HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-28-2009
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
October 28, 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
Bob Bangert................................. Vice Chairman
17
Diane Andrews ............................ Board Member
18
Richard Pancoast ........................ Board Member
19
20
MEMBERS ABSENT
21
Buddy Emerson ........................... Board Member
22
23
OTHERS PRESENT
24
Katherine Smith ........................... Assistant County Attorney
25
Larry Szynkowski ......................... 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 August 26, 2009.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews inserted the addition of Kristin Tetsworth to Others Present, and motioned
34
approval as amended. Mr. Pancoast seconded.
35
36
The motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Bangert abstained since he was absent from the August
37
meeting)
38
39
Page 1 of 6
Public Hearing Ethel Berkoff
1
June 24, 2009 BA-620093988
2
3
Agenda Item #2 – Ethel Berkoff
4
5
Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner stated staff is recommending continuance for this
6
project and asking that during this meeting, the Board set that date.
7
8
Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager said we need to determine the new date for a
9
combination meeting of the November and December hearings.
10
11
Mr. Harris stated the Board agreed on December 9 for the next meeting, and returned to
12
the Board for a motion on the Berkoff variance.
13
14
th
Mr. Bangert motioned for continuance to the December 9 meeting. Mr. Pancoast
15
seconded.
16
17
The motion carried 4-0
18
19
Public Hearing Randall and Deanna Miller
20
June 24, 2009 BA-720093990
21
22
Agenda Item #3 – Randall and Deanna Miller
23
24
Mr. Szynkowski presented the petition:
25
26
Randall and Deanna Miller
Request for variance of for a variance from Section
27
7.04.01(Table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow the
28
continued use of a covered deck that encroaches a maximum of 15 feet into the
29
minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet required for structures located in the RS-4
30
(Residential, Single Family – 4du/1acre) Zoning District.
31
32
Mr. Szynkowski showed the submitted survey and photos from Code Enforcement. The
33
survey shows rear fence both on the property line and one foot in front of the property
34
line but did not show the deck. The photos from Code Enforcement staff show the
35
covered deck abutting the fence therefore, the covered deck would be encroaching the
36
15 foot rear setback by between 14 feet and 15 feet, as a result, staff advertised the
37
variance at the maximum of a15 foot encroachment into the setback so this Board could
38
make that determination.
39
40
Mr. Szynkowski stated the variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique,
41
and not necessarily a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development
42
Code. The need for the requested variance is created by the desire of Randall and
43
Deanna Miller to have continued use of the covered deck.
44
45
Page 2 of 6
Mr. Szynkowski state the mail responses from the neighbors within 500 feet shows that
1
three were in favor, and three had no opinion. He concluded, stating this petition does
2
not conform to the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie County
3
Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies
4
of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial
5
of the requested variance.
6
7
Mr. Harris turned to the Board for questions of staff.
8
9
Mr. Pancoast asked how Code Enforcement came to be involved. Mr. Szynkowski
10
stated there was a complaint and Code Enforcement for not having a permit for the
11
deck.
12
13
Mr. Pancoast noted there were no responses against this and wondered what
14
happened to the original complainant.
15
16
Mr. Pancoast stated he knows Code Enforcement will follow-up as to whether or not it
17
meets code in its construction, but asked do we know whether the structure meets
18
code. Mr. Szynkowski stated he has no indication, Code Enforcement just sited them for
19
not having a permit and they are waiting on a decision from this Board.
20
21
Mrs. Andrews asked if a roll-down awning would solve this instead of a permanent roof.
22
Mr. Szynkowski stated the roof seems to exceed the maximum height of six feet that the
23
fence is, and it seems to extend another five feet. He said as far as the roof being
24
replaced with something removable might be an improvement from the view, and
25
exclude it being perceived as part of the fence.
26
27
Mr. Bangert asked if there was a homeowners association in the area. Mr. Szynkowski
28
responded no.
29
30
Mr. Harris asked if the deck did not have a roof on it, would it still be in violation of the
31
setback under the current code. Mr. Szynkowski stated based on the height of the deck,
32
he would say no.
33
34
Mr. Harris opened the public hearing, the Board having no further questions of staff.
35
36
Deanna Miller, the petitioner, stated the deck and the roof were built to code and signed
37
and sealed by an engineer.
38
39
Mrs. Miller added one of the contractors that was denied the job of the deck was the
40
one to make the call to Code Enforcement because none of their neighbors seem to
41
mind, and have not complained.
42
43
Randall Miller stated he made sure everything was built to code, and the neighborhood
44
is pretty lax when it comes to what people do there because there are a lot of sheds and
45
Page 3 of 6
things that are not up to code, not that that makes it right, but they did not do it to make
1
the neighborhood look bad.
2
3
Mrs. Miller added that you cannot see it from the road.
4
5
Mrs. Andrews asked the petitioners if they had a licensed contractor do the deck.
6
7
Mrs. Miller stated Mr. Miller built the deck from an engineer’s drawings they had done.
8
Mrs. Miller continued they just wanted a sitting area where there was wind, and this was
9
the cheapest way.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews asked if there was any other place to put the sitting area. The Millers
12
stated there was septic on one side and it is a long house so there wasn’t anywhere
13
else.
14
15
Mr. Harris stated he was going to ask who the contractor was and it had already been
16
answered. Mrs. Miller stated someone did do the roof.
17
18
Mr. Harris asked if there was a letter from FPL stating it would not interfere with the
19
maintenance of the power lines. Mr. Miller provided it for the record.
20
21
Mrs. Miller stated the lines are not in their yard but they can get to them from their yard.
22
23
Mrs. Andrews asked if there was a utility easement. Mr. Harris stated only the title work
24
would show that because it is not a recorded subdivision, and asked the petitioners
25
knew if there was a recorded utility easement on the south five to ten feet. The Millers
26
said they did not know.
27
28
Mr. Bangert asked if the property was on sewer or septic tank, The Millers replied
29
septic. Mr. Bangert asked if there were problems with the septic tank and the deck. Mr.
30
Miller stated the septic tank is on the east and the deck is on the south.
31
32
Mr. Harris asked of the plans signed and sealed by an engineer if they included the
33
deck and the roof. Mrs. Miller responded they were but they were no good unless the
34
Board approves, then they will have to pull a permit.
35
36
Mr. Harris asked why the petitioners did not pull a permit. Mrs. Miller did not think it was
37
necessary to get a permit for that type of structure.
38
39
Mr. Harris returned to the Board for discussion.
40
41
Mr. Bangert stated there are no problems from the neighbors, and mentioned the
42
property is adjacent to Lakewood Park, which has a mandatory homeowners
43
association, and the violations in the association are unbelievable and one more would
44
not make a difference.
45
46
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Pancoast stated he was touchy about approving it, but if you ride around the county,
1
there are hundreds of sheds, carports, and other structures sitting on the property line.
2
He stated though they broke the rules by not getting a permit, if they went for the permit
3
they would still end up here. Mr. Pancoast stated that as a single family homeowner and
4
none of the neighbors having complained about it, let them keep it.
5
6
Mrs. Andrews agreed with Mr. Pancoast, and stated the thing that bothers her the most
7
is granting the 100% variance. Mr. Harris stated it works out to be about 93% but it does
8
not make it any better.
9
10
Mr. Harris stated he is sure if they had not put the roof on, they would not be there. The
11
Board agreed.
12
13
Mr. Harris stated the issue he has is the existence of a utility easement at the southern
14
portion of the property. He noted there is a fence, and you are not supposed to fence
15
easements.
16
17
Mr. Pancoast asked what the likelihood was that the engineer would have included an
18
easement if it was there. Mr. Harris stated unless the engineer was given title work, he
19
does not know if an easement was recorded, and he is not required by law to do a title
20
search.
21
22
Mr. Harris stated the easement is the only thing that would hold him back right now.
23
24
Mr. Harris asked the petitioners if they got a permit for the fence, they said they did, and
25
he stated that would have been clarified then.
26
27
Mr. Harris stated this will probably be the largest variance since his time on the Board.
28
Mr. Pancoast stated it was for him as well.
29
30
Mr. Szynkowski stated staff would be concerned about any enclosure of that structure in
31
the future. Mr. Pancoast stated we could make it part of the motion.
32
33
Mr. Bangert made the motion:
34
35
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
36
staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of
37
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of
38
Randall and Deanna Miller
Adjustment approve the petition of for a variance
39
from section 7.04.01(table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code
40
to permit the continued use of a deck that encroaches a maximum of 15 feet (or
41
14 feet) into the minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet required for the RS-4
42
(Residential, Single family 4 du/1 acre) Zoning District, with the restriction that
43
this deck never be closed in and should any problem arise with the roof over the
44
deck, it would not be replaced. I motion to approve since evidently no one has
45
Page 5 of 6
written in from the neighbors protesting, and there are many more places in the
1
vicinity that are also in violation.
2
3
Mr. Pancoast seconded.
4
5
Upon roll call, the motion carried 3-1, Mr. Harris dissenting because the variance is too
6
large.
7
8
OTHER BUSINESS
9
10
Mr. Bangert reiterated the next meeting will be on December 9.
11
12
Mr. Harris stated Mrs. Andrews prepared a memo to the County Administrator
13
requesting video coverage when the Board has administrative hearings. Mr. Harris
14
stated he would like to make sure he had the support of all the Board members before
15
he transmits the document, and asked if anyone had issues. The Board supported the
16
memo.
17
18
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:00 a.m.
19
Page 6 of 6