09/12/1986 (2)
. .
,.
"
G>
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADHINISTRATIVB HEARINGS
TOM LARKINS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-2448
)
CITY OF CLEARNATER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
A final hearing was held in Clearwater, Florida on
September 12, 1986 before Donald D. Conn, a duly designated
nearing Officer of the Divison of Administrative Hearings. The
parties were represented as follows:
~
~
Petitioner:
Tom Larkins, pro se
440 Gulf View #1007
Clearwater, Florida 33515
Respondent:
Miles A. Lance, Esq.
Post Office Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33518
At the hearing, the record of proceedings before the
Development Code Adjustment Board on June 12, 1986 was received.
The City of Clearwater called Sandra G1atthorn, development
planner, and Philip Bennis, Sr., Chief of the Permits Division.
Tom Larkins, applicant, testified on his own behalf. Each party
introduced one exhibit, and no transcript has been filed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On May 20, 1986 the applicant submitted a request for
four variances to the City of Clearwater. These variances concern
~ property he owns which is located at 304 and 306 NimbUS, Skycrest
Subdivision, Unit 9, Block B, Lot 9 in the City of Clearwater.
This property is zoned RM-28 (multiple family residential).
2. A duplex apartment is presently located on the
subject property, and the applicant is seeking these variances
to construct a thir.d apartment on the property, thereby making
it a triplex. He intends to live in the new apartment. At the
present time he is renting out the two existing units and is renting
an apartment elsewhere for himself. Therefore, the purpose of this
- 1 -
. . . ',",'*'::""T'.~C". ...~'"' \ ,,-,'.1,!.." ~~..,~.t: .~ 1".....,,.: ,. .;~:--r..~c .~i>...e..J.. ....,'" >.~ ,.~.<, ..r,~"'.. ,..'::.,...:........
~ll~~-lfflc,~4I,l,.r.~ I~ /,\.c~.w '\ 1(.' ;:f~J~.::;"..\..t1 tf. .:.~.tt)-I;~~"';;o-~ll-~-I t ../.c.,.~,. 3'. .i.-1- '~/t'h ~..':"~ t: :".J. ; ~. ~<:'. ~ .'"' ,. ;.~:' t... .~ . 1~~ "",. Ie "'i~ ~~ .', f \. .< :~.' y~ l...,'.~~,;c:';."t.~,l,~l;...\r~(;:;...t ':;)1t\~ IFL""? r.iP.:~\.
., ~ :,~~~{:.7~~t~:t~~7'~~'~~"~~~::~r;;n;~:~;s !r~t4:~~.;:~4i{~~.~~~:~~~~~~~~,'~:c. .t~~::;:.:i~'(.~~~~~;.~:;:~'\. t:~,j~: /~~~:t;~~.~ ~:~;}::' ~'f j~f..t}l:~~211fti~~:L~.~!L +
L{~~~.cr:tt}'~... ;1.1,./);. rl,iJ-"'.{ ~"t","':'J:.\.: ~~')I'~ r,'t.~~T..'~ '.'0';, ~.,.""'~~ '. ~'';~<.;''"l\'):;' ~..;..t~~i:"'t"'~~ .")!f'~f j""':"<: i o. ..;C' ....q- .' ~. ',/ t~1::'.' I. ....., '.. /~ ......'~..: ~.,. r~"'l'~ ~? !)~'/~C\~I :c~?i~:':' -"f t;~-F
".~,;,' y i,~,:l!Ht5,;),~~; ~:":~"~.'/ (~I:':>r~'\ ~:/: r ;,; C::;;,\ ~',; ;" ::'~:. ?\:r~;~;~,\'\'; :;, :(;~~\1~:>\<,;,;'~!':'\,1:(~.:,.:,::,.;:~,:,.>,., .'~<~,:,; : ' \:; '> :{F :"'~:.,X::'t:;: :,";G.;~': ;:~ ~~':('~~~7~~~<:~ ,l~h, ::"" ~
. . .
~
,(
~
l
. ,
.
7. On June 12, 1986 the Development Code Adjustment Board
denied these variances and the applicant has timely sought this
review.
s. No evidence was presented by the applicant concerning
conditions unique to this proprety or hardship that would support
his request. There is also no evidenc~ that these variances are
the minimum necessary to construct a new unit on the subject
property. Rather, these vari.ances are sought due to construction
which has already taken place without proper authorization.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction
over the parties and subject matter in this case. Section 120.65,
~ Florida Statutes; City of Clearwater Land Development Code,
Section 137.013.
Section l37.0l2(d) of the Land Development Code sets forth
"
the standards for approval of variances, and specifies that:
Anv mistake made in the execution of a
building permit or work performed without
the benefit of a permit shall not be
considered to be situations which support
the grantinq of a variance.
Therefore, the fact that an improper permit was obtained for the
work that was 'done, and such work was performed without a proper
permit, cannot be considered in support of the requested ~ariance5.
met his burden to establish that his application meets the
standards for a variance set forth in Section l37.0l2{d).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the appeal of Tom Larkins concerning his
- 3 -