by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
After much discussion during which some planning commissioners seemed loathe to do it, they nevertheless voted unanimously to deny two variance applications by property owners, Robert E. and Paula L. Hult. The applications were submitted by Windward Construction for the home at 690 Birdie View Point.
These were “after-the-fact” variance applications to (1) allow an 84.5-square-foot increase in maximum allowed impermeable coverage, and (2) to allow a 27-square-foot increase in the maximum allowed developed area. The variances were requested due to errors during the construction of the swimming pool. The Planning Department became aware of the situation when the submitted as-built survey did not match the approved site plan.
The applicant intended to purchase a strip of land from the adjacent golf course and apply for a minor subdivision approval to eliminate the overages; however, the golf course eventually decided not to sell the land, and the applicant instead applied for approval of the two variances.
Brian Haag of Windward Construction said this situation was the result of “an unfortunate mistake” and that the back of the house would have to be torn off and the pool built from scratch if the variances were not granted. “We’re here to appeal to everybody’s heart on this,” he said.
“I don’t see that appealing to our heart is written in the Code anywhere,” said Commissioner Lyman Welch.
“The applicant is asking for forgiveness, not permission,” added Commissioner Erika Steiner. “You usually ask for a variance before the fact.”
Principal Planner for the City Kim Ruiz said the City is starting to see applications with “razor thin” margins with no wiggle room at the maximum developed area. It’s setting a dangerous precedent, since there have been so few in the past. “That’s a slippery slope that we all don’t want to go down,” Ruiz said.
Planning Director Paula McMichael stressed that every variance is reviewed individually; every property is different.
City Attorney John Agnew clarified that these are not precedent-setting cases. “You can look at them all uniquely. There’s no danger that this is precedent-setting,” Agnew said. “But it might incite others to apply, thinking they can get similar treatment, setting the standards aside.”
Agnew went on to say there is “no way, even if you wanted to, to disregard those seven” criteria that were required by the City to be met by the applicants in order for the variances to be approved.
The desire is to stay within the Sanibel Code and also to balance property rights, said Commissioner Paul Nichols. “It’s not easy,” he said.
“I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that no Planning Commissioner wants to be in this position,” said Planning Commissioner Vice Chair Eric Pfeifer. “But density and coverage are Sanibel’s most coveted restrictions.”
Pfeifer mentioned a proposal he said he has long sought to implement where someone can “land bank” an undeveloped parcel somewhere – he said there are about 150 undeveloped parcels on the island – but this has never been approved by City Council.
Commissioner Ken Colter said this is the hardest thing he’s had to do since he has been here.
One citizen spoke during public comment, against the variance applications.
The vote to deny the variances was unanimous, but Pfeifer said he would like to see the applicant come back with other options of resolutions.