HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-24-2010
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
March 24, 2010
3
9:30 a.m.
4
5
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained
6
from the Growth Management Department along with these Minutes. A fee
7
is charged. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the
8
compact disc, the 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
Buddy Emerson ................................ Board Member
20
21
MEMBERS ABSENT
22
Richard Pancoast ............................. Board Member
23
24
OTHERS PRESENT
25
Kristin Tetsworth .............................. Planning Manager
26
Jeff Johnson ..................................... Senior Planner
27
Larry Szynkowski ............................. Senior Planner
28
Chris Lestrange ................................ Building Official
29
Katherine Smith ................................ Assistant County Attorney
30
Heather Young ................................. Assistant County Attorney
31
Michelle Hylton ................................. Senior Staff Assistant
32
33
ANNOUNCEMENTS
34
35
Chairman Harris announced that Agenda Item #1 would be moved to the end of
36
the hearing.
37
BOA Minutes Page 1 of 11 March 24, 2010
Agenda Item #2 – Minutes
1
2
Ms. Andrews motioned for approval of the minutes of December 9, 2009. Chief
3
Emerson seconded.
4
5
The motion carried 4-0
6
7
Agenda Item #3 – Darrell L. Smith APP 1020094014
8
9
Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner presented the petition:
10
11
The petition of Darrell L. Smith to appeal the decision of the St. Lucie
12
County Code Compliance Manager and Building Official, not permitting
13
the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the existing dock that is a
14
nonconforming use and structure in the RS-4 (Residential, Single Family-4
15
du/1acre) Zoning District. This appeal is authorized, under Sections
16
12.04.01.B and 11.11.01.B.3.of the St. Lucie County Land Development
17
Code. The location is 274 Marina Drive.
18
19
Mr. Szynkowski stated staff asked for further information from the Florida
20
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which was provided. On August
21
10, 2009, staff informed the applicant that he did not comply with the zoning
22
requirement that does not allow accessory structures without a main permitted
23
structure on the property. October 2, 2009 the petitioner applied to the Growth
24
Management Director to appeal the decision and come before the Board of
25
Adjustment. Staff responded with a request for more information, and the fee and
26
application were provided on January 28, 2010. Mr. Szynkowski concluded that
27
presently staff is requesting denial of this project.
28
29
Mrs. Andrews stated the definition for an accessory structure requires that the
30
accessory structure be located on the same lot as the principal structure or use,
31
but the dock is not on the applicant’s lot but on state-owned submerged lands.
32
Mrs. Andrews asked what the justification is for calling it an accessory structure.
33
Christopher Lestrange, Code Compliance Manager and Building Official
34
responded the plat for the Coral Cove Beach Subdivision dedicates the
35
waterways to the use of the public and the County has required dock permits in
36
those waterways and throughout the county since 1992. Mr. Lestrange stated we
37
do not have a boundary survey to say whether it is or is not on the lot.
38
39
BOA Minutes Page 2 of 11 March 24, 2010
Mrs. Andrews stated the County did not require permits for marine construction
1
prior to 1990, but since that time, they have granted 37 dock permits in Queens
2
Cove alone up until 2007. She said Queens Cove submitted a list to the county in
3
2007 listing those lots and documenting it with approved permits. Mrs. Andrews
4
stated it seems to her there is plenty of precedent.
5
6
Mr. Lestrange stated those docks would be considered non-conforming uses and
7
structures by today’s code as well.
8
9
Mrs. Andrews asked Mr. Lestrange what changed between 1990 and today. Mr.
10
Lestrange stated nothing has changed that he is aware of.
11
12
Mrs. Andrews stated several Building Officials in a row did not consider it an
13
accessory structure. She added when two cases in Queens Cove came up in
14
2007, one was grandfathered in and the owner was permitted to replace the
15
seawall and reconstruct his dock. The second one was a vacant lot that already
16
had a seawall and the owner wanted to put up a dock, which was the first denial
17
after 37. Mrs. Andrews stated that four of those were investment properties
18
owned by the then Assistant County Administrator.
19
20
Chief Emerson asked if the denial was based on the expansion of the dock and if
21
the owner could repair the existing dock by the code. Mr. Lestrange assented.
22
Chief Emerson asked if the owner would need a permit for the repair of the
23
seawall. Mr. Lestrange said yes.
24
25
Chief Emerson asked in comparison to Queens Cove if what has been approved
26
in the past was repair of existing docks. Mr. Lestrange said he could not say he
27
has looked at every dock out there.
28
29
Mr. Bangert asked if the fact that the seawall and dock were put in prior to the
30
Code, has any bearing. Mr. Lestrange stated the way the Land Development
31
Code addresses that is through the nonconforming use and structure
32
requirements that state you can repair them but they cannot be expanded.
33
34
Mr. Bangert stated the fact that the seawall would raise the ground level two feet
35
would do a lot for protecting the septic tank in the field and protecting the Indian
36
River Lagoon. Mr. Lestrange stated he is unaware if they have a septic tank on
37
this lot and he thinks the two feet is an assumption at this time.
38
39
BOA Minutes Page 3 of 11 March 24, 2010
Mr. Harris asked why we would not allow the dock to be expanded but we will
1
allow the seawall. Mr. Lestrange stated the seawall is necessary not only to
2
protect this property but the neighboring properties for safety and erosion control.
3
4
Mrs. Andrews reiterated her question how this is considered an accessory
5
structure when it does not meet the definition in the Code. Mr. Lestrange read the
6
Land Development Code definition of “accessory use” which refers to a principal
7
structure of which there is none on the property, and asked if Mrs. Andrews is
8
suggesting there should be no building permits. Mrs. Andrews stated no, the
9
County has the need and the right to make sure it is built to Code, but it is on
10
state property.
11
12
Mr. Lestrange addressed the Board regarding the DEP, and read the partial copy
13
of the permit in the Board Members’ packets. Mr. Lestrange pointed out that the
14
DEP’s determination (exemption from the state level) expired on July 25, 2008.
15
16
Mrs. Andrews stated it is her understanding that the exemption letter is good for
17
life, but the Corps of Engineers portion of it may. Mr. Lestrange stated they are
18
ok to proceed with construction by September 1, 2011 through the Army Corps of
19
Engineers.
20
21
Mrs. Andrews stated waterfront property owners are paying higher taxes; and the
22
applicant has been paying taxes on an improved lot because of the dock. She
23
said she thinks it is not the County’s position to deny him the full use and
24
enjoyment of his land, particularly since he is paying a premium for it.
25
26
Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Smith, told the Board the definition of “lot”
27
in the Land Development Code might assist them.
28
29
Mr. Lestrange read the definition of “lot” from the LDC.
30
31
Mr. Bangert said it is interesting that it is defined as land not as water.
32
33
With no further questions from the Board, Chairman Harris called for the
34
petitioner.
35
36
Darryl Smith, the applicant, explained his request is to be proactive in fixing a
37
seawall and dock that he considers a continued liability. He said he understands
38
the County’s position on nonconforming use but does not believe a dock on
39
waterfront is a nonconforming use. Mr. Smith stated to repair the existing dock is
40
BOA Minutes Page 4 of 11 March 24, 2010
a waste of money for something he does not desire, and he is being proactive
1
fixing the seawall before it fails. He said he could submit plans to build his house
2
complete the dock and seawall but never finish the house.
3
4
Mr. Smith said by choice he is adding materials to improve the dock and seawall
5
that will protect them in the next storm event. He stated it is financially beneficial
6
and feasible for him and others to proceed with the seawall and dock now
7
instead of later.
8
9
Mrs. Andrews asked if the lot level would need to be raised. Mr. Smith responded
10
the health department suggested it would need to be raised between 24 and 30
11
inches. Mrs. Andrews asked what that would do to the existing seawall, and Mr.
12
Smith stated it is not advisable to put any additional load on it.
13
14
Chief Emerson asked the applicant if he realized he could get a permit today to
15
replace the seawall and reconstruct the existing dock exactly as it is. Mr. Smith
16
said he has received approval for the seawall, but the Code said he is not
17
allowed to make modifications and the dock is attached to the seawall. Chief
18
Emerson clarified you can fix the seawall for protection and reconstruct the dock
19
the same as it is today, and asked the applicant if he understood. Mr. Smith
20
stated the Code says to “repair” not “reconstruct” but he could not repair the dock
21
without considerable expense. He added the new seawall cap would be two feet
22
taller than it is.
23
24
Chief Emerson asked why the applicant wants the dock bigger than it is today.
25
Mr. Smith said it is not the configuration he wants when he builds his house.
26
27
Chief Emerson asked if the configuration the applicant wants is solely for his use.
28
Mr. Smith said it is, and he does not intend to subdivide. Chief Emerson stated
29
he wanted to make a judgment based on what you want but if you want to lease
30
out dock space or people coming and going that would make traffic implications
31
beyond a single-family use it would be a different consideration. Mr. Smith said it
32
is and Code Enforcement would ensure that, but reiterated the dock is not on his
33
property.
34
35
Mr. Smith asked how many of the 182 adjacent property owner letters
36
responded. Staff responded the total responses were 14 in favor, one in favor,
37
and two phone calls concerning the extent of the dock as it would be rebuilt
38
extending further into the canal.
39
40
BOA Minutes Page 5 of 11 March 24, 2010
Mr. Harris asked staff if the applicant could only perform maintenance on the
1
existing dock but not tear it down and reconstruct it as it is. Mr. Lestrange said
2
that is correct, he cannot do a demolition and rebuild. Mr. Harris continued and
3
maintenance could be only a 50% repair.
4
5
Mr. Harris stated you say it is not your land and the state is not claiming the
6
bottomlands but it is tied to your bundle of rights because your land touches the
7
water.
8
9
Chairman Harris then opened the hearing to the public.
10
11
Bob Burn, a Queens Cove resident, stated he does not know the applicant but is
12
speaking in favor of the petition. He said people spend a considerable amount of
13
money on waterfront land, the structure they build on it, and in property taxes.
14
Mr. Burn stated the applicant is looking to enhance the neighborhood and the
15
value of the property. He said it seems that we are preventing people from
16
enhancing the value of our community, and more taxes.
17
18
Mr. Harris stated the situation is before us today because of the interpretation of
19
the Code by the Building Official. Mr. Burn stated while he is appreciative of that
20
he suggests changing the Code. Mr. Harris suggested Mr. Burn contact his
21
commissioner and request that change.
22
23
Cort Schult, a Queens Cove resident, stated he is a Board member of the
24
Homeowner’s Association of Queens Cove, and is the Chairman of Queens
25
Cove’s Environmental Committee. He stated that in 2007 there were two property
26
owners who had been denied permits from the County for putting a dock on their
27
empty lot. Mr. Schult stated when those people came to him; he researched and
28
found 37 cases of approved permits for docks and boatlifts, but not for power for
29
the boatlifts. He said they sent a package documenting the cases to all five
30
county commissioners but received no response. He stated the then Assistant
31
County Administrator, acting as Building Official, approved one of the permits
32
since it was a pre-existing dock, but was rebuilt exactly the same size. Mr. Schult
33
stated in the second case the bulkhead was on his property and the property
34
owner would require a walkway through the mangroves, but it was denied since it
35
was not a pre-existing condition. Mr. Schult stated they have not had any
36
requests for a dock since 2007, which he assumes is the result of the present
37
economy.
38
39
BOA Minutes Page 6 of 11 March 24, 2010
Mr. Schult stated he thinks waterfront property owners are being taxed at a
1
higher rate, and when they want to put a dock on their property and they are
2
denied it is grossly unfair. He said he thinks if the County Code does not allow
3
this, it should be changed.
4
5
Mr. Harris asked for clarification if Mr. Schult said the County issued 37 permits
6
for docks and seawalls. Mr. Schult stated he went back to 1999, which was as far
7
as he could find at the time, but it may have been more than that. Mr. Harris
8
asked if they were on unoccupied lots of record. Mr. Schult stated all unimproved
9
lots.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews stated she had the list, and Mr. Harris asked it be added to the
12
record.
13
14
Chief Emerson asked staff if a permit is required for maintenance and repair of a
15
dock where the value of the maintenance and repair is less than 50% of the cost
16
of construction. Mr. Lestrange stated yes it is if they need to replace at least one
17
piling. Chief Emerson stated he would respectfully disagree with that.
18
19
Chief Emerson asked if a dock is considered nonconforming and a storm event
20
removes more than 50% of the structure, are they entitled to rebuild the
21
nonconforming use. Mr. Lestrange stated if it is a nonconforming structure it can
22
be rebuilt within the footprint, however, he does not think there is the same
23
allowance for a nonconforming use.
24
25
Chief Emerson reiterated a person who has a nonconforming dock could not
26
rebuild a nonconforming dock in the event of storm damage. Mr. Lestrange
27
stated not if the structure is considered a nonconforming use.
28
29
Mrs. Andrews stated at least in 2007 both Indian River and Martin Counties had
30
no problem with this, as we did for 17 years. She also stated as a result of the
31
letter with the 37 names and permits that were attached to the original letter,
32
there was a letter from Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager, at the request of
33
Bob Nix, then Growth Management Director, requesting the County provide an
34
exemption to the Land Development Code that allows for the construction of
35
docks and boat lifts without the construction of a primary structure. Ms. Tetsworth
36
included an application for a text amendment to the Code.
37
38
BOA Minutes Page 7 of 11 March 24, 2010
Mrs. Andrews stated at the end of this she would like to make the suggestion that
1
this Board recommend that such an amendment be looked at by the Growth
2
Management Department.
3
4
Chief Emerson asked Ms. Smith if we have allowed a nonconforming use to be
5
rebuilt because of environmental damage to her knowledge. Ms. Smith stated
6
she could not answer without researching.
7
8
Having no further comment from the public, Chairman Harris closed the public
9
hearing and turned to the Board for discussion or a motion.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews made the motion:
12
13
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing,
14
including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in
15
section 11.11.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I
16
Darrell
hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of
17
L. Smith,
to appeal the decision of the St. Lucie County Code Compliance
18
Manager and Building Official, not issuing a building permit and to allow
19
the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the existing dock because
20
there is ample precedent for granting the permit; because the denial of a
21
permit is denying the owner the best use of his land, the enjoyment of his
22
land for which he is paying a premium; because the adjoining counties
23
also allow docks to be built on unimproved lots.
24
25
Mr. Bangert seconded with an addition:
26
27
Because the owner has approval of the DEP and the US Corps of
28
Engineers who have control over our waterways; and because the close
29
neighbors have no objections.
30
31
The amendment was accepted. The motion carried 4-0.
32
33
Mrs. Andrews stated she would like to make another motion that this Board
34
recommend that the Growth Management Department investigate an
35
amendment to the Code to permit this type of construction.
36
37
Mr. Bangert seconded.
38
39
The motion carried 4-0.
40
BOA Minutes Page 8 of 11 March 24, 2010
Agenda Item #4 – BA 220104038 Port St. Lucie Social Security
1
Administration Building
2
3
Mr. Harris disclosed that he oversees projects during development review so he
4
had a chance to look at this particular project but did not look at landscaping. He
5
asked if the public or staff felt he should recuse himself from this particular item
6
he would be glad to.
7
8
No one spoke, so Chairman Harris turned to staff.
9
10
Jeff Johnson, Senior Planner presented the variance request:
11
12
Petition of Rutherford/Strickland, LLC for a variance to reduce the required
13
fifteen (15) foot landscape buffer between the private street and off-street
14
parking area to five (5) feet in depth as stated Section 7.09.04(A), of the
15
St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
16
17
Mr. Johnson provided the background of the project, and state after the applicant
18
was issued a building permit, the applicant was made aware that a minimum 20-
19
foot wide setback was required between the building and the vehicular use area.
20
He stated the applicant is proposing to adjust their approved site plan and the
21
building has been pushed back 20 feet to the rear. Mr. Johnson said the building
22
is now in line with the north property line and directly abuts a 20-foot wide access
23
easement. He stated the requested variance would allow a 2/3 reduction in the
24
required landscape buffer.
25
26
Mr. Johnson stated the applicant has been unable to acquire additional property
27
from the owner of the vacant property to the south, nor reduce the building size.
28
He said the proposed reduction in the landscape buffer adjacent to this private
29
driveway is about 2,000 square feet in size, and will be placed along the west
30
and south sides of the building.
31
32
Mr. Johnson finished his presentation by stating staff is recommending approval
33
of the variance.
34
35
The Board having no questions of staff, Chairman Harris called for the applicant
36
to speak.
37
38
Grady Strickland, of Titusville, general contractor of the project stated staff’s
39
presentation summed it up. Mr. Strickland stated the process he is involved in
40
BOA Minutes Page 9 of 11 March 24, 2010
requires them to submit to the federal government a preliminary layout, and a
1
final product after completion of the permit process.
2
3
Mr. Strickland stated based upon security changes that have occurred over the
4
permitting time period, the General Services Administration (GSA) and Social
5
Security requested a 20-foot buffer around the building to protect from someone
6
using their car to plow into the building. He said Immigration and Customs
7
Enforcement requires a 50-foot buffer, but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
8
Social Security, and Customs are still adhering to the 20-foot buffer.
9
10
Mr. Strickland explained the parking layout to the Board, and stated the
11
government changed it that way.
12
13
Mrs. Andrews asked if the building would be occupied by a federal administrative
14
department. Mr. Strickland stated the previous site is in the strip mall less than ¼
15
of a mile south of this site. He said the government wishes to relocate their
16
agencies into their own buildings for security.
17
18
Mr. Harris asked staff if the Environmental Resources Department would support
19
the variance. Mr. Johnson stated they are in support.
20
21
Mr. Strickland added the changes to the landscaping have not reduced the
22
amount of landscaping, it has just been moved.
23
24
Chairman Harris opened the public hearing.
25
26
No one spoke, so Chairman Harris returned to the Board.
27
28
Mr. Bangert made the motion:
29
30
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing,
31
including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in
32
Section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I
33
hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of
34
Rutherford/Strickland, LLC
for a variance from the provisions of Section
35
7.09.04(A) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to reduce the
36
required fifteen (15) foot landscape buffer between the street (private) and
37
off-street parking area to five (5) feet in depth in the CG, Commercial
38
General zoning district because Code Enforcement has approved it, and
39
BOA Minutes Page 10 of 11 March 24, 2010
because the Environmental Resources Department is also in support of
1
this.
2
3
Chief Emerson seconded.
4
5
The motion carried 4-0.
6
7
Agenda Item #1 – Elections of Officers
8
9
Chief Emerson nominated Mr. Harris as Chairman.
10
11
Mrs. Andrews seconded.
12
13
After the vote, Mr. Harris was named Chairman 4-0.
14
15
Chief Emerson nominated Mrs. Andrews as Vice-Chair.
16
17
Mr. Bangert seconded.
18
19
After the vote, Mrs. Andrews was named Vice-Chair 4-0.
20
21
Mrs. Andrews nominated someone designated by the Growth Management
22
Director as Secretary.
23
24
Chief Emerson seconded.
25
26
After the vote, the Director of Growth Management’s designee was elected the
27
Secretary 4-0.
28
29
OTHER BUISINESS
30
31
Chief Emerson explained to the Board why he asked the questions regarding
32
nonconforming use during the Smith appeal. He stated he originally sided with
33
the Building Official until the questions arouse regarding structures that are
34
considered nonconforming uses. Chief Emerson stated in order to replace his
35
seawall, the dock would need to be removed and he could not rebuild the
36
existing dock because it is a nonconforming use. He stated that is a big problem
37
in his opinion.
38
39
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:37 a.m.
40
BOA Minutes Page 11 of 11 March 24, 2010