Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stuart planning agency hears fence-in‑shoreline variance request at 700 SW Saint Lucie Crescent; no final vote
Summary
The board heard a petition to place a fence inside the 25-foot shoreline protection zone for safety and liability concerns; neighbors testified both for and against, but a motion to grant the variance failed to receive a second and the board recorded no final approval before adjourning.
The City of Stuart Local Planning Agency held extended public testimony Tuesday over a petition to install a fence within the 25-foot shoreline protection zone at 700 Southwest Saint Lucie Crescent, but the board did not take a final affirmative vote before adjourning.
Planner Michelle Arbazow explained the technical constraints: "The mean high water line is reflected on the survey... MHW is the average level of high tides over a specific period," and the shoreline protection zone establishes a 25-foot no-development buffer measured from that line. Staff told the board the permit language had excluded placement of a fence within that buffer and recommended the board provide direction because the request does not comply with the code.
The property owner, who did not provide a full name on the record, said trespassing and safety near the pool and dock motivated the request. "I'm here today, just because of the liability, insurance, safety, and liability," the petitioner said, showing photos and a temporary line to indicate the proposed fence location near the seawall.
Neighbors and witnesses gave mixed testimony. Dean Watson, who owns the property to the north and has a fence embedded in a seawall, told the board he had experienced repeated security issues at nearby parks and that a fence, combined with landscaping, would reduce trespass and liability. "If you put a big fountain in, you know, Boggan Via there, it's gonna run over into the, mangroves," Watson said as he cautioned against certain types of plantings but expressed support for a barrier that would limit access to sensitive areas.
Other board members pressed alternatives such as denser landscaping, pool barriers or signage that would not encroach on the shoreline buffer. Several members said they were sympathetic to the applicant's security concerns but did not see that the record showed the kind of hardship that the variance standard requires.
Procedurally, a member moved not to grant the variance and later retracted that motion; a subsequent motion to grant the variance was made but received no second and therefore failed to proceed. The board did not record a final vote to approve the petition and adjourned the meeting.
The petitioner and neighbors were advised of alternatives (plantings, pool barrier, license or easement discussion) and the potential need for any shoreline work to obtain state permits. The record shows no final board approval; the agency left the matter without an adopted variance at the conclusion of the session.
