HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-28-2010
St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment
1
St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers
2
July 28, 2010
3
9:30 a.m.
4
5
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained
6
from the Planning and Development Services Department along with these
7
Minutes. A fee is charged. In the event of a conflict between the written
8
minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall control.
9
10
11
CALL TO ORDER
12
Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M.
13
14
ROLL CALL
15
Ron Harris ........................................ Chairman
16
Diane Andrews ................................. Vice Chair
17
Bob Bangert ..................................... 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
Linda Pendarvis ............................... Planner
26
Jeff Johnson ..................................... Senior Planner
27
Michelle Hylton ................................. Senior Staff Assistant
28
29
ANNOUNCEMENTS
30
None.
31
32
Agenda Item #1 – Minutes
33
34
Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes.
35
Mr. Pancoast seconded, and the motion passed 4-0
36
37
Agenda Item #2 – Phillip Oates BA-520104063
38
39
BOA Minutes Page 1 of 5 July 28, 2010
Linda Pendarvis, Planner, presented the petition:
1
,
The petition of Phillip Oatesfor a variance from the Provisions of Section
2
7.04.01(A), of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the
3
construction of a swimming pool which will encroach a maximum of 9 feet
4
into the minimum rear setback of 15 feet required in the RS-4 (Residential,
5
Single Family – 4 du/ac) Zoning District.
6
7
Ms. Pendarvis stated staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it may
8
not necessarily be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St.
9
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; however, the requested variance does not
10
conform to a strict interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section
11
10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code staff is therefore
12
recommending denial of the requested variance.
13
14
Mrs. Andrews asked whether there was any response from the property owner
15
that backs up to the house.
16
17
Ms. Pendarvis stated she received a call from that neighbor with concerns
18
whether it was an in-ground or aboveground pool, and after a hurricane, how the
19
pool would affect her drainage.
20
21
Mr. Harris asked whether that neighbor made a statement whether she was for or
22
against the petition.
23
24
Ms. Pendarvis stated she was only concerned with the drainage of her property,
25
not whether or not the pool was there.
26
27
Chairman Harris opened the public hearing.
28
29
Jennifer Oates, the petitioner, stated they want to stay in the county, and want a
30
pool.
31
32
Mike Fordresher, A & G Pools, stated the house is set back too far, which is why
33
they are requesting the variance. He stated it will be an in-ground pool, and will
34
not be enclosed but there will be a baby barrier per code.
35
36
Mr. Harris asked if it would still violate the setback without the enclosure.
37
38
BOA Minutes Page 2 of 5 July 28, 2010
Ms. Pendarvis stated the setback goes to the water’s edge, so it will still
1
encroach. She said the six-foot variance would cover the enclosure should they
2
come back for one.
3
Mr. Bangert asked whether they had a homeowner’s association.
4
5
Ms. Oates stated there is an association but it is voluntary.
6
7
Having no further public comment, Mr. Harris closed the public hearing.
8
9
Mr. Pancoast made the motion:
10
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing,
11
including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in
12
Section 10.01.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I
13
Phillip
Hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of
14
Oates
for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01(A), of the St.
15
Lucie County Land Development Code to permit the construction of a
16
swimming pool, which will encroach a maximum of 9 feet into the
17
minimum rear setback of 15 feet required in the RS-4 (Residential, Single
18
Family – 4 Du/Ac) Zoning District, because the house is set back 47 feet
19
which created the need to move the pool back into the setback, the
20
setback is the minimum required, although the rear neighbor had a
21
comment on the flooding, she did not oppose the construction.
22
.
23
24
Mrs. Andrews seconded. The motion carried 3-0.
25
26
Agenda Item #3 – Globe Wireless, LLC BA-620104067
27
28
Jeff Johnson, Senior Planner presented the petition:
29
Globe Wireless, LLC has requested a variance from the provisions of
30
Section 9.04.02(J) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to
31
allow three (3) flags to be placed on the property less than the required
32
thirty (30) feet separation requirement between flags.
33
34
Mr. Johnson stated the request is not the direct result of conditions that are
35
unique or particular to the land, structures or topography involved. The minimum
36
thirty-foot separation requirement for permanent flags applies to all zoning
37
districts throughout the county. As shown on their survey, there is ample space to
38
locate in the front yard in order to put the flags that comply with all applicable
39
BOA Minutes Page 3 of 5 July 28, 2010
setbacks and comply with the minimum thirty-foot separation requirement. Staff
1
has reviewed the petition and has determined that the request does not meet the
2
strict interpretation of the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of
3
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, and therefore recommends
4
denial.
5
6
Mr. Pancoast asked for clarification if the reason for the variance is because they
7
could not get the thirty feet between poles.
8
9
Mr. Johnson stated that is correct.
10
11
Chairman Harris opened the public hearing.
12
13
Ron Ryan of Globe Wireless, the petitioner, stated they are a global maritime
14
telecommunications company and when dignitaries from around the world visit
15
their facility, they want to show respect to their respective countries with their
16
flag. He stated that if they did separate the flags thirty feet, one would end up in
17
the retention pond on the site. Mr. Ryan displayed photos with examples of the
18
clustered style they wish to have.
19
20
Mr. Ryan displayed photos with examples of the clustered style they wish to
21
have.
22
23
Having no further public comment, Mr. Harris closed the public hearing.
24
25
Mrs. Andrews stated she sees nothing objectionable about this request and
26
believes that the 30-foot code requirement is probably directed at places like the
27
car dealers on U.S. 1 who use multiple flags for advertising.
28
29
Mr. Bangert made the motion:
30
After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
31
staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of
32
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of
33
Globe Wireless, LLC
Adjustment approve the petition of for a variance from the
34
provisions of Section 9.04.02(J) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code
35
to allow a maximum of three (3) flags to be placed no less than ten (10) feet
36
apart which is 20 feet less than the 30 foot minimum separation requirement in
37
(IH) Industrial Heavy Zoning District because they have plenty of space, and they
38
BOA Minutes Page 4 of 5 July 28, 2010
also have the retention pond that would obstruct it, and the reasons that were
1
presented by the Board.
2
3
Mrs. Andrews seconded. The motion carried 3-0.
4
5
Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 9:50 a.m.
6
BOA Minutes Page 5 of 5 July 28, 2010