Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA 03242010 Approved MinutesBOA Minutes Page 1 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment 2 St. Lucie County Administration Building Commission Chambers 3 March 24, 2010 4 9:30 a.m. 5 6 A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, can be obtained 7 from the Growth Management Department along with these Minutes. A fee 8 is charged. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the 9 compact disc, the compact disc shall control. 10 11 12 CALL TO ORDER 13 Chairman Mr. Ron Harris called the meeting to order at about 9:30 A.M. 14 15 ROLL CALL 16 Ron Harris ........................................ Chairman 17 Bob Bangert ..................................... Vice Chairman 18 Diane Andrews ................................. Board Member 19 Richard Pancoast ............................. Board Member 20 Buddy Emerson ................................ Board Member 21 22 MEMBERS ABSENT 23 Richard Pancoast ................... ......... Board Member 24 25 OTHERS PRESENT 26 Kristin Tetsworth ................?.............. Planning Manager 27 Jeff Johnson ..................................... Senior Planner 28 Larry Szynkowski ............................. Senior Planner 29 Chris Lestrange ................................ Building Official 30 Katherine Smith ................................ Assistant County Attorney 31 Heather Young ................................. Assistant County Attorney 32 Michelle Hylton ................................. Senior Staff Assistant 33 34 ANNOUNCEMENTS 35 36 Chairman Harris announced that Agenda Item #1 would be moved to the end of 37 the hearing. BOA Minutes Page 2 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Agenda Item #2 – Minutes 2 3 Ms. Andrews motioned for approval of the minutes of December 9, 2009. Chief 4 Emerson seconded. 5 6 The motion carried 4-0 7 8 Agenda Item #3 – Darrell L. Smith APP 1020094014 9 10 Larry Szynkowski, Senior Planner presented the petition: 11 12 The petition of Darrell L. Smith to appeal the decision of the St. Lucie 13 County Code Compliance Manager and Building Official, not permitting 14 the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the existing dock that is a 15 nonconforming use and structure in the RS-4 (Residential, Single Family-4 16 du/1acre) Zoning District. This appeal is authorized, under Sections 17 12.04.01.B and 11.11.01.B.3.of the St. Lucie County Land Development 18 Code. The location is 274 Marina Drive. 19 20 Mr. Szynkowski stated staff asked for further information from the Florida 21 Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which was provided. On August 22 10, 2009, staff informed the applicant that he did not comply with the zoning 23 requirement that does not allow accessory structures without a main permitted 24 structure on the property. October 2, 2009 the petitioner applied to the Growth 25 Management Director to appeal the decision and come before the Board of 26 Adjustment. Staff responded with a request for more information, and the fee and 27 application were provided on January 28, 2010. Mr. Szynkowski concluded that 28 presently staff is requesting denial of this project. 29 30 Mrs. Andrews stated the definition for an accessory structure requires that the 31 accessory structure be located on the same lot as the principal structure or use, 32 but the dock is not on the applicant’s lot but on state-owned submerged lands. 33 Mrs. Andrews asked what the justification is for calling it an accessory structure. 34 Christopher Lestrange, Code Compliance Manager and Building Official 35 responded the plat for the Coral Cove Beach Subdivision dedicates the 36 waterways to the use of the public and the County has required dock permits in 37 those waterways and throughout the county since 1992. Mr. Lestrange stated we 38 do not have a boundary survey to say whether it is or is not on the lot. 39 BOA Minutes Page 3 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Mrs. Andrews stated the County did not require permits for marine construction 2 prior to 1990, but since that time, they have granted 37 dock permits in Queens 3 Cove alone up until 2007. She said Queens Cove submitted a list to the county in 4 2007 listing those lots and documenting it with approved permits. Mrs. Andrews 5 stated it seems to her there is plenty of precedent. 6 7 Mr. Lestrange stated those docks would be considered non-conforming uses and 8 structures by today’s code as well. 9 10 Mrs. Andrews asked Mr. Lestrange what changed between 1990 and today. Mr. 11 Lestrange stated nothing has changed that he is aware of. 12 13 Mrs. Andrews stated several Building Officials in a row did not consider it an 14 accessory structure. She added when two cases in Queens Cove came up in 15 2007, one was grandfathered in and the owner was permitted to replace the 16 seawall and reconstruct his dock. The second one was a vacant lot that already 17 had a seawall and the owner wanted to put up a dock, which was the first denial 18 after 37. Mrs. Andrews stated that four of those were investment properties 19 owned by the then Assistant County Administrator. 20 21 Chief Emerson asked if the denial was based on the expansion of the dock and if 22 the owner could repair the existing dock by the code. Mr. Lestrange assented. 23 Chief Emerson asked if the owner would need a permit for the repair of the 24 seawall. Mr. Lestrange said yes. 25 26 Chief Emerson asked in comparison to Queens Cove if what has been approved 27 in the past was repair of existing docks. Mr. Lestrange said he could not say he 28 has looked at every dock out there. 29 30 Mr. Bangert asked if the fact that the seawall and dock were put in prior to the 31 Code, has any bearing. Mr. Lestrange stated the way the Land Development 32 Code addresses that is through the nonconforming use and structure 33 requirements that state you can repair them but they cannot be expanded. 34 35 Mr. Bangert stated the fact that the seawall would raise the ground level two feet 36 would do a lot for protecting the septic tank in the field and protecting the Indian 37 River Lagoon. Mr. Lestrange stated he is unaware if they have a septic tank on 38 this lot and he thinks the two feet is an assumption at this time. 39 BOA Minutes Page 4 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Mr. Harris asked why we would not allow the dock to be expanded but we will 2 allow the seawall. Mr. Lestrange stated the seawall is necessary not only to 3 protect this property but the neighboring properties for safety and erosion control. 4 5 Mrs. Andrews reiterated her question how this is considered an accessory 6 structure when it does not meet the definition in the Code. Mr. Lestrange read the 7 Land Development Code definition of “accessory use” which refers to a principal 8 structure of which there is none on the property, and asked if Mrs. Andrews is 9 suggesting there should be no building permits. Mrs. Andrews stated no, the 10 County has the need and the right to make sure it is built to Code, but it is on 11 state property. 12 13 Mr. Lestrange addressed the Board regarding the DEP, and read the partial copy 14 of the permit in the Board Members’ packets. Mr. Lestrange pointed out that the 15 DEP’s determination (exemption from the state level) expired on July 25, 2008. 16 17 Mrs. Andrews stated it is her understanding that the exemption letter is good for 18 life, but the Corps of Engineers portion of it may. Mr. Lestrange stated they are 19 ok to proceed with construction by September 1, 2011 through the Army Corps of 20 Engineers. 21 22 Mrs. Andrews stated waterfront property owners are paying higher taxes; and the 23 applicant has been paying taxes on an improved lot because of the dock. She 24 said she thinks it is not the County’s position to deny him the full use and 25 enjoyment of his land, particularly since he is paying a premium for it. 26 27 Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Smith, told the Board the definition of “lot” 28 in the Land Development Code might assist them. 29 30 Mr. Lestrange read the definition of “lot” from the LDC. 31 32 Mr. Bangert said it is interesting that it is defined as land not as water. 33 34 With no further questions from the Board, Chairman Harris called for the 35 petitioner. 36 37 Darryl Smith, the applicant, explained his request is to be proactive in fixing a 38 seawall and dock that he considers a continued liability. He said he understands 39 the County’s position on nonconforming use but does not believe a dock on 40 waterfront is a nonconforming use. Mr. Smith stated to repair the existing dock is BOA Minutes Page 5 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 a waste of money for something he does not desire, and he is being proactive 2 fixing the seawall before it fails. He said he could submit plans to build his house 3 complete the dock and seawall but never finish the house. 4 5 Mr. Smith said by choice he is adding materials to improve the dock and seawall 6 that will protect them in the next storm event. He stated it is financially beneficial 7 and feasible for him and others to proceed with the seawall and dock now 8 instead of later. 9 10 Mrs. Andrews asked if the lot level would need to be raised. Mr. Smith responded 11 the health department suggested it would need to be raised between 24 and 30 12 inches. Mrs. Andrews asked what that would do to the existing seawall, and Mr. 13 Smith stated it is not advisable to put any additional load on it. 14 15 Chief Emerson asked the applicant if he realized he could get a permit today to 16 replace the seawall and reconstruct the existing dock exactly as it is. Mr. Smith Smith 17 said he has received approval for the seawall, but the Code said he is not 18 allowed to make modifications and the dock is attached to the seawall. Chief 19 Emerson clarified you can fix the seawall for protection and reconstruct the dock 20 the same as it is today, and asked the applicant if he understood. Mr. Smith 21 stated the Code says to “repair” not “reconstruct” but he could not repair the dock 22 without considerable expense. He added the new seawall cap would be two feet 23 taller than it is. 24 25 Chief Emerson asked why the applicant wants the dock bigger than it is today. 26 Mr. Smith said it is not the configuration he wants when he builds his house. 27 28 Chief Emerson asked if the configuration the applicant wants is solely for his use. 29 Mr. Smith said it is, and he does not intend to subdivide. Chief Emerson stated 30 he wanted to make a judgment based on what you want but if you want to lease 31 out dock space or people coming and going that would make traffic implications 32 beyond a single-family use it would be a different consideration. Mr. Smith said it 33 is and Code Enforcement would ensure that, but reiterated the dock is not on his 34 property. 35 36 Mr. Smith asked how many of the 182 adjacent property owner letters 37 responded. Staff responded the total responses were 14 in favor, one in favor, 38 and two phone calls concerning the extent of the dock as it would be rebuilt 39 extending further into the canal. 40 BOA Minutes Page 6 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Mr. Harris asked staff if the applicant could only perform maintenance on the 2 existing dock but not tear it down and reconstruct it as it is. Mr. Lestrange said 3 that is correct, he cannot do a demolition and rebuild. Mr. Harris continued and 4 maintenance could be only a 50% repair. 5 6 Mr. Harris stated you say it is not your land and the state is not claiming the 7 bottomlands but it is tied to your bundle of rights because your land touches the 8 water. 9 10 Chairman Harris then opened the hearing to the public. 11 12 Bob Burn, a Queens Cove resident, stated he does not know the applicant but is 13 speaking in favor of the petition. He said people spend a considerable amount of 14 money on waterfront land, the structure they build on it, and in property taxes. 15 Mr. Burn stated the applicant is looking to enhance the neighborhood and the 16 value of the property. He said it seems that we are preventing people from 17 enhancing the value of our community, and and more taxes. 18 19 Mr. Harris stated the situation is before us today because of the interpretation of 20 the Code by the Building Official. Mr. Burn stated while he is appreciative of that 21 he suggests changing the Code. Mr. Harris suggested Mr. Burn contact his 22 commissioner and request that change. 23 24 Cort Schult, a Queens Cove resident, stated he is a Board member of the 25 Homeowner’s Association of Queens Cove, and is the Chairman of Queens 26 Cove’s Environmental Committee. He stated that in 2007 there were two property 27 owners who had been denied permits from the County for putting a dock on their 28 empty lot. Mr. Schult stated when those people came to him; he researched and 29 found 37 cases of approved permits for docks and boatlifts, but not for power for 30 the boatlifts. He said they sent a package documenting the cases to all five 31 county commissioners but received no response. He stated the then Assistant 32 County Administrator, acting as Building Official, approved one of the permits 33 since it was a pre-existing dock, but was rebuilt exactly the same size. Mr. Schult 34 stated in the second case the bulkhead was on his property and the property 35 owner would require a walkway through the mangroves, but it was denied since it 36 was not a pre-existing condition. Mr. Schult stated they have not had any 37 requests for a dock since 2007, which he assumes is the result of the present 38 economy. 39 BOA Minutes Page 7 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Mr. Schult stated he thinks waterfront property owners are being taxed at a 2 higher rate, and when they want to put a dock on their property and they are 3 denied it is grossly unfair. He said he thinks if the County Code does not allow 4 this, it should be changed. 5 6 Mr. Harris asked for clarification if Mr. Schult said the County issued 37 permits 7 for docks and seawalls. Mr. Schult stated he went back to 1999, which was as far 8 as he could find at the time, but it may have been more than that. Mr. Harris 9 asked if they were on unoccupied lots of record. Mr. Schult stated all unimproved 10 lots. 11 12 Mrs. Andrews stated she had the list, and Mr. Harris asked it be added to the 13 record. 14 15 Chief Emerson asked staff if a permit is required for maintenance and repair of a 16 dock where the value of the maintenance and repair is less than 50% of the cost 17 of construction. Mr. Lestrange stated yes it is if they need to replace at least one 18 piling. Chief Emerson stated he would respectfully disagree with that. 19 20 Chief Emerson asked if a dock is considered nonconforming and a storm event 21 removes more than 50% of the structure, are they entitled to rebuild the 22 nonconforming use. Mr. Lestrange stated if it is a nonconforming structure it can 23 be rebuilt within the footprint, however, he does not think there is the same 24 allowance for a nonconforming use. 25 26 Chief Emerson reiterated a person who has a nonconforming dock could not 27 rebuild a nonconforming dock in the event of storm damage. Mr. Lestrange 28 stated not if the structure is considered a nonconforming use. 29 30 Mrs. Andrews stated at least in 2007 both Indian River and Martin Counties had 31 no problem with this, as we did for 17 years. She also stated as a result of the 32 letter with the 37 names and permits that were attached to the original letter, 33 there was a letter from Kristin Tetsworth, Planning Manager, at the request of 34 Bob Nix, then Growth Management Director, requesting the County provide an 35 exemption to the Land Development Code that allows for the construction of 36 docks and boat lifts without the construction of a primary structure. Ms. Tetsworth 37 included an application for a text amendment to the Code. 38 BOA Minutes Page 8 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Mrs. Andrews stated at the end of this she would like to make the suggestion that 2 this Board recommend that such an amendment be looked at by the Growth 3 Management Department. 4 5 Chief Emerson asked Ms. Smith if we have allowed a nonconforming use to be 6 rebuilt because of environmental damage to her knowledge. Ms. Smith stated 7 she could not answer without researching. 8 9 Having no further comment from the public, Chairman Harris closed the public 10 hearing and turned to the Board for discussion or a motion. 11 12 Mrs. Andrews made the motion: 13 14 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, 15 including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in 16 section 11.11.02 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I 17 hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of Darrell 18 L. Smith, to appeal the decision of the St. Lucie County Code Compliance 19 Manager and Building Official, not issuing a building permit and to allow 20 the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the existing dock because 21 there is ample precedent for granting the permit; because the denial of a 22 permit is denying the owner the best use of his land, the enjoyment of his 23 land for which he is paying a premium; because the adjoining counties 24 also allow docks to be built on unimproved lots. 25 26 Mr. Bangert seconded with an addition: 27 28 Because the owner has approval of the DEP and the US Corps of 29 Engineers who have control over our waterways; and because the close 30 neighbors have no objections. 31 32 The amendment was accepted. The motion carried 4-0. 33 34 Mrs. Andrews stated she would like to make another motion that this Board 35 recommend that the Growth Management Department investigate an 36 amendment to the Code to permit this type of construction. 37 38 Mr. Bangert seconded. 39 40 The motion carried 4-0. BOA Minutes Page 9 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 Agenda Item #4 – BA 220104038 Port St. Lucie Social Security 2 Administration Building 3 4 Mr. Harris disclosed that he oversees projects during development review so he 5 had a chance to look at this particular project but did not look at landscaping. He 6 asked if the public or staff felt he should recuse himself from this particular item 7 he would be glad to. 8 9 No one spoke, so Chairman Harris turned to staff. 10 11 Jeff Johnson, Senior Planner presented the variance request: 12 13 Petition of Rutherford/Strickland LLC for a variance to reduce the required 14 fifteen (15) foot landscape buffer between the private street and off-street 15 parking area to five (5) feet in depth as stated Section 7.09.04(A), of the 16 St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 17 18 Mr. Johnson provided the background of the project, and state after the applicant 19 was issued a building permit, the applicant was made aware that a minimum 20-20 foot wide setback was required between the building and the vehicular use area. 21 He stated the applicant is proposing to adjust their approved site plan and the 22 building has been pushed back 20 feet to the rear. Mr. Johnson said the building 23 is now in line with the north property line and directly abuts a 20-foot wide access 24 easement. He stated the requested variance would allow a 2/3 reduction in the 25 required landscape buffer. 26 27 Mr. Johnson stated the applicant has been unable to acquire additional property 28 from the owner of the vacant property to the south, nor reduce the building size. 29 He said the proposed reduction in the landscape buffer adjacent to this private 30 driveway is about 2,000 square feet in size, and will be placed along the west 31 and south sides of the building. 32 33 Mr. Johnson finished his presentation by stating staff is recommending approval 34 of the variance. 35 36 The Board having no questions of staff, Chairman Harris called for the applicant 37 to speak. 38 39 Grady Strickland, of Titusville, general contractor of the project stated staff’s 40 presentation summed it up. Mr. Strickland stated the process he is involved in BOA Minutes Page 10 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 requires them to submit to the federal government a preliminary layout, and a 2 final product after completion of the permit process. 3 4 Mr. Strickland stated based upon security changes that have occurred over the 5 permitting time period, the General Services Administration (GSA) and Social 6 Security requested a 20-foot buffer around the building to protect from someone 7 using their car to plow into the building. He said Immigration and Customs 8 Enforcement requires a 50-foot buffer, but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 9 Social Security, and Customs are still adhering to the 20-foot buffer. 10 11 Mr. Strickland explained the parking layout to the Board, and stated the 12 government changed it that way. 13 14 Mrs. Andrews asked if the building would be occupied by a federal administrative 15 department. Mr. Strickland stated the previous site is in the strip mall less than ¼ 16 of a mile south of this site. He said the government wishes to relocate their 17 agencies into their own buildings for security. 18 19 Mr. Harris asked staff if the Environmental Resources Department would support 20 the variance. Mr. Johnson stated they are in support. 21 22 Mr. Strickland added the changes to the landscaping have not reduced the 23 amount of landscaping, it has just been moved. 24 25 Chairman Harris opened the public hearing. 26 27 No one spoke, so Chairman Harris returned to the Board. 28 29 Mr. Bangert made the motion: 30 31 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, 32 including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in 33 Section 10.01.00 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I 34 hereby move that the Board of Adjustment approve the petition of 35 Rutherford/Strickland, LLC for a variance from the provisions of Section 36 7.09.04(A) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code to reduce the 37 required fifteen (15) foot landscape buffer between the street (private) and 38 off-street parking area to five (5) feet in depth in the CG, Commercial 39 General zoning district because Code Enforcement has approved it, and BOA Minutes Page 11 of 11 March 24, 2010 1 because the Environmental Resources Department is also in support of 2 this. 3 4 Chief Emerson seconded. 5 6 The motion carried 4-0. 7 8 Agenda Item #1 – Elections of Officers 9 10 Chief Emerson nominated Mr. Harris as Chairman. 11 12 Mrs. Andrews seconded. 13 14 After the vote, Mr. Harris was named Chairman 4-0. 15 16 Chief Emerson nominated Mrs. Andrews as Vice-Chair. 17 18 Mr. Bangert seconded. 19 20 After the vote, Mrs. Andrews was named Vice-Chair 4-0. 21 22 Mrs. Andrews nominated someone designated by the Growth Management 23 Director as Secretary. 24 25 Chief Emerson seconded. 26 27 After the vote, the Director of Growth Management’s designee was elected the 28 Secretary 4-0. 29 30 OTHER BUISINESS 31 32 Chief Emerson explained to the Board why he asked the questions regarding 33 nonconforming use during the Smith appeal. He stated he originally sided with 34 the Building Official until the questions arouse regarding structures that are 35 considered nonconforming uses. Chief Emerson stated in order to replace his 36 seawall, the dock would need to be removed and he could not rebuild the 37 existing dock because it is a nonconforming use. He stated that is a big problem 38 in his opinion. 39 40 Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:37 a.m.