Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb. 23, 2011 Approved Minutes1 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 2 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 3 February 23, 2011 4 9:30 a.m. 5 6 7 8 A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained 9 from the Planning and Development Services Department along with these 10 Minutes. A fee is charged. In .the event of a conflict between the written 11 minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall control. 12 13 14 CALL TO ORDER 15 Chairman Ron Harris called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. 16 17 18 ROLL CALL 19 Ron Harris ....................................... Chairman , 20 Diane Andrews ......................:......... Vice Chair 21 Richard Pancoast ............................ Board Member 22 Bob Bangert ..................................... Board Member 23 24 25 MEMBERS ABSENT 26 Buddy Emerson ............................... Board Member (Excused) 27 28 29 OTHERS PRESENT 30 Katherine Barbieri ............................ Assistant County Attorney 31 Kara Wood .....................................:. Planning Manager 32 Kristen Tetsworth ............................. Senior Planner 33 Beverly Austin .................................. Executive Assistant 34 35 36 ANNOUNCEMENTS 37 Mr. Emerson has an excused absence. 38 BOA Minutes Page 1 of 12 February 23, 2011 39 Mr. Harris stated he would move Agenda Item #1-Election of Officers to the 40 end of the agenda. 41 42 Mrs. Andrews motioned the request to move Agenda Item #1 to the end of 43 the agenda. Mr. Pancoast 2"d the motion. The motion carried 4-0. 44 45 46 Agenda Item #2 -Minutes of December 8, 2010 47 Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes. 48 Mr. Bangert seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 49 50 51 Agenda Item #3 - BA-120114219 Paul & Laura Struve 52 Kristin Tetsworth, senior planner presented the petition: 53 54 The petition of Paul and Laura Struve (BA 120114219) for a Variance from 55 the Provisions of Section 7.04.01.6 of the St. Lucie County Land 56 Development Code. 57 58 Ms. Tetsworth stated that Mr. & Mrs. Struve is requesting a variance from the 59 side yard setbacks for a shed to house pool equipment and a shade structure 60 which have already been constructed. The Future land use if RS, or Residential 61 Suburban with a density of 2 dwelling units per acre. The zoning district is RE-2 62 Residential Estate, which allows 2 dwelling units per acre. For clarification, it 63 should be noted that the property owner also owns the back half of the lot to the 64 south. The parcel was acquired by Mr. and Mrs. Struve on January 14, 2004. 65 The owners applied for a building permit to construct a swimming pool in 2006. 66 The original survey showed a CBS shed behind the single family home, and the 67 pool equipment was located behind the CBS shed. Later, the property owner 68 renovated the main house and also relocated the old CBS shed to be right on the 69 property line. The roof of the shed encroaches into the parcel to the south with a 70 roof overhang of approximately 18 inches into the neighbors' yard. The survey 71 also shows a shade structure right on the property line as well. 72 On August 9, 2010 the Building and Code Regulation Division served the 73 property owner with a Notice of Violation of 3 Sections: 1) Section 11.05.01 of the 74 LDC because the shed was not permitted; 2) Section 7.04.01(6) of the land 75 development code requires a 10 foot side-yard setback; and 3) Section 7.07.08 76 for a failure to maintain a stormwater system on their own property. BOA Minutes Page 2 of 12 February 23, 2011 77 Therefore the petitioner is requesting a 100% variance, to allow an after the fact 78 building permit. However, that will still not resolve the drainage issue. This is a 79 quasi-judicial proceeding, and proper notice was advertised in -the newspaper, 80 there is a sign on the property and 16 notices were mailed to the adjacent 81 property owners within 500 feet of the subject. We received 6 responses:. 4 in 82 favor and 2 opposed. 83 In the staff report, the 4 criteria were evaluated per Chapter 10 of the LDC. The 84 variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique and peculiar to the 85 land, structures, and buildings involved; nor the particular physical surroundings, 86 shape, or topographical condition of the property that would result in 87 unnecessary hardship. The need for the variance is solely the result of actions by 88 the property owner. 89 In the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Objective 1.1.8 90 establishes that owners make investments in their residential property and their 91 quality of life in single family neighborhoods, and that these neighborhoods need 92 ~ to be protected from the encroachment of inappropriate land uses through 93 consistent and predictable applications of the LDC. That is the basis of the 94 Building and Code Regulations notice of violation: to protect the property rights 95 of the adjacent owner to the south through the consistent application and 96 implementation of the LDC. 97 Staff is therefore recommending denial of the requested variance. In order to 98 preserve, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort good order, 99 appearance, convenience and general welfare. 100 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing. 101 102 Mr. Paul Struve, 6909 South Indian River Drive, Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 was sworn 103 in by the recording secretary. 104 105 Mr. Struve stated it started five years ago when they decided to have a pool put 106 out back. They hired a company out of Vero Beach named Coral Pools which is 107 currently out of business. The company did all the permitting; and the only thing 108 they did not do is the screen enclosure. There was a shed and part of a carport 109 originally there that they wanted to turn in to a cabana at the time. But after 110 investigating, they found out the building itself is not square to the property line, it 111 is actually crooked to the property line, so that the southwest corner was 7 1/2 112 feet from the property line and the southeast corner was 10 feet from the BOA Minutes Page 3 of 12 February 23, 2011 113 property line which would have been ok as far as the deed restrictions require. 114 They investigated it with the building and zoning department at the time and 115 several things came up; they did not know if the slab would be acceptable for 116 block walls all the way around cause this was only partially block and partially 117 frame. 118 119 After several months of jockeying back and forth with different prints with the 120 architect in Vero Beach, Frank Farley, it became apparent that they were not 121 going to pass this changing it into a cabana. So they decided to take it down. 122 Unbeknownst to them, they started knocking the walls down and they suspected 123 their neighbors to the south called and complained. They did not know they 124 needed a demolition permit; they went and got the permit and paid double for the 125 fine for not having a permit. They took the building down and the slab up. When 126 .the pool was built, it appears the way it was explained to the Board that the slab 127 for all the pool equipment was put approximately where it shows on the original 128 document 15 to 20 feet from the property line which is incorrect. The pool 129 company poured that slab and they poured it next to the fence line; he had 130 nothing to do with that, it was put there five years ago. His reason for building 131 the shed was over the past five years they had to replace pumps, have electrical 132 work done because it keeps getting rained on. The neighbor complained about 133 the overhang but he did not think it was a big deal. He asked a surveyor that 134 drew this original in 2004 and he said they were not concerned with the 135 overhangs; they are concerned with the footprint of the property. Since they are 136 in violation, they reviewed moving this and they have aquote/bid and it came to 137 over $9,000 and avoid being penalized $250 a day for the shed. 138 139 The mistake that was made was he built a shed on top of this without getting a 140 permit without a doubt and he is prepared to pay for whatever the mistake is. If it 141 is possible to make some type of modification on the shed in order still to protect 142 the equipment and not to cost a great deal of money that they do not have at this 143 time. He is a marble and the contractor and they have no work. He has been in 144 this area for 39 years and this is the worst recession that he has ever been in. 145 They are barely surviving. He is looking to appease the home owner in question 146 south of them. The one two doors south, he does not care about, he has no say 147 in this matter directly as for as he is concerned. Except for filling out a document 148 which everybody got sent. If he has to cut the overhang off, he would be happy 149 to cut the overhang off and put a gutter on it which would be inside of the set 150 back. He said they are really one foot on one end and. 7 '/ inches on the other. 151 The documents here are slightly off. It says they are 18 inches over hung into BOA- Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 23, 2011 152 the lady's property; the overhang on the building itself is only 14 inches, so they 153 came be 18 inches overhung. There is a little discrepancy there which may or 154 may not make a difference. If the Board would. allow him to modify the building in 155 order to appease the Board, he would be willing to do that. Obviously, he is 156 going to do whatever the Board is going to tell he to do but to save him a great 157 deal of expense at this time, he would be willing to do that. Other than that he is 158 more interested in answering questions that the Board has. 159 160 Chairman Harris asked the Board if they had any questions. 161 162 Mr. Pancoast stated he could understand that if all the plumbing/pool equipment 163 was put over by the border against the property line that the county might pass 164 that. He finds it difficult to understand why they would because it did encroach. 165 Looking at the building, when you put the building up you had to know it was on 166 the property line; you had to know the roof encroached on your neighbor's 167 property. He is happy to hear that Mr. Struve is willing to appease his neighbor. 168 You are not appeasing your neighbor, your neighbor has rights to their property 169 and you are encroaching on their rights. Not only with the overhang but with the 170 setback. 171 172 Mrs. Andrew made a comment that the Board. was told in the past that financial 173 considerations are not a consideration in determining hardship. The Board is not 174 permitted to use financial consideration as hardship. She deferred to the county 175 attorney if that is correct. 176 177. Mrs. Barbieri stated yes, you have to use what is in the Land Development Code 178 for what the issues are and financial is not in there. 179 180 Mr. Pancoast stated he could put a roof over this but it's not what he wants. 181 Even with the roof it will encroach. 182 183 Mr. Bangert had no comment. 184 185 Chairman Harris stated he has two issues. One was that Mr. Struve did it without 186 a permit perhaps an. honest mistake perhaps not. But Mr. Struve does encroach 187 into his neighbor's property. Looking at the survey prepared by Mr. Bill Moody; 188 unfortunately he did not train his people to always look up when they are near a 189 property line because that is an encroachment. What that encroachment can do 190 to your neighbor is; if they decided to sell their property and it showed up on a BOA Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 23, 2011 191 survey; the sell stops. You could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. 192 This could happen; he has seen it happen before. As far as the pool company, 193 placing the equipment there, when they placed the slab and they placed the 194 equipment-no structure-no setback-no problem. When you wall it and roof 195 it, now you have a problem and Mr. Struve did that himself which he did a great 196 job. 197 198 Mr. Struve stated he would like to be able to keep the building there and make an 199 adjustment so that it is not on her property. That is the only comment he has. 200 201 Chairman Harris opened the hearing up to the public for anyone speaking for or 202 against this. Ms. Yasuko T. Richard and Carl Mareth were sworn in by the 203 recording secretary 204 205 Ms. Richard of 6915 South Indian River Drive stated that she would like for Mr. 206 Struve to remove the whole shed because it is over her property; she was going 207 to make atea-house there and it is ugly. She does not want to look at it. She 208 lost her grapefruit tree because of water running on her property. 209 210 Chairman Harris asked if he understood her correctly, she want it moved 10 feet 211 off. the property line, you want the whole shed picked up and move it with all the 212 equipment. 213 214 Ms. Richard stated yes. 215 216 Chairman Harris asked if she would entertain Mr. Struve sawing off the eve of the 217 shed to remove the encroachment. 218 219 Mr. Carl Mareth assisted Ms. Richard by stating that Mr. Struve was dumping his 220 water onto Ms. Richards' property. It saturated it so much that she lost her big 221 grapefruit tree. Mr. Struve was made to move the water lines, but it is still super 222 saturated in the back. According to the planners, it did not suppose to be on that 223 line; it was suppose to be 20 feet away. Whoever did the pool put it up against 224 there and he can see a drawing that it is 20 feet here, why is it on the line. And 225 according to the old drawings, that fence that he put up against is actually on her 226 property. He should not have done it; he knew better. Nobody bothers doing 227 anything in the neighbor so Mr. Struve figured he could get away with it. It is 228 wrong; it is on her property and should be removed. Do like everybody else, He 229 got permits, Ms. Richard got permits; put it where it suppose to be. No matter BOA Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 23, 2011 230 what it cost him, he knew it was wrong to begin with. But some people don't go 231 by the rules. 232 233 Ms. Richard stated that Mr. Struve. comes over to her yard and cuts her tree 234 without her consent. They are walking over her because she is old and by 235 herself. 236 237 Mr. Mareth stated what Ms. Richard is saying is that Mr. Struve goes on Ms. 238 Richard's property when he wants to. Because she does not have the money to 239 put a fence up to keep him off. 240 241 Mr. Mareth stated Ms. Richard wants it completely removed and do like 242 everybody else and have it where the setback is 10 feet the same as he did. 243 244 Chairman Harris closed the public hearing. 245 246 Mr. Pancoast stated he is looking at the building and it does not appear to be 10 247 feet wide, is it possible to give Mr. Struve a 5 foot encroachment and he could 248 put a roof on. He does not know how much he could cover with that. He does 249 not see where the building can be saved. He may end up with the equipment 250 there with some type of cover on it if he can get enough set back. He could get 5 251 feet of setback he might approve that. That is based on the fact that his neighbor 252 is dead set against it; she is the one being violated and something has to be 253 done to look at her problem. He would possibly support something as much as a 254 5 foot encroachment. It does not matter how this Board rules, Mr. Struve has to 255 take part of the roof off. That is a legal deal. 256 257 Mrs. Andrews asked Mr. Struve if the shed was removed completely how far from 258 the property line is the pool equipment. 259 260 Mr. Struve stated the pool equipment slab is about 14 to 16 inches from the 261 property line. 262 263 Mrs. Andrews stated a 5 foot would not do him any good. 264 265 Mr. Bangert asked Mr. Struve about when he changes the water in his pool. He 266 is concerned about the water. 267 BOA Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 23, 2011 268 Mr. Struve stated it is a water softener with a discharge pipe to flush the water 269 softener and apparently the hose is ran along the property line and was draining 270 some on her property. He did not know this. He stated there were 24 inches of 271 rain in one day a couple of years ago when Tropical Storm Faye came by. They 272 are up on a sand hill that is about 30 feet above sea level; there has never been 273 any standing water anywhere there. It drains through the sand. The story that 274 Mr. Mareth and Ms. Richard is coming up with that we killed their grapefruit tree 275 is a story at best. 276 277 Mr. Bangert asked Ms. Richard that it is not the site of the building that bothers 278 her. 279 280 Ms. Richard says yes. 281 .282 Mr. Bangert stated that it is so heavily wooded on that side; you couldn't possibly 283 see the building from the pictures. 284 285 Ms. Richard said she did not want to look at the shed; it supposed to be 10 feet 286 away. He should abide by the law and move the shed 10 feet. . 287 288 Chairman Harris asked staff if the pool equipment was there on a slab without a 289 roof, without the walls; is that a violation of any setbacks. 290 291 Ms. Tetsworth stated no because the pool equipment does not require a permit 292 and she was told thru the building department sometimes people put small low 293 level tiny covers over it and that does not require a building permit. 294 295 Chairman Harris said he wanted to be sure that it was not in violation of any 296 setbacks. 297 298 Ms. Tetsworth stated it would not be in violation of a setback. 299 300 Chairman Harris stated to Mr. Struve that he has a neighbor that does not like his 301 shed. It is a nice looking shed but you do encroach which is not good. He does 302 not believe that this Board at his time on it has granted a 100% variance. It has 303 never done that, so right now he is not in support of his petition for a variance. 304 Mr. Struve will have to remove the structure but the pool equipment can stay. 305 That will be a burden to you; however, your neighbor has rights. If your neighbor 306 was supportive, his position would be different, but they are not supportive. They BOA Minutes Page 8 of 12 February 23, 2011 307 are the ones directly affected. With that, with no further discussion, a motion will 308 be entertained. 309 310 Mrs. Andrews made a motion to deny: 311 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, 312 including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in 313 section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie Land Development Code, I hereby move 314 that the Board of Adjustment deny the petition of Paul and Laura Struve 315 for a variance from the provisions of section 7.04.01(8), of the St. Lucie 316 Land Development Code to allow the continued use of pool equipment 317 shed to serve a swimming pool in the back yard of a single family 318 residence which will encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the 319 minimum side setback of 10 feet in the RE-2 (Residential Estate - 2 320 DU/AC) zoning district because this is more than a variance, it is a waiver 321 being requested. The encroachment is solely of the owner's making and 322 because there was sufficient room to correct it. A variance would not 323 correct the drainage problem and because the adjacent owner's property 324 rights are being violated; in addition, to which the Board is not permitted to 325 consider the financial hardship of the individual. 326 327 Mr. Pancoast seconded the motion. 328 The roll was called: 329 Mrs. Andrews ................................... yes 330 Mr. Bangert ...................................... yes 331 Mr. Pancoast ................................... yes 332 Mr. Harris ......................................... yes 333. The motion passed 4-0. 334 335 Chairman Harris stated to Mr. Struve that his petition has been denied. 336 337 Mr. Struve asked how much time does he have to remove the shed. 338 339 Chairman Harris stated he did not know, he would look to staff to answer that 340 question. 341 342 Ms. Tetsworth stated he is under the code enforcement action currently so the 343 Board's decision will be forwarded to Code Enforcement Board. 344 BOA Minutes Page 9 of 12 February 23, 2011 345 Ms. Barbieri stated at this point it has to be forwarded and code enforcement 346 staff then will set a hearing in front of the Code Enforcement Board. He will need 347 to speak to code enforcement staff as to when the hearing would be. 348 349 Mr. Struve asked what the hearing is for. 350 351 Ms. Barbieri stated it would be to determine the violation and a fine; if you 352 remove they won't do it. 353 354 Mr. Struve stated it will be removed;. how much time does he have to remove it. 355 356 Ms. Barbieri stated he has to talk to code enforcement staff for that information. 357 They do give a reasonable amount of time. 358 359 Mr. Bangert asked Mr. Struve did he understand his options; he could leave the 360 equipment and remove the shed. 361 362 Mr. Struve stated he intends to leave the equipment there so that she can look at 363 it. How much of a roof can be put over the equipment. 364 365 Chairman Harris stated he suggest that he get with the building department. 366 367 AGENDA ITEM #1 Election of Officers (which was moved to the end) 368 369 Mr. Pancoast stated it would be his pleasure to put his name in to continue being 370 chair of the Board of Adjustments. He appreciates Mr. Harris' leadership. 371 372 Mrs. Andrews seconded the nomination. 373 The roll was called: 374 Mrs. Andrew ............................................... yes 375 Mr. Bangert ................................................. yes 376 Mr. Pancoast .............................................. yes 377 Mr. Harris .................................................... yes 378 379 It was unanimous 4-0; Ron Harris remains. chair of the Board of Adjustments. 380 381 382 Mr. Bangert nominated Mrs. Andrews to continue as vice chair. 383 Mr. Pancoast seconded the nomination. BOA Minutes Page 10 of 12 February 23, 2011 384 The roll was called: 385 Mr. Bangert ................................................. yes 386 Mr. Pancoast .............................................. yes 387 Mrs. Andrews .................:........................... yes 388 Mr. Harris .................................................... yes 389 It was unanimous 4-0, Mrs. Andrews to continue as vice-chair of the Board of 390 Adjustments. 391 392 Chairman Harris stated the final election of a Planning and Development Service 393 executive assistant type of individual for the position of secretary. 394 395 Mrs. Andrews asked didn't the Board decide last year that it would be dictated by 396 the Planning and Development Services Department. 397 398 Chairman Harris stated they still have to nominate someone according to the 399 Code. 400 401 Ms. Barbieri stated you just have to designate again that you want Planning and. 402 Development Services to continue to be your secretary and you are not going to 403 nominate one of the board members to do it. 404 405 Mr. Pancoast motioned to have the Planning and Development Services continue 406 to provide the recording secretary for the Board meetings. 407 408 Mr. Bangert seconded to motion. It was passed unanimously. 409 410 411 OTHER BUSINESS 412 A. Other Business at Board Members' discretion. 413 None. 414 415 B. Next regular Board of Adjustment meeting. 416 Ms. Wood stated as far as she knows there are no variance 417 applications pending in house. So there will likely be no meeting for 418 next month but an official notification will be sent out within the next 419 week or so. 420 421 422 Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 am. BOA Minutes Page 11 of 12 February 23, 2011 423 424 425 BOA Minutes Page 12 of 12 February 23, 2011