Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Approved Minutes 03-25-09St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers March 25, 2009 9:30 a.m. A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained from the Growth Management Department along with these Minutes. A fee is charged. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall control. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at about 9:30 A.M. ROLL CALL Ron Harris ..................................Chairman Bob Bangert................... .............Vice Chairman Diane Andrews............................Board Member Buddy Emerson...........................Board Member Richard Pancoast........................Board Member OTHERS PRESENT Kristin Tetsworth..........................Planning Manager Jeffrey Johnson...........................Senior Planner Katherine Smith...........................Assistant County Attorney Michelle Hylton............................Senior Staff Assistant A?NNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Smith stated a reminder that the Assistant County Attorney represents the Board of Adjustment, not staff. Mr. Harris noted the agenda omitted approval of last month’s minutes and moved the minutes to item #1. Agenda Item #1 – Minutes Approval of the Minutes for February 25, 2009. Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Pancoast seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Page 1 of 4 Public Hearing Dianne B. Davant March 25, 2009 BA-1220081545 Agenda Item #2 – Dianne B. Davant Before giving his presentation, Mr. Johnson made a correction in the staff report: “…the single family home that was previously permitted encroaches approximately 3 feet into the required 50 foot set back” (instead of 1½ feet). Mr. Johnson through his presentation explained the request of Ms. Davant for a variance from the provisions of Section 7.04.01.B. of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow for an addition to a single family home to encroach twenty-three (23) feet into the required fifty (50) foot front yard setback in the AR-1 (Agricultural Residential) zoning district. Mr. Johnson said the single family home is considered legal non-conforming. He noted that Section 10.00.03 of the Land Development Code (LDC) states “any expansion of a nonconforming structure shall be in conformance with the provisions of this Code. This shall not prevent expansion as long as the nonconformity is not increased.” Mr. Johnson pointed out on the survey that the petitioner has constructed a 292 square foot expansion or porte-cochere without an approved building permit. Mr. Johnson said the applicant has explained that the change in zoning from A1 to AR1 made the existing structure non-conforming; and inhibits the owners from updating and adding features consistent with the architectural themes in the neighborhood to the existing home. Mr. Johnson said staff recommends denial of the variance request; the variance itself is created or imposed, and is not unique to the property. He said there is sufficient room that exists within the buildable footprint of the property for additions. Mr. Johnson said as previously stated in 10.00.03 of the County’s Code, It does not allow non-conformities to be Increased or expanded. Bob Raynes, an attorney with Gunster Yokely in Stuart spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Raynes said the house was constructed in 1982 with a 47 foot setback within the required 25 feet in the A1 zoning at that time. He said when the County changed the zoning to AR1 and created a legal non-conforming use it made the property unique. Mr. Raynes addressed staff’s argument that the petitioner created the condition. He said if the County had not changed the zoning in 1984 the petitioner would not need a variance because the structure would be within two feet of the setback requirement. He said the change in the zoning regulations that created the non-conformity that created the hardship. Page 2 of 4 Mr. Raynes said he does not believe the granting of the variance would impair or diminish the values of other properties. Mr. Raynes showed photos of the property and the landscape measures taken to block the view of the porte-cochere; and photos of neighbors with porte-cocheres. Mr. Raynes presented the letters of support they received from all of the neighbors in proximity to the residence. He said the home was not aesthetically pleasing house until the petitioners purchased it and updated it, so it now has a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Raynes explained the functional aspect of the porte-cochere, Ms. Davant-Moffit’s 80 year old mother lives with them 6 months out of the year, so they built this to get her in and out of the house while keeping her out of the elements. Mr. Raynes said he believes this is a reasonable use of the property and they are not asking for anything uncommon to the neighborhood. Mr. Raynes said the purpose is to provide for growth and development consistent with the neighborhoods that will protect both the economic value and quality and values of the neighborhood, and he believes the applicant is well within the general spirit and intent with those. Mr. Harris returned to the Board for questions of Mr. Raynes. Mrs. Andrews asked what the homeowners association’s relationship to the property was. Mr. Raynes said it is not a formal association, they do not have any architectural control or power, and membership is voluntary. With no further questions from the Board, Mr. Harris opened the public hearing. Jim Powell and Phil Guba neighbors of the applicant spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Harris returned to the Board. Mrs. Andrews expressed concern over improvements that are already made before the variances are approved, and suggested a penalty. Mr. Harris stated there is a fine in place, double the permit fee. Mrs. Andrews made the motion: After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth forth in section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of Dianne Davant for a variance from the provisions of section 7.04.01.B of the St. Lucie County land development code to allow for the construction of a an Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 approximately 292 square foot single family home addition (porte-cochere) to encroach twenty-three (23) feet into the required fifty (50) foot front yard building setback from the property line because all of the neighbors have no objection and indeed support it; the granting of the variance will not impair or otherwise injure other properties or improvements in the neighborhood; and I agree with the attorney that this is a unique situation that is caused by rezoning by the County; and it is a minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building and structures. Chief Emerson seconded, and asked staff what the status of the applicant’s building permit was. Mr. Johnson responded they were not issued a permit, it was still on hold. Chief Emerson added a stipulation that the applicant would have to secure a building permit before the variance is granted. He stated if what the applicant constructed didn’t meet the Florida Building Code requirements for wind load and all, it would have to come down. Mr. Raynes stated they understand, they just had to get the variance first then they would move forward with the permit. Mrs. Andrews agreed to the amendment. Mr. Johnson asked if there should be reasonable time to secure the permit. Mr. Harris said to give them 60 days to secure the permit. After roll call the motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Kristin Tetsworth said Growth Management is doing the Code revisions for chapters 10, 11, and 12. She said chapter 10 primarily deals with all the variances and they would like to distribute them to the Board. Ms. Tetsworth said chapter 12 lays out the different duties and responsibilities of the Board. She said they want to make sure that the Board has a chance to weigh in on that; and when they distribute the revisions, if the Board has any comments, she would like to discuss them. Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:05 a.m.