HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-09-2009
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
December 9, 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
Diane Andrews ............................ Board Member
17
Buddy Emerson ........................... Board Member
18
19
MEMBERS ABSENT
20
Bob Bangert................................. Vice Chairman
21
Richard Pancoast ........................ Board Member
22
23
OTHERS PRESENT
24
Katherine Smith ........................... Assistant County Attorney
25
Linda Pendarvis ........................... Planner
26
Larry Szynkowski ......................... Senior Planner
27
Jeff Johnson ................................ Senior Planner
28
Kristin Tetsworth .......................... Planning Manager
29
Michelle Hylton ............................ Senior Staff Assistant
30
31
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
32
33
Approval of the Minutes for October 28, 2009.
34
35
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the Minutes, Chief Emerson seconded.
36
37
The motion to approve carried 3-0.
38
39
Page 1 of 13
Public Hearing Ethel Berkoff
1
December 9, 2009 BA-620093988
2
3
Agenda Item #2 – Ethel Berkoff
4
5
Linda Pendarvis, Planner, presented the petition of Ethel Berkoff located at 7614
6
Greenbrier Circle.
7
8
Mrs. Berkoff had a spa and screen enclosure installed and when a form board
9
was submitted to the building department for sign off it was discovered that the
10
spa and screen enclosure did not meet the minimum side yard setback of 6 feet.
11
The building department did not approve the form board and the permits for the
12
spa and screen enclosure never received a final inspection.
13
14
Should the variance be approved the applicant’s intention is to renew the expired
15
permits and get a final inspection which will allow the code enforcement cases to
16
be abated.
17
18
The petition was presented to the Board of Adjustment on August 26, 2009 but a
19
signed and sealed survey was not provided with the documentation and there
20
was not the appropriate date on the sign affidavit as to when the public notice
21
was placed on the property. The petition public hearing was continued by the
22
Board.
23
24
On December 4, 2009 a survey was hand delivered to Growth Management
25
signed and sealed by James a. Fowler a Professional Surveyor & Mapper. The
26
survey indicates a setback of 4.67 feet. An updated picture of the Public Notice
27
Sign and Affidavit has been provided in the staff report.
28
29
Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it does not conform to a strict
30
interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in St. Lucie County Land
31
Development code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies
32
of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore recommending denial of the
33
requested variance.
34
35
Mrs. Pendarvis told the Board Mr. Strype, agent to the applicant, was unable to attend
36
the hearing.
37
38
Mr. Harris noted the measurement of the covered brick patio on the survey at 5.11 feet
39
and verified with Mrs. Pendarvis that it since it is covered, it should be outside of the six
40
foot zone, therefore encroaches into the side setback. He stated this particular petition
41
only addresses the screened brick where the hot tub is.
42
43
Mr. Harris then opened the public hearing; no one spoke, so he returned to the Board
44
for discussion.
45
46
Page 2 of 13
Mrs. Andrews asked Assistant County Attorney Katherine Smith if the Board were to
1
approve this would they be allowed to include the covered brick area Mr. Harris pointed
2
out. Ms. Smith stated it is not part of the petition, and the applicant was not present to
3
amend their petition to request it. Mrs. Andrews stated it seems the Board should
4
continue the petition to give the applicant an opportunity to amend it. Mr. Harris
5
concurred. Chief Emerson stated he thinks it is irrelevant since the question has not
6
been raised by either the County or the applicant and it is appropriate to rule on what is
7
before them today. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Smith for her opinion. Ms. Smith stated what is
8
before you is just the screened brick and hot tub, and it would be the Board’s pleasure
9
whether they wish to continue it to let the applicant look into it, but Chief Emerson was
10
correct it is not what is before the Board today.
11
12
Mr. Harris stated he understands but the applicant will be back to the Board again even
13
if they approve the variance for the one encroachment since it is on the signed and
14
sealed survey. Mrs. Andrews stated she agrees but would still go along with continuing
15
this to save the applicant an additional $850 fee.
16
17
Chief Emerson asked staff if the reason they were brought before the Board was
18
essentially so they could get a final inspection on the spa and screen enclosure. Mrs.
19
Pendarvis stated that is correct and added that Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager
20
said we could make this a condition of approval that the applicant would have to come
21
in for the additional encroachment.
22
23
The Board agreed, and Mr. Harris asked the Board for a motion.
24
25
Mrs. Andrews made the motion:
26
27
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
28
staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in section 10.01.02 of
29
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of
30
Adjustment approve the petition of Ethel Berkoff for a variance from section
31
7.04.01(table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit
32
the continued use of a spa with deck and screen enclosure that encroaches a
33
maximum of 1.3 ft into the minimum side yard setback of 6 ft required for the
34
project known as Greenbrier @ PGA Village, final development plan, located in
35
the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District, because it is a minimal
36
setback; because it effects no neighbors at all; it borders on common property of
37
Association; the Association has approved this. But it would be subject to the
38
applicant returning to get a variance for the 5.11 setback on the covered brick
39
patio.
40
41
Chief Emerson seconded with the amendment that it be a variance of 1.33 feet since it
42
is 4.67 feet from the property line.
43
44
Mr. Harris stated he would like to make it 1.35 to allow a variation with the
45
measurements.
46
Page 3 of 13
The motion maker and second agreed.
1
2
Mr. Harris asked the Board if they should put a time limit on the condition. Ms. Smith
3
stated it is the Board’s discretion, and stated they should word it for staff that the
4
applicant should apply if needed since the issue had not been looked into.
5
6
The Board stated 60 days would be the time limit.
7
8
The motion maker and second agreed.
9
10
The motion to approve carried 3-0.
11
12
13
Public Hearing Treasure Coast Hospice Service Center
14
December 9, 2009 BA-1020094017
15
16
Agenda Item #3 – Treasure Coast Hospice Service Center
17
18
Mrs. Pendarvis presented the petition:
19
20
The Petition of Hospice Foundation of Martin and St. Lucie, for a Variance from
21
the Provisions of Section 7.04.01(A)(Table 7-10), of the St. Lucie County Land
22
Development Code to allow construction of a three (3) story building with a
23
maximum height of just under 47 feet which is approximately 7 feet greater than
24
the 40 foot maximum building height allowed in the (I) Institutional Zoning District.
25
26
The subject property is located on the Southeast corner of Midway Road and
27
Dunn Road. The property consists of 5.58 acres of land area. The subject
28
property is zoned Institutional and the Future Land Use is Public Facilities. The
29
southern portion of the subject property is currently developed as the project
30
known as Hospice of the Treasure Coast Minor Site Plan.
31
32
The surrounding properties are to the North, Liberty Baptist Church and
33
Educational Facility; to the South, is vacant AR-1 zoning; to the East is Castle
34
Exchange Club Center Prevent Child Abuse; to the West are vacant Institutional,
35
and the Royal Care Assisted Living Facility.
36
37
These are pictures of the existing facility that is located on the subject property.
38
(Showed pictures)
39
40
This is a diagram view of the proposed three story building from Dunn Road.
41
(Showed diagram)
42
43
The height of a structure is measured from vertical distance between the
44
minimum finished grade and the average distance between the eaves and the
45
ridge of the sloped roof.
46
Page 4 of 13
This is a partial elevation from Midway Road because the diagrams are so large.
1
(Showed elevations)
2
3
The proposed structure will be set back from Midway Road approximately over
4
200 feet, that includes an 85 foot Canal right of way located between Midway
5
Road and the subject property along the northern property line.
6
7
This is a diagram of the approved site plan. (Showed diagram)
8
9
The table indicates the dimensional requirements allowed in the Institutional
10
Zoning District as well as the proposed building and the existing one story facility.
11
The setbacks that are on the site plan indicate the actual setbacks to the
12
proposed three-story building.
13
14
Staff did not receive any not in favor of response forms from the adjacent
15
property owners.
16
17
Staff recognizes the uniqueness of the proposed structure needed to allow
18
Treasure Coast Hospice Service Center to function in this location however the
19
requested variance does not necessarily qualify as a hardship as defined in the
20
SLC Land Development Code.
21
22
Staff is therefore recommending denial of the requested variance.
23
24
Mrs. Andrews asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit that expired on December 2,
25
2009 in the Board’s package was for the first building or this one. Mrs. Pendarvis stated
26
it was for the complete site.
27
28
Mrs. Andrews asked if the Board should be concerned with the expiration date at this
29
point. Mrs. Pendarvis stated the fact that it is a use that has been in process on the
30
property, the approval has been satisfied.
31
32
Chief Emerson asked if staff knows if any of the surrounding properties have buildings
33
that exceed the height requirements in the Institutional Zoning. Mrs. Pendarvis said no.
34
35
Having no further questions of staff, Mr. Harris allowed the applicant to address the
36
Board.
37
38
Robert Snow, architect for the project, stated the issue is with the height, because of the
39
size of the rooms that are required, mainly the community education room on the first
40
floor which was designed for 200 people. Mr. Snow stated the issue arose because the
41
rooms had to be quite large; the ceiling heights had to move up, the duct work had to
42
move up, and they just ran out of space.
43
44
Mr. Snow showed the actual roof height on the elevation slide from Mrs. Pendarvis’
45
presentation. He explained the roof height is 44 feet which is four feet higher than the
46
Page 5 of 13
maximum requirement. Mr. Snow explained they were trying to create a tower look to
1
the building to dress it up and to have it fit in with the existing building next door.
2
3
Mr. Snow stated the Land Development Code does not address parapets. He said in
4
addition to the 44 foot roof height, there is a three foot parapet that goes around it to
5
hide some mechanical equipment on the roof; and the walls are poured concrete, with
6
impact glass designed to be a secure building in the event of a hurricane. The parapet
7
walls help the wind resistance of the roof by reducing the suction pressure of hurricane
8
force winds on the roof.
9
10
Mr. Snow stated there would be no increase in traffic because it would be the same
11
three-story building allowed in the Zoning District. He also stated the building would still
12
be 100% commercial fire-sprinkled, so fire would not be an issue. Mr. Snow stated that
13
a fully occupied viable building on the site would increase adjacent property values, and
14
not decrease them.
15
16
Mr. Snow concluded stating he did everything he could to reduce the height of the
17
building and still have it function, but when there is a room for 200 people, you need a
18
certain ceiling height with the column span.
19
20
Mr. Harris returned to the Board for questions of Mr. Snow.
21
22
Mrs. Andrews stated her only possible objection to exceeding the height requirement
23
would be casting shadows, but that is not a factor here since the vacant residential land
24
is to the south and is not affected by the sun.
25
26
Lou Benson, CEO of Treasure Coast Hospice, stated the Community Education Room
27
provides an important location for social service agencies to meet. Mr. Benson stated if
28
they cannot get the height, there would need to be pillars throughout the room which
29
would break up line-of-sight and not make the meeting room conducive. He said the
30
other reason is for an open floor plan on the upper floor for the staff locations where the
31
teams can meet and communicate with each other without having to try to build around
32
the various columns.
33
34
Having no further comment from the public, Mr. Harris returned to the Board.
35
36
Chief Emerson asked of staff if there was no differentiation of architectural structures on
37
the roof for parapets and other things that extend the maximum height. He asked if a
38
church steeple would be considered in the building height as well. Mrs. Pendarvis
39
responded there is nothing in our LDC that addresses architectural design except for a
40
slope on a roof, which goes to the medium of the pitch.
41
42
Having no further questions, Mr. Harris turned to the Board for a motion.
43
44
Chief Emerson made the motion:
45
46
Page 6 of 13
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
1
staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of
2
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of
3
Adjustment approve the petition of The Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie,
4
Inc.,for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(a) (table 7-10), of the
5
St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the construction of a three
6
(3) story building with a maximum height of just under 47 feet which is 7 feet
7
greater than the 40 foot maximum building height allowed in the (I) Institutional
8
Zoning District, because it is consistent with the use of the surrounding properties
9
and the future land use.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews seconded.
12
13
The motion to approve carried 3-0.
14
15
16
Public Hearing Benton W. Chambliss
17
December 9, 2009 BA-720093993
18
19
Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner, presented the petition:
20
21
A petition of Benton W. Chambliss for a variance from Section 7.04.01 (Table 7-
22
10) and Section 8.00.04 (Figure 8-1) of the St. Lucie County Land Development
23
Code to allow 13 masonry columns, 2 walls and gate, 7 feet in height, at a
24
maximum of 22.59 feet into the required front yard setback of 25 feet in the HIRD
25
(Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District.
26
27
This petition emanates from a Code Enforcement case #61208 cited on
28
November 25, 2008 that addressed the failure to obtain a permit for the privacy
29
wall including columns and any electrical.
30
31
The Future Land Use is RU (Residential Urban) and to the south of that property
32
is Public Facilities, Middle Cove Beach. It is on the southern end of the HIRD
33
Zoning District on that part of the South Island. Further south is CPUB
34
(Conservation Public) and there is a PUD (Planned Unit Development),
35
Watersong 1/3 of a mile south.
36
37
Property owners within 500 feet of the location at 4580 S Ocean Drive have been
38
notified, and we have not received any responses.
39
40
On July 16, the application was received, and included a survey which showed
41
that there were 13 columns ranging from the south to the north; and walls
42
connected between columns 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 creating a gateway across the
43
driveway.
44
45
Page 7 of 13
The first survey did not indicate the height of the columns and walls in reference
1
to the centerline of the adjacent roadway, SR A1A. It did show the encroachment
2
of these columns by showing the distance to the property line and the maximum
3
is 22.59 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback which is determined according to
4
Section 3.01.3 (AA) (10 a) indicating that the HIRD Zoning District is the same as
5
the RS-4 (Residential Single Family – 4) Zoning District as listed in Table 7-10.
6
The first survey also showed two CBS walls as three feet high, but those three
7
feet high walls looked akin to a balustrade and they are placed upon a base
8
which makes them higher in elevation.
9
10
On October 12, 2009 staff obtained additional information in the form of the base
11
survey with added elevations for nine of the structures and the elevation of 100
12
feet at the centerline of SR A1A. Staff numbered these structures starting from 1
13
at the south, to the north at column 13; and the two walls as wall number 1 to the
14
south, wall number 2 at the north side of the driveway.
15
16
Mr. Szynkowski then explained the table containing the measurements of the structures
17
that was included in the staff report, with a correction to the height of wall number 2
18
which is 5.0 feet.
19
20
The maximum height violation on one structure is 97% above the four foot
21
allowed height.
22
23
Staff’s finding is that the variance arises from conditions that are not unique, and
24
not necessarily a hardship and the variance is requested because of Mr.
25
Chambliss wants to be allowed the continued use of the thirteen columns
26
attaching to the two walls and gate.
27
28
The petition does not conform to the standards of Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie
29
County Land Development Code staff is recommending denial of the requested
30
variance.
31
32
The Board having no questions of staff, Mr. Harris allowed the applicant to address the
33
Board.
34
35
Mr. Chambliss stated in his contract agreement with his contractor, the contractor was
36
to obtain all necessary permits, complete them and see the sign off. Mr. Chambliss
37
stated the contractor built the walls and told him they had been certified by an architect,
38
so he had no reason to suspect they were not in compliance. He stated he started
39
receiving notices from Code Enforcement that several things were not done the way
40
they should be, and they had been having trouble getting in touch with the contractor to
41
straighten the issues out.
42
43
Mr. Chambliss stated when he requested the contractor bring this up for a variance, the
44
contractor said he was finished with the project. Mr. Chambliss stated the project has
45
Page 8 of 13
many more problems than the current discussion, but he has tried to do what he can to
1
get the project satisfactorily approved.
2
3
Mr. Chambliss stated in the complaint it said it blocks the visibility of the ocean and the
4
dunes, but you can see the dunes, but not the ocean. He said it was originally all marsh
5
land, and when the storms came in 2005 they filled it in with sea sand so it is not
6
suitable for building anything without doing either a massive amount of bridge and refill
7
or pilings.
8
9
Mr. Chambliss stated the sign for Middle Cove Park was mentioned as being hidden,
10
but the sign is six to eight feet in front of the wall next to the highway so is easily visible.
11
12
Mr. Chambliss said he had originally planned to build a wall between the columns but
13
due to the overruns in the cost of refurbishing the house, he elected to try to save some
14
money and put the hedgerow through there. He said the columns are two-by-two and 20
15
feet apart, and the hedgerow itself which is only two or two and a half feet high.
16
17
Mr. Chambliss stated another purpose for the wall is as security to prevent the public
18
from using the property as a thoroughfare to the beach, and vandalizing the property.
19
He said the wall has curtailed 95% of the traffic through the property, but there are still
20
people who walk around the edge of the fence next to the ocean.
21
22
Mrs. Andrews asked if hedgerow would be like a solid wall when it grows. Mr.
23
Chambliss stated it would unless the Board dictate he keep it low. He stated he
24
submitted several pictures with his application that show properties similar to his that
25
have the higher wall, and from that he assumed it was going to be ok.
26
27
Mrs. Andrews stated as a resident of North Hutchinson Island, she has had problems
28
with these walls that block the view of the ocean; and we have a building separation
29
ordinance which at least allows you to see the ocean between some of these tall
30
condos. She said she does not like to see land where there are no condos also blocked.
31
Mrs. Andrews stated she would like to see the columns being lower and set back further
32
into the setback. Mr. Chambliss stated it could be done but it would be at a considerable
33
expense and hardship on him because the project has run twice what he had originally
34
estimated. Mrs. Andrews stated she empathizes with that but the Board is not allowed
35
to consider financing as a hardship. Mr. Chambliss stated even if there were zero walls,
36
you could not see the ocean with the dune. Mrs. Andrews stated she disagrees with his
37
interpretation and it would be a big difference if those walls were not there or lower.
38
39
Mr. Harris asked staff for clarification if those columns and/or wall were at the correct
40
elevation being no more than four feet above the adjacent centerline of SR A1A they
41
would not be in violation of the front yard setback. Mr. Szynkowski stated it is correct.
42
43
Mr. Chambliss stated he had filed a complaint through Code Enforcement on the
44
contractor, and it is being addressed now. He also said he felt like those walls added
45
Page 9 of 13
aesthetics to the property and gave him a certain amount of security and he was acting
1
in good faith but was taken by the contractor and realizes that is not a consideration.
2
3
Mr. Harris stated it is not a consideration, but the Board is sorry your contractor did not
4
follow procedures and come in, if he did, then the wall would have been set back the 25
5
feet and Mr. Chambliss would not be here right now; but there is nothing we can do
6
about that, it is a civil matter between you and your contractor, and hopefully you will get
7
some compensation for that.
8
9
Having no further public comment, Mr. Harris returned to the Board for discussion.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews asked for clarification if the wall was at the correct height at four feet it
12
would not be a setback violation. Mr. Harris stated that was correct. Mrs. Andrews
13
stated it is still 20 some odd feet into the 25 foot setback. Mr. Harris stated it does not
14
apply to fences if they are set at the correct height.
15
16
Chief Emerson stated he could sympathize with the homeowner, but he thinks the
17
variance is too much in this case although it would be some expense, the cost to
18
change the height on some of the columns probably wouldn’t be as expensive as
19
tearing them down completely and rebuilding them, so he is prepared to make a motion.
20
21
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
22
staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of
23
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of
24
Adjustment deny the petition of Benton W. Chambliss for a variance from Section
25
7.04.01(Table 7-10) and Section 8.00.04 of the St. Lucie County Land
26
Development Code to permit the continued use of 13 masonry columns with 2
27
connecting walls and a gate that are over 4 feet in height above the centerline of
28
the adjacent road and therefore encroach a maximum of 22.59 feet into the
29
minimum front yard setback of 25 feet required for the HIRD (Hutchinson Island
30
Residential District) Zoning District, because I do not believe it is consistent with
31
either the Land Development Code or the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews seconded.
34
35
The motion to deny carried 3-0.
36
37
Public Hearing Robert E. Sheets
38
December 9, 2009 BA-920094012
39
40
Jeff Johnson, Senior Planner, presented the petition.
41
42
Robert Sheets has requested a variance to allow for the construction of a carport
43
to encroach 2.7 feet into the required 25 foot front yard setback as stated in
44
Section 7.04.01 of the Land Development Code and to exceed the 30 percent
45
Page 10 of 13
maximum lot coverage requirement for all buildings in the RS-3. Single Family
1
Zoning District
2
3
The subject property is nearly ¼ of an acre in size and is located in White City –
4
1301 West First Street as depicted on the map. The 2009 aerial photo shows an
5
existing single family residence approximately 2200 square feet in size. The
6
zoning of RS-3, Single Family Residential minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lot is consistent
7
with the future land use designation of Residential Urban allowing a maximum
8
density of 5 dwelling units per acre.
9
10
Just to go back and give history on this case……
11
12
Back on September 28, 2005 Board of Adjustment (BOA) granted variance
13
approval via Resolution No. 05-021 to allow the construction of a carport to
14
encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the minimum required twenty-five (25)
15
foot front yard setback. The previous 378 square foot carport was destroyed in
16
the 2004 storms and encroached 2.2 feet into the required twenty-five (25) foot
17
front yard setback. The existing building improvements on the property prior to
18
the storms exceeded the maximum thirty (30) percent lot coverage requirement
19
by 1.6 percent or 166.5 square feet. It should be noted that no specific
20
construction plans were submitted for this variance request to determine the
21
specific or exact encroachment. A “blanket” ten (10) foot maximum
22
encroachment was granted by the Board and the maximum lot coverage
23
requirement was not reviewed by staff.
24
25
On September 28, 2006 the variance granted by the BOA back on September
26
28, 2005 expired. The applicant failed to obtain an approved building permit or
27
an extension to the variance in accordance with Section 10.01.06, of the St.
28
Lucie County Land Development Code.
29
30
On November 25, 2008, a stop work order was issued by the Code Compliance
31
Division for constructing a carport without an approved building permit. On the
32
following day, the property owner applied for a building permit to construct a 480
33
square foot carport. The proposed carport is to encroach 2.7 feet into the
34
required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback. The total building improvements
35
on the property exceed the maximum thirty (30) percent lot coverage requirement
36
by 2.5 percent or 268.5 square feet.
37
38
On December 4, 2008, contractor was notified by the County Building
39
Department that the building permit application was incomplete and needed
40
further information in order to conduct a thorough review. The Building
41
Department also informed the property owner that the variance had expired and
42
new variance must be granted if the dimensional requirements of the LDC were
43
not met.
44
45
Page 11 of 13
On January 13, 2009, contractor was provided review comments from the
1
Building Department with a comment stating that the proposed improvement
2
(carport) encroached into the front yard setback and exceeded the thirty (30)
3
percent maximum lot coverage requirement for all buildings. The petitioner was
4
advised that a variance is required and must be granted prior to the issuance of a
5
building permit. As shown in the photographs, the carport is now constructed on
6
the property. The signed and sealed survey submitted shows this 2.7 foot
7
encroachment.
8
9
The following table shows that as proposed, the 30 percent maximum lot
10
coverage for all buildings on the lot would exceed approximately 2.5 percent or
11
268.5 square feet. (Showed table)
12
13
Based on the circumstances that a variance was previously granted and knowing
14
that there are no negative or adverse impacts to other properties in the
15
neighborhood; staff is recommending approval of the variance requested.
16
17
33 Mailing notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject
18
property. As of date we have received a total of 10 responses in support, and
19
there have been no objections.
20
21
Mr. Harris made a note to staff regarding the motion to approve the Board had stated
22
that it exceeded the 30% maximum but did not say how much.
23
24
Having no further questions of staff, Mr. Harris opened the public hearing.
25
26
Robert E. Sheets the petitioner stated he concurs with staff’s presentation.
27
28
There being no further public comment, Mr. Harris returned to the Board.
29
30
Mrs. Andrews made the motion
31
32
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
33
staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.00 of
34
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of
35
Robert Sheets
Adjustment approve the petition of for a variance from the
36
provisions of Sections 7.04.01(A) of the St. Lucie County Land Development
37
Code to allow the construction of a carport to encroach 2.7 feet into the minimum
38
required twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback and to exceed the thirty (30)
39
percent maximum lot coverage requirement for all buildings in the RS-3,
40
Residential Single Family Zoning District by 2.5% or 268.5 feet because based
41
on the variance that we granted Mr. Sheets several years ago, we decided it was
42
in the best interest of Mr. Sheets and the County to grant this variance.
43
44
Chief Emerson seconded.
45
46
Page 12 of 13
The motion to approve carried 3-0.
1
2
OTHER BUSINESS
3
4
Mrs. Andrews asked how the memo to County Administration was received. Mr. Harris
5
stated he had no formal response from the County Administrator at this time.
6
7
Chief Emerson asked Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager, if Growth Management had
8
considered adding something to the Land Development Code regarding architectural
9
features such as steeples and parapet walls on rooflines to distinguish maximum
10
building height. Ms. Tetsworth stated yes, there are exemptions in other counties
11
regarding height restrictions on particular architectural features on different types of
12
buildings. She said while we are going through Code revisions, it is an excellent
13
suggestion that that be incorporated.
14
15
Chief Emerson stated it would be prudent for the Board of Adjustment to make the
16
recommendation that the Land Development Code be revised to accommodate
17
architectural features above the maximum elevations as stated in the Code for different
18
Zoning Districts. The Board concurred. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Tetsworth if she required
19
something in writing for the suggestion. Ms. Tetsworth stated the mention of it was good
20
enough.
21
22
Mrs. Andrews asked if there was anything in SB 360 that applied to variances granted
23
by the Board. Ms. Pendarvis stated the SB 360 applies to development orders;
24
variances are based on getting a building permit, so if a building permit is not applied for
25
within the required 12 month limitation, it would not fall within the SB 360 statute. The
26
SB 360 would take over under the approval of the building permit, not the variance
27
approval.
28
29
Ms. Tetsworth told the Board there were currently no active applications for the January
30
27, 2010 meeting so there may be no meeting.
31
32
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:38 a.m.
33
Page 13 of 13