FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

MARCH 18, 2003

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

 

I.        CALL TO ORDER                     

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chair Betty Simpson on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 12:15 p.m..

         Members present at the meeting:   Betty Simpson, Roxie Smith, Jodi Hester, Hank Zuba,  Jane Plummer, Nancy Mulholland, Anita Cereceda and Harold Huber.

         Excused absence from meeting:   Jessica Titus 

Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Dan Folke, Pam Houck and Jerry Murphy.

                 

II.       INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

         The Invocation was given by Chair Betty Simpson.  All present assembled for the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

III.       PUBLIC HEARINGS

          

         1.  VAR2002-00050 Shirley Wurster in ref. to Seaview Cottage Deck Variance.  A request for a variance from LDC Sec. 34-1575 (a) to allow a deck seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.   The subject property is located at 2916 Seaview Street.

         Chair Betty Simpson asked the applicant to come forward and state their case.

         Shirley (Sherry) Wurster came forward.  She indicated they are not looking for a permit, because the deck is already built.  Her property is located on the gulf and her immediate next door neighbor to the north has a deck, which was grandfathered in and has been there for years.  She attended many parties at their home and discovered she would like to have a deck also.  She talked with the Building Dept. and asked if she must have a permit to build a 9-foot wide deck on her property.  Unfortunately, she spoke to someone who was not knowledgeable and stated as long as you do not have a roof over it you do not need a permit. 

         She did not begin the construction of the deck for almost another year.  She contacted three or four different contractors.  Her next door neighbor brought her Geoff Van Volkon to do the work.  She hired him and there was a gentleman’s agreement with no contract.  She went home to Michigan that summer and he began the deck without a permit.  When she first talked with him, she did not mention a permit, because she had spoken to someone within the County.  Geoff also did not mention a permit.  She was unaware of the Coastal Construction zone.  The deck is built and is safe, but it does not have any balusters and needs to come up another six inches.  He was stopped by someone on the beach, because he did not have a permit.  He called Shirley and told her.  She directed him to apply for the permit.  He did not do this and when she arrived from up north she was told the permit was applied for. 

         Shirley spoke of several incidents which happened to her in the meantime.  Her home up north was hit by a severe tornado for a total cost of $61,000.00.  She received two notices for both her windstorm and fire insurance and was told she would be canceled due to her home being more than 50 years old.  She panicked about not having insurance down here.  She contacted Geoff Van Volkon who proceeded to do a major remodel on her small duplex.  The deck problem was not resolved and the new door was placed at the center of the deck.  Additionally, she lost a car in the tidal wave which hit down here. 

         While Mr. Van Volkon was doing all of the remodeling, he did have permits.  She kept pushing him for the deck permit.  He expressed that a variance was needed first, because the deck was three feet and nine inches past the Coastal Construction Control Line at the southerly end and four feet on the other end.  He stated this would cost $500.00 for a variance and she would lose the money if the variance was denied.  She expressed she checked on the amount and found it was $700.00 instead of $500.00.  She is not a gambler and $700.00 is a lot of money.  She decided that she had no choice and sent the money to Mr. Van Volkon.  She wrote the check in June and continued to call him all summer long for updates.  He did not apply for the variance and kept the check all summer.  He then applied for the variance and submitted the proper paperwork when she returned in October.  She then received a letter from Mr. Murphy.

         She commented on her good renters, which come from Hussey Realty.  Everyone states that the deck is an improvement and they like it very much.  The deck is not finished and she would like permission to keep the deck standing and get someone to finish it properly.  Her neighbors feel it is an improvement in the neighborhood and very attractive.  She commented on the possible precedence being set by the approval of the variance.  She does not feel this will take place in her neighborhood due to the type of neighbors she has.

         Anita Cereceda commented that she admires Mrs. Wurster for standing up and doing this on her own.  This matter is very complicated.  She questioned if the deck is substantially there?  Mr. Wurster replied the deck is safe, but would not be safe for a toddler, because the balusters are not put up. She commented that she has a leak cause by Mr. Volkon and had to obtain the help of Dave Crabtree to get some response.  She has found someone else to complete the work needed. 

         Shirley Wurster further commented the reason she decided to proceed with the variance is due to the an error made by Geoff with regard to the calculations for the Coastal Construction Control Line.  She commented if she must take the deck down she is unsure where she will get someone to do it.  No contractor wants to go into a job and repair someone else’s mistakes.  She feels she is between a rock and a hard spot.

         Chair Betty Simpson announced that Roxie Smith has arrived.  Betty will continue to Chair this meeting at the request of Roxie.

         Jerry Murphy on behalf of County staff came forward.  He provided a short synapsis.  Mrs. Wurster hired a contractor to replace a deck.  This contractor extended the deck beyond what was originally there.  He did this without obtaining permits.  She had been informed by someone at the County that she did not need permits.  At some point, they were cited with a violation of construction without permits.  There was a hearing examiner hearing to this effect and there is a violation.  She has requested the variance to abate this situation.  DEP cited her for the same situation.  DEP has since given an approval, as long as she can satisfy the Town’s requirements.  Staff is recommending denial of the application, basically because staff always recommends denial of CCL variances.  The code has changed, but this provision remains the same and states that construction beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line, except for certain structures, of which a deck that is an addition to an existing principal structure does not qualify and are not allowed.  He feels the language has been changed to state “prohibited.”  He would be happy to answer questions.

         Jane Plummer asked for the size of the original deck?  Jerry Murphy replied “no.”  Mrs. Wurster indicated the size of a 3-foot walkway.  Jerry Murphy added if it were a walkway it is very likely it was landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and would not have been a problem.

         Jane referred to the survey.  The 9.5 is the width of the deck going out the Coastal Construction Control Line.  Jerry Murphy replied that this is the width of the deck from the structure wall.  The 3.9 with the arrow is the distance the deck is over the line.  4.6 is landward of the line and a little bit less on the northwestern side. 

         Anita Cereceda asked why DEP would have been involved and provided an approval?  Jerry Murphy replied that DEP cited the construction for not having DEP permits.  DEP issued the permit after the fact and charged Mrs. Wurster $300.00.  DEP does not recognize the 1978 or 1988 Coastal Construction Control Line as the Town does.  Their policies are different and their concern is statewide as opposed to the Town.

         Anita asked the difference between the viewing platform and deck?   Jerry Murphy replied this would be the connection to the house.  A viewing platform would stand alone and be separated from the structure.  The deck would actually be an extension of the structure. 

         Hank Zuba asked if this type of approval for a deck built without a permit by the applicant has ever been done?  Jerry Murphy is not aware of any approval for an after the fact variance.  He is aware of an approval for one variance that was requested before the fact and numerous mitigations were offered by this applicant to make this happen. 

         Hank Zuba has a concern that contractors will come in for a variation somehow claiming that there was not a requirement for this.  As much as we may want to be kind to the applicant it is very difficult to see how this does not set a very big precedent?  Jerry Murphy would have great concern with the fact that the contractor was not aware of the permit.  He will have a conversation with Mr. Crabtree with regard to making sure this incident does not happen again.

         Town Manager Segal-George added that the Town has never approved any case over the Coastal Construction Line.  Pam Houck responded only the one case that Jerry cited. 

         Jerry Murphy commented that he believes the Town has granted variances for replacement of existing decks seaward of the Coastal Line, when they come in advance of the replacement and ask for the variance.

         Anita Cereceda questioned if the LPA says no, could she keep the area of the deck that is just at the Construction Line or will she need to go thru another application process?  Jerry Murphy replied that she would need to get the permit to do this.  There would probably be a permit to remove what has been constructed, but these could be combined.  He offered talking with Dave Crabtree about perhaps recommending some contractors that would be willing to take on this project.  She would be allowed to construct the deck up to the Coastal Construction Control Line.  This would give a 4.6 feet on the southeastern side and 3.8 feet on the northwest side, in terms of depth from the existing building. 

         Chair Betty Simpson asked for public comment?  None was heard.  Public comment was closed.

         Harold Huber questioned the original walkway width?  Shirley Wurster replied she really does not know.  She has a little round table where you could sit around it on two sides. She guessed four feet. 

         Roxie Smith asked what is presently existing along the sides of the house now?   Shirley replied windows.  On the right-hand side there is the door to the portion she lives in.  There are windows on the other side that look onto Estero Sand.  She mentioned that the Pell’s (a neighbor) cannot see her deck. 

         Nancy Mulholland sympathizes with Mrs. Wurster, but indicated the discussion points to the Coastal Construction Line and not setbacks.  She feels the LPA is trapped between a rock and a hard place.

 

         MOTION:      Made by Jodi Hester and seconded by Anita Cereceda to recommend to the Town Council they deny the applicant’s variance request subject to the findings and conclusions in the staff report.

 

         Discussion:           Jodi Hester further commented that she feels the same as Nancy.  She does sympathize with the owner, but she believes they must listen to the Comprehensive Plan and the policies within.  These were written for a specific reason and purpose and she does not feel they have the right to contradict this with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Anita Cereceda sympathizes also.  She is aware the owner is upset.  There is no way anyone would have advised her to build seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line.  She expressed that they cannot approve this request without amending the whole plan.  She is sorry this has happened to Mrs. Wurster.

 

Roxie Smith feels badly for Mrs. Wurster.  Unfortunately, she spoke to the wrong person and received the wrong set of advice.  The LPA has not varied on this in the past and she does not feel they can vary at this point. 

 

         VOTE:          Motion passes unanimously.

 

         Town Manager Segal-George announced that this case will go to the Town Council on April 14, 2003 at 9:00 a.m..   

        

IV.      LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS

         Roxie Smith - Apologized for being late.  Commented on a memo received.  She read in the newspaper with regard to the $500.00 registration fee for rentals.  Does this mean $500.00 for every rental unit on Fort Myers Beach? 

         Town Manager Segal-George replied just the ones who wish to be placed on the registry.  She has had quite a bit of action on this subject this morning.  This only applies to those who would be in that grandfathered status and placed on the registry.  It does not apply to any other rentals on the island.  It also includes the cost for inspection. 

         Harold Huber questioned that they must prove they were renting as of January 1st?  Town Manager Segal-George replied “yes.”  They have a number of different ways they can submit proof under the ordinance.  This proof will be accepted, an inspection will take place to be sure it is a legal unit and the Town will ask to do some random fire inspections.  The memo explains the six month operation and creation of the registry by August 1.  She is unsure how many rentals will come forward.  This does not deal with the code of conduct issues or the issues of enforcement.  With regards to documentation, she will be very liberal.  She will not investigate to determine if documents are fraudulent.  Code of conduct will be dealt with separately at a later time.  The fee is only to be charged to people coming into Town Hall who ask for an application for the grandfathered status under Chapter 34 to go on the registry.  She has asked the Council to not go beyond setting the first year fee.  The remaining years are yet to be determined.  She asked the LPA to help spread the word properly.  She added that there is significant work involved for this process and she does not have staff to spare.  People are unhappy with the fee.    

         Some additional conversations took place with regard to the newspaper article written in this mornings newspaper.  People are just writing information that is not based on factual information. 

         Anita Cereceda - Has an issue with skateboards and needs to know how to bring back an amendment to the park’s ordinance?  The park’s ordinance is the only place where any prohibition of skate boards in a public place exists.  Skateboards are under the definition of vehicles.  She was wondering if there could be an expressed prohibition in particular?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that this in there already.  It is written that it is prohibited unless allowed with specific signage.  The Sheriff would like signs, which state “not allowed,” but this is not what the rule says.  The rule states that it is not allowed unless there is a sign saying it is allowed. 

         Anita Cereceda asked for an official letter from the Town, which would tell the Sheriff this should be enforced, especially during the busy time. 

         Town Manager Segal-George - A workshop on April 2nd (Wednesday) will be held with regard to Newton Beach.  The consultant will be present.  Anyone who wishes to discuss what should be at Newton Beach should attend.  This information will go into the management plan and be part of the closing document on the property.  On April 15th at 4:00 p.m., Chris Swenson will have a public meeting on the transportation initiatives.  A public presentation on transportation will be made at the TDC meeting on April 4th and the Town Council meeting of April 7th.       

        

V.       PUBLIC COMMENT

         None.

 

VI.      ADJOURN

         The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.. 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary