
19
A barn is an agricultural building used for storage and as a covered workplace. It may
20
sometimes be used to house animals or to store farming vehicles and equipment.
21
Barns are most commonly found on a farm or former farm.
22
23
Basically both of them state that they are used for agriculture, used to house animals,
24
put equipment in or store hay and what have you. That is basically what their barn is.
25
She also had plans that show all different types pole barns from regular equipment
26
barns to plans for stall and tack. That is just to show the Board what their barn is as
27
well as what you see on the survey.
28
29
They are a victim in this as well as anyone else. They permitted the barn, built the barn,
30
County approved it and they never thought they were doing anything wrong. They were
31
under the impression that they had done everything that they had thought was correct.
32
She hates to say that but that is just the way it is. They thought they did everything
33
correct, they put it where the old barn was, they tried to go to the permitting office to see
34
if there was any type of old permit for the old barn and they were told that because it
35
was before 1990 that the barn was built that there was no permit. They usually have a
36
permit between owner, builder or something like that. She was not sure how that
37
worked. She did not know what else to say other than they tried everything possible to
38
do this the correct way, only to find out that it was incorrect. At the time the barn had
39
already been built and in use for over 2 years.
40
41
Mr. Wade stated that they had used the prior one for 4 years, it was never an issue until
42
they had gotten into a neighborhood dispute and it escalated from there; then it was any
43
little thing that we could try to find out what was wrong.
44
45
46
Page 9 of 39
Mrs. Michelle Smith commented it was the neighbor, every little thing; without getting
1
into neighborly disputes the neighbor has done several things to them. This is just one
2
thing among his list of things that he has had against them.
3
4
Mr. Wade Smith stated it was not about the barn, it is more of a personal thing. If it was
5
about the barn it would have come up 6 years ago or 5 years ago when he moved in.
6
7
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated Mr. Dunhill would not have built his house where he did
8
which is closest to their barn, which was built after. The barn was already in place and
9
used for horses when he built his home.
10
11
She knows there were several letters sent in, she knows staff said only three but she
12
has copies of more than three that were brought in that were in favor of the barn. All of
13
the people that she knows of around her within the 500 feet, she personally doesn’t
14
know of anyone besides Mr. Dunhill within the 500 feet who were also disputing it.
15
16
She had a letter from her vet stating the fact of how important stalls are to horses and
17
why it is important to have them. She believed the Board had a copy of that. She
18
printed out also something that was in TC Palm, July 3, 2008 stating why it is important
19
to have horses in stalls at times, especially dusk and dawn due to diseases with
20
mosquitoes. They have problems with water frequently in the area that they live in. It
21
states the herpes virus that was in Wellington about 1 ½ years ago that was severe to
22
horses and ended up killing a lot of horses due to that.
23
24
The equine encephalitis which now is over 43 cases have been found in the state of
25
Florida this year alone and probably more since this article. Horses have died because
26
of that, it is a mosquitoborne thing. It states that fans in stalls are extremely important
27
to keep mosquitoes away and to keep them healthy. All they are doing is trying to make
28
this healthy for their horses, they have beautiful property that they keep up, they are
29
trying to do the best that they can and all they basically want is a safe place for their
30
horses.
31
32
Mr. Wade Smith stated in the last couple of months they have put 125 Areca Palmsin
33
along the property line to help shelter noise and so he does not have to look at it, if it is
34
an eyesore like he said it was.
35
36
Mrs. Smith commented that it was not.
37
38
Mr. Wade Smith commented that he wishes the Board would go out and see it. It is
39
really a nice piece of property and a nice barn. He would like to keep using it for what it
40
was built for.
41
42
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated if they had known about the 100 foot variance when the barn
43
was built they would have complied, they have complied as much as possible when
44
they built it. They had a contractor and spent significant amount money to have a
45
contractor build it and is above and beyond codes because the last barn that they had
46
Page 10 of 39
was ruined by the hurricane. They are trying to do the best that they can as far as
1
making it a safe place.
2
3
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated she would like a moment to digest the letter before going
4
on.
5
6
Mr. Ron Harris inquired what type of financial investment did they have in this barn.
7
8
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated $60,000 roughly.
9
10
Mr. Bangert inquired if the new barn is exactly in the footprint of the old barn.
11
12
Mrs. Michelle Smith replied that it was according to the contractor.
13
14
Mr. Rob Grow stated that he is the Smiths and the Dunhill’s farrier, blacksmith, they
15
asked him to come tell what he knows of their horses and behavior. He was told that
16
the noise of the horses being in the barn was somehow disturbing the neighbors.
17
18
At the Smiths their horses are well behaved and in caring for their feet he did not see
19
any evidence of wall kicking or anything like that. Nothing that would make any sort of
20
undue noise. The property there is very well maintained, the horses taken care of. He
21
was told that the noise was a problem and he did not see any evidence of that, normally
22
when you see that horses are kicking walls repeatedly their hooves break apart and
23
things like that. He did not see any evidence of that.
24
25
Ms. Patricia Von Erfft stated she lives on the street right behind Shana’s Trail. She also
26
lives in this AR-1 Zoning area and she has horses as well. She does not have an
27
animal housing type of a barn; she has a pole barn with no walls and no doors because
28
it is an AR-1 Zoning requirement.
29
30
She has lived out there a number of years and she runs a business. She knows many
31
neighbors of hers and people who live out in the AR-1 Zoning area that would love to
32
build animal housing.
33
34
The difference between a pole barn and a horse barn or “animal housing” is the walls
35
and the doors. There is a complete difference between a free roaming situation where
36
an animal can come and go as they please under a breezeway to get out of the sun and
37
rain without necessarily being contained. With that contained area being so close to a
38
neighboring property there could be excessive odors, excessive noises, excessive
39
manure build up, flies; there are a lot of reasons that they have this 100 foot setback. It
40
would have been wonderful for her to be able to build an animal housing and stalls; she
41
could have actually boarded horses which she cannot. She has corrals if she wants to
42
keep her horses contained in a certain area, not walls, not doors. She runs an actual
43
business, she went through a variance, planning commission and review to train
44
children and she does not have a barn on her property because it does not meet
45
setbacks. Whether there was an existing barn, pre-existing she does not know what
46
Page 11 of 39
impact that would have on complying with current code. The code is 100 feet from the
1
property setback and if this variance is allowed she was wondering if that will impact the
2
neighborhood in allowing other neighbors to be able to put up these types of buildings
3
for the horses. Mosquitoes can fly right through a barn.
4
5
She heard a lot of testimony before about encephalitis; she did not know how wood
6
stalls would stop this unless you have complete screen room type of stalls in barns.
7
Whether there is a barn or breezeway she did not really think it impacts very much but
8
the idea of a barn, animal housing or pole barn.
9
10
A pole barn is open air and animal housing barn is walls, and doors that is the
11
difference with the setback. The point of her being before the Board is that she built her
12
house in 2002 and she had to comply with several visits from Code Enforcement when
13
she was constructing her open air breezeway for shelter just so her horses can walk out
14
of the rain and the sun. They are basically free roaming on her property because she
15
has to comply with the AR-1 Zoning Code and 100 foot setback not being possible on
16
her property.
17
18
Mr. Ron Harris inquired how close did Ms. Von Erfft live to Mr. and Mrs. Smiths location.
19
20
Ms. Patricia Von Erfft stated probably one street behind; it is a very small neighborhood.
21
There is Shana’s Trail then Gullotti Place so she would have to say it is probably four
22
parcels due north and one street back. She also wanted to make the Board aware how
23
this was even brought to her attention. She understands that this was supposed to be
24
mailed to the residences that there was a variance hearing. She was taking a bath and
25
her doorbell rang and her 6 year old answered the door and was told by Mrs. Michele
26
Smith to bring this petition with a pen to her while she was in the bathtub.
27
28
Her little boy came in and she asked him what it was. He said there was someone at
29
the door and she asked if you could sign this. She told her son to leave it and tell Mrs.
30
Smith that she would look it over later. He came back in with another one with her cell
31
phone number on it asking that she call so Mrs. Smith could come pick it up. She had
32
called Mrs. Smith and said she would take care of sending it in herself.
33
34
She had sent it in with a letter because she was not sure if she could possibly be there
35
for an actual hearing. She has no impartiality, she has nothing against them personally
36
but she does live out there and there are rules for a reason. She knows if this variance
37
is approved there are many residents that would like to be able to put up barns like this
38
without meeting the proper setbacks. When asked to point out where her property was
39
on the map displayed she did so.
40
41
Mr. Michael Cappello stated that he lives directly across the street from Mr. and Mrs.
42
Smith. He presented pictures to the Board which showed actual floor plans for a pole
43
barn that are used for house stalls, Exhibit 1. What he didn’t understand is that Mr. and
44
Mrs. Dunhill have not the most animals but they have the just about the most animals in
45
this neighborhood, the most variety of animals. They are complaining about the people
46
Page 12 of 39
who keep up with the animals, keep it nice and they want to get rid of this. If they have
1
so many animals and they love their animals why would they want to get rid of one of
2
the nicest barns in the neighborhood, he just doesn’t understand their love for animals
3
and they want to get rid of something like this. He also had pictures, which was
4
presented as Exhibit 2.
5
6
Mr. Ron Harris asked what the pictures were representing.
7
8
Mr. Michael Cappello stated the pictures showed that Mr. Dunhill houses but not exactly
9
in a barn, if you see there is a fence area just covered in weeds. He houses animals
10
which are actually closer to the Smiths fence line, closer than their barn is to his fence
11
line. He houses, goats, chickens, roosters, pigs, lamas, emus, over 10 exotic birds and
12
donkeys.
13
14
Mr. Ron Harris commented it is a regular petting zoo.
15
16
Mr. Michael Cappello commented that what he is trying to say is that he also houses
17
them.
18
19
Ms. Darlene Baker stated that Michele Smith is her niece and she had a barn placed
20
where it is right now although the new barn is longer, but it is in the same place the old
21
barn was. The old barn was ripped down with the hurricanes of 2004. They rebuilt a
22
new barn when they were able to. It was a burden on their finances but they put up a
23
nice barn to enhance the neighborhood. They put up something that would house,
24
protect and keep their horses safe. They didn’t do this just to do this, they hired a
25
contractor, and this is what the contractor said they could do. They followed the
26
contractor that is why you hire a contractor; he is supposed to know his business.
27
28
She had a pole barn in Pennsylvania, before she moved here, she had two horses, they
29
had walls, gates and they were enclosed. She had hay upstairs, you can put walls up,
30
you don’t have to but it is all legal however you put it. She is sure if they had known that
31
there was 100 feet from the fence they would have put their barn where it was suppose
32
to go by code. They didn’t know this that is why they hired the contractor.
33
34
The second part is they had two horses when they lived there before Mr. and Mrs.
35
Dunhill built their home. They could have built their home to the left which was an open
36
field of pasture of the neighbors down the street but they chose to build their barn here,
37
closest to the old barn. They had a whole big lot but they chose here. At that time two
38
horses in an enclosed barn didn’t seem to bother them but since the new barn has gone
39
up all of a sudden it is an issue. If you would go to his property and look at his barn and
40
his animals there is a lot to be desired.
41
42
She has nothing against these people she doesn’t really know these people but she
43
does know that these kids built this barn with a contractor who they thought and
44
assumed knew the rules, regulations and as a matter of fact he is the one who went to
45
get the permit. They have invested a lot of money into this and take pride in their home
46
Page 13 of 39
and have not done anything malicious against these people, it is just how it has worked
1
out. She did not think they should be punished, if she hires a lawyer she expects him to
2
know what he is doing. He is supposed to represent her. If you hire a contractor to
3
build a home your paying him to build a quality home and he is suppose to know the
4
laws. That is what you are paying this man for.
5
6
The people that were ahead of them, like the people were saying he could build a
7
crummy little house on his property but he wants to enhance his neighborhood. He
8
wants to enhance his environment; he wants to do good for the community. He wants
9
to build a home, he could go up but he chooses to do his plan. The people are in favor
10
of it because it is doing good for their neighborhood. Maybe that doesn’t fall under the
11
jurisdiction either but the variance allowed him to do what he needs to do, to give
12
himself and his family a proper home.
13
14
He even hired a man to make up his plans and he had to get rid of the man later
15
because he found out he was not doing him good, or what he was paying him for. The
16
barn is up and after it was then the complaint comes, why wasn’t the complaint brought
17
forth before the money was spent and the job done. There are personalities behind the
18
scenes that the Board is not aware of and she was not going into them. There is a
19
personal vendetta here and if it wasn’t the barn and she said this a month ago; if it was
20
not the barn that was the issue it would be something else. There has been this, this
21
and this; unfortunately her niece had to even get a restraining order against Mr. Dunhill
22
because of his passed actions against her, her animals and her husband. She was not
23
going into any more because it is about this barn. She wanted the Board to know the
24
background, it is not strictly just about this barn, and it is a lot more.
25
26
He has a peacock, have you ever heard a peacock, they scream, they are noisy and it
27
is a bird and you can’t control a bird, the mouth goes a lot. She heard it when she went
28
to visit her niece on more than one occasion. He did have a donkey but he doesn’t
29
have a donkey anymore. He had to put a collar on the poor donkey to shut it up
30
because it was making so much noise. His neighbors didn’t complain because they
31
knew that was an animal and it had a home. Did they open their mouths, no; he finally
32
got rid of it on his own accord. What she was trying to say is that she did not think
33
these kids should be penalized because they hired a contractor; they were permitted
34
and were passed by the County. They spent a lot of money to make a nice home, a
35
nice environment for their animals and to bring up their property value. They wanted to
36
make their house nice. She did not see a problem with that. Like she said prior, he
37
built his house where he built his house after there was an established barn that was
38
enclosed with two horses in it already.
39
40
Mr. Robert Grow stated that he did not know that insects and such were part of the
41
discussion. He does know when he has gone to Mr. Dunhills to actually do his horses
42
that he leaves his horses loose not just in the pastures but half of his property has small
43
paddocks set up and the rest is his yard. Every time he has gone there his horses have
44
been loose where when he goes to the front door to ring the doorbell there is horse
45
Page 14 of 39
manure right to his doorstep in his yard. He did not think that smell or the insects from
1
the neighbors is a concern if you have manure on your doorstep.
2
3
Ms. Wendy Donley stated that she is a friend of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and has also been
4
on the Dunhill’s property. She wanted to reiterate what the farrier said, it is a gorgeous
5
barn, well maintained, they take very good care of their horses. She has also been on
6
the Dunhill’s property with the farrier and what a mess. It doesn’t even compare to the
7
beauty of what is next door. On the first occasion that she went to the Dunhill’s they
8
had a horse, they had called three different farriers to come out and look at this horse.
9
The horse was on the ground with bed sores, she was in tears. This horse needed to
10
be put down. He was trying to get the farrier to do whatever to keep it alive and there
11
was no keeping this horse alive. The farrier had said, and this was the third farrier that
12
had told Mr. Dunhill that this horse needed to be put down. After the first and second
13
you would think he would have put it down.
14
15
She has also seen his property which has boards lying in places where the animals can
16
get hurt unlike the Smiths property which is immaculate, nothing laying around. The
17
barn is always immaculate, no manure, the stalls are always clean. It is a personal
18
attack against the Smiths by the Dunhills and it is not fair because they do keep their
19
home, barn and their horses maintained and they do a great job doing it. They love
20
their animals.
21
22
Ms. Elizabeth Breezes stated that she spoke at the prior hearing on behalf of Michelle
23
and Wade Smith who are her friends. She is curious herself being from up north what
24
the difference is between a pole barn and a barn, so she called the County Building
25
Department and Code Enforcement. She also called Port St. Lucie and actually went to
26
Port St. Lucie. She went to Port St. Luce and spoke to George and Frank at the County
27
and they said a barn is a barn.
28
29
A pole barn and a barn can be used for the same purposes to house horses, animals or
30
to store hay or equipment it doesn’t matter if the horses are gated or if they have to stay
31
in the stall. A barn is a barn; the difference is just the way it is built.
32
33
She knows that Mrs. Smith read the definition, she looked it up but she just wanted to
34
say also that she happened to check into it for her out of concern because as people
35
previously stated they do care about their animals and want to do the right thing. The
36
woman who spoke on behalf of the Dunhills before, the Smiths property is a 5 acre
37
property. Her property she did not believe is as big so you are allowed different things
38
depending on how big your property is, so to compare what she was allowed and what
39
they are allowed to do she thinks is not really a concern to this matter.
40
41
The barn is still open but with like Mrs. Smith said you put a fan in there you help keep
42
the bugs away, mosquitoes and so forth. They are trying to do the right thing, take care
43
of their animals. She did state this before they built their barn as they have all been
44
saying to the Board the new barn where the old barn was. They took care of that
45
because the hurricane took down their barn; they built a new barn to take care of their
46
Page 15 of 39
animals. They take great pride in what they do to help and protect their animals;
1
basically she wanted to reiterate what she said before.
2
3
Ms. Patricia Von Erfft stated Mrs. Smith had gone up and quoted her, and wanted to say
4
her name is Patricia Von Erfft she does have 1 ¼ acres and if they have 5 acres they
5
have plenty of room to put their barn if they intended their pole barn to be an animal
6
housing. There is a very distinct difference. If you go to the County they are very aware
7
of the AR-1 Zoning use in the County. She knows that herself because she had been
8
there multiple times when she built her home. With the 5 acre parcel there was plenty
9
of room for them to relocate the barn especially that it was alleged to be destroyed at
10
the 2004 hurricane.
11
12
They got the permit because the pole barn is permitted less than 100 feet from the
13
property line as long as there are not walls and doors. There seems to be some vague
14
presentation that a barn is a barn, it is not. A pole barn is not the same thing as an
15
animal housing. Again, if you look at the picture there are many 1 ¼ acre parcels, many
16
of those parcels are friends and neighbors of hers who would love to be able to put a
17
barn with walls and doors for their horses, to contain their horses. It is not allowed.
18
19
The people who have larger parcels are entitled to have this type of housing with doors
20
and walls, provided it is set back 100 feet from their neighbors. There seems to be a
21
witch-hunt against the Dunhills. She has been out in this neighborhood many years and
22
she knows Darrell and Page Dunhill and has never had an altercation, confrontation,
23
they are very helpful and very nice people. There are two sides to a story, she is not
24
there to give opinions or bad mouth other people by any means. She is hearing a lot
25
against Michelle and Wade; she was not before the Board for that. She does not care if
26
they have personal problems against one another.
27
28
She could talk about the draining issues, pumping and their filling a big old pond that
29
spilled over on Darrell’s property that is not an issue here. They are talking about AR-1
30
Zoning rules and requirements; they are talking about how they got a permit, their
31
contractor did nothing wrong. He was allowed to put up a pole barn, they decided after
32
the barn was built to pour concrete, put up walls and to turn it into a boarding facility.
33
That is not permitted.
34
35
Let’s keep this respective to what they are talking about; the witch-hunt against the
36
personal issues is not the point here. The point here is that there has been a structure
37
that was permitted in one way and then converted to be another and now after the fact
38
variance is being applied for.
39
40
If this variance is approved she knows that there are going to be many neighbors that
41
would also like to have animal housing within 50 feet of a property line. She would for
42
one would maybe one of the first ones to look for that herself.
43
44
Mr. Michael Cappello stated that he showed the Board what a pole barn is. Mrs. Smith
45
gave you the definition of a pole barn. There are many people in this neighborhood that
46
Page 16 of 39
have pole barns that house their animals and if you do not believe him he would like
1
someone to take a drive around the neighborhood to look at all the barns that are out
2
there. They are even closer to other property lines than the Smiths. What he is saying,
3
you could just take a drive out there and you can see what everything is, it is just not
4
true what she was saying.
5
6
Mrs. Page Dunhill stated she wanted to start off by saying when they were there on
7
June 25, 2008 as well as today it seems that this group of people continually try to tell
8
the Board that the barn is in the exact same place and that it was “destroyed, ruined,
9
demolished” by the hurricane. Under oath that is a lie. She showed a photo of the barn
10
after the hurricane, still standing, roof still intact, yes it was damaged but it was not
11
demolished. They have the old survey that shows that the old barn and the new barn
12
are not in the exact place. Also, there is a photo where Mr. and Mrs. Smith intentionally
13
burnt down the barn so that they could build a newer, bigger, better barn. It is very
14
disheartening that under oath they continually try to tell you these things that are not
15
factual.
16
17
Mr. Darrell Dunhill commented Chief Emerson asked if their animals were within the 100
18
feet of the line, he had said that Code Enforcement had come out three times and
19
checked, animal control has come out three times and checked, and as for the farriers
20
talking about how dirty his place is they have not been out to his place in quite some
21
time. Everything is clean and all complied. Again, they are not before the Board to talk
22
about his property, he was not there looking for a variance. He does have the old
23
survey where they continually lie and say that it is built in the same spot.
24
25
Mr. Ron Harris commented if Mr. Dunhill would give that to the secretary it could be put
26
on the screen, he wanted a close up look at it.
27
28
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated we will have to have a copy made for the record
29
if Mr. Dunhill wanted it back.
30
31
Mr. Dunhill stated that the old barn was 63.6 feet off the property line, and as you see
32
from the new survey the Smiths put the new barn there and there is no way that is
33
exactly the same.
34
35
Mrs. Page Dunhill stated that the old neighbor had two horses, where this is all
36
generated from she thinks is that they are trying to take the light off the situation, what
37
they are actually here for and the focus off them. That is one point and that has been
38
determined.
39
40
Mr. Dunhill commented the last time they were before the Board their neighbors down
41
on Gullotti Place; the Mehands had a pole barn in 2003 and also had spent over
42
$40,000 building it. It actually had an apartment; it was three feet off the property line
43
by their story when he spoke to them. There is absolutely nothing left of theirs, he was
44
going to submit the photo. They spent over $6,000 to tear down their pole barn, that
45
Page 17 of 39
use to be a complete pole barn with an apartment in it and it had garages also. Code
1
Enforcement made them take the entire thing down to the pad and poles.
2
3
Mr. and Mrs. Smith also keeps saying that they entrusted their contractor to do this
4
properly and to build it correctly, if the Board noticed on the original plan they did not
5
have the concrete pad, they knew that once that was done, CO, they were going to go
6
in after the fact, put in the stalls, put in the concrete pads and that is exactly what was
7
done. For them to say they thought all along they thought they were doing it right, it
8
was like this for years, they always had these stables; that is not true. It was never
9
presented that way when they got there final Certificate of Occupancy or the final for the
10
barn.
11
12
They did go in after the fact; they intentionally went in after the fact and put that up
13
because they knew they would have never gotten that clearance. She is sorry that it
14
has been a problem to their home, it is noisy, they have photos where they pile up
15
manure, and piles of manure on their fence line. They are adults and they knew what
16
they were doing. She understands that they are intelligent people and stop trying to
17
take the blame off themselves and the consequences are what they are. They have no
18
one to blame but themselves.
19
20
Mr. Dunhill commented as for them building their home in the spot where it is at as the
21
survey shows the old barn was 63.6 feet off the property line and it only housed two
22
horses at that time. When they built their home it was fine, when they put the new barn
23
now that it is at 55 feet it is so close to their property line their entire privacy in their
24
backyard is gone. When they are out there that is it, their backyard is no longer their
25
own.
26
27
Mrs. Dunhill said they keep saying well what is the big deal if they have 5 acres another
28
45 feet should not be that much of a problem for them to put the barn in the correct
29
space. As we all know 5 acres that is a large parcel. Another 45 feet should have
30
mattered to them since they burnt down their old barn to build this one.
31
32
Mrs. Diane Andrews commented the survey that was just submitted, makes it look like
33
the old barn, but the orientation is totally different from the new barn. That is in total
34
conflict with the letter from the contractor who said he built it on the same footprint.
35
36
Mrs. Dunhill stated that the contractor is a personal friend of Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
37
38
Mrs. Andrews inquired if staff knew if the original permit for the reconstructed new barn
39
was to include slab and walls, everything else or was it just a roof and poles? From
40
what she understood from the testimony is that the slab was poured after the pole barn
41
was up.
42
43
Mr. and Mrs. Dunhill both responded yes.
44
45
Page 18 of 39
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated the diagram that was being shown was from the Building
1
Permit File and basically it is showing the pole barn with the roof and poles support.
2
3
Mrs. Diane Andrews inquired what is it sitting on, is it slab or grass.
4
5
Mr. Wade Smith replied it was dirt.
6
7
Mr. and Mrs. Dunhill commented with concrete walkways; poured in between the
8
stables that they built.
9
10
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated otherwise it is dirt.
11
12
Mr. and Mrs. Dunhill stated that was correct.
13
14
Mrs. Diane Andrews commented that it is no longer dirt, it is all slab.
15
16
Mr. Dunhill stated it is not total slab; there are concrete walkways in between their
17
stables in half of it.
18
19
Mr. Ron Harris commented that he could not see the detail of the footing very well; he
20
wanted to know if it showed any concrete or was that just dirt.
21
22
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated it is listed as floor/foundation plan.
23
24
Mr. Ron Harris inquired if that made any statements as to what it was going to be. The
25
Board requests that always full size copies be provided, no reduced.
26
27
Mr. Dunhill commented that during this time when Mrs. Smith was going around the
28
neighborhood asking people to sign for the variance as Patricia said there are a least
29
ten other people in the neighborhood that were written up for their barns already and
30
this has opened up Pandora’s box. By her going to the neighborhood and asking for
31
people’s signatures now everybody in the neighborhood is watching this under a
32
microscope and want to see what they are able to do. If they are granted to keep these
33
stables intact it is going to be a free for all. People are all going to start to build stables
34
and there is going to be a line in here of all the people who want a variance to build
35
stalls.
36
37
They need to be taken out, the pole barn is what is up here and that is what is on file.
38
When their builder built it he did not submit stalls, pads because they knew they were
39
going to do this. They have five acres and as the other woman stated they built their
40
house there they could have built that barn on their side of the property. They have
41
chosen to build it on their side of the property. They inconvenienced them, they have
42
taken all of their privacy away in their backyard and they could have put it on their side
43
of the property on the other side.
44
45
Page 19 of 39
Chief Emerson stated that he is somewhat familiar with reading plans, the plans in the
1
packet show a 2’4” wide x 2’ deep footer in which the poles sit but no other concrete.
2
The poles for the pole barn are supported by concrete but nothing else.
3
4
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated just as a point of clarification there are notes there that do
5
state concrete slabs to be poured, under the notes.
6
Mr. Ron Harris stated the next time we have something, Board request full size copies.
7
8
Chief Emerson stated he understood that it says that in the notes but in the depiction of
9
the plan where it actually shows what is here, and it is like a survey, where it actually
10
shows the diagram it does not indicate a slab anywhere.
11
12
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth commented that she did agree, it is confusing but it does state
13
that in the notes.
14
15
Mr. Harris stated it would be nice to have someone here from the Building Department
16
to answer a few questions, and asked if that was possible to get someone to come to
17
the hearing.
18
19
Mrs. Diane Andrews commented that it did say that the soil needed to be compacted.
20
21
Mr. Ron Harris stated it looked like a concrete footing to him. Mr. Frank Williams,
22
Permitting Supervisor was asked if he would look at the file copy that was on the screen
23
and tell the Board if it was permitted for a monolithic slab for the whole extent of the
24
structure.
25
26
Mr. Williams stated it was not.
27
28
Mr. Richard Pancoast wanted clarification, the term monolithic slab which normally
29
means one piece of concrete with hooders and everything. There is a footnote in there
30
which he cannot read so he was only going by what he was told it says, that slabs could
31
be added later for a floor. That is up in the notes.
32
33
Mr. Ron Harris commented that it didn’t say they were going to be added later.
34
35
Mr. Frank Williams commented that is usually a general note from an engineer that says
36
concrete slab and footings will have a 2,500 PSI and that is a general note that they use
37
quite a bit.
38
39
Mr. Richard Pancoast stated his next question is, as this permit exists as you see it,
40
does it include interior walls.
41
42
Mr. Frank Williams stated it did not, just roof and poles.
43
44
Mrs. Diane Andrews asked if it was his opinion then that the pole barn as it exists today
45
is not in compliance.
46
Page 20 of 39
1
Mr. Frank Williams stated he has not seen a picture, if it doesn’t meet that criteria it is
2
not in compliance.
3
4
Ms. Tonya Ebright stated that she use to live at 7210 Shana’s Trail which is directly
5
across the street from the Smiths. She lived there for ten years; she lived there during
6
the hurricane and wanted to clarify what happened with their barn. They lost their whole
7
back patio; it was in their front yard and in the Smiths yard. Their barn was not
8
demolished, it was destroyed and it was unsafe for the horses. They could not use the
9
stalls so therefore if was half falling down and the roof was half gone. Mr. Smith went
10
ahead and finished tearing it down and put everything in dumpsters and the little bit that
11
was left was burned. He did not just go out and burn his whole barn down, that is not
12
what happened.
13
14
The slab portion is on a dirt foundation with the poles and the concrete. There is just a
15
runway in the middle; the slab is a small little runway going through the middle not a
16
whole big slab around the whole entire bottom of the barn. What she does not
17
understand, if there was a problem with this why wasn’t this brought up two years ago
18
when the barn was built and it has it been 1 ½ years ago since the concrete slab has
19
been poured. Why is it brought up now; if there is an issue why wasn’t it brought up a
20
couple of years ago?
21
22
When she lived in the area, there are tons of people who have barns that have inside
23
walls, many, many places. She lived on 1 ¼ acres and another 1 ¼ acres, she lived 2
24
¼ acres, they were ready to build a barn with stalls but they ended up selling and
25
moving. They had a barn there back in the 1980’s when they first moved in; a barn with
26
stalls. The house behind a few doors down where this woman lives there is a barn
27
sitting very close to the house and the property line that is totally enclosed. It looks very
28
similar to this but smaller. Then there is a person on the other side of the road on her
29
street as well that has a barn about the size of that, that is enclosed and beautiful. She
30
just doesn’t see the problem, she knows there are codes and she knows there are rules
31
but when they are arguing about that it wasn’t in the same place and you have the
32
plans. The barn was told to be put in the exact same place as it was, it was just turned
33
and it is wider, that is why it looks like it is in a little different spot. He put it in the same
34
spot; it is just a lot bigger.
35
36
Mrs. Michelle Smith stated she just wanted to touch on what Tonya had just said. If you
37
look at the old survey with the old barn it was 36 feet wide approximately. The barn
38
they have now is 36 feet wide, the exact same as the old barn. The only difference is
39
the length; they made this barn lengthwise longer than the old barn was. Behind the old
40
barn there was a trailer that was kept for storage, they got rid of the trailer and they
41
made more of a barn. You can’t count that as a structure because it wasn’t a structure,
42
it was trailer. However, they used that to put some of their lawn mower things, their
43
edgings, wood and tools. Now they keep those things in the barn.
44
45
Page 21 of 39
As far as the concrete walkway goes that is in the center of the barn between the stalls.
1
If you look at the picture the opening is where the concrete is. It is not concrete slab, it
2
is not a support. When it rains, it gets terrible mud in there because the rain comes
3
right in the front. There would be mud all over the place when you walk in there. The
4
concrete is in there specifically to keep their shoes, the farrier’s and the vet’s shoes
5
because they have had a couple of complaints from them how muddy it was. They did
6
that to adjust for them. It doesn’t have any weight bearing; it is just a cleanliness issue.
7
8
When they tore down the barn it was completely unsafe; if it was a home it would have
9
been condemned, you could not use it. The trusses were falling apart, the roof was
10
destroyed, there were tarps on the roof as well as everyone else had, in the full five
11
county area; blue tarps were the new roof.
12
13
They paid for a dumpster; they brought the dumpster out and put everything in it that the
14
County told them that they had to put in it. They filled two different dumpsters and then
15
what was left they called the Fire Department and asked them to come out so they
16
could burn it. The Fire Department was on hand that day when the barn was being
17
burnt. They felt it was being controlled, they stayed roughly an hour and then they left.
18
19
As far as building their barn anywhere else, like they continue to hear why didn’t they
20
build it over on the other side as some of the pictures that you see in the packet DEP
21
has been out to their property. There is a ponding affect, it floods on the back half of
22
their property and it was not conducive to have a barn where it would continually flood.
23
They had to put the barn where it is unless they put it in front of their house and even up
24
there they wouldn’t have been 50 feet from the property line.
25
26
Everything they did, they did to try to comply with Code. They had their builder build it,
27
the stalls were on backorder, and Mr. Robert Baum knew that. As far as being a friend,
28
yes, they did become very friendly with Robert Baum after this. However, he moved
29
away and they hardly talk to him anymore. They had gotten in touch with him in the last
30
few months due to this variance. She did not know what else to say except that they
31
have done all they thought they could in code compliance, they tried to be safe to their
32
horses unlike the Dunhill’s, looking at their farm you can tell.
33
34
Her horses are kept clean, her stalls are kept clean, and does she have to do something
35
with the manure, yes. They have a manure pile that they dump all of it on and they
36
spread it out over the grass, that is how it should be done and then they fertilize it and
37
have the grass grow. It is not on any one person’s fence line, if anything it is closer to
38
their barn than it is to their fence line as far as property. Keeping up with privacy, they
39
purchased 125 Areca Palms and there is also a letter in the packet from the nursery
40
stating within the next year they should double in size and then double in size the
41
following year. That would be a 12 foot barrier that if it is an eyesore to them as they
42
continually say, if there is noise, the Areca Palms are suppose to help any noise which
43
as you heard from the farrier’s testimony there is no evidence of her four horses kicking
44
the stalls. Her horse’s feet are trimmed every 6 weeks and he is out there every 5
45
Page 22 of 39
weeks and sees the horses, and the barn, he sees if there is any damage. This is a
1
witch hunt that is all it is.
2
3
All she was trying to say is that their barn is where it is because that is where the old
4
barn was, they asked the contractor if they could build it in the same place. The
5
contractor said he would find out from the Permitting Office and came back and told
6
them they could. They built the barn in the same exact place, it was never meant for
7
anything but a barn for their horses and to keep some equipment that her husband has.
8
The old barn was there and the last time she was before the Board she gave a copy of
9
the real estate portion that they received when they bought the property it states, “bring
10
your horses to this beautiful neighborhood, mini ranch situated on five acres of clear
11
grated, well maintained property, has a tack room, storage, two stall barn, workshop,
12
gorgeous property with home on front part.”
13
14
She wanted to clarify one more thing, when the Dunhill’s built their home there weren’t
15
two horses there were three. They had to rotate the horses being in and out of the
16
stalls, they fed two in and they had one out. When the Dunhill’s built their home there
17
were three horses on her property and now there are four. It is not a boarding facility,
18
all four of the horses are hers and she does not rent them out or have someone come in
19
and board their horses. She has papers that prove the horses are hers; they are all
20
registered to her and not registered to anyone else. They have four horses and three
21
th
goats that are kept in that barn and that is it. If anything they have a 1/10 of the
22
animals that Mr. Dunhill has, and he might be in code compliance when Code comes
23
out but he is not in code compliance everyday. You have to make an appointment for
24
Code to come out. They cannot just come on the property and that is what Code
25
Enforcement, Melissa Brubaker told them herself.
26
27
They did not do anything malicious; they built the barn thinking the stalls were on
28
backorder when Mr. Baum was building the barn, they have special aluminum guards
29
so they would not rust and that they would be there for a long time. Everything they did
30
with this barn they did with a great deal of thought; to make it safe and to make the area
31
look nice. It wasn’t just done to make their neighbors mad and it wasn’t done
32
maliciously. If you look at both of the surveys, the old and the new they are lacking a
33
little bit of feet but they are in the same exact spot from the back of the property up. If
34
you look at the old survey from the back property up the footage is basically the same.
35
On the side over and from the front down to the barn the measurements are basically
36
the same. The only difference is that the barn now is a little bit bigger. It
37
accommodates for the trailer that used to be there and chicken coop that used to be on
38
the property. All they are trying to do is right for themselves, for the horses and the
39
neighborhood. Their barn without a doubt has made their neighborhood better than
40
what the old barn was. You can see that from the pictures that were there.
41
42
There are barns in their neighborhood that are enclosed, there are some in the direct
43
vicinity of the Dunhill’s as well as their home. They are not the only barn out there,
44
there are some that are right on property lines but that is not what they are before the
45
Board for. On thing she wanted to clarify that Patricia stated is that the way she found
46
Page 23 of 39
out about this was that she came to her door, she believes that is what she said, that
1
she came to her door with a petition.
2
3
First of all, it was not a petition, it was the response form sent to the neighbors by the
4
County and the reason why she went face to face, door to door with anyone is the fact
5
that Mr. Dunhill had put a flyer up on the board basically defamation of character
6
against her husband and her. It is true and she has proof of that. He stated that if you
7
have any problems with the barn or if you have gotten called in that you need to thank
8
to the Smiths for that. She would like to get back to Patricia because she would like to
9
prove that is not how she found out. She wrote a letter and e-mailed it to Mr. Dunhill,
10
rd th.
she e-mailed it on June 3and it was faxed to County on June 5When she went to
11
th
her house and she signed that and then sent it in, it was June 14. So right there that
12
discredits what she said that is how she found out that is not how she found out. She
13
was already aware of the situation, wrote a letter and e-mailed it to Mr. Dunhill.
14
15
She happened to go to her house as well as a few other people in the neighborhood to
16
see if they had a problem with her barn. Some of them wrote that they were neutral and
17
that was fine and everyone else that she talked to said they were positive about the
18
barn; in fact they loved the barn. She has invited anyone who wants to come see it in
19
the neighborhood to come and see it and see how well they take care of it; as well as
20
the Board and staff. If you really want to see what the barn looks like she would be
21
more than happy to show it.
22
23
She understands that it is not within the code compliance and she is sorry about that. If
24
they would have known that they would have tried their hardest to build it over more or
25
something. There is a beautiful oak tree there, there was an over 300 bottlebrush trees
26
out front that they couldn’t build there, and the best place for the barn at the time that it
27
was built is where it is.
28
29
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
30
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
31
32
Mr. Pancoast stated that after a little more that 20 years with working various boards in
33
the County the one thing that he has found that has always been consistent is that
34
neighborhood fights make for the worst cases. This adds to his opinion about that. He
35
is distressed by the fact that the building does not appear to sit on the same spot. You
36
can say it is a little bigger, it’s moved, its done things but from the two surveys and the
37
aerial picture that he was looking at the building is not in the same place.
38
39
The permit that was applied for was applied for a pole barn. He has lived in Florida a
40
long time and has had horses himself. The pole barn in Florida and anyone you talk to
41
will tell you what a pole barn is, it is a roof, poles, there are no walls and it is open. He
42
had pole barns on his property for his horses; he wouldn’t go as far as to say maybe the
43
Smiths tried to hoodwink the County by calling it one thing and adding on. He would not
44
say that but it is obvious that if the permit had been requested correctly for interior
45
storage of animals based on the Section 7.10.03 the County would have never
46
Page 24 of 39
permitted. It is clear in Section 7.10.03 “The horses are to be stabled at least one
1
hundred and fifty (150) feet from any residence under separate ownership that is C4
2
and B is, “In the AR-1 district, animals other than household domestic pets may be kept
3
provided they are not housed within one hundred (100) feet of any property line.”
4
5
It is obvious if the permit had requested what they intended to have it never would have
6
been permitted this way. He is confident from having served on Code Enforcement for
7
11 years and on the Board of Adjustment for a total of 12 years that if the County had
8
been told what this was intended to be it would never have been permitted and that is
9
his opinion.
10
11
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated she wanted to go back to Mr. Baum’s letter, the contractor.
12
If you look at paragraph two it says, “This barn in question is located over the footprint
13
of the original barn, not on the footprint but over. The rear southwest corner of the new
14
barn is in the same location as the original barn and continues to the east toward the
15
front of the barn 72 feet in length. This is a little bit of word smithing there. It is clear to
16
her that the orientation of the barn is different and it is larger and that it is closer, maybe
17
one corner of it is over as Mr. Baum says that original footprint but it is not the footprint
18
by any means. She is inclined to vote to deny.
19
20
Chief Emerson stated that this particular case strikes home with him; he lives out west
21
of town and lives on Agriculture Zoned property. He has a pony with heavesand had a
22
horse namedLucius with navicular disease so he is familiar with all of the aliments and
23
troubles with horses but he is also aware of the code requirements. It is not the
24
structure that runsafoul really it is the use. He is inclined to agree with what Mr.
25
Pancoast said but he does have a question of staff. Under Section 7.10.03 B it says, “In
26
the AR-1 district, animals other than household domestic pets may be kept provided
27
they are not housed within one hundred (100) feet of any property line.” What does
28
housed mean? He believes it is a legal question.
29
30
Mr. Ron Harris commented that was a legal question and he would like to hear it from
31
the County Attorney, he agrees. For a laymen like him, it means covered.
32
33
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated she was looking to see if it was defined in the
34
Code.
35
36
Chief Emerson stated the reason he asks the question is because you had another
37
person give testimony that her animals, absent walls just a pole barn, come and go as
38
they please. Is that housing or not housing an animal. The reason that is relevant is
39
because what if this particular structure had no doors and the animals were free to
40
come and go, had walls, no doors, animals are free to come and go. Is that housing?
41
42
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated there was no definition is the Code for housed,
43
we would then look to other sources and she did not know whether staff has done that
44
or not.
45
46
Page 25 of 39
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to know if they could go to the good old fashioned Webster’s
1
Dictionary; is that a possibility?
2
3
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated that is one of the options used sometimes.
4
5
Mr. Harris wanted to know if one was available. Staff was going to get one so the Board
6
would wait for them.
7
8
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated that she did not know the difference between housing an
9
animal. It seems that it is a rather subjective opinion.
10
11
Chief Emerson commented the reason it is relevant is because other people mentioned
12
that they do have pole barns where their animals are free to come and go. That is
13
typically called a run in,in animal terminology. They are free to come in and get out of
14
the weather when it is comfortable for them they go out and graze again or do whatever.
15
If that is okay in the AR-1 Zoning District then and you are trying to bring these people
16
into compliance, he did not want them coming back and saying, “We took the doors off
17
and now we are still not in compliance” or maybe they are. He was inclined to support
18
Mr. Pancoast’s opinions.
19
20
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated that to bring it into compliance it is obvious that if
21
the variance is not granted that they could sit down with staff and go over what could be
22
done.
23
24
Mr. Pancoast commented that he agrees with Chief Emerson that it is not the building, it
25
is the use.
26
27
Mr. Bangert commented that his opinion is a little different. They had a barn that
28
housed animals in it before, it was damaged badly or destroyed in the hurricane, and he
29
thinks they have every right to replace that barn to house their animals. They had a
30
contractor who built this who got his permit and supposedly did as he was told. That is
31
not the applicant’s problem. They are not up on everything, the contractor should be.
32
All it is basically in the footprint of the old barn if the contractor made an error he did not
33
think they should be penalized for the contractor’s error.
34
35
Mr. Ron Harris stated that he leans toward that line and then he goes back and forth. If
36
a contractor went to pull the permit and was very straight up about the use of it and
37
explained that there was an existing structure on site and what the use was intended for
38
and what it had been used as and what the new structure is going to be used for, then
39
at that time he believes the Building Department should have told them they probably
40
needed to move this to be in compliance, obviously we do not know because we were
41
not privy to that information of what the contractor said to the Building Department.
42
43
Mrs. Andrews commented the application should say so.
44
45
Page 26 of 39
Mr. Harris commented that he did not know if the application was going to be that wordy
1
or not.We do see that it does have open sides, that is clear and that is what was
2
permitted. There is no doubt about that.
3
4
Mr. Bangert commented from the picture of this barn, there are no doors on this barn,
5
he wanted that clarified, it looks wide open. The wall doesn’t run all the way to the roof.
6
7
Ms. Kristin Tetsworth stated staff had a little bit of information. Housing or housed –1 a:
8
to provide with living quarters or shelter b. to store in a house 2: to encase, enclose, or
9
shelter as if by putting in a house 3: to serve as shelter. The Webster’s Dictionary on
10
line for a barn describes it as: housing animals but that is a barn not a pole barn, just a
11
regular barn.
12
13
Mr. Harris wanted to know if Chief Emerson had gotten his question answered on the
14
definition of housed.
15
16
Chief Emerson stated it was a very vague definition, he thought it is open to
17
interpretation.
18
19
Mr. Harris commented it is shelter, what is shelter? Shelter in some cases could be a
20
tent.
21
22
Mr. Bob Bangert commented that he lived in a county area up north and there were
23
many pole barns, they had sides and slabs but the construction was pole barn
24
construction.
25
26
Mr. Ron Harris stated he understood what Mr. Bangert was saying, they had seen the
27
pictures and they were advertised as pole barn, yet they did have sides. He wanted to
28
go back to Section 7.10.03 B In the AR-1 district, animals other than household
29
domestic pets may be kept provided they are not housed within one (100) feet of any
30
property line. Housing, can we stretch it and say confined, when we say housed. If the
31
doors were off the horses could move around at free will, go outside, come back in, get
32
out of the heat, is this what you were leaning to; is he thinking this correctly.
33
34
Chief Emerson stated the only reason he asked the question he is leaning toward
35
supporting Mr. Pancoast but it seems to him that there is room for movement in terms of
36
what housing means.
37
38
Mr. Harris asked if Mrs. Andrews had anything to add regarding Paragraph B of Section
39
7:10:03.
40
41
Mrs. Andrews commented that housed to her means that they are confined; they don’t
42
have freedom of movement in and out, that their owners must bring them in and bring
43
them out.
44
45
Page 27 of 39
Mr. Ron Harris stated he was going to stretch it out. He lives on a 1 ½ acres and he
1
could have a horse but he can’t feed a horse because it is all scrub. They have a small
2
dog that lives in the house and on the back porch. That dog has a dog door and it
3
comes and goes of its own free will. It goes out the dog door and comes in the dog
4
door. It goes out in a fenced area, so he is thinking the same way. If the stalls are left
5
open and the horses come and go would they be in compliance or is that stretching.
6
7
Mr. Bob Bangert asked if Mr. Harris would like to live next to a barn open and the
8
animals in it with the noise and odors easily going back and forth; or inside where the
9
noise would be confined and the odors lower.
10
11
Chief Emerson stated what he wouldn’t want to happen that the Board would grant a
12
variance and this is hypothetical that says you can have the variance if you take the stall
13
doors off and you don’t confine the animals; and then to have Code Enforcement or
14
Legal say, “No, a pole barn where animals can freely come and go is still housing the
15
animals’.
16
17
Mr. Pancoast commented that he knew someplace there is a list of definitions in the
18
Code.
19
20
Mr. Harris stated it is not on the list, unfortunately.
21
22
Mr. Pancoast commented that he would say that the Board needs a legal opinion and
23
the Board does have an attorney. It seems to him that the Board should get a legal
24
opinion as to what housing, under this part of the law what housing actually means.
25
26
Mrs. Andrews inquired if the Board was overlooking the fact that there were walls and
27
everything was constructed after the fact.
28
29
Mr. Ron Harris commented he was not overlooking that, which still looms large because
30
that was not part of the permit.
31
32
Chief Emerson stated he was not suggesting that be overlooked what he was
33
i
suggesting is that arun inf that is not objectionable then how significant is it if there is
34
a rail, not a wall or two rails.
35
36
Mr. Harris commented he did see where Chief Emerson was going, he did agree. The
37
walls do not go all the way to the top, they are partitions, and they could easily be taken
38
down and put back up.
39
40
Chief Emerson stated you could see from the picture that it is not truly a wall in terms of
41
full structural integrity. It doesn’t go all the way to the top it is more correctly called a
42
partition.
43
44
Mr. Pancoast stated anybody who has horses knows that you wantbolt efficient you
45
don’t want single boards because you end up with broken legs.
46
Page 28 of 39
Mrs. Diane Andrews stated the animals were permitted to come and go.
1
2
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated that on record that the Code Enforcement Division has
3
cited them for housing the animals stating that they may be kept as long as they are not
4
housed within 100 feet of any property line; please cease housing the animals in the
5
barn since it is only 65 feet from the property line.
6
Chief Emerson stated they were back to the same question.
7
8
Mr. Harris stated if it is left open where they can come and go free of will, is it housing?
9
10
Mr. Bangert asked why you would put up a barn.
11
12
Mr. Harris commented so they can get out of the sun.
13
14
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated the photo the Board was looking at was taken by the Code
15
Enforcement Officer.
16
17
Mr. Harris commented it was 2/26/08.
18
19
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated the violation was issued on March 6, 2008 by that officer,
20
so at the present time it is understood that they have determined that it is housing an
21
animal.
22
23
Mr. Pancoast asked if that was what had prompted the request for a variance through
24
all of this he assumed from what has been going on that it was complaints from the
25
neighbor; so it was actually Code Enforcement.
26
27
Mr. Larry Szynkowski responded that the notice went out on March 6th and the variance
28
st
was applied for on March 31.
29
30
Mr. Harris asked if the notice said, “Don’t put your horses in the pole barn anymore,
31
barn or house barn.”
32
33
Mr. Larry Szynkowski commented it said, “Cease housing.”
34
35
Mr. Ron Harris commented that it didn’t say that they had to get rid of the horses; they
36
just couldn’t put them in there. He wanted to clarify that they couldn’t put them in there.
37
38
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated that they required the elimination of any horses they stated
39
cease housing the horses in that barn.
40
41
Mr. Harris inquired if they were told to tear the barn down.
42
43
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie- Smith stated part of the problem is some of what is being
44
debated is factual, if they take the stall doors off but they actually tie them into the stalls
45
every night is that housing? Some of that is determined when the Code Enforcement
46
Page 29 of 39
was to go out to see if the violation was abated or not. Again, there is no definition in
1
the Code so then we do commonly turn to Webster’s if Growth Management doesn’t
2
have one. She wanted to read the definition again, “to encase, enclose, or shelter as if
3
by putting in a house.”
4
5
Chief Emerson stated that is why he said there were two parts in hishypothetical, there
6
was to remove the doors and not confine the animals.
7
8
Mr. Ron Harris stated he understood what Chief Emerson had said and that is why he
9
wanted to go back to what the Code Enforcement Officer said, don’t house them but
10
you don’t have to take the barn down, so if you are housing them you have to leave
11
them in, physically put them in the stalls and shut the door. Are they going to be in code
12
violation if they are not housing them and the horse feels it is getting hot and goes to the
13
barn and strolls over there and goes in the barn. Are they going to be in violation?
14
Mr. Pancoast stated not in the past that would be a pole barn. In Code Enforcement
15
they considered a pole barn is open, the horse came and went.
16
17
Mr. Harris stated the pole barn was open so a horse could get in.
18
19
Mr. Pancoast stated if there were no restrictions the horses could come and go as they
20
wanted to. You could go in there and feed and in a rain storm you could go in, in bad
21
weather, they use to put 110 watt bulbs in the top and leave the light on all night so
22
there would be a little additional heat in there. Other than that it was an open facility,
23
you could have feed troughs, you could have water.
24
25
Chief Emerson stated there was one other thing and again it was for Katherine, County
26
Attorney are we taking a chance in running afoul with the Code Enforcement Board,
27
would we get into a situation where the Board of Adjustment has one interpretation and
28
the Code Enforcement has another interpretation.
29
30
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated again that is difficult to answer because it would
31
be actually what they do on the property after you determine whether the Board is going
32
to grant the variance or not. When they go out there and determine what they actually
33
do. If there isn’t a definition in the Code, then Code Enforcement has to go with, like
34
Growth Management would have to do, they would go to that also. If it is the exact
35
situation and they find out another Board has issued a ruling on it, they will honor it.
36
37
Mr. Bangert stated this is why they are the Board of Adjustment; they are allowed to
38
make a variance.
39
40
Mr. Harris wanted to confirm if the Board grants a variance, they condition that variance
41
so that stall doors cannot be closed and they go out because they have a complaint and
42
all long as the doors are open, then they cannot be cited.
43
44
Chief Emerson stated he would not make a motion that lenient, he would have to say
45
that the stall doors be removed.
46
Page 30 of 39
1
Mr. Harris wanted to know if the Board was on fair ground with that.
2
3
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie Smith stated that would be correct, that is the variance they
4
are allowed to have and granted by this Board who has the authority to grant and
5
condition the variance how they want. The Code Board would honor it.
6
7
Mrs. Andrews wanted to know if they could add to it that the horses would have to be
8
untethered as well.
9
10
Chief Emerson commented he would simply say that they could not be confined.
11
12
Mr. Harris commented that sometime you just tie your horse up temporarily.
13
14
Mrs. Andrews stated that if you tie him into the barn for the night, isn’t that the same
15
thing as having a door there.
16
17
Chief Emerson commented then back to Katherine’s comment, it is a Code
18
Enforcement issue.
19
20
Chief Emerson stated a run-in a simple structure, forget this, a simple 4 posted structure
21
with alean-toover the top of it is a run-in. It is a structure but it is a run-in and he
22
doesn’t see any reason why you couldn’t have a run in.
23
24
Mr. Ron Harris stated you can and this is just a fancy run-in.
25
26
Mr. Pancoast stated except that it has gates and horses are put inside stalls, inside the
27
building and that is where the housing part comes in. He agrees with the Chief if you
28
take the gates off the stalls and the horses can come and go as they want; it is an
29
extremely fancy run-in. You can’t lock the horse up in it; he comes and goes as he
30
wants. On the other hand, he is sure when they built this they weren’t thinking in terms
31
of a fancy run-in they were thinking in terms of having stalls whether you put the horses
32
in and you could confine them for health reasons or whatever else you may need to
33
confine a horse for.
34
35
Mr. Harris stated he thought Mr. Pancoast is right and feels that everyone is looking for
36
some type of comprise, if at all possible.
37
38
Mr. Bangert made motion to approve.
39
After considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing including staff
40
comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St.
41
Lucie County Land Development Code hereby move that the Board of Adjustment
42
approve the Petition of Wade and Michelle Smith for a variance from the Provisions of
43
Section 7.10.03 (B), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit
44
continued use of a pole barn to houseanimals other than household domestic pets that
45
encroaches a maximum of 35 feet into the minimum of one hundred (100) feet required
46
Page 31 of 39
from the property line in AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -1du/ac) Zoning District because
1
the applicants have tried to do the right thing by putting the new structure basically in
2
the footprint of the old barn which they are entitled to replace because that one was
3
destroyed in the hurricane. They hired a contractor who got the permit and thought
4
everything was right. If it depends on housing as far as the definition goes he would say
5
that variance would mean that there would be no doors on the barn. The walls that are
6
presently there are not walls as such they are partitions.
7
8
Mr. Ron Harris wanted to make one change that it encroaches a maximum of 45 feet
9
based on the recent survey that the Board has received.
10
11
Mr. Pancoast commented that he thought it was about 47 feet if someone has done the
12
math.
13
14
Mr. Harris stated it is skewed sothat is why they are doing 45 feet because it is 57 on
15
one and 55 on another.
16
17
Chief Emerson seconded the motion but he would like the motion to say that the
18
variance is granted provided the conditions being that the doors be removed and the
19
animals not be confined.
20
21
Mr. Bangert stated that he accepted the amendment.
22
23
Mrs. Andrews commented before the Board takes a vote on that; is that acceptable to
24
the Smiths.
25
26
Mr. Harris commented he thought anything would be acceptable to the Smiths right now
27
but we could ask them and if they give the Board a nod of their head then the Board will
28
move forward.
29
30
Mr. Smith stated that there is only one other thing he would think about asking if this is
31
the only thing they can have. If he does a daytime use and that way the noise would
32
not be an issue of keeping the doors and that way he could put them in the morning and
33
feed. On a real hot day or if they are sick if the vet says they need to be confined for a
34
little bit. Sometimes the vet comes and gives them a shot, he could leave them in for a
35
few hours and then let them back out and have them out by dusk or something like that.
36
That way it is not an issue of the noise during nighttime.
37
38
Ms. Michelle Smith stated that feeding and vet is probably her biggest two concerns.
39
When you feed the horses they have to be separated otherwise they fight over the food
40
and one horse doesn’t get all of their food versus the other horse or medicine. She is
41
fine with the doors however, when it comes to feeding time or when it comes to her
42
horse being injured, if and she hopes to God that never happens but there are times
43
when horses do need stall rest. If there is anyway the Board could say during feeding
44
time, otherwise their horses are always out. Their horses are never really in the stalls
45
except if it is really cold outside and during the hot summer.
46
Page 32 of 39
Mr. Smith stated he would not bring them in at night that would not be an issue. He
1
would not stall them at night. It would just be like a noise ordinance, how the County
2
has a noise ordinance, from a.m. to p.m. something like that.
3
4
Mrs. Smith stated technically the variance is not against the building, the building and
5
the structure according to Code Enforcement is fine because it is within the footage. It
6
is actually if they put the horse in the barn. So technically if they take the doors off isn’t
7
that the exact same and they wouldn’t need a variance.
8
9
Chief Emerson commented not exactly. The variance is only granted if the conditions
10
are met that are placed upon it.
11
12
Mrs. Smith commented that is why she is asking because they were told by Code
13
Enforcement that they would not be considered housed if the doors were left open and
14
in that fact they would not need a variance. She is asking because she was trying to
15
clarify so that they understand.
16
17
Chief Emerson stated that they were asking for a variance for 45 feet and the Board has
18
the ability through this process to put conditions on it and the conditions are those. He
19
is not inclined to nitpick and add so many variables for other possibilities.
20
21
Mr. Pancoast stated as mentioned it is not the building, it is the use. The answer to her
22
last question is no, you don’t need a variance, you could walk away without any
23
variance from this Board and keep the building but you cannot house the animals. The
24
only thing this Board is doing now and he has not really made up his mind whether he
25
was supporting it or not is the idea of letting them take the doors off and keep that use.
26
27
The only reason he would not support it is that as you see what they were going
28
through now is that you get into well if you can do this, can you do that. Then how do
29
you convey to Code Enforcement so that they understand that there is an order from the
30
Board that says you can put your animals in there for one hour every morning to feed
31
unless one of them is sick. You just get into this thing where you create an elephant
32
that you can’t work with. The answer to her question is, no you don’t need a variance
33
as long as you don’t house the animals and the doors are not closed, and the animals
34
are not in there then you are in compliance; so you don’t need a variance. He was not
35
sure that this variance is going to really give them anything because what they were
36
saying is that they going to be allowed to feed the animals but he knows exactly what
37
they are going through. He had three horses; he had one that ate just as fast as he
38
could so he could get to everybody else’s. It is nice to have the ability to put in a
39
separate place, close the door, feed, water and medication and you are done.
40
41
Mrs. Smith stated that would be her only request is during feeding time because
42
otherwise the horses come and go as they please, anyway.
43
44
Mr. Pancoast stated he was only one member of the Board but he does not foresee the
45
Board saying that.
46
Page 33 of 39
Mrs. Smith stated it was only a suggestion, maybe instead of saying remove the doors
1
or whatever they could say are able to keep in for feeding for one hour and that is it.
2
Otherwise they would be in non-compliance.
3
4
Mr. Ron Harris commented that he thought that was a requirement from one of the
5
Board members, he was willing to leave the door open, and the other member said
6
remove it. Probably to remove the door would be the best course of action. He just
7
didn’t want so many conditions down for the sign-off.
8
9
;
Chief Emerson stated he did not want to run into a situation where the board nitpicks
10
there are options if the petitioner just wanted to comply with what Code Enforcement
11
said.
12
13
Mrs. Andrews commented that they keep saying that it is not the building but it is the
14
use but in this case we don’t know if it is the building or not because we do not know if
15
the interior that was not permitted meets code.
16
17
Mrs. Smith stated that Mellissa Brubaker stated that it met code as long as they do not
18
put the horses in the stalls and lock them in.
19
20
Mrs. Andrews questioned whether a Building Official Inspector approves of it, has a
21
Building Inspector seen it. It would have to meet hurricane winds and everything else.
22
23
,
Mr. Ron Harris commented Mrs. Andrews was talking about wind loads but these are
24
break away walls.
25
26
Mr. Smith stated they talked with Mr. Menard who is the architect who helped draw the
27
plans.
28
29
Mr. Ron Harris stated that there was a Building employee before the Board who said
30
that the structure was not constructed according to the permit. Is that going to put them
31
in the position for another code violation, they have walls up that were not permitted;
32
they poured a slab that was probably not permitted either. Does that put them in that
33
position?
34
35
Mrs. Smith stated the walls were known by Mr. Baum.
36
37
Chief Emerson stated that they have a current Code Enforcement report and wanted to
38
know if it listed any of those as violations?
39
40
Mr. Harris stated he just wanted to know can they come back.
41
42
Mr. Larry Szynkowski stated it just lists housing the animals.
43
44
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated they could go back and look at it. Right now all
45
they cited them for was the section on housing the animals but who went out with one of
46
Page 34 of 39
the Code Enforcement Office, not one of our Code Enforcement Division that
1
specializes in permitting, so yes they could look at that. The concrete that was poured
2
and the walls and see if that was included and if it should have been permitted.
3
4
Mr. Bangert commented many times the Board has a pool that has an encroachment
5
that is against Code Enforcement and Building Code, however we grant a variance and
6
allow that to stand.
7
8
Mr. Harris stated he did not think they were granting a variance for them to have the
9
partition walls and the concrete slab, he did not think that was part of the variance.
10
11
Mr. Bangert stated it is not a full slab; it is a walkway through the center of the barn.
12
13
Mr. Harris questioned how wide it is.
14
15
Mrs. Smith stated the slab is 12 foot wide.
16
17
Mr. Harris stated a County multi-use path, 12 foot wide, 4 inch concrete, is the length 72
18
feet.
19
20
Mr. Smith stated it was 36 feet.
21
22
Mr. Harris stated he did not believe that they want to put any extra conditions other than
23
what they have placed on it. He feels it gets too cumbersome for the Board and it is
24
going to be cumbersome for individuals to come out and enforce those issues. He is
25
willing to support removing the doors. Of course when you remove the doors you don’t
26
need a variance but you do need the variance sort of.
27
28
Chief Emerson stated the only reason he sees that there is a distinguishment because it
29
does give Code Enforcement some point of reference.
30
31
Mrs. Andrews stated she would like the motion repeated.
32
33
Mr. Bangert repeated the motion
34
After considering the testimony present during the Public Hearing including staff
35
comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St.
36
Lucie County Land Development Code hereby move that the Board of Adjustment
37
approve the Petition of Wade and Michelle Smith for a variance from the Provisions of
38
Section 7.10.03 (B), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit
39
continued use of a pole barn to houseanimals other than household domestic pets that
40
encroaches a maximum of 45 feet into the minimum of one hundred (100) feet required
41
from the property line in AR-1 (Agricultural Residential -1du/ac) Zoning District because
42
(discussion by Board members, concerning what the motion should include)
43
44
Mr. Pancoast stated the only difference is that it includes the term housing, continued
45
use of housing.
46
Page 35 of 39
Mr. Harris stated we want to delete to house animals.
1
2
Mr. Bangert stated the only addition was that Chief Emerson made the addition to the
3
motion of removing the doors so it would not be housing.
4
5
Chief Emerson stated also not confining the animals.
6
7
Mr. Harris wanted to make sure the motion was clear.
8
After considering the testimony present during the Public Hearing including staff
9
comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of the St.
10
Lucie County Land Development Code hereby move that the Board of Adjustment
11
approve the Petition of Wade and Michelle Smith for a variance from the Provisions of
12
Section 7.10.03 (B), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit
13
continued use of a pole barn for animals and not to house animals (discussion by Board
14
Members continued)
15
16
Mrs. Andrews commented to leave it out and Chief Emerson stated that he thought that
17
was a question for Katherine Mackenzie-Smith because you can’t change the wording
18
of the Code.
19
20
Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith stated the Board could put reasonable conditions on it
21
so if you want to add that the animals can be in there so you can add that as a
22
condition.
23
24
Chief Emerson stated that they are just defining what housing means.
25
26
Mr. Harris stated he just took housing out.
27
28
Chief Emerson stated that he was changing the Code and only the County Commission
29
can do that.
30
31
Mr. Harris commented that he did not change the Code; he just took the word out.
32
33
Chief Emerson stated he would have to defer to Katherine.
34
35
Mr. Harris asked Ms. Mackenzie-Smith if he could take the word out.
36
37
Mrs. Andrews commented why not take out the word continued, and say use of a pole
38
barn.
39
40
Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated what the Board should be doing in the motion, what they
41
want with the conditions on it; they should not be defining the words in the Code
42
because that will depend factually. If there needs to be an official definition then it
43
would be a change to the Land Development Code.
44
45
Page 36 of 39
Mr. Harris verified with Ms. Mackenzie-Smith that they should not change the language
1
in the motion to approve or deny and state the conditions.
2
3
Mrs. Andrews asked if he was leaving in, to housing animals.
4
5
Mr. Harris stated that he had to leave it in; he had been instructed by the County
6
Attorney.
7
8
Chief Emerson stated this is a variance with specific conditions.
9
10
Mr. Harris stated they placed the condition where they could not be housed in there but
11
they had to leave that particular word in there, he did not have a choice.
12
13
Mr. Pancoast inquired if the conditions are to remove the doors and is that the only
14
condition.
15
16
Mr. Harris stated also that the animals cannot be confined.
17
18
Mrs. Andrews voted to deny,
19
20
Chief Emerson, Mr. Bangert, Mr. Pancoast, Mr. Harris voted to approve.
21
22
The motion was 4-1 to approve.
23
24
Mr. Harris stated that Mr. and Mrs. Smith had their variance with conditions, you could
25
possibly have issues with Code Enforcement, he did not know. They would have to
26
work that out.
27
28
29
30
31
32
.
33
34
Page 37 of 39
PUBLIC HEARING John and Carol Koval
1
July 23, 2008 BA-320081433
2
3
Mr. Szynkowski stated the Resolution before the Board was a correction of Resolution
4
No. 08-017 of the draft Resolution is No. 08-024 and it a
5
mends the prior Resolution in the
6
name of the Petitioners only from John and Mary Koval to John and Carol Koval with all other
7
applications remaining in effect and all conditions will would still apply.
8
Public Comment
9
10
None
11
12
Hearing no further comments in favor or in opposition to the petition, Chairman
13
Harris closed the public portion of the meeting.
14
15
Mr. Pancoast made motion to approve.
16
17
Mrs. Andrews seconded.
18
19
Motion passed unanimously.
20
21
22
Page 38 of 39
OTHER BUSINESS
1
2
Mrs. Andrews stated that she would like to know up front whether something is coming
3
before the Board is a result of a Code Enforcement issue in future cases.
4
5
Mr. Harris stated that sometime back there was an issue with a variance where he was
6
not comfortable with the lack of survey information. He has instructed staff, that no new
7
variances will come before the Board without a survey, they will not. They grant for
8
dimensional requirements and if we don’t know the dimensions, he is not comfortable
9
with it. There will always be a survey.
10
11
Adjourned 12:15 p.m.
12
13
Page 39 of 39