I'm going to call this meeting to order. Um, welcome everybody. Um roll call sus Peterson >> here vice chair board member board member Paul Mary >> here member sharer >> here
>> and board member let's say the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Um, I guess our first item is uh, do we have a motion to approve the agenda? >> Do we have a second? >> Second.
Um, all in favor? >> Um, do we have any public comments? Nonaggenda. Oh, approve the minutes. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, do we have a anybody have a motion to approve the minutes?
>> So moved. >> All in favor? Now, do we have any comments from any comments by board members? >> Trees look really nice. So pretty. Those purple trees.
>> Oh, I'll get there. Okay. Um action items. Our first action item is the final order of variance approval, 1678 Southeast 10th Street, petition number 103, variance petition from section 6.09.02
C.1 and section 6.09.02E of the City of Stewart Land Development Code to allow an accessory dwelling unit 6 from the side property line. The required setback is 5 ft.
Um, do the board members have any exparte communications to disclose any communications outside of the meeting regarding the me matter under consideration? >> I do. I drove by the property in question. I did not get out of the car.
I just looked to see if I could tell how close it was to the fence. And the other uh item is I called to see if in fact this original surveyor was uh on probation. They said yes he is but he is
still allowed to do surveys. >> Any other exparte communications? >> Yes. And so I uh discussed the topic with uh Commissioner Rich and uh Mr. Bagot sitting at the end of the table
here. Um, I also drove by the property just to again take a have a visual versus just something on paper to check it out. >> Anything else? >> Okay. Um, so
all those giving testimony are going to rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. And I think u Mr. Bagot will help with that. >> You affirm that the evidence and testimony you're about to provide be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. All right. You may be seated.
Um and then we have the staff report. >> Good afternoon chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Michelle Arbisau, planner 2 with the development department. I am presenting item agenda number two
for a variance request from the owner of the property who seeking a variance from section 6.09.02. C.1 and section 6.09 9.02e of the city's land development code to
allow an accessory dwelling unit 1/2 that's 0.6 ft from the side property line. According with the land development code, the required setback in the zoning designation is 5T. Pursuant to the land development code
public notice requirements uh on May 22nd, 2026, the applicant notices to all adjacent property owners within 300 ft of the subject parcel to provide details of the requested development and the date and time of
today's public hearing. Additionally, one sign was posted on the property with the same information. The subject property in red is located at 1678 Southeast 10th Street. The structure is a single family residence
constructed in 1974 in accordance with the property appraisers website. The subject parcel is zone single family general which is R1 with the adjacent properties with the same designation. The current feature land use designation
is low density residential which is the same for the adjacent properties. Please note that this property is not within the CRA. The property owner submitted and obtained a building permit to construct a detach accessory dwelling unit. The
site plan as well as the survey submitted complied with the city's land development code. The side and rear setback met the 5t requirement as well as the separation between the main house. In the variance application supplement, the
stated that they reached out to know it now. Uh that was their uh original survey known as kin surveyors. The surveyor they retained to survey the property originally to provide the final survey work
for the city uh city's final inspection. That's when they found out they were no longer in business. As a result, the applicant retained RL Bot and Associates to perform the final survey work and it was discovered then
that the previous survey were in error misstating the location of the property line. The image on the screen shows the survey of the side setback the oval circle in blue as6 ft away from the property line.
The property owner is requesting a variance um from section 6.09.02. C.1 and 6.09.02.8.2 of the city's land development code to allow an accessory dwelling unit 1 half
ft from the side property line uh which is representing a 4.4t deviation from the required 5t setback from the side property line. Please note that this the permit was obtained. They built the
structures already built. In regards to the standards of review which is outlined in section 8.05.02 of the city's land development code, the local planning agency may grant variances to the city of Stewart's land development code when strict enforcement
would create unnecessary hardship due to special circumstances. Any variance must still uphold the intent of the code, protect public safety and welfare, and ensure fairness. Such variances can only be approved if
the LPA makes specific findings that justify the hardship. The limitations on granting a variance will not authorize any use of the property that is not allowed as a permitted use or a use allowed by conditional use in the district in which
the property is located. The petitioner explained in the request that denial of the variance request would require demolishing the accessory dwelling unit which would create financial hardship and unjust penalty to the property owner.
The variance of granted will not allow a density or intensity of use that exceeds the maximum density or intensity that is permitted in the district in which the property is located located. Granted uh granting the requested variance will not density or intensity of use that is
permitted in the district. The variance of granted will not result in a verifiable reduction of property values of any adjacent or nearby properties. Uh granting the requested variance will not cause a potential reduction in property values of any adjacent properties. According with the
petitioner, there is an existing foot high wood fence that blocks the view of the accessory dwelling unit. The variance of granted will not cause a detrimental effect in the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The effect in the supply of light and
air on adjacent properties is not detrimental. The variants are granted will not harm a detrimental effect concerning drainage of the subject property as well as adjacent properties. granting their requested variance. The applicant should be required to demonstrate all storm
water management requirements by the LDC section 6.03.00 in accordance with the impervious surface uh coverage calculation uh with the submitted permit. The property has a total of 35.85%
impervious coverage. Um according to that zoning designation which is the R1 uh the z that zoning district allow 50% maximum. The variance if granted will not cause an increase of traffic on adjacent or
nearby roads to levels that are not unusual for the type of uses in the neighborhood. Granted, granting the requested variance will not impact or increase any traffic on adjacent or nearby roads to levels that are not usual unusual for types of uses in the
neighborhood. The variance of granted will not cause any threat to public safety in any manner whatsoever. Uh granting the requested variance will not cause any threat to public safety in any manner whatsoever. The variance of granted will not cause
any threat to the health and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and granting their requested variance does not cause any of this. Staff do not support the petitioner request for their variance as it does not comply with the setback requirements
in the land development code that we are authorized to regulate and look to the board for direction. Uh this ends staff presentation. and the applicants uh representatives are here to answer any questions uh the
board may have. The letters of no objection are part of your package. Um I do have a map that the petitioner provided that shows the property owners who wrote those letters if the board want it up on the screen. my presentation.
>> So, can you tell me which I'm sorry, I'm losing sight of which house is theirs then? >> I can. >> So, the house is on either side and the one closest to the accessory dwelling unit both have wrote written letters saying they're not concerned. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the one directly behind them.
Okay. Um, does the applicant have a presentation or anything else that they'd like to say? >> Good evening. Tyson waters from the law of behalf of the property owners. Um I want to thank staff for working with us through this process and staff and that
presentation gave a very nice overview of the project and of the request and I do think just going briefly over the history is important just to understand how we ended up in this situation. The purchased the property in 2020. As part of their purchase, they retained know it
now surveying company in order to survey their property like what you typally would do when you purchase a home. Everything looked fine with that survey. So they purchas make setbacks. Hopefully you saw that in the
packet where the permanent are completing the construction of the accessory dwelling unit and they need survey inspection already and ready to go.
Know it now survey that's when they first learned that the company was out of business and had some issues with the regulating agency. So they were stuck. So they reached out to survey very reputable survey company here locally that's done
a lot of work all over the place. They came out there and did the build and for the first time when the realizers that they went by were not there had to set new markers and as a result you'll see here
immediately reached out to staff figure out what to do and this was was the process process to do it. So they also immediately reached out to their neighbors to make sure that they understood what happened, what was going on because unfortunately the odds are it's not just their property lines that
are but a number of other lots within the same strip of land were also reached out to the neighbors as part as many neighbors as they signed letters of no objection. most notably those four that were directly affected by this
structure being so close to the property. As you can see with this chart, all four of those adjacent neighbors that potentially could be affected sign letters of no objection that they have no problems with this variance. I also would like to, you know, in staff's
staff report, they go over the criteria to determine whether or not we meet the standards for I would agree with staff that all of those findings are in the affirmative that we should qualify and do qualify for that. That's my presentation. I would
like to ask you want to say a few words to themselves. >> Thank you guys. This is my wife. Appreciate you guys being situ bought home
and our next door neighbors on the same also. So, not only did we do our due diligence before building to confirm that we were within the required setbacks, but we
also compared service with our neighbors went the extra mile. And we also just wanted to make it builders for something like this. We did this ourselves while we built this whole thing ourselves and
it was just a big obviously financial sacrifice but from our girls. Um, and then also just like we're not big investors. Like we built this because this is our forever home that we've been over six years now
and this past couple years we've seen our parents and we just wanted something for them. So we just wanted to make all that known and then just ask yourself.
>> So I think that last part was the most relevant part here. They did everything they were supposed to do. They hired the professional surveyor. They relied on that professional to make sure they put this structure in the right spot. It was that professional that them that has forced them to be here tonight. So with
that, we're here for any questions you may have. We'd ask your for your support with this variance. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Do board members have any questions? >> Okay. Uh my first question is your letters from your neighbors. I noticed
that the contiguous corner neighbor to your uh bottom right did not sign a letter. three letters from people in a whole other street. Can you tell me why? >> I think they approached those people that they knew had a relationship with. So that's why you don't see it all over the place, but but certainly they went
to those neighbors that were directly that were closest to the shed and then reached out to other people that they knew in the neighborhood. the two houses that you can see from our driveway that would also knock on that door. We just got the four
that were touching our property as recommended and The random three are just friends. >> Yeah, the random three was a bit confusing, but okay. >> Is the fence right on the property line? >> No. So, we built that fence with our
neighbor. Um, we're friendly with them. We bought our house at the same time and we compared surveys and at the time that was where the property line was. So, when we spoke to our neighbors about our findings, we asked if they would like us to remove the fence and put it right up
against the house. Um, also, I don't know if this was stated, but you can see from the all the houses are the square of the property except our house and the house on the dead end. So that's why our elv as you go towards the street to the
north or further and further. So we spoke to our neighbors they could move their hedges five feet in the front we could move our fence five feet in the back and they said please be all done with the construction. We're so tired of it. What are we going to do with >> So,
just to be clear, your fence is actually >> not. It's actually more so in the back. It's more >> where right adjacent to the to the structure that we're talking about. >> If you move the fence, would it be closer to the structure or farther? >> Closer to the structure.
>> So, so technically the structure is even less than 6 in away. >> No, it's in from the property line. Okay. >> It's still on our property. The fence is basically in their property. >> The fence is on where you thought your property line was. So your the fence is
5 ft away, but your structure to your property line, not the fence is >> But it looks like the structure is closer than the fence. >> So that is the property line. That's not >> see the difference between the red and the
>> Yeah. So what's the difference? Right. >> Okay. >> So, it's approximately 5T away from the fence which they thought was the property line, but it's not. That's there by causing the problem. >> Okay. >> And we would absolutely rebuild it if
that is required. But our neighbors when we spoke to them and got the letter, they said, "Please don't take it down." >> They have dogs. Did you explore having it picked up and moved at all? Did you explore that? >> Oh, the house. >> No, no, the the little structure.
>> Um, we RLV said we could look into that. So, our understanding, we spoke to a couple people just roughly that we know that work in demolition. Well, I know the survey is wrong, but but visually I mean visually you normally would be able to see the
difference between 5 foot and 6. >> Well, when we built the fence, um, okay, so we got the fence peritted with the city approved. We used our original The fence was where we thought the property, >> right?
>> But in fact, it's it's actually >> it's actually on our neighbors >> on your neighbor's property. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, those are my questions. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> I was curious if this is a plan to have short-term rental.
>> No, it gets approved for the next couple months. My sister's best friend just got married. let them stay in it. We both work from home and we have a bedroom. >> We're planning on growing our family.
We just think it be >> like we stated both of our grandm the fence which is on your neighbor's property. Do you have any written permission to keep it there. >> We've talked to them. They said they don't care. They like where it is now. They planted all their plants against
it. Um I'd be fine to move it. >> And if you moved it, it would actually >> go into the structure, right? >> No ma'am. Any other questions? >> Yes, I I have a few. Thanks. Um I just
I'm thinking about the the fence again. Uh following my my colleagues questions. So the I guess in 2020 when you purchased it, you got the original survey. You I want to make sure I understand the sequence and how it went. So I guess you use that survey to put the fence in. >> Correct. >> Is is permitting required for a fence?
Does that go through the city? >> Yes. So I guess that was approved. Um, >> you know, and then um and I guess for the last six years due to the um I guess the allegedly
erroneous survey, the the the west side of your fence um is actually almost five feet into your property as opposed to so your neighbors I guess been using your five feet uh on the west side, but on the east side you've been using about
five feet of of the other neighbors uh property. I just coming back to that I just wonder if longer term with the fence being there and the neighbor are they happy to give you that five feet of their property for use because uh um I would think we would need some there
would need to be some kind of documentation for that. >> We believe we could easily get written consent from them because we had a conversation about it. >> I guess I'm wondering though the fence is really not the building,
>> right? I mean, you have you have a permit for the fence the >> based on an erroneous survey, >> but they still are permitted and it's not what's it's not our it's not our agenda item today item. So, that's where I'm saying like I don't know that what
they and their attorney and their representatives believe or the city needs to be done about the fence is outside our >> So, the so the fence fully permanent. Um, and there is now a location issue, but I think to the long-term point, sure, there might be discussions. I
don't think that I think they've been focused on this as opposed to the long term. What do we do about the fence? >> Sure. Sure. >> But I we we could do a license agreement to allow it while it continues to exist. there's ways to kind of paper it to make sure that >> you know it's it's it's legally
addressed to give the fence the right to stay there long but right now again the focus has just been addressing this variance because this is the pressing issue where again it's a they're waiting for final inspection to to close out the permit and get everything approved so it's just kind of lingering out there
again they've got a cordial good relationship with the neighbor so it hasn't really been an issue but certainly think five 10 years >> yeah I guess what I was is I'm playing it out like if the let's just say the neighbor said yeah it'd be great if you move the fence then the and I don't know
enough about our codes but if you move the fence over you're six inches off the side of the building so is that going to open up a whole another can of worms let's just say you got the the variance then is there like I don't know egress or emergency because the fence is right up next to the building I don't know all that so I'm just trying to avoid all that
>> no there's no egress right now on the side fence to the extent you maybe fence the entire yard you have a you need a point of egress and aggress, but it would just be if they have to relocate it, it would just be a very identical fence just moved right on and again right on the property line. So you still
have that half foot >> the um what do you think what what gives you faith that the second survey is correct >> one for me personally I I know that company and they're very reputable and I
think they've checked their work and double check their work and I think That's what it is. There wasn't a third survey or higher to confirm and stuff. >> That's I guess the reason I'm asking these questions is because the you know the last thing that we like to do is
give variances because there's there's rules and codes for reason, right? And so as soon as you start doing a few variances, then you don't have any codes anymore. Um and I'm super sympathetic to the applicant. I mean, this is a a horrendous situation we're in. But I'm
just trying to think about ways to um to satisfy all of this as best we can. If um if um if a third survey was conducted and it came out with a third um indication, what then do we do?
>> Well, I mean I think if it came up with something different and it was I mean there's not a whole lot of variation left to this property. So if it becomes there's a third third survey and it shows that it's actually over the property line. variance isn't going to fix that. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, I think this offers the
protection because I would imagine this is almost the most conservative >> as close as you can get to the property. >> Um, and again, with a very reputable survey company that's been here for decades. And again, this survey, this surveyor signed and sealed and put his
professional license on the line for this survey like the other one did, but >> you know, there were different circumstances with the other survey company. >> Yeah, sure. >> This is a survey that he certified it. He sign and seal signature and seal on that survey. So, I think we we we should be able to rely on that. I think you
should be able to rely on that that signature as well. >> I guess I'm going to assume that we don't normally ask for multiple surveys anyway. So, we have to always trust it's a licensed, you know, I mean, I know in this case one was wrong, but I mean it's
not like we normally get two or three. >> I would agree. I think that's why they're licensed, they're insured. there's a professional regulatory body that says that this is what you have to do in order to put your name on that. We then put our faith in and that signature
and again very reputable survey company. >> Well, you bring up a good point that they're licensed and insured. I wonder if the original surveyor has insurance that would cover this issue because he also has been in business for decades. >> Uh
I think if if they have to tear it down maybe but the out of business and so I don't know if there's >> a company I might be with a surveyor still out there doing surveys. >> Yeah. And I mean the other thing too I'm not a litigation attorney but I know there are statute of limitations too
typically I believe with a professional a professional malpractice I guess is what you call it. I believe there's a two-year statutory limitations. So they would have missed it by a year since the guy's last work. There there's a lot of legal questions about potential remedies should they go
that way. This is by far the the most reasonable and and easiest for them to say, "Look, we're moving forward. We've got this variance. We can we can live another day to address some of these other issues. I just wanted to hear a little more from the staff about why since it so solidly
like qualifies for a variance why the recommendation is >> I guess I would >> yeah it says it it meets all the qualifications of a hardship but the says staff does not recommend. So why if it meets all the qualifications of a hardship do we not have a recommendation from staff to approve the variance?
>> Because we're authorized by the land development code and our authority is to have that when we're reviewing is to our set back is 5 ft. Uh we that I mean that's why the variances would come
before the board because we're not authorized to go beyond that. >> So you never make a staff recommendation to approve a variance. >> Most variances. No, we do not because it's going against what we're authorized to enforce. >> So it's not just this circumstance just
>> oh no. >> Well ability to have a variance you know and just have strict code but we don't. a pathway to for situations like this to approve variances. So I mean
I want to recommend that we approve the variance to the commission. >> Do we have any other comments by staff or the presenters? >> Uh this will not go before the commission. This is the governing board over variances.
>> Okay. Then I recommend we approve the varian. So, um, does anybody else offer anything for a motion? >> Let's follow. >> Yeah, that's Well, >> I'm sorry. >> Do the board members have any questions?
Staff any response? And does the petition anything else? >> Nothing further than >> Okay. Um, and then >> paragraph six. >> Yeah. Deliberate in public. Ask them to site facts being considered and then state their position and formulate a
motion. So, just state that you're closing the >> I'm closing the meeting at this point barring any other comments. Um, and then um the board can deliberate in public and state their um position and formulate the motion if
they so desire. >> Yeah, I'm um yeah, I'm sympathetic with the applicant. I think that it does meet to me it's it's a tremendous hardship. Um I just and maybe it's not the purpose of the board but I worry about in the
future any sale and then you get title insurance it's not going to happen because it's going to be on it's not going to be code but that's not our problem. Um but I do see um I do see reason to uh to support a variance.
>> Anybody have a motion? >> Do we have a second? Second roll. >> Okay. >> Hey everybody, I'll be brief. Um, I'm a neighbor. I was one of those infamous. >> Can you state your name and your address? >> I'm sorry. Yes. Steven Bowers. I'm at
925 Southeast Flamingo. Um, it was one of the one of the three random red dots. I'm across the street, but I have direct line of sight to the property. Um, great family. I would totally No negative impact on the neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um so then do we do >> we roll member shar? >> Yay. >> Chair Peterson. >> Yes. >> Vicelette. >> Yes. >> And board member Paul Mary. >> Yes.
>> Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Okay. So, our next item is final order of variance approval 700 Southwest St. Lucy Crescent petition number V-26-2
variance petition from section 5.06.02B.2 of the city of Stewart land development code to allow the installation of a fence within the required 25 ft shoreline protection zone setback from the mean high water line.
Um, so then board members, do we have any exparte communication? >> Yes. Um, so I drove by the the the property, the site uh to take a look. I also had conversations with uh city
commissioner Rich and with uh Mr. Bagot at the end of the dice. >> I also drove past the property to take a look and see what we were dealing with. the location of the park. >> I drove past the property as well. >> All right. Um, all those giving
testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. >> You affirm that the testimony that you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help God. You may be seated. >> Thank you. And now, staff, do you um please present your testimony, including
any evidence and your recommendations regarding this case? Thank you, chair, board members. For the record, I'm Michelle Arbazowler 2 with the development department. I am presenting agenda item number three. It's a variance request from the owner
of the property who is seeking a variance from section 5.06.02.3.2 of the city's land development code to allow the installation of a fence within the 25 ft shoreline protection zone setback from the mean high water line.
Uh the mean high water line is reflected on the survey that I will show by a licensed and professional surveyor and seaw wall are defined as structures located at the mean high water line. Uh the mean high water line uh you will
see on the survey uh as MHW is the average level of high tides over a specific period. Usually defined by the national title datam. This line is legally recognized as the boundary between public and private property for
navigable coastal waters. um in Steuart, Florida, the MHW uh is very significant. Pursuant to the land development code, public notice requirements uh were done on May 22nd, 2026, the applicant mailed
notices to all adjacent property owners within 300 ft of the subject parcel to provide the details of the requested development and the date and time of today's public hearing. Additionally, there is a sign that was posted on a
property with the same information. The subject property in red is located at 700 Southwest St. Lucy Crescent. The structure is a single family residence constructed in 2005 in accordance with the property website.
The subject parcel is zone single family estates R1A with the surrounding properties reflecting single family general R1 and residential multif family office R3. Uh the parcel shown as green is zone public adjacent to the subject
property. This area is an improved ride ofway with green space and a park bench facing the water. It's considered a passive park. The current future designation is low density residential which is the same uh for some of the surrounding properties
shown in yellow. The other properties have office residential as well as multif family residential land use designation and this property is not within the CR. >> Sorry, did you say not or it is >> not? >> Thanks. >> Um a little background. The property
owner submitted an obtainable building permit to install a fence along the side property lines into the shoreline protection zone. Uh the permit was approved with the condition that the fence cannot be installed within the shoreline protection zone for section 50602
of the land development code. And the term shoreline protection zone means the land adjacent to the shoreline including the shoreline of the St. Lucy River which subject property creek, Frasier Creek, Haney Creek, Kruger
Creek, and Willoughby Creek. This is the view from the public park looking at the subject property looking into the subject property. And this is the view from the park towards the St. Lucy River.
The petitioner is requesting variance to allow the installation of a fence within the required 25 ft setback shoreline protection zone. In accordance with section 5.06.02, no development shall be permitted within the shoreline protection zone. Uh
section uh 06.02b.4 goes on to list like development types that shall be permitted uh which are like docks, marina, interpretive walk permitted by the state of Florida, storm water retention areas, landscaping,
bulkheads and seaw walls which function to protect existing development and are located landward or riverine wetlands and their ecotones rip wrap and unpaved stabilized parking. The section of the code goes on to state
that construction activities proposed are subject to the permitting and technical requirements and shall have a valid permit from the South Florida Water Management District or the uh Florida DP. The pictures that the petitioners submitted are included in the board
packet. Here are some of those. This is from the subject property looking to the passive park. The last picture is from the the owner side on the beach area looking to the park.
In the variance application supplement, the petitioner stated that without the fence to the water, it is difficult to maintain a safe and clear defined boundary, which raises ongoing safety and liability concerns about children or
pets unintentionally accessing the yard, pool, dock, and waterfront. The fence will create uh property security, community safety, liability concerns for the property owner and the city of Stewart's residents.
In regards to the standard of re review which is identified or outlined in section 8.05.02 of the city's land development code, the local planning agency may grant variances to the city of Stewart's land development code when strict enforcement
would create unnecessary hardship due to special circumstances. Any variance must the intent of the code, protect public safety and welfare, and ensure fairness. Such variances can only be approved if the LPA made specific findings that justify the
hardship. The limitations on granting a variance will not authorize any use of the property that is not allowed as a permitted use or reuse allowed by conditional use in the district in which the property is located. A fence is allowed in the R1A zoning
district. However, per the LEC uh not within the shoreline protection zone and any construction activity shall have a valid permit from the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The variance of granted
will not allow density or intensity of use that is permitted in the district. The requested variance will not cause a potential reduction in the property values of any adjacent properties. According with the petitioner, there is
an existing foot that uh the effect on the supply of air and light and air on adjacent property is not detrimental and granting the variance will not cause drainage concerns of the subject property or adjacent property.
Granting the requested variance will not impact or increase any traffic or adjacent or nearby uh roads to levels that are not unusual for types of uses in the neighborhood. Granting the requested variance will not cause any threat to public safety in any
manner whatsoever. and granting the requested variance does not cause any threat to health and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city. Staff do not support the petitioner request for the variance as it does not comply with the setback requirement of
the city's land development code and again we look for look to the board for direction. >> Thank you so much. Does the petitioner may now give testimony and call any witnesses a variance. Um the reason for the
request is stated. Thank you Michelle. But uh for general safety and viability we're property to Steuart new to waterfront as well. U so the plan that
we submitted would be ideal for to cover some of those those reasons. Um in the short time that I've been in the home uh we've experienced um you know some trespassing on the seaw wall on the dock
along the shoreline. So that's uh children, adults, pets. So given the nature of the location of the home um you know between this park and then also on the other side there's a home that uh
is used as a Airbnb. Um I'm here to request your consideration. Um do we have anything anything else? If I may, >> um, if the board may like, uh, staff can go through the pictures that the petitioner submitted
>> and have the petitioner explain what is being shown. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I'd love to see like how far or close to the water this fence is and what this fence is going to look like and some of those questions. >> Thank you. >> Is it okay if I go over there? >> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Uh the pictures here are the park down the way. It's about a I'd say about a quarter mile um down the way from from my lot. So this is just another example of um you know of some
some fencing. Um you know that's why I said learning experience. you know, you see a lot of these fences down to where the proposed fence uh goes. So, that's uh I don't know if it even has a name, but that's just an example.
>> So, do we know if that fence received a variance? >> We I could not find a variance. A lot of these fences were done way before. Some of them were like in when I went and visit the uh site right next door on the other side of the park. It's like
embedded into the into the wall that was there, the the the wooden fence. So, um, and there's like a chain link as well. So, I don't have fence permit. just some examples of some of the
signage that I saw as well for your question or you know what you're interested in. All I had this day, forgive me, was the stainless steel hose to draw a line. So, the uh the property line is fairly is as close as I
could get it to where it's going to run from that white pipe, maybe a little bit closer this way. Um I would say right about there. >> Um so it's very close to where that is.
Um I was using that to put up a this temporary fence while we're doing some renovations of the home, but that line there is a good representation of where the fence would go. Another view from the yard. Um,
obviously the pool is a concern for access to the to the back patio um as well as the uh as the the waterfront. So there's a fairly there's a pretty clear path. You know, right now when I'm
I'm at the house, you know, people that's a kind of a stop with uh dog walking or um you know, bike rides just coming down to to take a look. Um I'm a it's my style. I'm a friendly neighbor.
I wave hi. Somebody was fishing out back. Caught a snook yesterday. So um the the the request is a a formal barrier as right now there's nothing that's how it was when we bought the
home there was no fencing so um as you can see there's uh other examples of you know fencing along with landscaping but the fence is is is being requested I'm here today um just because of the
liability insurance safety and liability Sure. >> Michelle, can you go back two or three photos? I guess the key part I'm interested in is that uh as the applicant pointed out, like the end of the fence where they propose it to be. So, um and that it kind of makes sense
to me where they're proposing it, but I want to know how far how much further out is that than what would be within code. >> Yeah, it will be uh right along the uh shoreline protection zone. They could go straight adjacent, you know, right along that line.
>> They don't along the line. I get that part. But uh maybe maybe like how far west So they're going to the almost to the seaw wall. Thank you. Uh almost to the corner. But if if they if they didn't need a variance, how far back would that
point be? >> Yes. So the seaw wall is is it at the farthest point >> part? Yes, that is the property line. >> So that is the property line. But where is the high water line or whatever? >> 20 25. Oh, the the U main high water
line is normally right at on the property. So the surveyor from that line from the end of that property, that's where the waves go in and out. 25 feet from that property line into the property. >> Oh, I see. So >> So 25 back from the seaw wall.
>> Yes. And in into the property. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now I understand. >> So what would have to happen if they don't fence along either side, what do they need to do with their pool because their pool's just exposed? >> So, there is a requirement and I the the
fence permit for the pool might have been part of this or could be um normally with a pool permit. Uh there is a requirement to fence it in. Um if there's no fence along the property line, there is a pool barrier that's
required for the building code. Um that's potential then to just fence in the pool. And I guess why could we not just explore Boen Villa and heavier and shrubbery to create like a multilevel make it really thick so that
nobody come through and can they do landscaping? You're >> correct. You're correct. Landscaping um it can go as high as you want >> as dense. >> From from what I saw when I visited it appears the
Um, so the applicant is on the south side of the park. The uh the neighbor to the north side of the park has a fence going all the way to the seaw wall. >> Correct. >> Which is essentially the same as the applicants requesting. Now, it's all landscape. They have lots of hedge and all that on the fence, but >> yeah. Okay.
>> I I do have a question. Unfortunately, I'm not great with a pictures and all that, but if is there a way to build a fence within the allowed area? In other words, he's trying to go into the 25 foot
buffer zone, right? >> Correct. >> Is there a way to not go into the buffer zone and just do it on your own property? >> There is. >> Well, I'm sorry. Outside the buffer zone. >> The you were asking
>> that >> is there a possibility just to put the fence up to the allowable portion of the >> you could put that up there with the the way that the park is situated along that property line it would probably leave
I don't know 15 feet of access to the shoreline and and that's that's one of the main reasons I'm here today is because that access and that trespassing happens often
Um I I you know purchased the home in November and people do frequent uh the park. >> You didn't realize it when you bought it there'd be people in the park? >> No, no, no. That that's but I didn't I did not think that uh I well one I thought you know having a fence would be
a good idea um just for you know the the safety and liability. Um I like the idea of the park you know you know made that decision you know prior to purchasing the home. However, I I I don't like the
idea of someone walking down my seaw wall, walking out down my dock. So, there is a way to fence this yard, protect the pool. However, there's not a way to run a fence to protect the waterfront and the dock. And it's it is
a uh a safety for my family uh concern and a a liability concern when it comes to um me as a property owner and I I believe the city of Stewart as well. >> I guess one of my questions would I'm sorry. Go ahead. One of my questions
would be again since this is what our rules are and not handing out variances willy-nilly. I guess in my mind I'd get a big concrete planter and put a bogan villa on it and sit it on the end of my seaw wall and then plant a really heavy
hedge along there that's all allowed and maybe some thorny boen villas in that hedge as well and call it a day and not put a fence where fencing is not allowed by the code >> the buffer zone which is there for a reason.
>> Yeah. And and also when you got I I guess one of my questions would be when you got the survey back to surveys again are important today. Did it show you where the mean water line is and where your property line is? I mean was that you must have had some sort of with the
dock and everything else some sort of um somebody looking at the dock the seaw wall what's allowable. I mean that's kind of your due diligence when you're purchasing a home. >> Sure. Upon purchasing the home, the survey that we received, you know, did not clearly mark a a shoreline
protection zone. Uh, however, if you're on the water in Stewart, the amount of of examples of this is very prevalent. So,
>> so you were seeing it happen. So, assumed you could do it >> to some degree. Um then when we submitted a permit for fencing uh we we asked for clarity u for the shoreline protection zone to be on there. So we
got an updated uh survey paid for that uh to get uh a better understanding. So um you know we and that's the reason for the variance or you know >> this is a sticky one for me because I see so much um you know construction and
development impacting the ecosystem and there are real threats to the riverbed and the wildlife and the plants and I just don't see a hardship here um for you to to landscape which is actually good for shore you know those root systems are very good for shoreline
protection that would be a positive to the ecos system. Um, I don't I don't hear a case that this that not putting the fence in, not getting the variance is going to create a hardship for your family. I understand that there's a security concern and there's a trespassing concern, but there I also
see clear ways for you to do that within city code, you know. >> Can I further comment or should I wait until we get into >> I think we're there unless there I think we're there. I think um um I don't disagree with what was just stated. Uh
I'm certainly before we get to that, can we just close out the public hearing? Oh, sure. >> If we're going to start deliberating. >> Yeah. Just make sure everybody >> we have any other from the staff or from the petitioner. Any other chair comments or presentation >> we're going to open up. >> So, we're going to close the hearing.
I have some there are some some neighbors that are here who support this that might be able to shed a little bit more. >> Yeah. Yeah. There they're there ev there are evidence of witnesses so they need to come before we close the hearing. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Sir, why don't you call your first witness? >> Okay. I would call my first witness. >> Lucky number one. Very formal, right? >> Yes. >> I'm Dean Watson. We own the property to the north with the fence going down to the water. I want to explain that first.
We bought the the house was built originally in 1955 along with the seaw wall, a concrete seaw wall was put in and two little abutments coming up the side and actually the fence is embedded in the seaw wall. It was all done at once in 1955. That's why it we'd have to go through a process. We bought it eight
years ago. We lived in Martin County about 26 years. And again, we love the parks, too. We have two pocket parks and then the whole northern part of our neighborhood butts up to Shepherd Park, which is boat ramps and water access and everything. And uh I kind of understand
or very much understand the security issues. I would need more than my three minutes to explain all the things that have happened in the park over the years. You know, that they, you know, police have been called a number of times and uh they finally had to put a light in there. They put a light in
there and that helped a lot. That got a lot of a lot of it out of there. But there has been a lot of security issues over the years. And um the only other problem with the the shrubbery we're talking about, which is great, but there's also if you look at those pictures, there's mangrove right next to it property line. And if you start
putting a big fountain, I mean, I've had bogan beas before and they get beautiful and they get real restrictive and that's great, but they're going to grow into that existing mangrove sand. And there are some people in their neighborhood that come down and use that little section down there to launch like a a kayak or a bin who kids or whatever. So
they use that little section right there. If you put a big fountainy, you know, bogan be there, it's going to not stay on his property. It's going to run over into the mangroves and it's going to completely cut off access to that little open area down there. So that was my only other comment and I and I'll
glad to answer questions. I can't you've covered everything, but if you have any questions for me at all, >> I have If he builds the boil, it doesn't have to take over the mangro. Can't he prune it? So it doesn't >> Yeah. Have you ever owned a boen though?
>> I mean, you know, a shoreline property that you buy means you're a steward of the shoreline. So it takes I get that, believe me. I I planted um probably 200 lemongrass instead of having grass grass. So I don't have to fertilize my yard. I'm all all about that. Plus the
the soil retention, my whole back is done that way. I've done, you know, what I can do to not have to dump any chemicals at all into the water. And but a fence is a post in the ground in probably three places each side. And it's going to be landscape next to it. He's going to put landscape to hide the
fence and keep the fence from being. So, it's kind of a win-win. You have the barrier, which makes for the insurance company that's not going to walk away from you if something happens in your pool. Those pool fences around I've got one, too, around the pool are nice, but they do blow down and they do get loose in there. And you can, you know, can
pull them up. So, they're not 100% either. >> Well, there's different varieties. >> Well, yeah, you could put a an aluminum or something like that. I get that. >> And if it blows down, you can put it back up. >> Well, you can if you catch it in time. Yeah, that's true. But >> Okay. >> I think there's also other plants besides I mean,
>> well, yeah. Well, like a bamboo, but a bamboo grows 30 or 40 feet and a lot of people sit there and look at the view and you have something tall, it's going to block all that. That's anyway, that was my only comment. Thank you. Any other witnesses?
>> Good evening. My name is Rick Zurich and my wife and I are here. We're we're residents in neighbor too. We live one house away from Brian. Um could I ask you to do me a favor? Could you bring up what is permitted in shoreline protection zone? You had that on here earlier.
Um, I I understand and I I am very much in favor of protecting the shoreline, but if you'll look at what structures are allowed in a shoreline protection zone, they're talking about landscaping, retention areas, bulkheads and seaw walls, rip wrap, unpaved stabilized
parking. I would venture to say that any one of those things is much more detrimental to the shoreline protection zone than a simple fence with a couple of of uh fence posts in there to protect Brian's liability. And we've lived in
our home for over seven years and I can tell you there's a lot of people that come in that park and once they hit the shoreline they think it's their right to walk right across all those shorelines. I've had them go down fishing on my and I'm one house away. I mean, they've got to go across Brian's property, across
our neighbors property, and across our property to get to my dock to go go down fishing. And it it it's it's uncomfortable to have to go out and ask people to leave your property. And uh I I don't believe, as much as I've known the shoreline, I've lived in Martin
County, my wife and I have lived in Martin County since 1971, on the water all that time, and I don't believe I've ever seen where fences any damage to the shoreline. Matter of fact, I would I would um venture to say that it would
reduce the traffic along the shoreline because people wouldn't be walking right on the sensitive area of the shoreline where mangroves are trying to grow and seedlings and all that. So, >> well, I don't think we're going to like grant a variance because you don't agree with the code. Like the code is what it
is. So, >> Oh, I'm not disagreeing with the code. I'm just pointing out that I think those things are all shoreline protective measures. >> Okay. >> And I have a question for you. You state that the people walk across the shoreline. Don't they have the legal right to do so up until the high mean
high tide line? >> Oh yes. >> Okay. So So it's not like they're encroaching. No, they're not on the shoreline allowed. >> Right. But they're not on they're not in the water. They're on the property above the shoreline on the private propert up up to the mean high tide line. That
means they can be on the land as well. up up to the mean high tide line. That is the law. >> Can anybody verify that, Michelle? >> Oh, it's the law. Trust >> I I would probably agree with her. I think what they're saying is, you know, they have docks and they're going on the
docks. couldn't be on the >> but they can be on the sandle. >> Well, I I can tell you >> they walk they walk upland of the of the main high water line to get there and then they go out on the dock. >> I feel you know I I feel for you. I
don't know how I'd feel if there were people walking through my backyard looking my window and my dock to check out the water. I also think that, you know, you live on the shoreline in a city, you know, and is it signage? Is it landscaping? You just can't. In my
opinion, I don't see a case that >> I guess we shouldn't deliberate yet. We have more witnesses. >> My bad. >> Thank you. >> My name is Bill Clark. Uh my wife Fay and I live two doors down from Brian and we have no objection to the fence. I
think it's a good idea. Uh this little park is at the end of a dead end street and a lot of uh teenagers or young adults use it for smoking and vaping and drinking beer and I think that a fence would be a really good idea.
Thank you. Any other anything else that you'd like to add before we close this portion? >> Yes. The only thing that I' that I'd like to request, you know, the fence, the the type of fence has has not been
the fence. It provides that formal barrier that is that is recognized by an insurance company or by a lawyer. U I understand landscaping. I think it's a great idea. I've have ideas about how
to make the fence look better on the park side where it is permanent and where it's where we're talking about as well. Um a passion fruit vine was suggested. So the u I I guess the the last point or
the last request that I'd like to make is if there is a version of a fence that extends that extra really what we're we're talking about is 12
that makes it to this point where that white post was nearby um would allow for that formal barrier to the park. I would make it look nice, but that's uh you know, if it's 4 feet
high, something for the pool. Um I would like to respectfully request that consideration. >> Any other witnesses or any other comments or we close this? Hold on. Are are you a witness for the
petitioner? They're We're going to have a point. We're We're gonna Once they're They're gonna Hold on, man. They're going to deliberate and then there's it's going to be open to public comment and you'll be able to come up. Okay. Before anybody votes, there'll be public comment. You'll be able to join up and speak then.
>> Yep. >> Okay. So, are we going to close the hearing at this point and um we're going to deliberate as a board and then we Okay. >> I'd be happy to start. >> Okay.
>> Um, so given all the information, I I really find this to be a very minor request of of variation, variance, excuse me, considering the situation I think and the our role is to sort of uh
apply the spirit of the code. The code can't be written for everything. If you think about it with the the fencing in the 25 foot um I won't call it a setback but um >> buffer zone. Thank you. Um if this was a residential neighbor next to a
residential neighbor it might be a different discussion but this is a a resident here in Stewart who is next to a public park. To me that brings additional issues as the applicant has brought up about access or safety and risk and all
this. So I'm sympathetic to the to the applicant and if I think about the the property on the north side is secure. It has basically the situation that the uh that the applicant is looking for. Sorry, the property owner on the north, not the applicant. Um they're just
looking to >> But you're looking to fence both sides, correct? Yeah. >> Not just the park. >> Yeah. I guess vegetation helps, but I I do see the with the pool and I do see the importance of uh securing that.
>> Any other >> I'm content. >> Okay. So, I'd like to say something. >> So, first of all, the pool fence is a nonissue. Many people have fences right around the pool. Second of all, I have a
rental property in River Pines. At the end of Cove Road is a park. Lots of people go there. Adjacent to that is our River Pines property. There is so much wildlife there that that you know is
there like I'm there at all all hours of the day. I keep my kayak there and you can't imagine the amount of wildlife that goes through there when people aren't really looking. The The fact of the matter is is that I feel sorry, you
know, you should have known what you were buying. You should have known the rules. The fact is that the people do have the right to walk behind their property, but not on the dock. And I think the buffer zone is there for a
reason. You know, it's unlikely, but the water could come wash the whole fence away depending on, you know, what happens during a hurricane. There's a it's a buffer zone. It protects what's behind it. That's what it's for. It
protects it's a it's nature. Nature can walk, you know, through there. And I don't like the idea of it being fenced away, you know. It's it's just my personal opinion. Yeah, I mean I think the code is built
for protecting the shoreline. I think it's an erosion issue. It's like wildlife protection, sea turtles, you know, just human impact on shoreline. Um I would like say that it's appropriate to grant a variance again if there's
some kind of a hardship. Um I understand it sounds expensive. Um and I also think that like it's expensive to protect our waterways. private property. >> I also think there's probably some way for you to to I mean in terms of like
what kind of offense works like I feel like there are ways to do that. >> Yeah. Um yeah. >> Can can I add to that idea? Uh when
discussing with fence contractors um the the guidance wasn't there. And I'm I'll go back to my earlier point of you see it so often elsewhere. There was there was mention of a 25 foot zone.
There was mention of all right, you can from here on you can go four feet. You can't do this. You can't put it up this high. Um not once in in any conversation trying to do your due diligence. Obviously, it's a investment for me and
my family. Um, was it mentioned you can't have so of a 4 foot that would be a layer of protection for the pool that would allow me to have a formal barrier that would
allow me to put a no trespassing sign just to my seaw wall that would not impede the access that's that's in the water where that that water line is um with ideas to make it
look nice for the park. >> Well, you know, you can try to know trespassing sign up anyway. >> I did. >> Okay. And and I know they were debating whether it will look right or nice or not. I think don't think that's the issue at all. I know that you would like
that's not even >> I guess my feeling on this is I don't see a hardship. I do see a way around to meet the code and variance. I live in city of Stewart obviously because I'm here. I have one of these. We call it a micro park. We have more than one in our
neighborhood. I'm right off of Ocean Boulevard. Um we have people ride and bike through ours all the time. I use my micro park because I'm not on the water and go down there. I've never seen anybody trespassing behind the houses that are there. I mean, your situation
may be different, but I think if I bought next to a park, I would expect the public to be next to my house. Um, and I do think that there are ways to achieve what you're looking for without a hardship, um, without violating the
rules that obviously were established for a reason. So, that would be mine. Um, if there are not any other board comments, um, I guess, oh, do we open it to the public now? Do we have any public? >> We need to ask for a motion.
>> Oh, do we have a motion? I move not to. Okay. And now public comment. Can you come up and state your name and your address, please? Thank you. >> My name is Kathy Wyoff. I'm at 644 Southwest Bryant Avenue, probably a
couple blocks over, so I'm not within 300 feet, but I use the park all the time because and I wanted to show this because Mr. Scott took this picture. That's why people go to this park. >> Sure. >> It's absolutely gorgeous. And we kayak another neighbor. she is within 300 ft
and um so absolutely you know putting a fence that area but you know before the people that were there before they never had a fence but they had vegetation that was like this thick and a lot of it is actually
within the 40 foot that is the park so I was hoping that maybe the city could get us the actual boundaries of the park because uh it's much shorter I think maybe neighborsong a long time ago they planted shrubberies which could stay.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the park lines are like he said his properties from the 50s and you know they did things differently in the 50s but um create I'm hoping that they're going to invest in this park a little bit more. We've been cleaning it up as
the neighbors that we can get safely down with our kayaks so we can kayak out. But taking pictures from that park is the is towards his property, not towards the other neighbor's property. So, you know, sun as the goes by goes
this way. So, we're always down there snapping pictures. I have pictures in my phone, but I think you guys are probably ready for this to end. But, I do have a lot of waterfront and the high water line is has to be like you probably heard now you have to give the D and
Southwest Florida. they within 90 days of a survey to do a fence, they will determine the mean high water line because it changes pretty big time. So, you don't even know where it's going to end up. And uh the actual property line is a couple feet in
on the actual um seaw wall and there is a bunch of rip wrap and there is a child that was because he cleaned it up. He made we loved it in the park because before he couldn't see anything and then there cleaned up all that stuff. Of
course he's going to play it and there was a child and you know he was trotting along in there. His mother has already sat him down and slapped him around. No, she didn't slap and um he's already been schooled. He cannot go on that property. But of course he can do a fence all the way down. And then you can do those
bushes that I swear with a machete and a chainsaw you can't get through. And They can go as high as you want. You know, we're asking you nicely as your neighbor, please don't. But, you know, he can go all the way down with shrubbery. You can't get through. But these kids can go down.
They can go on that shoreline. And I don't see that you're going to fence along the water. You going to fence along the water, too? They're going to come around. They're come in and they're going to hop in your pool. I'm just kidding. We're going to keep the kids on. We don't have very many kids there. But, you know,
My time's up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> So, but anyway, I didn't mind if you had >> Do we have any other public comments? >> Um, so we have a motion. >> Can I just ask Lee for clarity? So, the
if a motion is kind of a if it's a negative, and there was a non-approval, I want to make sure we get the yays and the naysay correct. >> Yeah. >> Right. Typically, you don't do a motion in negative. If you're not going to vote for it, you just don't do a motion. So, but >> how about this? >> I'm learning. I'm learning. >> If the um if the motioner will retract,
I'll pro I'll provide a different motion. >> Okay. I retract my motion. >> Okay. Um I would move that we grant the variance uh for the applicant. >> Do we have a second? >> Correct. >> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. We'll be saying nay and yay. Wait, what? >> Chair the meeting. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Meeting's adjourned.