HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Approved Minutes 10-28-09Page 1 of 6 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 1 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 2 October 28, 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 Bob Bangert ................................ Vice Chairman 17 Diane Andrews............................ 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 Larry Szynkowski ........................ 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 August 26, 2009. 32 33 Mrs. Andrews inserted the addition of Kristin Tetsworth to Others Present, and motioned
34 approval as amended. Mr. Pancoast seconded. 35 36 The motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Bangert abstained since he was absent from the August 37 meeting) 38 39
Page 2 of 6 Public Hearing Ethel Berkoff 1 October 28, 2009 BA-620093988 23 Agenda Item #2 – Ethel Berkoff 45 Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner stated staff is recommending continuance
for this 6 project and asking that during this meeting, the Board set that date. 78 Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager said we need to determine the new date for a 9 combination meeting
of the November and December hearings. 10 11 Mr. Harris stated the Board agreed on December 9 for the next meeting, and returned to 12 the Board for a motion on the Berkoff variance.
13 14 Mr. Bangert motioned for continuance to the December 9th meeting. Mr. Pancoast 15 seconded. 16 17 The motion carried 4-0 18 19 Public Hearing Randall and Deanna Miller 20 October
28, 2009 BA-720093990 21 22 Agenda Item #3 – Randall and Deanna Miller 23 24 Mr. Szynkowski presented the petition: 25 26 Request for variance of Randall and Deanna Miller for a variance
from Section 27 7.04.01(Table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to allow the 28 continued use of a covered deck that encroaches a maximum of 15 feet into the 29 minimum
rear yard setback of 15 feet required for structures located in the RS-4 30 (Residential, Single Family – 4du/1acre) Zoning District. 31 32 Mr. Szynkowski showed the submitted survey
and photos from Code Enforcement. The 33 survey shows rear fence both on the property line and one foot in front of the property 34 line but did not show the deck. The photos from Code
Enforcement staff show the 35 covered deck abutting the fence therefore, the covered deck would be encroaching the 36 15 foot rear setback by between 14 feet and 15 feet, as a result,
staff advertised the 37 variance at the maximum of a15 foot encroachment into the setback so this Board could 38 make that determination. 39 40 Mr. Szynkowski stated the variance sought
arises from conditions that are not unique, 41 and not necessarily a hardship as defined in the St. Lucie County Land Development 42 Code. The need for the requested variance is created
by the desire of Randall and 43 Deanna Miller to have continued use of the covered deck. 44 45
Page 3 of 6 Mr. Szynkowski state the mail responses from the neighbors within 500 feet shows that 1 three were in favor, and three had no opinion. He concluded, stating this petition
does 2 not conform to the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02, St. Lucie County 3 Land Development Code and may be in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies
4 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial 5 of the requested variance. 67 Mr. Harris turned to the Board for questions of staff. 89 Mr. Pancoast
asked how Code Enforcement came to be involved. Mr. Szynkowski 10 stated there was a complaint and Code Enforcement for not having a permit for the 11 deck. 12 13 Mr. Pancoast noted
there were no responses against this and wondered what 14 happened to the original complainant. 15 16 Mr. Pancoast stated he knows Code Enforcement will follow-up as to whether or not
it 17 meets code in its construction, but asked do we know whether the structure meets 18 code. Mr. Szynkowski stated he has no indication, Code Enforcement just sited them for 19 not
having a permit and they are waiting on a decision from this Board. 20 21 Mrs. Andrews asked if a roll-down awning would solve this instead of a permanent roof. 22 Mr. Szynkowski stated
the roof seems to exceed the maximum height of six feet that the 23 fence is, and it seems to extend another five feet. He said as far as the roof being 24 replaced with something removable
might be an improvement from the view, and 25 exclude it being perceived as part of the fence. 26 27 Mr. Bangert asked if there was a homeowners association in the area. Mr. Szynkowski
28 responded no. 29 30 Mr. Harris asked if the deck did not have a roof on it, would it still be in violation of the 31 setback under the current code. Mr. Szynkowski stated based on
the height of the deck, 32 he would say no. 33 34 Mr. Harris opened the public hearing, the Board having no further questions of staff. 35 36 Deanna Miller, the petitioner, stated the
deck and the roof were built to code and signed 37 and sealed by an engineer. 38 39 Mrs. Miller added one of the contractors that was denied the job of the deck was the 40 one to make
the call to Code Enforcement because none of their neighbors seem to 41 mind, and have not complained. 42 43 Randall Miller stated he made sure everything was built to code, and the
neighborhood 44 is pretty lax when it comes to what people do there because there are a lot of sheds and 45
Page 4 of 6 things that are not up to code, not that that makes it right, but they did not do it to make 1 the neighborhood look bad. 23 Mrs. Miller added that you cannot see it from
the road. 45 Mrs. Andrews asked the petitioners if they had a licensed contractor do the deck. 67 Mrs. Miller stated Mr. Miller built the deck from an engineer’s drawings they had done.
8 Mrs. Miller continued they just wanted a sitting area where there was wind, and this was 9 the cheapest way. 10 11 Mrs. Andrews asked if there was any other place to put the sitting
area. The Millers 12 stated there was septic on one side and it is a long house so there wasn’t anywhere 13 else. 14 15 Mr. Harris stated he was going to ask who the contractor was and
it had already been 16 answered. Mrs. Miller stated someone did do the roof. 17 18 Mr. Harris asked if there was a letter from FPL stating it would not interfere with the 19 maintenance
of the power lines. Mr. Miller provided it for the record. 20 21 Mrs. Miller stated the lines are not in their yard but they can get to them from their yard. 22 23 Mrs. Andrews asked
if there was a utility easement. Mr. Harris stated only the title work 24 would show that because it is not a recorded subdivision, and asked the petitioners 25 knew if there was a recorded
utility easement on the south five to ten feet. The Millers 26 said they did not know. 27 28 Mr. Bangert asked if the property was on sewer or septic tank, The Millers replied 29 septic.
Mr. Bangert asked if there were problems with the septic tank and the deck. Mr. 30 Miller stated the septic tank is on the east and the deck is on the south. 31 32 Mr. Harris asked of
the plans signed and sealed by an engineer if they included the 33 deck and the roof. Mrs. Miller responded they were but they were no good unless the 34 Board approves, then they will
have to pull a permit. 35 36 Mr. Harris asked why the petitioners did not pull a permit. Mrs. Miller did not think it was 37 necessary to get a permit for that type of structure. 38
39 Mr. Harris returned to the Board for discussion. 40 41 Mr. Bangert stated there are no problems from the neighbors, and mentioned the 42 property is adjacent to Lakewood Park, which
has a mandatory homeowners 43 association, and the violations in the association are unbelievable and one more would 44 not make a difference. 45 46
Page 5 of 6 Mr. Pancoast stated he was touchy about approving it, but if you ride around the county, 1 there are hundreds of sheds, carports, and other structures sitting on the property
line. 2 He stated though they broke the rules by not getting a permit, if they went for the permit 3 they would still end up here. Mr. Pancoast stated that as a single family homeowner
and 4 none of the neighbors having complained about it, let them keep it. 56 Mrs. Andrews agreed with Mr. Pancoast, and stated the thing that bothers her the most 7 is granting the 100%
variance. Mr. Harris stated it works out to be about 93% but it does 8 not make it any better. 9 10 Mr. Harris stated he is sure if they had not put the roof on, they would not be there.
The 11 Board agreed. 12 13 Mr. Harris stated the issue he has is the existence of a utility easement at the southern 14 portion of the property. He noted there is a fence, and you are
not supposed to fence 15 easements. 16 17 Mr. Pancoast asked what the likelihood was that the the engineer would have included an 18 easement if it was there. Mr. Harris stated unless
the engineer was given title work, he 19 does not know if an easement was recorded, and he is not required by law to do a title 20 search. 21 22 Mr. Harris stated the easement is the
only thing that would hold him back right now. 23 24 Mr. Harris asked the petitioners if they got a permit for the fence, they said they did, and 25 he stated that would have been clarified
then. 26 27 Mr. Harris stated this will probably be the largest variance since his time on the Board. 28 Mr. Pancoast stated it was for him as well. 29 30 Mr. Szynkowski stated staff
would be concerned about any enclosure of that structure in 31 the future. Mr. Pancoast stated we could make it part of the motion. 32 33 Mr. Bangert made the motion: 34 35 After considering
the testimony presented during the public hearing, including 36 staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Section 10.01.02 of 37 the St. Lucie County Land Development
Code, I hereby move that the Board of 38 Adjustment approve the petition of Randall and Deanna Miller for a variance 39 from section 7.04.01(table 7-10) of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code 40 to permit the continued use of a deck that encroaches a maximum of 15 feet (or 41 14 feet) into the minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet required for the RS-4 42
(Residential, Single family 4 du/1 acre) Zoning District, with the restriction that 43 this deck never be closed in and should any problem arise with the roof over the 44 deck, it would
not be replaced. I motion to approve since evidently no one has 45
Page 6 of 6 written in from the neighbors protesting, and there are many more places in the 1 vicinity that are also in violation. 23 Mr. Pancoast seconded. 45 Upon roll call, the motion
carried 3-1, Mr. Harris dissenting because the variance is too 6 large. 78 OTHER BUSINESS 9 10 Mr. Bangert reiterated the next meeting will be on December 9. 11 12 Mr. Harris stated
Mrs. Andrews prepared a memo to the County Administrator 13 requesting video coverage when the Board has administrative hearings. Mr. Harris 14 stated he would like to make sure he had
the support of all the Board members before 15 he transmits the document, and asked if anyone had issues. The Board supported the 16 memo. 17 18 Having no further business, the meeting
adjourned at about 10:00 a.m. 19