03/25/1993 (2)
DCAB
DEVELOPMENT CODE AD.JUSTMENT BOARD
DATE
o,3/cl5;lr3
~7
-
/u~p
."
,
"
J>.:"
t' ".l,
J
{
\......,....,...
.,
'"
ACTION AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Thursday, March 25, 1993 - 1:00 p.m. - commission Meeting Room,
city Hall, 3rd floor - 112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida
To consider requests for variances of the Land Development Code:
I. Time Extensions
1. (~st request for extension) - william A Day, Trustee (East
Shore Motel/Apts) for variances of (1) 6.5 ft to permit a building
3.5 ft from street right-of-way where 10 ft is required; (2) 21.5
ft to permit stairs 2.5 ft and a building and a second floor
addition 6 ft from side (south) property line where 24 ft is
required; and (3) 15.6 ft to permit a building addition 9.4 ft from
Clearwater Harbor at 473 E Shore Dr, Clwr Beach Park First Add, Blk
C, Lots 6 and 7, zoned CB (Beach commercial). V 92-53
Action:
Granted a six-month time extension to October 8, 1993.
2. (~st request for extension) - Louis J and Mary R D'Amico for
variances of (1) 90 ft to permit minimum lot width of 60 ft; (2)
3.30 ft to permit a second story building addition 8.70 ft from
side property line; and (3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft
from side property line at 410 Hamden Dr, Columbia Sub No 4, Lot
10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-49
Action:
Granted a six-month time extension to October 8, 1993.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 2/25/93) Janusz and Roxana Nowicki (Gulf
to Bay Pawn Inc) for a variance of 5 parking spaces to allow 18
spaces where 23 spaces are required at 2054 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec
13-29-15, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-01
Action:
Denied.
Item B - (continued from 2/25/93) Austin Wand Emma C Whitney for
variances of (1) 9.9 percent to allow 51. 9 percent building
coverage where 42 percent is permitted; (2) 4.5 percent to allow
30.5 percent open space for the lot where 35 percent is required;
(3) 7.7 percent to allow 32.3 percent open space for the front yard
where 40 percent is required; and (4) 10 ft to allow construction
15 ft from front property line where 25 ft is required at 756
Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 4, Lot 2 and riparian rights, zoned
RS 8 (Single Family Resid.). V 93-15
Action:
Tabled to the first meeting of April, 1994.
DCAB Action
1
03/25/93
~44
"-~
1. Robert J Nippert and Grace E Favero for a variance of 4.7 ft to
allow a structure 20.3 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is
required at 318 N Lincoln Ave, country Club Add, Blk 5, Lot 17,
zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 93-16
Action: Granted subject to the following conditions: 1) tl]e
variance is based on the application for a variance and documents
submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and
other documents submitted in support of the applicants' request for
a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in
support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the
site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2)
the building addition shall remain unenclosed and 3) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this public hearing.
2. Laura E Austin for a variance of 10 ft to allow a structure 25
ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is required at 1931 Oak
Ridge Court, Oak Ridge Court Estates, Lot 1, zoned RS 2 (Single
Family Residential). V 93-17
Action: Granted subject to the following conditions: 1) the
variance is based on the application for a variance and documents
submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and
other documents submi tted in support of the applicants' request for
a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in
support of the request for a variance regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the
site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2)
the north property line and the utility, drainage and conservation
easement boundary line shall be field staked prior to the issuance
of a building permit in order to ensure that the stormwater
retention is provided as per approved construction plans and SWFWMD
permit; 3) the existing landscaped berm along sunset Point Road
shall be maintained by the applicant in order to buffer nearby
properties and 4) the requisite building permit shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this public hearing.
3. Dan's Island 1600 Condo Assoc Inc for a variance to allow a
structure, consisting of a deck and steps, 26 ft seaward of the
coastal construction control line at 1650 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island
on Sand Key Condo, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential), OS/R
(Open Space/Recreation), and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal). V 93-18
Action:
Continued to the meeting of April 8, 1993.
DCAB Action
03/25/93
2
~~"'-.
~.....- .'
~~'
~
4. Ann Keller, Trustee for variances of (1) 8 ft to allow a structure
17 ft from street right-of-way where 25 ft is required; (2) 3 ft to
allow a structure 2 ft from side property line where 5 ft is required
at 827 Mandalay Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 17, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (single
Family Residential). V 93-19
Action: Denied variance #1. Granted variance #2 subject to the fol-
lowing conditions: 1) the variance is based on the application for a
variance and documents submitted by the applicants, including maps,
plans, surveys and other documents submitted in support of the
applicants' request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above
documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding
the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no
effect; 2) the requisite building permit shall be obtained within
thirty (30) days from the date of this public hearing.
5. Charles D Snead for a variance of 5 ft to allow a zero ft
landscape buffer where 5 ft is required at 2070 Range Rd, pinellas
Groves NE 1/4, See 12-29-15, part of Lots 11 and 12, zoned IL (Limited
Industrial). V 93-21
Action: Granted as requested subject to the following conditions:
This variance is based on the application for a variance and documents
submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted ill support of the applicant's request for a
variance. Deviation from any ox the above documents submitted in
support of the request ,for a variance regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site,
will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) a
minimum 2.7-foot wide perimeter landscaped area shall be installed
along the west property line as shown on the amended site plan. This
landscape area shall begin approximately 67 feet north of the Range
Road right-ox-way or at the point that an adequate width of 24 feet
for two-way vehicular traffic can be provided and 3) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date
of this public hearing.
III. Approval of Minutes of February 25, 1993
Approved as submitted.
IV. Board and staff Discussion
V. Election of Officers
Chairman, Alex Pliska; Vice-Chairman, Emma Whitney
VI. Adjournment
Adjourned at 3:42 p.m.
DCAB Action
3
03/25/93
.~~~
","';"
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
March 25, 1993
Members present:
Alex Plisko, Chairman
Emma C. Whitney, Vice-Chairman
otto Gans
John B. Johnson
Joyce E. Martin
Also present:
Miles Lance, Assistant city Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Ted Clarke, Planner II
Susan stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:00 p.m. in the
Commission Chambers of city Hall. He outlined the procedures and
advised that anyone adversely affected by any decision of the
Development Code Adjustment Board may appeal the decision to an
Appeal Hearing Officer within two weeks. He noted Florida law
requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have
a record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed in agenda
~_ order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
I. Time Extensions
1. (~st request for extension) - William A Day, Trustee,
(East Shore Motel/Apts) for variances of (1) 6.5 ft to
permit a building 3.5 ft from street right-of-way where
10 ft is required; (2) 21.5 ft to permit stairs 2.5 ft
and a building and a second floor addition 6 ft from side
(south) property line where 24 ft is required; and (3)
15.6 ft to permit a building addition 9.4 ft from
Clearwater Harbor at 473 E Shore Dr, Clwr Beach Park
First Add, Blk C, Lots 6 and 7, zoned CB (BeachCommer-
cia1). V 92-53
\..,..,'
DCAB Minutes
1
03/25/93
In a letter received February 26, 1993, the applicant requested a
six-month time extension to allow additional time for processing a
SWFWMD exemption.
Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month time extension to October 8,
1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
~ . ~.' '. .. .,. .' . ~ . . .' >' ~f . . . . . .. . '.;. . " ' ' .:. '. '. ++~ :" l" ."'.' . . . .. ' .... ~ I I . I'..
f<J?~
", /
-..
2. (~st request for extension) - Louis J and Mary R
D'Amico for variances of (1) 90 ft to permit minimum lot
width of 60 ft; (2) :3.30 ft to permit a second story
building addition 8.70 ft from side property line; and
(3) 5 ft to permit an inground pool 5 ft from side
property line at 410 Harnden Dr, Columbia sub No 4, Lot
10, Zoned CR 28 (resort commercial). V 92-49
In a letter received March 12, 1993, the applicant requested a six-
month time extension for financial reasons.
Ms. Whitney moved to grant a six-month time extension to October 8,
1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
II. Public Hearings
Item A - (continued from 2/25/93) Janusz and Roxana
Nowicki (Gulf to Bay Pawn 1nc) for a variance of 5
parking spaces to allow 18 spaces where 23 spaces are
required at 2054 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B
13.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 93-01
This item was continued from the meeting of February 24, 1993 due
to a tie vote.
Senior Planner Glatthorn explained the application in detail and
described the uses within the former motel building. A previous
partial conversion created a' pawn shop with storage and office
space. The current proposal is to expand the retail portion of the
pawn shop into the remaining motel units, increasing the parking
requirement. staff felt the application does not appear to support
the standards for approval for a variance.
Roxana Nowicki, owner/applicant, stated she is requesting a
variance of only five parking spaces and emphasized all required
permits have been obtained for work performed up to this point.
She said two of the motel units were previously converted to
storage area and she wants one small unit for an office and one for
additional retail. She presented photographs of the building
before and after the conversion for the record.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. While is was felt the
applicant is trying to follow the code to work with what exists,
concerns were expressed the property is overbuilt and there is a
shortage of parking in the area.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
moved to deny the variance as requested because the applicant has
not demonstrated she has met all of the standards for approval as
listed in section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because there
is no condition which is unique to the property; no unnecessary
DCAB Minutes
03/25/93
2
~~' hardship was shown; the variance is not the minimum; the request
t....." for the variance is based primarily upon the desire of the
applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property
and the granting of the variance would violate the general spirit
and intent of this development code as expressed in sections 35.04
and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Item B - (continued from 2/25/93) Austin Wand Emma C
Whitney for variances of (1) 9.9 percent to allow 51.9
percent building coverage where 42 percent is permitted;
(2) 4.5 percent to allow 30.5 percent open space for the
lot where 35 percent is required; (3) 7.7 percent to
allow 32.3 percent open space for the front yard where 40
percent is required; and (4) 10 ft to allow construction
15 ft from front property line where 25 ft is required at
756 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 4, Lot 2 and riparian
rights, zoned RS 8 (single Family Residential). V 93-15
Ms. Whitney declared a conflict of interest with regard to this
case.
......,T
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gans moved to table this item
to the first meeting of April, 1994. The motion was duly seconded
and upon the vote being taken, Ms. Martin, Messrs. Plisko, Gans and
Johnson voted "aye"; Ms. Whitney abstained. Motion carried.
1. Robert J Nippert and Grace E Favero for a variance of
4.7 ft to allow a structure 20.3 ft from street right-ot-
way where 25 ft is required at 318 N Lincoln Ave, Country
Club Add, Blk 5, Lot 17, zoned RS 8 (Single Family
Residential). V 93-16
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a covered walkway at the front
entrance of the single family home to eliminate extensive water
damage around the front porch. The water damage to the floor
joists around the entryway was discovered while remodeling and it
is necessary to extend the roof to eliminate the problem. The
proposal is consistent with other structures in the area.
.~ .
Robert Nippert, the owner I applicant, stated there is already a
stoop in place at the entrance and he wishes to extend the roof to
cover the stoop to avoid further water damage.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. In response to a
question, Mr. Nippert stated the house was built in 1939.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards fer approval as listed in
section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifica lly
,
'~..",..
DCAB Minutes
3
03/25/93
." : '.;' "..:"..~.:. ~. ',. "~".'~ j:',"'t ,'.: I,,:, ': ,"', ',~ . ~: '",",1'. r,' ." .," . ~ (; ," ',' "~,'.,
t""'''-''''''.
because, the variance arises from a condition which is not caused
by the owner or applicant and the variance is the minimum necessary
to overcome the hardship created by water running into the front of
the house, to improve the exterior of the house and conform with
others in the neighborhood, subject to the following conditions:
1) the variance is based on the application for a variance and
documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans,
surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicants'
request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents
submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the
work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of
no effect; 2) the building addition shall remain unenclosed and 3)
the requisite building permit shall be obtained within six (6)
months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Laura E Austin for a variance of 10 ft to allow a
structure 25 ft from street right-of-way where 35 ft is
required at 1931 Oak Ridge Court, Oak Ridge Court
Estates, Lot 1, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential) .
V 93-17
'-.-
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a single-family home on a one-half
acre lot with three 35-foot street setbacks and a IS-foot conserva-
tion easement to the north. The variance is needed to shift the
footprint of the proposed house ten feet to the south to save a 60-
inch diameter live oak tree.
The City's Public Works/Environmental Management Group supports the
efforts to save the tree and protect the creek, bank and dry
retention in the conservation easement.
Laura Austin, the owner/applicant, explained the constraints
associated with the lot and hoW her building plans were changed to
protect the tree. Since the proposed shift is to the south, she
said the creek would not be affected.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. Ms. Austin said she
plans to have a wooden deck around the tree, and will not be
gaining any living area by shifting the footprint. She stated part
of the house cannot have a second story due to overhanging tree
branches. It was felt the design of the house would not be harmful
to this type of tree.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
~ /
A.t'...-..<
DCAB Minutes
4
03/25/93
,',. ..1,' ,.,.:',.",.. ."" . ..~". ~,'.'. _~ . ~..'..,'... ' :'. '. '..'. ."' ....:. '.'~ ',', ,l. ,'.,.. '..' . ..:"'".:
~c
.
"-......,J"
b .!
~..
the property and not caused by the owner or applicant; the
particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condi-
tions of the property involved and the strict application of the
provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary
hardship upon the applicant and the variance is the minimum
necessary to overcome the hardship created by the huge oak tree in
the center of the property, subject to the following conditions:
1) the variance is based on the application for a variance and
documents submitted by the applicants, including maps, plans,
surveys and other documents submitted in support of the applicants'
request for a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents
submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the
work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of
no effect; 2) the north property line and the utility, drainage and
conservation easement boundary line shall be field staked prior to
the issuance of a building permit in order to ensure that the
stormwater retention is provided as per approved construction plans
and SWFWMD permit; 3) the existing landscaped berm along Sunset
Point Road shall be maintained by the applicant in order to buffer
nearby properties and 4) the requisite building permit shall be
obtained within six (6) months from the date of this public
hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Plisko and Gans voted
"aye"; Mr. Johnson voted "nay". Motion carried.
3. Dan's Island 1600 condo Assoc Inc for a variance to
allow a structure, consisting of a deck and steps, 26 ft
seaward of the coastal construction control line at 1650
Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island on Sand Key Condo, zoned RM
28 (Multiple Family Residential) , OS/R (Open
Space/Recreation), and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal).
V 93-18
In a letter dated March 11, 1993, the applicant requested a
continuance to allow time to obtain additional information relating
to the location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL).
Mr. Johnson moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 8,
1993. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
4. Ann Keller, Trustee, for variances of (1) 8 ft to
allow a structure 17 ft from street right-of-way where 25
ft is required; (2) 3 ft to allow a structure 2 ft from
side property line where 5 ft is required at 827 Mandalay
Ave, Manda lay Sub, Blk 17, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single
Family Residential). V 93-19
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating
there are numerous violations on the site which are being correct-
ed. The variances are being requested to allow an existing gazebo
and a screened porch, both built without permits, to remain.
DCAB Minutes
5
03/25/93
~
.........,..
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated the
contractor who performed the construction said permits were not
needed and the structures passed inspection. He indicated the
irregular shape of the lot and the dual street setbacks are
hardships. Due to not having a side or back yard, the gazebo was
built in the front yard to provide a private outdoor seating area.
He submitted a drawing of the site and a 1990 building permit for
the record.
In response to questions, he stated the house is single-family, on
one lot and has separate maid's quarters. Portions of the
structure encroaching onto a second lot have been removed.
Discussion ensued regarding the aesthetics of the proposal and
concern was expressed the property is overbuilt. It was felt
requesting variances after the fact erodes the quality of residen-
tial areas.
Ann Keller, the owner/applicant, indicated she was not trying to
save money by not getting the required permits. She was told
permits were not needed. She understands there are violations and
will do whatever is necessary to correct them.
The adjacent property owner to the east spoke in opposition to the
application, expressing concern with the non-conforming structures
being built without permits.
Mr. Cline felt it is reasonable to be able to sit in one's yard
with a degree of privacy.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. The small screened
porch was not considered to be a problem as it aligns with the back
of the house. Although screened from the street by shrubbery and
considered attractive by some, the gazebo was felt to be out of
place. Concern was expressed with a large stairway on the gazebo
being used to access the second floor of the house.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Johnson
moved to deny variance #1 as requested because the applicant has
not demonstrated she has met all of the standards for approval as
listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code because the
hardship was caused by the owner or applicant; the granting of the
variance would be materially detrimental or injurious to other
property in the neighborhood and would violate the general spirit
and intent of this development code as expressed in Sections 35.04
and 35.05. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being
taken, Ms. Martin and Messrs. Plisko, Gans ~nd Johnson voted tlaye";
Ms. Whitney voted "nay", Motion carried.
DCAB Minutes
6
03/25/93
- -.
~
\..0..""''''
"'-., "
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Ms. Whitney
moved to grant variance #2 as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically
because, the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the
hardship created by the fact the porch has been there for many
years subject to the following conditions: 1) the variance is
based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by
the applicants, including maps, plans, surveys and other documents
submitted in support of the applicants' request for a variance.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of
the request for a variance regarding the work to be done with
regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site,
will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the
requisite building permit shall be obtained within thirty (30) days
from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded
and upon the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney and Mr.
Plisko voted "aye"; Messrs. Gans and Johnson voted "nay". Motion
carried.
5. Charles D Snead for a variance of 5 it to
zero ft landscape buffer where 5 ft is required
Range Rd, Pinellas Groves NE 1/4, Sec 12-29-15,
Lots 11 and 12, zoned IL (Limited Industrial).
a 11 ow a
at 2070
part of
V 93-21
Mr. Pliska declared a conflict of interest with regard to this
case.
Planner Ted Clarke explained the application in detail stating the
applicant wishes to construct a new parking lot, adding paved
parking in the front and rear of the existing air conditioning
business. The variance is needed to provide the maximum amount of
drive aisle space between the existing building and the west
property line. He stated a six-inch curb is recommended along the
existing chain-link fence on the west side of the property to guard
against vehicle encroachment into the adjoining property.
The city Traffic Engineering Department commented the loading
dock/maneuvering area cannot accommodate a full-sized semi tractor
trailer, and an aisle width of 24 feet is the minimum for a new
development.
Discussion ensued regarding landscaping requirements and the
proposed new parking area in the rear.
Jack Joyner, an owner/applicant, stat,ed he will do whatever is
necessary with the landscaping. He feels paving the drive and
parking area is critical as he is upgrading the site and does not
want to buy the property if it cannot be paved. He felt the curb
along the fence is not necessary because it would not stop a big
truck.
DCAB Minutes
7
03/25/93
AS:
tr""~
',~i.
,
,~ ....
Discussion ensued regarding landscaping requirements, the loading
dock in the rear, water retention and traffic circulation on the
site. Mr. Joyner stated a two-way drive is required by the city
al though the lot can accommodate only one semi tractor trailer
backing in at a time. Smaller trucks will be corning and going more
frequently. The proposal was felt to be a great improvement to the
area.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant, Mr. Gans
moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in
Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code more specifically
because, the variance arises from a condition which is unique to
the property and are not caused by the owner or applicant and the
variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created
by the lot size and the improvements to the property subject to the
following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application
for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of
the applicant's request for a variance. Oeviation from any of the
above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance
regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any
physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and of no effect; 2) a minimum 2.7-foot wide
perimeter landscaped area shall be installed along the west
property line as shown on the amended site plan. This landscape
area shall begin approximately 67 feet north of the Range Road
right-of-way or at the point that an adequate width of 24 feet for
two-way vehicular traffic can be provided and 3) the requisite
building permit shall be obtained within six (6) months from the
date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and upon
the vote being taken, Mses. Martin and Whitney, Messrs. Gans and
Johnson voted "aye"; Mr. Plisko abstained. Motion carried.
III. Approval of Minutes of February 25, 1993
Ms. Whitney moved to approve the minutes of February 25, 1993, in
accordance with copies submitted to each board member in writing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
IV. Board and staff Discussion
Ms. Joyce E. Martin was welcomed as the new member of the Board.
The new format of the staff comments received a favorable reaction
from the Board.
Discussion ensued regarding the recent recodification of the Land
Development Code. Concern was expressed the code is difficult to
use and is not well indexed.
DCAB Minutes
8
03/25/93
,~
'...~-,. .
I
...........1
Oiscussion ensued regarding tabling cases to be heard at a later
date. Assistant city Attorney Lance suggested amending the rules
to state the Board may table a case for one year, unless opposed by
the applicant, in which case it may not be tabled for more than 90
days.
Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of standard
Condition #1, which states deviation from any of the plans
submitted with an application will nullify the variance. concern
was expressed the condition would preclude all changes, even when
the changes would not directly affect the requested variance.
While it was felt minor deviations not material to the application
should be allowed, there was concern regarding having to discern
between major and minor deviations. staff was requested to
investigate and report to the Board.
It was noted the state Division of Administrative Hearings upheld
the Board's decision to deny the setback variance in the stinson
case (V 92-46, 9/24/92).
v. Election of Officers
Alex Plisko was nominated and unanimously re-elected as Chairman.
J.B. Johnson was nominated as Vice-Chairman.
nomination.
He declined the
Emma Whitney was nominated and unanimously re-elected as Vice-
Chairman.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned
at 3:42 P'Q f D~ Y2
Chairman ~ v
ATTES11:
p ~ ~~7?L
~stant city C~erk
DCAB Minutes
9
03/25/93
...' )~~"~ .,:....:-t: " :'.~;:.~...... . I" ~ ,I ,.", "I;.,',,', ..'. '..,/" .,..;. /./..".. ""', .... .', . .,.., .".~
r"' ~
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.ASl" NAME- 1"IIlS I />;AMI.", MIIIDJ E NAME
I \ L
.l , ,'I ,.J. J
MAIl. N j ADllIl.I:SS '
.It ,r; /'I~ I ;, J( (J u ;,'/
L. k (). n..vI.L{-. ,- n hU:"" ~t...
"'
NAME 01' 110 A II D. COUNCil., COMMISSION, AU"IIlOIlITY. all COMMIT! H
7) .~. I'}}"' I J ,.,
j't"'~"l(Ii'~'; -I or.J( '-/.' t-oj"/4";1I7- ,~':.":";"/.
"I liE 1I0AlW,{'OUNCIL. COMMISSION, Ap1110llJ IY Oil CUMMl II 1.1: ON
WlIlclIl SERVE IS ^ liNn OF:
~ciTy 0 COUNH 0 ollll:lt l"flCAl. AGl'sn
e1IY
r' ,j
/I In.(! ; r'.. J'
COllNn'
NM,If: OF 1'OI.lTleAI. SUlml\'ISION:
.- 'J-. [- Cj :~
IM"I E 0:0; wlJJell va II: (l('('ltn II ED
MY "osnlON IS;
o rUTllV" o-'AI'f'OINTlVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM B8
This form is for me by any pcrson serving althc COUllty, city, or OIhcr locallc\'cl of govcrnmcnt on an appointcd or elected board,
council, cOlllmission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who arc prcselllcd
with a voting connict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutcs,
Your rcsponsibililics under the law whcn faccd with a measurc in which you have a conmCl of inlcrest will vary greally depending
on whelher you hold an elective or appointive position, For this reason, plea~e pay c10sc allentionlo the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the forlll,
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
\
......- A pcrson holding elcctivc or appointive county. municipal, or olher locnl public office MUST ABSTAIN frolll voting 0/1 a measure
wbieh inures to his special private gain. Each elecled or appointed lac:.) officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (other th:lIl a governmcnt agency) by whom he is rctained (including the parent
organi1n\ion or subsidiary of 11 corporate principal by which he is retain~d); to Ihe special private gain of a relative; or to the special
private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopmenl agencics under Sec. 163.356 or 163,357, F.S., and
officers of independenl sped.lllax di~lricts elected on :I one-acre, one~\'ole b;ISis :lfe nOl prohibited from vOling in llmt capacil)'.
For purposes of this law, a "relativc" includes only lhe officer's fallll:r, mOlher, son. daughter, husband. wife, falher-in-Iaw, t11othcr-in-
law, son-in-law, :lnd daughter-in-law. ^ "business associate" IlH:anS any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a bUSiness
enlerprise with lhe officer liS a p:lrlller, joinl venturer, coowner of propeny, or corporate shareholder (where lhe shares of lhe
corporalion arc not listed on any national or regiontll stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFIClmS:
In addilionto abstaining froll1 vuting in the situations dcscribed abow. you must disclose the conniet:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly staling to the a~~ltIbly the nalure of your illlcrest in the measure on
whieh you arc abstaining from voting; alld
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER TilE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with Ihe person responsible for
recording the minules of the meelil\~, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICEHS:
,.
Although you must abstain from \'tlling in the situations described above. you otherwisc may parlicipate in tlwse mailers, However,
)'OU mus\ disclose lhe m\\ure of \he clmllict befme making :my altempt \0 inl1ucm:c the decision, whe\her mally or in writing and
whelher made by you or ,It your direction,
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE A~Y ATrEMI'T TO INFl.UENCE TIlE DECISION PRIOR TO TilE MEETING AT Wlllell
THE VOTE Wl.1. BE TAKEN:
, You must cnmplete and tile lhis form (hefore making any allempl 1tI influcnce the decision) \\ith the person n:sponsible fur
recording the rninLlll's of thc nlceling. who will incorpormc Ihe fmlll in the minutcs.
. A copy of the forlll must he provided i nllned ialcfy to the other rnembels of the agency.
. The form musl be re;uJ puhlicly al the ne:\t lllecling :dler the form is filed,
CI: f'ORM HIl.lIJ.l11
I''\(il. I
IF YOU MAKE NO A1TEMPTTO INFLUENCE THE'DEClsION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION ATTHE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of YOllr connicl in the measure before participating.
. You musl complete the furm and Iile il within 15 days afler lhe vote occurs with 11te person responsible for recording the minut.,....'.,
Ihe meeting, who musl incorporale Ihe form in Ihe minutes. A copy of thc form must be provided immcdiately to thc l~: "
members of the agcncy. and Ihe form musl be relld publicly nlthe next mecting uftt~r Ihe form is filed.
I.
-
/---
s' J " lit L":
. .,~ ,
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
C L(/ ;, " h'-('A
I
)Jl ,'.-\ ci
;l~J"-
Ii?
. 19...L::::....l.:
, hereby disclose that on
(0) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~"inured to my special private gllin;
__ inured 10 Ihe special gain of my business associate,
_ inured 10 the special gain of my relative.
_ inured 10 the special gain of
whom I am retained; or
_ inured 10 Ihe spednl gain of
is the parcnt organi7.1tion or subsidiary of a principal which has rClaincd me.
(b) The measure before my agellc)' and Ihe nalure of my connicting interest in Ihe measure is as follows:
. by
. which
"
~.
,,'}
'1 .'
-'
]. 5 - q.}-
(l
~JI H".A...
L'Signalure
(I' -//;f~:1:~L,C~r/"
/j"
t.
Dale Filed
:"OTlCE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317 {1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQl; :l
DISCLOSURE COr-:STITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF TH E FOLLOV~'.j:
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSIOr-: FRO~I OFFICE OR EMPLOY~IENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION 1:\
SAl.AH. Y. REPRl~1^ND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,
cr: I'OKM W. 1IJ.',lt