04/23/1981
" "
~ :r >
:,~, '..
? I '/: , .
?
-
Mr. Richter defined the area in question as west of
Missouri and north of Court Street, ,,,i th emphasis on the
interior area consisting of Brownell, Gould, Madison and
Washington Streets as being a prime area for redevelopment.
Keith Crawford, Director of Traffic Engineering, stated
he review~ all parking plans for any development above the
leveJ )f dUp1ex. The City Attorney presented Exhibit H2, a
site plan, and Mr. Crawford commented on the parking plan
and cited Section 131.218 and the various sub paragraph~,
enumerating the areas where the plan appears to be unacceptable.
Mr. Havlock referred to his letter dated January 21, 1981,
addressing ingress and egress, off-street parking, and numerous
other code requirements. He emphasized he is willing to stand
by the provisions in that letter. He stated he docs not antic-
ipate the USe of tractor-trailers as he deals in used furniture.
Mr. Crawford stated Gould Street '...ill have to be improved
eventually to handle the commercial activity which "rill occur
if all properties are developed to the zoning which is permitted.
Some additional right-of-way has been acquired from the new
bank which will be constructed in the area. If 30 ft. of
additional right-of-way is required, it would take a good
portion of Ml". Havlock' s building, while a 15 ft. right-of-way
would remove his parking lot. In essence, the City would
need to buy the property and perhaps pay damages.
Mr. Havlock referred to the 21 photographs he previously
submitted and stated they are pictures of buildings in the
area defined by the Planning Official. He compared his
proposed building with the Hughes Building stating his building
will be similar in appearance but smaller. He reiterated his
flexibility in meeting code requirements.
Responding to the City Attorney, ~Jr. Havlock stated Hughes
Supply is, to the best of his knowledge, one block away from
his site. He stated 99% of the time the only trucks in use
would be a~pickup and an 8 x 12 truck. Under further questioning
he stated he would not want to be placed in a position where,
once in a great while, a larger truck could not pull up to his
warehouse.
-
The Hearing Officer admitted City's Exhibit #3, supporting
papers from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on Zoning
hearing. of January 15, 1981, and City's Exhibit #4, the tape
of that hearing.
Carl Spier, representing the owners of
spoke in support of the request stating the
..would hurt neither their property nor other
:.. ' area.
~}~,.;'.::I'. .'r.::~~~,;:~'./;':~:;:'~:/,>)'.
.,..,'" },:"~'I'I.f .i..,,:~~;. [.~, 'f I .
.~q;t;i\..::"tl~~,crl~}Y.,'~ :::.~ ~+.~,' >' .'
it~'''''lJ "j;. ."',,"",~, '...,".,' . ',..
I"~ " 'i~"';{~~'1~~~Jl';i~~~B)ii~,;ni;;),k;:"::':;/':4;;:.' ';,\:){~'(,;~,;;~::."i:i;~ .;';:,\'~1;,,:,':,t';itT~r)ki!J
'0' .
310 Missouri, Inc.,
proposed business
~roperties in the
I'
,,'
" ')1.
":"'... ,
'. J
.' :.~. '
"
, 'I.
r
" ,
i,.,I. '.' '.
"
.'
T.'., .
Ie
-
The Hearing Officer asked what the total lot coverage
would be taking the base square footage, the existing accessory
building, und the proposed construction into account. The
meeting recessed to permit calculation.
Upon reconvening Mr. Cline submitted the architect's
computation indicating total lot coverage including the
proposed addition would be 33.7%. The Hearing Officer
ruled lot coverage is not an issue.
e
Mr. Mayer displayed a survey dated 12/16/69 and a photograph
of the original house and original garage extending toward
the street on the east sideof the propert~ enter~d as Intervener's
Exhibit HI. Intervener's Exhibit H2, a photograph showing
144 sq. ft. of the garage had been removed, was submitted.
No other persons spoke in opposition to the application.
John Richter, located the property stated the zoning is
RS-SO and the Land Use Plan designation low density residential.
He described the area, detailed the setback requirements and
stated the requested variance from the 25 ft. front setback
is 9'8". The Hearing Officer accepted for the record the
City's Exhibit #1, supporting papers from the Board of Adjust-
ment and Appeals on Zoning Hearing of January 15, 1981t and
Exhibit H2t a tape of the minutes of that meeting. He stated
that for ease of understanding the record Mr. Mayer would be
designated the Intervener.
Mr. Cline stated for the record he felt there had been a
lack of timely notification of the Appeal.
The Hearing Officer ruled he would permit the hearing
to go forward since the ordinance does not specify a time
frame concerning notice of an appea~ and the proc~Jdings had
been set in accordance with Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes.
Mr. Cline reviewed his client's history with the property
and stated the existing house is closer to the street than the
proposed addition will be.
Intervener's Exhibit #3, a picture of the present house,
was accepted for the record. Intervener's Exhibit #4, a
petition of approval from surrounding property owners, was
presented and admitted for the record as to five names.
Chris Mayer stated she personally knew the persons whose names
appeared on the petition and that they had been property
owners for a number of years. Inter~enerls Exhibits #5 through
#8, a series of photographs, were admitted.
" '. Mr. Walsh objected to submission of the photographs, and
::: ,;: '::.'- ':"'.., ',';'" .'Mr" Cli.ne stated they are offered in rebuttal to the contention
,;;"AiF:':'>',' ":o;;'tJia~, ~he 'view. would be destroyed and. the peti tioner ~ 5 p!operty
;1)~~1.f::..!:-.:. ",:::\':'.~,'~e~~r1orated ..In. value.. Mr. Wal sh . re 1 tera ted his ob J ectlon.
:i~t~~..t;~r';~'~~.:~:h;~;ll:\'~~e"He~ring. .Offlcer stated he., woul~ note the .obj ection but
"'>;f\~ \,,~.t/~~:Kf::.;,,~t: ,would "allow' tho photographs. '\, ' . ,
, ""~!~~J~~ji11~1~'\~,;:l(0;:}:,"D</:,J' :",<>: ">;;, '. ';Cr:: ..... .,' .'. . ::, '. .:.. ;.' "
Jr.V~~"~~"";(\'t:,~J>"i:)i,lt4~f,~-'J~' "'1: ",,>, "', ,\' . ; '","':~ "! I "'"c' '. ....:;';.' ,;',.",.',., ',\' '.. . >"', ,:'. ,~,
!"I.\';...-...t,,~ ./4 ~ I ...'1"l1.t~-;"~;} ...'. It'..'t~:;"!.':;~;:~l~n'I.~.I,J.'I~....L", '.." '..~l:;~l;" ...'. ~ .~V'. ~ .' ....}" I...,.... I.~l.." '.
, "':)' ::t ::,;: /:, :" ",:':'>':;;~!,~:
. ~ ~
-
"
0 S'rATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF AOMINIG~RATlVE HP.1\RINGS
"
,I
JAf.!ES A. CONNELL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
va. ) C~SE NO. 81-255
)
CITY OF CLEARWATER, )
)
Respondent. )
\
I
ORDER
'f .
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Oivision of
'~
Administrative Hearings.
This hearinq was condu'cted on
March 25, 1981, in the Commission Chambers, Third Floor,
'r.ity Hall, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner:
George W. Greer, Esquire
302 South Garden Avenue
Clearwattar, Florida 33516
For Responaent:
Thomas A. Bustin, Esquire
Post Office Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33518
! S SUE
A
, ~ .
This matter concerns the request by the Petitioner
James A.Connell to be granted variances within the meaning
of Section l3l.016(b), city of Clearwater Building and Zoning
. "
Regulations.
In particular the Petitioner has asked that he
be' given, a variance from the side yard setback requirements
'for narrow parcels established by section l31. 200 (b) (3) a. 2 q',
~~'::~~y.~'t{,~',:~':'...~:...: _~~,~y:'~f Clea~ater I Buil~ing and ZoninlJ Regulations, .~nd ~
....J'...... ....~.e-~1;-:)....,...\~..~. ~ ';....." .~ i . . .' -. -I. . " ,I,' .
c '>I,:t!,~'~:~~il;:~-;::;';',~~~i~ri6<ci:"tci jhe ~e~~i~~~~~'ts of Section 13,1. 200 (h) (3) e .,', : . ~ ""... .
:~':':~~,~~~~J~~:.:;/i~':~:):~~:"~;i( ;,~ '~..'. ~!:~: ~.: ~.~-.~~' . . '~ ' '..... . " .' ,..~",'" ",L:"'>~"1~>~' "
~.}j.,~,,":/':;'.~'.~:~e'a:tlri.q;J'~i.,~~:;'.~l,e~r s'pace.~ ~h,~ zonfng classi'f ica,tion,.: in ,'ques~,,' . ,,:, ,:;,:,,: ..;' .,::""
~d:I\~i(1~~::!d~\~i:\:.~~tA,:l~:"';; .~<;~':~;..\ :,,~ ,'. ..,', ..'. '> ..i' .' ~. : > ", .~, .:.-:. ....::~...~:\.I.,:'.:.f\T
- 2..~~~'.(i~I.tl'on;;:i8:';M-8,,"'.a8 ,.set'.forth in,Section 131.048, ,City,'of.'. Clear~"':.','. :":':;:';..-,"~' <,<:
";r~~v.~f~'t{Ji;~:~~~~:~~';X:;'{;},~\,~:, :::I.r~:;;';~" '. :': ,:>.":', :'i.: ;,>.. .,:t ' :.. .'. :': . : ,. . '.' '.: , " . -: '~. ..: , ',., . .,.1" . ,,~"":::, ::'~~ . '.", :':':<!_'~~ ',,~'
!,;'~ "~j~~et.,'Buildiri9'~: and'~ Zoning '.Regulations . . ,. " : . '.,' .;, -::.;~;,:; ::'1" ':.;!.' " /'::
t',,, <'~\~~~~t~~~~i~t&tl~i~iii,it:A~~~j,;;.~;:"i1(':'-,';/::~:X:;;;;';~/f::.;.,;i~~'t;{i;{~'~!~!~~l~tt,;~i;~
:i\q. ~f\{\1~1;'i'~;'~'~"v ~;;~l?t'::'l~' ;'t'~! J ,)I:~ :r.:~l>t;~:--: Z,'",... .~' ,~,'~ '::~.~ .~.:'. (.' "j( l:""tiJ~/ l;~': ~'';t'.~. .'.'. ., h.:".. ,~..t .: :~; '1 ~ V~'(::'l'l; ~,~ ~I~}r{ \: :;;;':/.~ ')"{G.!.?; /.;,
'.' "~~'\'(~~~1~ ;, ,[ :}~{~~#\i.i&~0~1b~;~r.~1~J*;'~{;::,:{:?}};;i;~~.F;:'~;. ;;:'; ;~::~::~y~;:;;: ;:';:<::;~:~~~i:;r:; i:,:.~\t~}:~~;7<.ll;~~E~t~;'
'.";'r~ l~it*~ f~~.fCaf~;!r;J.:~~\ \..~v.!1~ ~)~J~\ r~~~ ..1~'i' ~.~ l)~~.~:1,11\.~; , ?~.1":;'''/;..;.,: <~ t~l..... ",;,,',\:...\~'<~~~;<:ti ~~.;;tll~.~4~ .~..'.t:..~l ; .;: \f-.:~1tt
< ... ' ~. ....,*1 ~.E~i. f 1"'-01: . o';~~.S-~~f..~ t";;~:~;~2::..Q1'.i,'~,.~'~ +'; ,( .... ~:.' ':-.r~\"'... ~'.r, t ;:::' '/;'j > '.;t' d.....:..~ '/ t:" 'r: : ~ ,:; ~.~ D . ....,... ..~ (.I{,~il.~ ;-S1.\ :,.:.. :t~l~ ~......
fi
n
e
A copy of the application for variance may be found
in the.Citv otClearwaterls composite Exhibit No.4, admitted
,
. ,
into evidence. Through that application form, ~nd in'the course
of the hearing, the Petitioner expressed concern about the
survival of two 36 inch in diameter mature oak treea located
"
on the property in question and also mentioned th~t the drop
in elevation of the eastern side of the property front on Osceola
Avenue North to the waterward western extreme of the property
at Clearwater Harbour becomes dramatic approximately two thirds
from the eastern extent of the property line making utiliza-
tion of the latter third to the west difficult. In combination,
this topographical reality and the location of the two oak
trees, according to the Petitioner, would make it difficult
~ to construct a project oriented to the center of the property,
in an effort to comply with the "clear space" requirements.
The Respondent, city's Exhibi~ No.1, admitted into
evidence, is a site plan which depicts the Petitioner's proposals
and it shows that lot to be approximately 160 feet in width
and from 355 to 360 feet in length, the width relating to a
roughly north/south orientation and the length a roughly
east/west . orientation. The drawing depicts the proposed
ten foot side setback, t,he 24 foot clear space with additional
20 feet north/south associated with the driveways. The proposal
would leave in tact the aforementioned oak tree or trees
located in the approximate center of the 24 foot vista space.
(Inthat connection, although the Petitioner has attemrytcd by
his plan to save some of the trees, the plan as drawn for unit
four of the eight unit townhouse comple)t depicts the removal
of a 40 inch oak tree.)
The lot drops from a 26 foot to a 17 foot elevation
:,,: __ . ' ,. ,from ,the; street to Clearwater Harbour. The e,ffect of that drop
':, . " ' " J. ' , ,',',. ,. , . ..
~~r<;~><::.::"'~o~id;be': to. '.limi't. the. percentage . ~f an. autolOObile. that could :I
t~~~f' .' i:: . . > ". " /1. ~. .
~i.<"i.'!<m'.' , .., ", , .
~~~~~~~t\'q/',., ~ :.~e.en,. ~,f ~O.~~~~d.;~n a dri veway ~oward the waterward side. ..
~..~:\,:'/< of the', B.ite.),. ~I.' "
~ " , ,.~j;:':~~1~l~:~j~ij1!j1;i~.;;I,:;'{s~~ i,'{\i~~',,:?,,:," j,':.' ,,', , <.: >' ; .,~' I', II:'.: ,,'.:.' ."'.'~:')
}H tJit/:,~".~r'E~./~f,tj~r~..~i.'t"~'~.""';r.~r~"'''''L''~''I.,,:J'}.;Jo"'\o.~~':..~~'I.' " ~ ,',' "e,' ....+.,,~. i"':;'L :t'..
~~ .~}If-~J;~r:;~:~::~'~~!~~.,~~.~.~r:{t<{?J~~~'~~J,~:~.~,.,.'n::~:~~~:;:\~.:,.~,,,;:oi}'.'+:..~~~ .:~~. ]r\';:"::'~":"'~' ~".:.".,:....' t.,~,.:.,~' "d.~:,: ~~ t>~,-.~ .
"fJ,-;'r;~~'>1t.{~~'t.}tr.,,~'~~~~~!f~.'VJ~'~"'~~J:~~'~JI~'"'~Jj~'~,.""'.i';\.l't' -t.'\.~~"}~<~ >t ,'\,' ..... I' l~. ~~'~:.,L.!:..!.~ ,~.~ .... .:~:: . '~~, ',.\'
!l~~J.(''':;"i:{;.~t ~r li"~l~'1.:'"itt~ ,:'t:!"!.l, r';'l':~ ~}~. .~::" ;! ;0-':' ""4 "L. '.' "'-"-\1':., ,L "..> ~ \ 0,' .... _' , 11-'+ ,', .:;'..;.., '\. ..... :. .,: n-.... ~ ~ .. ~. .., J'
"~J'~-';-J-:..~....~..l;'...~ti+if.r:"',.tt{~~~-r!~j'-~;rti.~~:~~'~!.', ".f~..\...\"{\t'.~,~ / ;.~:t;\~, \,....'~ ..., > ...:. ~~'''I_ '.'~ I~.. .~.~:.I.,/..\ ,..{,.1.".. .' ~{l';.ot"
~1.~-f~~rfl'/.!l~~. j t.. !~~'~fil...-:~":/: '~i;'.L: .J~:::':':~;~~j';;- ;~,'":-.('(,~:'Jt. ?or- . ~i~ ~~;}.... "1""~' + ,~. .;.= ". \./ ~: ' ~ ~. !.:. .'~ ~ r'.: ::. 'd -~" ~.g.ll+ , 'I. ' .
e.
n
,U
I'
The petitioner's Exhibit. No. 1 and the City's
Composite Exhibit No. 2 are phot.ographs of the building site.
Through the hearing process no one has objected
to the grant of the variances in question and one person
who resides in the neighborhood spoke in fnvor of the project.
o
CONCLUSIONS OF LAN
l. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
jurisdiction over the subject mat.ter and the parties to
this action 'in keeping with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes,
and the City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations.
2. The Petitioner in this cause has requested a
"
variance from the requirements of two setback conditions
found in Section 13l.200, City of Clearwater Building and
-
Zoning Regulations. The first exception pertains to the
side setback requirement of Section 131.20Q(b) (J)a.2., which
requires that 20 percent or 30 feet, whichever would be the
lesser amount and in any event no less than lO feet be set
aside as a side setback area. In this instance the lot width
being approximately 160 feet, therefore, the requirement
would be 30 feet as side setback on each side yard. The
Petitioner proposes to reduce those two side dimensions to
lO feet.
The second area in which the Petitioner requests
a variance relates to Section l3l.200(b) (3)e. By this provi-
e,
sian, there is created a clear space requirement which only
allows one side yard setback for use as parking and establishes
"
the requirement that the other side yard setback be used as
clear space from street to water, with such clear space being
available for driveways or parking below street grades. The
Petitioner's proposal would remove the parking from the side
l~;':::"/f:.-::.;'~',:~ ....-'..'''-. ..t' ..~... ',. ;' " \ '" . \ ' . . .
}~';:Y'~;:~!;/:::S/ty'~ard' tC?" c~~ter poreio~ C?f t~~ lot :with the pa,~king widt:-h being
r~~\t~:>?'" '.',: ~pp'r~Xi~'t~,lY: ~~', fee't 'fi~ frot&i:, of" ea~h unit" o,f, th~ development
tf~-?~,'~~ " ," ' , " " " I' ,', " "
~. ::~~~r({~~~" ":,'~nd ,ill'~';basic';ori~ntatj:~ri' '6f' the', 20 f~ot, din\ens1on' running,
, r'~I~'::;;;>~:~;~~/~~~~h~:",::,~~,~,'~,,,:tot'~l',::,O'~' ~pprOXi~at'elY '~6', ~~et" 'spacing'
"'." f~:\~%i~rr~~!!r~1~~~Jfl~;~:,~I1.i,it;:';':'~});':"'H' )"".,. '.: .....'~.,..'.::: ,i.:"~, .'}. ':;.,.; '..':.:: ,..' ,: .~';;;'.:i::...,'~
"':!I;r~.~'~L..."'.I':.~~}rt..b'r.""J~l"r.t-(~. ""'l'\' .1IH\'.J4 .~~ ~,.,...~"-' ....j. "l' 1'"" \'~ . '. ", .... .' L ~ I
';'_61-\..~~"t- .',.l.;J-~.t-';' f ....\:t.. ~;jJ. ...~\~,r~I....... i "~."~.tl',,,,,"~'1' ~. (' " ''''9J~ ,'j . ..~ ..(.... ,~. ~ 1 . ~ > ~
-I,.'';'\'{''.l';r'''';l-.~'t~t:'~''.~.'fl~)..~'''i,~~~.(G:......, .I~'..........'.....-I\;.~ ~ "".' t' ,f ,".' .,<;"" . ')Il",~ ....,... .~. ..~...'. .~.I' " .'," .;.......~ .../
"'7:~~;?;~~.~:.+~,~::'~~~~~~~jf!!l~~.~1<~.~ti r F~~P;"~;f: :~h ~J ':';C'~,:{:f <~, ;~: ~:\ ;:;'"~'~,' '.J.".r, '~:::' ~~" . I. :'. :'t<'. ';, ~'.: /~~~~, ,"F:-. ~:. ~ ~ ~':T )1,',!: >"'~. ~, ,~: i.~ r -: ~.~...;
IN''''''~'''~'''''f,,,~4~{)'.J,:.11f~''"'J~~I~,J'~'..\t'1'1~,to,."":,,,\,' ",~. 0' ',;""',". ,.,.:,.' ."':\( ,:,,!,".~' '.', '..;,'." ,",:"',",' ,'.,,'~ ,,)~." ',',;
1\'~~-~I:~I~""~I1-rrI'u~).i';'~\~1,t1)1~fi~)t?;:~.~~~~,;~.,rj I;~,!::\>~i.!~.~\...}~.:/. .,.... "'f"'''~''.: '..:,. "~. .r;~Jjr, .~. \-'.~"'" '.,,;:.' ~ ,;'tt~ ":,{,,:~I[-,':~\':'
.h\r.;"}!l'!f"l~:'J."I"~I'{J'~\'i.,'i'": 1<,1 ''i',q....J "lo":::-. , <"'<""" ,~-,:..~ '.,r,."", " ,:,... '! ,,' '..':. ,,' ,',.; '. ,',: .", '), ' .".~ .i"" ~:.'
I.....I............~, . ~,'+"F.I. :,~f...'.l~.1...+:...~.~I..;:~:.~~~..t"\' "...... >';,l.':'y~. .,',. '." '0' + .' L~ . I, r" ~ '." ~. '+
,.,
.
~
~,
D
n
II;
.in which cars could be pnrked along t.he axiB.
(See City
Exhibit No.1) To comply with the clear space requirements
from street to water, in lieu of a side yard setback; tho
Petitioner offers a 24 foot wide stretch from stre~t to water
as opposed to the required 30 foot space, which would have
at the approxirnata center., two 36 inch in diameter oak trees
in tha~ vista. This sawe zonin" provision on claar space
does not allow shrubs or berms to exceed 30 inches in height
within the clear s~ace area (cone of vision) and from the
photogarphs, the oak trees in the center position exceed
that height. This space in combinati.on with the two 20 foot
wide parking or driveway space areas in which automobiles
would be parked consti.tute the Petitioner's efforts at comply-
ing with clear space requirements. The view in the parking
area is obstructed to a varying degree, dependinq on the
location of the driveway along the east/Nest axis of the lot,
there being a drop of nine feet from the street side to the
water side of the lot. In sUMmary, the Petitioner would move.
the parking from a side yard to a center yard and would remove
the clear space from a side yard to the center yard.
Section l31.016(e), City of Clearwater Building and
Zoning Regulations, allows the Board to grant variances to
persons such as the Petition~r on those occasions where there
are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying
out the strict letter of provisions of the regulations. This
power to dete~ine and vary those provisions exists if
determinations and variances are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the regulations, related to health,
safety and qeneral welfare, keeoinq in mind the need to
do justice. 'These variances shall not be granted unless and
';'\'.""-,, .,<; ;:,' , UI;1t.ll, .c,e~tain..C?f the fol~owing. are, found to exist~ " !
~\'<y,.::;::,\-;~~'.::Y~:'.:'.:~.::'.,:. ,',.'-",.\'..1:'; .":,, ';,', ":,', :, '...., .. ' . .: :.; :":.,
tv. '~';':".:'1l:".,~:. ';.,'..: ''',' " .:. a. ',That spec1al condit10ns and cJ.rcum- .' '" .'
~~t,..::.,::<-":.>.<!.;;, '.: stahces'exist ~~i'c,h'ar~'peculiar.,'.:t.o,1;.he. .'.. ' ,:',;,,;" ;".'".',<.'..
~.~\..:..<"',,'~':':-.;.'. '. .~,.,:~a,~d',!:s~ructure ,or buil?ing,involved.an?; ." ., ,;.";,.t';:, \';.::'~."
"~l1,r}~~;,~,:,, " ,', ,:,,</k'<: :/,~":'(:~J'11.ch .;are 'no,t, applicable' to ot~e,r l~nds, ' .', . .' , ' ' ..,,',' .... <: "'::o'.,."
..t:,;~",,:,>:,";'(';';"."."':i.':','i.'..b.uildings or structures in.th~ same 'district... .. ." ,.... '.',:' , .'\;
, .~'~~~~i;~w~~~~11!tfQ'j~i~~{{i~~1,;:;;\~~;'\;".i::.};'"~'!\,:'.;". '.:\: ,,:c,'d'.'?:)\",'~!;~;;'1'~;;:.}D~~,x~,t0
",} 1:f~~~~~1~~1~1~:S~~~,~t~\,~;~~~';Y,~H~;!:.: ~f~~;, r'~,~\-: ~ /~\ ;.:,;; :,:,:; '. ,\':'::.~ ;':':~::;'~}'::~",:,I)';~~.'::': :~ C! :)~:: :,~\ Y:;12~ ,;"~\;~,;,,,:~~t]:~
-:'t"I~~i't~('\,h;~'~~ l" f~ i (j~<.;\~.\~:1,.: c\~ 'f,: .,,'~i:\S:;~~~~!,~.~i..,"f >.' ~!~ ~ '\,: i::....~. (I'?:'" "t ;.;: ~ . ,-:'..~~. >~ ~ ~-.1., I .;..~.( ;4(.. ~ ~~~ \ ~of!~~jo:.: ~r~:,. ~..;.;6:1;.1~1~;;,\~~,:;
"A~~j..."-~,,..."~.\"~!tJ+' .....1\..1.. \i~rt:, c?" .........~.).. ,\ ~""I\' J,E:'-,.". '>",.~ . (' . l '..1+ ~'C~"I ~ t~'~l'),""! J. ":tl-,J . ,t.
}tti:.~t ~~~i~~~'~~~rJ~l(~:~;I:;~~'~l~/y '~L ~}~~~;ir~~:~~TJ:l/r\:F':~;?l ~;~:'~t~\-::; J:~:~~.";.~/ '; ~.:, .\~: t:,~~ .: ',:{:\;,~~".T,~:'~"~~'.:~~:':..::l tl:~~ iJ}~\\J~/tt~\~~~ ~{:~./~:rt.~
~;z.( ('O;{t~l' '~r '~.'I" . ~~ (: ;v"{' " ....~>(. ",~ ,,.' """, -'" " " '!'~; ." ' ,. co.. '-'1"/ '<'.'.'" v' ",
.) ~', ~~~~~I~\"~~~i}~/f Ct~"lJ~~L~l.~fI}:,~'~,(",[i :~I~f1:)} tri'} :1.,1 t..:. I:~ ~;::'J ':" ..'" '~}'/...;? .}' L,,1.: ~', -; :..~I'; .\~1;'..I,'~1r-.l~~{;1',c'IY:' ".">~~~ ,;{ -.\:~:J;'
. I .~~.& J~~r t1\~':\~'~ \-t(~Ji-B~\t}~..~;jr~I"'~;~l~~~ltF~;\L..i... \~I. r'!,:',.:~ ,~~': It ~ "J.~ l: L'. t ,~~ '. ",.',. .~', ,.', ~~"-.\ ..1,'"<' ~ t';'~.:'~" _....
"'ljJ,-.: ..1~J.':1.... .. ~':.l;"'"~~^~;:~;"\lJ;""'~':~'\,~h.;. {~~~"';\l '.....':~r ~~...Of. ".l I.' I ~ . . r + . 1" ,':, . 'I' ,
8
.
1: .
.
~
B
,.1
.
Ci>
b. That liberal interpretation of the
provisions of this chapter would deprivo
the 8pplicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in tho same district
under the terms of this chapter.
c. That the special condition3 and circum-
stanceo referred to in subsection a. above,
do not r6sult from the actions of the
applicant.
d. That grantinq the variance requested
will not confer. on the applicant any
special privilege that is denied by this
chapter to other lands, structures or
dwellings in the same district.
No nonconforming use of neighboring lands,
structures or building in the same district,
and no permitted use of land, structures or
building in other districts shall be con-
sidered grounds for the issuance of a
variance.
After examining the requests made by this Petitioner,
~ they should be rejected. Section l31.200 contemplates side
setback areas which are three times the amount for I;,hich the
Petitioner contends.
That same
provision contemplates
an orientation of building in the center,of a lot, with a
',8
clear space being made available on the side yards. Even
assuming the propriety of allowing for orientation in the
building process toward the side yard extremities of ' the lot
and clear space in the center portion \".f the lot, the visual
obstructions offered by the substantial sized oak trees in the
center and the automobiles that would be par.ked in the drive-
way~ significantly diminish the effectiveness of the proposed
SUbstituted vista. The proof did not show that there are
special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land,
structure or buildings involved which are not applicable to
other lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
. Simply stated, the plan demonstrates an eff.ort at making
optimum use of this parcel for a commercial venture, in con-
~~~';::-<>,>:~;:;:(,:..):.'~::',t~a~,~ "to, <a.;' less. ambi tious d~velopment that is in harmony with
I~jj)c:<,;'\~':.:/:'.:.~.:~..~pp:rbp~iat~ .,zoning. and building requirements.
~:w.\)';rt/,,:.,. '.'.:'. ".,. '. '
.j'i:MJ'..l-1~~.l;', . ,"..:., , .,." ,. ' . .
~'>rMift~~~.,;. ,.,...',:. " ,:'.', ' , ,There was 1:\0 indication "that'. the interpretation qiv~n , " '
i1 .~~/;~;;;;:.,~~>lj,~:~~:~~ ::~~U~~l{ ~~~~ive the. ,'apPlicant of. rights cornmo~~y ~nj'oyed' ': ~:. ,:'., ".
~~'~:~li'~'~~:l",:~;.\.(:~i" ~:.<~r'~.,...:~"~~~,'\~_,,:, 1:\' ....;, , .. . . '" \
, '~'~';~lj'1b)'~,othe~;'p<ro'~e'rt.ies dll\ the same di~~rict.' '. : .,',. ',: ,. '.
"" ';~~~}Jfl~~J;~i~~i~l~;~{Dj','f~';;~'\';'l.,~;" ..' ..~ . r". '..',:: .'.. ,:. ':'.; ...:;,.'},:',. ..... ..... ..... . '. . .....: '." .... ,;t~{~.\",," r
''ll~t~...'-p.~'i..'\ij(\'.J~I~.i~,':('''.I;t~r'....,~i~:., ,~/!..;~;J~ ~ 'I '} i~... .'4~,~ ..' ,','/'!,' l '.t, ';",.. , :, '.\-:~ .l.,~.>,. '.
*..,\ ;';;\;':J.i';i~~i;~!\/,~~f/':"~"':1)'~~.~"'~~~.1:"t'"'/';"~ ',' ~ ."f'~ .,.~...T':t",.:" :.~. .':<,~:: ;'" . ,,' ":"~'I'i '.', '1.,1-.,.' . I'~~ \' '. "<~' 4,: ..; .:.
"&r"{Jy-,~,I:... 'Ii.; ,'(I.'i'~ ql.,: 1:.\;,:' .'1, I'::.'" !II >'1II:"4~ ,., ,1.'1." . ~ "., ; . '~I"I ,.1 ,.'. ~ ~'. . ~" .,.' '",{' ,1 I" ~
~'t(,. -t',~ t":'"rJ,fi"~,,:~ .."'.~'~l I.~... . ~:. . ,....... ~ l.~ I. t'" ~rc,. . ',~ ~+ " '(~ , ' ,. : I~' ""I. ,L . ,'," ',' I ~ +,,'
'~,~.'~..I:II"t).,\\11.1~.~t),.r'i,ft."J~I.:.. ...~d~f ,IH;'1 ;'""f.q y" )-.....t. "~i;.ld:"; .;~.. ~ "', ~ "+. ~'I; .,. .,..:",,'} , '. < I: ,.';;. .,.' ) 0' ,'. ,"
:'~'i *!:~~ .,; ~\',.;1':.~~.:~&~), (\~1;~j~::~i~~. !:~ ~~it~:i.,~:~ .,: ~'U,'I:' 'i ~ ~ ,:, ~.\:I~~ \..f.>~ '~; :,.. '.: . +. '7~" ~ L~':,~~:; .' '. ,'. ~.:", '~/" + . . I ~.-. . \" '~'l ~ ": ,'. ~. ft' .. \',