HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Approved Minutes 08-26-09Page 1 of 3 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 1 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 2 August 26, 2009 3 9:30 a.m. 45 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 Buddy Emerson........................... Board Member 17 Diane Andrews............................ Board Member 18 Richard Pancoast ........................ Board
Member 19 20 MEMBERS ABSENT 21 Bob Bangert ................................ Vice Chairman 22 23 OTHERS PRESENT 24 Katherine Smith........................... Assistant County Attorney
25 Aneela Ansar............................... Senior Planner 26 Kristin Tetsworth ....?..................... Planning Manager 27 Michelle Hylton............................ Senior
Staff Assistant 28 29 Agenda Item #1 – Minutes 30 31 Approval of the Minutes for June 24, 2009. 32 33 Mrs. Andrews motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Pancoast seconded. 34 35 The
motion carried 4-0. 36 37
Page 2 of 3 Public Hearing Ethel Berkoff 1 June 24, 2009 BA-620093988 23 Agenda Item #2 – Ethel Berkoff 45 Aneela Ansar, Senior Planner, stated Growth Management received a request from
Mrs. 6 Berkoff for a variance from Section 7.04.01(Table 7-10) of the Land Development Code for a 7 spa with deck and screen enclosure that encroaches a maximum of 1.3 ft into the minimum
yard 8 setback of six feet required for the project known as Greenbrier @PGA Village, Final 9 Development Plan, located in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. 10 11 Ms.
Ansar stated the Board of County Commissioners on October 16, 2001 approved the 12 Greenbrier at PGA PUD site plan with certain conditions one of which was that pool and patio 13 structures
allowed six foot setbacks on the interior lots and ten foot set backs on the corner lots. 14 15 Ms. Ansar stated County staff informed the applicant that the existing spa with deck and
screen 16 enclosure as shown on the as-built survey does not meet the six foot setback requirement of the 17 Greenbrier PGA final development plan. The requested variance will allow
the continued use of 18 the spa with deck and screen enclosure which have expired permits and these permits have not 19 been renewed. She stated the Property Owners Association has no
objection to granting this 20 variance. Ms. Ansar then showed photos of the site. 21 22 Ms. Ansar stated the variance sought arises from conditions that are not unique, and not 23 necessarily
a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the 24 need for the requested variance is created by the desire of Mrs. Berkoff to be allowed the 25 continued
use of the spa with deck and screen enclosure. She conclude staff reviewed the 26 petition and determined it does not conform to the standards of review as set forth in section 27 10.01.02
of the LDC; and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the SLC 28 Comprehensive plan, therefore staff is recommending denial of the requested variance. 29 30 Mrs.
Andrews asked whether the applicant was informed verbally or in writing on October 26, 31 2006 when the applicant was informed that the existing deck and screen enclosure does not 32
meet the setback requirements. Ms. Andrews also asked where the as-built survey in reference 33 was. 34 35 Ms. Ansar stated the only survey available is the Boundary Survey submitted
by the applicant; 36 and we received the variance request at the recommendation of Code Enforcement, but she 37 does not know whether the applicant was informed verbally or in writing.
38 39 Mr. Pancoast stated his surprise that the permit has been expired since 2006, and asked if we 40 know why Building did not follow through to find out why the project was not finished.
Ms. Ansar 41 replied that was coordination with Code Enforcement and we took action when they applied for 42 a variance application. 43 44 Mr. Pancoast stated the Board may need to continue
this since they do not have a survey. 45 46 Chief Emerson stated he typically has concern when a variance would impact the neighbor on 47 the area closest to the variance being granted,
noted the site appears to be next to vacant 48 property and asked if the property was owned by the POA. Ms. Ansar responded it is. 49 50
Page 3 of 3 Chief Emerson agreed with Mr. Pancoast and stated without a sealed survey it is difficult to 1 know how much of a variance is actually required. 23 Mr. Harris asked if we
have proof that the sign was installed before August 6, 2009. Ms. Ansar 4 replied the applicant is to provide proof, and she visited the site seven days before the hearing 5 when the
sign was up. 67 Mr. Harris asked County Attorney, Katherine Smith if this creates a problem. Ms. Smith replied 8 we need proof it was posted on time. Mr. Harris asked what proof would
be required. Ms. Smith 9 said there is not anything listed in the Code that says what it should be but we need to be 10 comfortable that it was posted in time. 11 12 Mr. Harris opened
the public hearing. 13 14 Vincent Strype, agent for the applicant stated the site plan submitted was given to the applicant 15 by the County. Mr. Strype stated the sign was installed
four days before it was required. 16 17 Mr. Harris stated the document Mr. Strype submitted was the same plan the Board had in their 18 packets and it is not signed and sealed, therefore
they cannot know whether the dimensions are 19 valid or not, so they cannot move forward with this at this time. Mr. Harris explained to Mr. 20 Strype that he or his client will have
to hire a surveyor to do the final survey. 21 22 Mr. Harris stated he would like to hear the land owner speak before closing the public hearing. 23 Mr. Strype stated she is in New York.
24 25 Mr. Harris closed the public hearing and returned to the Board for a motion. 26 27 Mrs. Andrews moved that the Board postpone this application to the next scheduled meeting, 28
September 23, 2009 at 9:30. 29 30 Mr. Strype stated he has a baby due on September 22, so would not make it. 31 32 Mrs. Andrews changed the date to October 28, and stated at that time
the as-built survey that is 33 referred to in the documentation would need to be produced, sealed. 34 35 Mr. Pancoast seconded and upon roll call the motion passed 4-0. 36 37 Having
no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 9:52 a.m. 38