Salt Creek Estates water utility wins variances to rebuild treatment plant; tree protections required

The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals approved a set of variances (VAR‑25‑3 A–D) for the Salt Creek Estates water treatment plant, allowing demolition and replacement work that would otherwise exceed impervious‑cover limits and sit within required setbacks and Environmental Constraints (Eco Area 1) rules.

Staff presented the petition as a replacement and consolidation of an aging water treatment plant that has served the Salt Creek Estates community since the 1960s. Staff recommended approval of the impervious cover, sideyard setback and buffer/opaque‑screening variances because the site must remain operational during construction and because the facility is an existing, pre‑existing, nonconforming utility use with functional needs. Planning staff also recommended approval of the Eco Area 1 variance for practical difficulties demonstrated by the operational need to keep the plant running while new facilities are built.

Ricardo Paredes, engineering consultant for the project, told the board the current plant operates from several modest buildings and that the project consolidates operations into one new two‑level building while retaining key existing structures. Paredes said the community has limited alternatives: bringing a county water line to the neighborhood would be substantially more expensive, and the neighborhood has secured grant and loan funding to cover part of the replacement cost. An East Monroe Water Corporation board member present confirmed that a county water connection option would cost in the millions and was not a feasible alternative.

Several homeowners from Salt Creek Estates spoke in favor of the project, noting the facility’s age, the community’s remote location and the necessity of reliable potable water for full‑time residents. Planning staff noted the property received a Drainage Board waiver for stormwater detention, and that the Southern sideyard is one foot from the property line, which prevents an opaque fence in that segment. Staff recommended preserving trees of 3 inches DBH or greater adjacent to the construction envelope; the board adopted the tree‑protection condition.

The board voted to approve the variances on the grounds of demonstrated practical difficulties and the pre‑existing nonconforming nature of the utility facility, with one condition: trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) of 3 inches or greater adjacent to the construction envelope must be preserved and shown on construction plans with protective measures. The petitioner must complete required site‑plan reviews and comply with stormwater and other standard permit requirements.