HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-26-2009
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
August 26, 2009
3
9:30 a.m.
4
5
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained from the
6
Growth Management Department along with these Minutes. A fee is charged. In
7
the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the
8
compact disc shall control.
9
10
11
CALL TO ORDER
12
Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at about 9:30 A.M.
13
14
ROLL CALL
15
Ron Harris .................................. Chairman
16
Buddy Emerson ........................... Board Member
17
Diane Andrews ............................ Board Member
18
Richard Pancoast ........................ Board Member
19
20
MEMBERS ABSENT
21
Bob Bangert................................. Vice Chairman
22
23
OTHERS PRESENT
24
Katherine Smith ........................... Assistant County Attorney
25
Aneela Ansar ............................... Senior Planner
26
Kristin Tetsworth .......................... Planning Manager
27
Michelle Hylton ............................ Senior Staff Assistant
28
29
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
30
31
Approval of the Minutes for June 24, 2009.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Pancoast seconded.
34
35
The motion carried 4-0.
36
37
Page 1 of 3
Public Hearing Ethel Berkoff
1
June 24, 2009 BA-620093988
2
3
Agenda Item #2 – Ethel Berkoff
4
5
Aneela Ansar, Senior Planner, stated
6
Growth Management received a request from Mrs.
7
Berkoff for a variance from Section 7.04.01(Table 7-10) of the Land Development Code for a
8
spa with deck and screen enclosure that encroaches a maximum of 1.3 ft into the minimum yard
9
setback of six feet required for the project known as Greenbrier @ PGA Village, Final
10
Development Plan, located in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District.
11
12
Ms. Ansar stated the Board of County Commissioners on October 16, 2001 approved the
13
Greenbrier at PGA PUD site plan with certain conditions one of which was that pool and patio
14
structures allowed six foot setbacks on the interior lots and ten foot set backs on the corner lots.
15
16
Ms. Ansar stated County staff informed the applicant that the existing spa with deck and screen
17
enclosure as shown on the as-built survey does not meet the six foot setback requirement of the
18
Greenbrier PGA final development plan. The requested variance will allow the continued use of
19
the spa with deck and screen enclosure which have expired permits and these permits have not
20
been renewed. She stated the Property Owners Association has no objection to granting this
21
variance. Ms. Ansar then showed photos of the site.
22
23
Ms. Ansar stated the variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique, and not
24
necessarily a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the
25
need for the requested variance is created by the desire of Mrs. Berkoff to be allowed the
26
continued use of the spa with deck and screen enclosure. She conclude staff reviewed the
27
petition and determined it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in section
28
10.01.02 of the LDC; and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the SLC
29
Comprehensive plan, therefore staff is recommending denial of the requested variance.
30
31
Mrs. Andrews asked whether the applicant was informed verbally or in writing on October 26,
32
2006 when the applicant was informed that the existing deck and screen enclosure does not
33
meet the setback requirements. Ms. Andrews also asked where the as-built survey in reference
34
was.
35
36
Ms. Ansar stated the only survey available is the Boundary Survey submitted by the applicant;
37
and we received the variance request at the recommendation of Code Enforcement, but she
38
does not know whether the applicant was informed verbally or in writing.
39
40
Mr. Pancoast stated his surprise that the permit has been expired since 2006, and asked if we
41
know why Building did not follow through to find out why the project was not finished. Ms. Ansar
42
replied that was coordination with Code Enforcement and we took action when they applied for
43
a variance application.
44
45
Mr. Pancoast stated the Board may need to continue this since they do not have a survey.
46
47
Chief Emerson stated he typically has concern when a variance would impact the neighbor on
48
the area closest to the variance being granted, noted the site appears to be next to vacant
49
property and asked if the property was owned by the POA. Ms. Ansar responded it is.
50
Page 2 of 3
1
Chief Emerson agreed with Mr. Pancoast and stated without a sealed survey it is difficult to
2
know how much of a variance is actually required.
3
4
Mr. Harris asked if we have proof that the sign was installed before August 6, 2009. Ms. Ansar
5
replied the applicant is to provide proof, and she visited the site seven days before the hearing
6
when the sign was up.
7
8
Mr. Harris asked County Attorney, Katherine Smith if this creates a problem. Ms. Smith replied
9
we need proof it was posted on time. Mr. Harris asked what proof would be required. Ms. Smith
10
said there is not anything listed in the Code that says what it should be but we need to be
11
comfortable that it was posted in time.
12
13
Mr. Harris opened the public hearing.
14
15
Vincent Strype, agent for the applicant stated the site plan submitted was given to the applicant
16
by the County. Mr. Strype stated the sign was installed four days before it was required.
17
18
Mr. Harris stated the document Mr. Strype submitted was the same plan the Board had in their
19
packets and it is not signed and sealed, therefore they cannot know whether the dimensions are
20
valid or not, so they cannot move forward with this at this time. Mr. Harris explained to Mr.
21
Strype that he or his client will have to hire a surveyor to do the final survey.
22
23
Mr. Harris stated he would like to hear the land owner speak before closing the public hearing.
24
Mr. Strype stated she is in New York.
25
26
Mr. Harris closed the public hearing and returned to the Board for a motion.
27
28
Mrs. Andrews moved that the Board postpone this application to the next scheduled meeting,
29
September 23, 2009 at 9:30.
30
31
Mr. Strype stated he has a baby due on September 22, so would not make it.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews changed the date to October 28, and stated at that time the as-built survey that is
34
referred to in the documentation would need to be produced, sealed.
35
36
Mr. Pancoast seconded and upon roll call the motion passed 4-0.
37
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 9:52 a.m.
38
Page 3 of 3