Loading...
11/19/1991 - 01:12 PM (2) . , . , " . ,"..,."..Jo_ ::...~ :....--,..... ..~_... '.F .. .; I' " . . . ..... I , ," .c ..'. " . , ~ ~ <. .. . . .. . ..' , ..".... ~ ,.' .' '+ ~ .. j . ' >. . , _ c . c . HEARING OFFICER APPEALS .. mh . Date '. 'r:r?'6hO-~ P L-e1lj dlb /tL 0SA,rf hU;1orj . ~~O '6 '. :<.;_. . .. . l .' '::,>,' ,,":"i '<"~L,;',:,';;:.'::",.}, ':''':'> ,.:: :",i'<,:; , I' . . , ' . I , ,~cl ',' '.' ~ t; , . B .. .,", . , '.' ,'.,:. '\ .' "": :',~";,.,, .\1;' :.',:..'I.:?".:':..~."':'.':]_/'::'.;<J~ .' "'~ _.' ,', .,'...\ '\'-':'. ''1.:. ,. r , I' ';... ': ,c. >: ~.! ~ . ~T ~ 1 ,\'. '..! . ,;; . ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER November 19, 1991 - 1:12 p.m. Richard P Levy d/b/a T-Shirt Factory Hearing Officer: Also Present: J. Lawrence Johnstone Issue: Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Sandra Glathorn, Senior Planner Camille Motley, Central Records Specialist Richard P. Levy (T-Shirt Factory) for variance of 4 parking spaces to permit conversion of storage area to retail with zero additional parking spaces provided at 1498 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Boulevard Heights, Blk G, Lots 6, 7 and part of Lots 5 and 8, zoned CG (general commercial) and RS 8(single family residential). V 91-45 Doah Case Number 91-5218 Daniel J. Grieco, II Esquire Representing Appellant Joseph Gargiulo, General Contractor Representing Appellant Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Appearances: .j o Exhibits Submitted: Notice of Appeal dated August 7, 1991, executed by Daniel J. Grieco as representative. 2. Notice of Public Hearing of Development Code Adjustment Board Meeting for July 25, 1991. 1. ,'- ...... . r'. .,' 3. Excerpt of Minutes of the Development Code Adjustment Board of July 15, 1991. 4. Variance Application. 5. Variance Request map and atlas sheet. 6. Variance Transmittal sheet. 7. Planning and Development staff1s recommendation. 8. Site Plan 9. Drawings Exhibits were accepted by the hearing officer. (~\ ~ MINH011B.91 1 11/19/91 '. ',. , I ", '.. . .:. .,' ,::::'::,' " , ,;',:;(, \',,"'4(~>' .';2; "':, ;:::. j;;\,':::-:,,' . :,.:::\,/;.:>,'i :'" " :. '. . . ';....,;. '>:.:' "', \',.;-,,:,::.. ,:f:. .J,\.:":..:..:',q\.,',,,.,.:::' \ ":.\.':.:'.'" .:' ,:.:,""" . :.," '" , . . \!, 'c.," , " .. '.' :'~'j;'.~:?'<>'\:' . ",. t] r:' ." . ~. ~ .'I.': ': ...' ." ,', . . \~: ".1. .. " ,',j.. ~ ;. . ~ i.". o + !h ,. ~ :. . , .~\ . ,.-i ." i . ," .' ~ . l: '. . . .\' ": ~',:- ~L,- .... .:. i"~' ,'.. " Opening statements were taken by Mr. Johnstone. Mr. Grieco stated that due to hardship, the applicant feels his facility should be allowed to increase the retail space of the building presently being used as a retail out let. Mr. Lance responded that if there was substantial evidence before the board, then their decision must be upheld. He cited code section 137.012 that establishes standards for approval of a variance request. Mr. Lance stated that the location of the subject property is one of the worst intersections in the City. It is the intersection of State Road 60,Court Street, and Highland Ave. He indicated this intersection is totally over-stressed and it would present real hazards to allow back-out parking and waive extra parking space requirements. Mr. Lance cited the lack of demonstration of a hardship, other than financial and stated the board was justified in not granting variance. Discussion ensued regarding previous use of facility and it was pointed out that other businesses have back-out parking near this location. Mr. Guarduilo stated that he had gone through the proper departments for approval and his plans were made part of the evidence. The proposed increase in retail use requires no alterations to be made to the structure either inside or outside. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Lance, Mr. Gargiulo responded that he was aware of the City's Traffic Engineering Department's concerns regarding back-out parking onto Highland Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Mr. Lance stated that all five members voted against the variance. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Board effectively addressed the issues that were being raised. Mr. Gargiulo said that the current establishment had been open for approximately a year after having been vacant for over a year. . Sandra Glathorn stated the request for variance on subject property did not appear to support the standards for approval of the Land Development Code, Sec. 137.012d. based on staff review and analysis of the information contained in the application. In response to questioning by Mr. Grieco, Ms. Glathorn testified she had not prepared the report but she personally reviewed the site. Discussion ensued about previous uses of subject property and surrounding business and their impact on traffic; traffic lights and traffic patterns at that corner. In response to Mr. Grieco1s questions, Ms. Glathorn stated it would be detrimental to the neighborhood because of increasing parking demand without providing additional parking and conversion from storage to retail space would increase the demand for parking. MINHOllB.91 2 11/19/91 ,....;.:,.;.:..~'.,.l/ I,' .1..\:. .,',.'1" .,:..... j':::':,:',:'1 ,'",,-, ~ .......,... II:"""'.:'., .....,~, \.. ...... .. :. .', '. . '. . .i' i. :: ,I. ,r. . . ..;. j'! ,,' ~ :. 1.1 r. .. {. :.' ., , ..". " - '. .. .'. ," ,"" \ .. .,' -. l" . ,', :.:, .)....:~:'....::,.:;,:..,:...:>., :.:..,.:::.:.::::':'I.:~:. .... ;:,:.',:,..::.:,:....:......:'.'.:;,;...~'.;.,:}:\...,:...::..'..'::..'.;:.:.:.. I.....,:..,...:.. .... I ", .. r': ., , .1 ':,... " ~"-".": ..,:~"..:...:..:'...;:~,':~,;.:....:'.,~.'.,:.,...:.."{~" '.:.' ..". ,":,< :;./.:,:::: " ';,i ::: (:;..:., ,,/ ;' .:t~,':..' '.:ii..' . ',',....?:i:\,'?;:\;\':~..:: . . . '....' I' ',' ,-_ ". r..... ..'. . ," I; '. ..', I '~,.. . :;,,/" .'. . . ,.. ".l .. I, ,.::,:,:.:,:,':'..(.'::':::\,I~/>,.?J;':Y)I~~:.<:fl;\i';!;':~~~~\1r,,:;,':~'\:~;:;li)d. .:. '.' . '. I . ., -'I 'F'"' . ," ','. Discussion continued in regard clarification on the original square footage increase request; reasons for board is to deviate from code and existing law; and that each request is to be treated differently on its own merits. The Hearing Officer asked for clarification of how Cleveland and Court intersect. He questioned the status and legality of existing parking and wanted clarification of the square footage increase on the application and the parking requirements. The Hearing Officer concluded the hearing and offered 10 days to respond. Meeting adjourned at 3:38 P.M.. '. L--, "Af{~ Susan Stephe~sQn, ssistant City Clerk " " o .: ., o \ MINHOllB.91 3 11/19/91 "> . I ~ ,. "" , .. ", \. ,-'.'_.~-~- ~ . I ... j'. . , . . . .' ~ I . '".. . ," ... >..:': '.~r' .,.,. ',:' .,: ,',., ..,,' :..<' /' .," ..,:.....~. .'.". :"',:.:',<::" ~"""';,.' ", :..,..;:...~.,.::...'.,...'.'..,~.. . ~. "'.".. ~,' '''\':<': :', :I":>~'.~":"'''' . ~ . . . r '''\' ~"::' ':;":. ;,;, :\.::':;'...:, " ";" J . ~ .... ", ~.~ ',' . . ~ ~ - ,,'.:.' ,',I ",0, ::<r: ,I,:.,.. . 'j. \"',:. . ,. .) . ~ I' . " ' .,..,:,,",,1' ~;'.:.' : ": ; < " I .'. ~'., . :".~" ':i,:',: :', ;,":"'::'~~.'" \.. . I ,i.,..... _.:....._. '__....... .I~_......... j .... . . \". .'. '.' " . :,..:' ,/ " I' {~. l ,l .: . I. .. . .- ';, .,~' ... "/ . .' <j STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS RICHARD P. LEVY, d/b/a ) T-SHIRT FACTORY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. 91-5218 ) CITY OF CLEARWATER, ) RECEiVED ) Appellee. ) JAN 1 0 1992 ) CITY ATTORNEY FINAL ORDER (~ On November 19, 1991, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Clearwater, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. APPEARANCES For Appellant: Daniel J. Grieco, II, Esquire 19139 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores, Florida 34635 For Appellee: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue in this case is whether the evidence sustains o the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) to deny the application of the Appellant, Richard P. Levy, d/b/a T-Shirt Factory, for a four parking space variance at his property located at 1498 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the junction of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Highland '.:::.:~:....:.:_.: . '.'::' '.,.':.......:.::,.. <: :'::)';':;:';.,,::".:'.:::'.,<:,~r ,',>~," 'I.,....<,:.::.,.,::./..:,~ :.::,:.~,;'::~~.:,:',;'::.,:;,:;:i.~.;(:.>'::.'.:::::..:..i:,',.,:..<:..~:.~:>>,'.\::i,~ <;:~...~(<..'. ."';' ,.,., :.," :.: ::~":',/i,,~:,::..::.,~,,:.':,:':':':""':':::':" .;:'.:..,.::.:,:..'::\\:.:./:<'. . .'. '.. . .'. "" ,..."..' ,',' I '" .',. .. ': " .', 'j,,'~'''''''''''' "'8- '. .,'. '\, ,\ . "~I.: ," " . r.. '.' ;.. ,.;. , , ...:~.': 1:',";""..1~j'.":<'::'.l'.<"::'.::;~:.:':,"':::':L~.;'..,.' _.t.;I,:..'.t.:,;' ...,.::~+.:.i:l'.:' "'>:\":'.',. .."'. ~.~ 1>:.....I.':,:I'..",I,.,.t~.I'I.'.'.::;..:.'.:~;-...,'~'..';';.~': , . t '. .." ',' . "" .' " .' ..' , I,. .1\. .. ," J " ...., I .'" ,. . . J .' "..,. '....,.......'1:"...,,: /" ...., ~.., .~:', .:,.:' .ll~ ,':',1, _,.~.i..~,. ~:,. .-lj,'.''' ,I, " ."",' .'.>:~..:.~':...:'.,,'."'.',.I,\I'. ,:..:.....~:-', ,. 'I ~ .. . .' Avenue and Court street, Clearwater, Florida. (The variance is required as a result of his desire to convert 877.5 square feet of storage space in his building on the property to retail use.) PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On or about June 19, 1991, the Appellant, Richard P. Levy, d/b/a T-Shirt Factory, filed an application with the city of Clearwater for a four parking space variance at his property , located at 1498 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the junction of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Court street, Clearwater, Florida. (The variance is required as a result of his desire to convert 877.5 square feet of storage space in his building on the property to retail use.) After staff review and recommendation to deny the application, it was considered and denied by the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) at a public hearing on July 25, 1991. A timely appeal was filed on August 7, 1991. Under Section 137.013 of the city of clearwater Land Development Code (the Code), the appeal was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 19, 1991, along with a copy of the record of the proceedings below. On August 30, 1991, a Notice of Hearing was issued sChedUling final hearing for November 19, 1991. At the final hearing, the record of the proceeding below was received, as required by Section 137.013(e) (3) of the Code. Additional evidence also was received, as permitted by Section 137.013(e) (4) and (f)(l) of the Code. In addition, the 2 '. f'';1~ , I u " ~.- " "\ , "..,: .""'\ . I parties were permitted to file post-hearing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under section 137.013(e) (8) of the Code. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant, Richard P. Levy, d/b/a T-Shirt Factory, owns part of lots 5 and 8, and all of lots 6 and 7, Block G, Boulevard Heights, at 1498 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, at the junction of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Court street, 0.24 acres, more or less, Clearwater, Florida. 2. The T-Shirt Factory utilizes back-out parking into Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue. This type of parking for retail use is a traffic hazard and does not conform to the I~ requirements of the City of Clearwater Land Development Code (the Code), but the property enjoys the benefit a having its retail use "grandfathered" under the Code because the prior owner also used the property and parking for retail sales at the time the Code was adopted. 3. Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a busy and fairly high speed traffic artery. Highland Avenue also is a busy street. They meet at an acute angle with the Appellant's property inside the angle. Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Court street, also a busy and fairly high speed traffic artery, meet at an acute angle just across the street from the Appellant's property, further complicating the traffic pattern in the vicinity of the Appellant's property. 4. The Appellant filed its application for a four parking space variance to allow him to convert 877.5. square feet o 3 . t . . '. ' ,I _ .. ...'__,,~ _ ___...._ .. . .._~~ ..... _ . ':. ',' ~ ; I, . I- , " \ \ ", . ~ '. of storage space in his building on the property to retail use. The Appellant can make reasonable use of his property without the additional retail space. The Appellant's primary purposes in increasing retail space are to directly increase revenue and ~ profit and to make the retail displays in his store more attractive and more spacious, in large part to prevent shoplifting and thereby indirectly increase revenues and profit. 5. As now planned, unless advertised, the existance of additional retail space in the store would not be readily apparent to passers by not already familiar with the store. Nonetheless, the Appellant did not prove that the additional retail use will not lead eventually to additional use of the existing back-out parking on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Even if the retail space were expanded as planned, and not advertised, the expansion eventually could lead to an increase in retail business, one of the Appellant's primary long term purposes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The standards for approval of an application for a conditional use permit are set out in section 137.012(d) of the city of Clearwater Land Development Code (the' Code), which provides in pertinent part: (d) Standards for approval. A variance shall not be granted by the (Code] adjustment board (the Board] unless the application and evidence presented clearly support the following conclusions: (1) The variance requested arises from a condition which is [not] created by an action or actions of the property owner, predecessor in title, or the applicant. ... ., u 4 ,...---......... &. .. .,~ ..-. ..... .. . ....oII'......" "'"I';'\~'I: .. ,. T ;;..>:_' .'. '.:'.' :.; , '.' ,..... .... :".:'.:.:\.::?:<.:.~.}.r{::;::\':.;.:'}:?<l'::;::':::i:S.:'.:...".:/:..\I.L:..:....J:.:..../"..:.:...:,.;:;.~ ., l..., '" ...' ".'...,'" 'J:,'" ..",'2i:J ,..,,'~2J '., "..1.."'.'.,' ,E..',.. ,"'. \'" '..,." ':'...,:.., .::. ::.' .'.:-;::: "';.,','.:::.':- ~ ;~'::;,:< ,~~ \,:','\< > ;,: ".'.::,:.'...:<E, .,~...:;.:.~ ,';.tc, ..'.'/: ../:.i,~:':..:~: . . :::.'::, :'::,;J: ':.,,), {..,', :.... :;: .;..'.::,: :,'."><~.<'" ,':":":>':~~:,:. .: . , " , .f . _'''_H''.U~''-;'''''''.'.''''~'!,. '.. .' '.. , " '. .' Tl, . h" ,." " ! ~ ... . . ..~ (2) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property involved and the strict application of the provisions of this development code would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. (3) The variance is the minimum necessary to overcome the unnecessary hardship referred to in preceding recital "21f for the purpose of making reasonable use of the land. (4) The request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the applicant to secure a greater financial return from the property. * * * (6) The granting of the variance will not . . . substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire [or] endanger the public safety in any way . . .. o (7) The variance desired will not adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community. (8) The granting of the variance desired will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. 2. Appeals from decisions of the Board are governed by section 137.013 of the Code, which provides in pertinent part: (a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide an administrative process for appealing decisions rendered on variances and conditional uses by the development code adjustment board and the planning and zoning board respectively, prior to any available recourse in a court of law. The function of the hearing officer shall be to serve as the second step of a two-step administrative process relating to variances and conditional Uses. . ". ~ * * * ,:::; 5 ::,:; .._:;... " ,I, ......'.. '. !';:!.t'::;''''''I::,'::;:,,:~'>:~{:;'rU':H''(''';b::,,;~'\):':',': :. ,:.";:,),,,:','; ......',,;:,'('..' . i " ' .. """" ,. ,.... ,.'.~1. 'I ".,.. ,. l.L.,\ '., .. ,. .' .'\. .,........: .,:..'.... .:.,.., .":,,":"'/:':'-";:::".:,:::~:' "...1.:7~'.!""'. ,:~. ..~'. ;.<,,"."" ..:.:,,:~..".:;:t<' !I',' " ..',r .,.. ";',:'.: ~':'>;. : -'..... , . '. :.. ....._.,~ . ....._........~_.... \ ~'. '~.., 1 I ... ~.' . . ~ ' I" .. (e) conduct of the hearinq. Conduct of the hearing before the hearing officer shall be as follows. ~ * * * (4) The hearing officer shall have the authority to determine the applicability and relevance of all materials, exhibits and testimony and to exclude irrelevant, immaterial or repetitious matter. (5) The hearing officer is authorized to administer oaths to witnesses. (6) A reasonable amount of cross-examination of witnesses shall be permitted at the discretion of the hearing officer. * * * (f) Decision. The decision of the hearing officer shall be based upon the following criteria and rendered as follows: (1) The hearing officer shall review the record and testimony presented at the hearing before the board and at the hearing officer relative to the guidelines for consider~tion of conditional uses or variances as contained in sections 137.011 or 137.012, respectively. Although additional evidence may be brought before the hearing officer, the hearing shall not be deemed a "hearing de novo," and the record before the board shall be incorporated into the record before the hearing officer, supplemented by such additional evidence as may be brought before the hearing officer. (2) The hearing officer shall be guided by the city comprehensive plan, relevant portions of the city Code of Ordinances and established case law. (3) The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the board cannot be sustained by the evidence before the board and u 6 .......--.........-.......'... ..~.-......t..........:;.....~:t____:._.... ":: _.. · ." ....,.. "',.' ','.' "':";". ;'i:'..' ,'::',<: } ',,:;:",:,\.'..;. '::;',5 "':':/ \, ;>~.i: ,);~:::~,.:;,';:.,':,::,,: ',I" .' '. ,"'" ,,: ,..",.Il""",.'""~d,,., '1~""'''''~.'''c''1 "'~"".";':"" ,'.......::......:... ".:. ,,:.,..+."',' ,', ..., '.',1,.' ..:'.;. '.:.<~:'~::G.:.. . ~ .,'._ 'll.'~'. .~. ....,., .', ',."..:. ., I',' ...,,:~~.:...:...:,.'...,,',~,...,.::": r . .' . , .... ~ <' ~ ~ , before the hearing officer, or tha~ the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law. The hearing officer's determination shall include appropriate findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision in the matter of the appeal. The hearing officer may affirm or reverse the decision of the board, and may impose such reasonable conditions as the board may have imposed. These provisions appear to provide for a hybrid proceeding that is (4) an appellate review on the one hand, in the sense that the issue is whether the evidence sustains the board's decision, and a de novo proceeding on the other hand, in the sense that additional '0 evidence can be adduced at the appeal hearing. In other words, whether the Board's decision is sustainable under the pertinent law is tested not only against the evidence presente~ before it but also against the evidence presented before the Hearing Officer. 3. It is concluded that the evidence sustains the Board's decision that the application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the standards for approval set out in Section 137.012(d) of the Code have been met. 4. The application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the variance requested arises from a condition which is not created by the Appellant's action or actions. To the contrary, the application and evidence are clear that the variance requested arises from the Appellant's desire to increase the retail use of his property. l~!~ W 7 ~ ~ 5. The application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the strict application of the provisions of the Code would result in an unnecess~ry hardship upon the Appellant. Refusing to allow the Appellant to increase his retail space in an effort to prevent the increased use of already non-conforming parking at a hazardous intersection is- not an unnecessary hardship. 6. The application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the variance is the minimum necessary to overcome any hardship. The Appellant can make reasonable use of his land without the additional retail space. 7. The application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the request for a variance is not based primarily upon the desire of the Appellant to secure a greater financial return from the property. If not for the primary purpose of making more money directly from more retail business, the Appellant's primary purpose is to make more money indirectly by reducing shoplifting by enlarging the retail area. 8. The application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the variance will not substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety in any way. Likewise, the application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, or general welfare of the community. The Appellant did not prove that the additional retail use will not lead to additional use of ~ u 8 . I ' " ". . ,...:_1......:._......:.-_..._.......,.'.'.'.., t ' .' "" 'I, I I '. '. ',~ \ . . . . .: ,I,d' . ,. '~ ,J the existing back-out parking on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue which could have those negative results. 9. The application and evidence presented do not clearly support the conclusion that the variance will not violate the general spirit and intent of this development code. The back-out parking already is a non-conforming use that was qrandfathered under the Code. Granting the variance would exacerbate this non-conforming use in violation of the spirit and intent of the Code. DISPOSITION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: I:) The appeal of Richard P. Levy, d/b/a T-Shirt Factory, is denied. /I DONE MD ORDERED this 7 - day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. NeE J aring Offi vision of Bministrative Hearings he OeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Adm~~qtrative Hearings this '/~ day of January, 1992. o . , 9 -....-...-...........~_............- ..>.'~ ~...._..............h.II~_.......... ..n' ,.......\ 'h.~I....I..i.~~..,r.,~.1.~c. . .' :_...' '..... ;, '.:'.::', ;,...,......',,:,:.,;:.;.;:t.}~/:V';j':.}:{:;:5:?;.:,::d":.:':4t:,,.\,.::};:;),\\:~\,,:,,??~..:,; .', . "" ...,''',...,..,.;~....,., 1/........,..",1.' . "...,..",...,..,.,......\" '. ' " ": :-.' :.,.,;...,;...',u..t: ,./....""""""'...'.,<.;..".'.-.,'..,'.'" ':...... ..,..... .;..":.....,,'.';' ::,,'.:..',;;\.::".,,:.. '. .,' ,. ...... ~_... .....__,. .uJ. . \". , ' . . I' ' .,' 'l..... ". ~. ~,~,., f' . "l'\; 'c I, I ,l,.'.,>'.c ., . '. ... '" j',~"c : '~.' . c ,'..'.' . .\...... ..~... , ,.. .c,~~ ....., , . . ~........... . ,.,;"."". '. " . .,.., ".. ~,",,"P.""""'r ..' , c ,.; f"d.."Jr.~ .' c", . .'t l' '''1 . .~ . , .. .. ,', '.T n COPIES FURNISHED: 'Daniel J. Grieco, II, Esquire 19139 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores', Florida 34635 Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant city Attorney City'of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Cynthia Goudeau City Clerk City of Clearwater Post' Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618~4748 Final Order, Case No. 91-5218 . , " o 10 ""-~~"""-"'''___'''''~_''''''''~'''''__''_''''d-''''~'~ . d..,,_I. .' .....: . '.." ,'. .,.' .... . . <:'i,':: ....;.,,>,i,',\ 'i.: : '~',E '.':\3,/,,:":',"::".:. ;.'>'<,", '. . . . , ' . " . ". \, " .~~. ,. 'I~ .,,,' I ... " .' . .' " . ','" . , ..... 'I .~ '" :." . ; :',>;' ".~ .....,....,.{,I:L'..,':.. '.',,~.......:. ..,'/:::': ..;.,,'..,.....; ';':,': I..'l..:,.'.",",','.~..,:-,:.'\' ,', ,.>.:. , .' I ." . , . . ~ _~ ...... . __, .,........... - ~......... ... . . I,'. . ' '. .' :~ .... +, ..," " . . c ", ~'~y ,:,~ ".~:.::I .::~:~:~.~ <'.~:/,(>:;r;{~". ~ . '. :, ~" .. .,' I, . .c"., ,...., t ~ ~ I~ M E M 0 R A " 0 U M FROM: RE: ' DATE: The Honor-able Mayor and Members of the City Commission Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney ~~~ Richard P. Levy d/b/a T-Shirt Factory vs. City August 20, 1992 TO: The Development Code Adjustment Board originally denied Mr. Levy's request for a variance for four parking spaces to permit conversion of storage area to retail space. Mr. Levy appea 1 ed the dec1 s ion to the DOAH wh i ch uphe 1 d the Board 's decision. Mr. Levy then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Circuit Court requesting reversal of that decision. Today we received Judge Harlan's Order denying the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and upholding the City's original decision to deny the variance request. If there are any questions, please advise. MAL: 1 n ene. t:t cc: Kathy Rice leo Schrader :' ~ :,. t\ . o :0 ijfC@~ow~~ ~ AUG 2 5 1992 ~ CITY CLERK OEPT. ~"'''M......hu''''''''''w.ik.~~y.",....~~,-\IH.l-..", r.op-Il"~" .._""...........'.i'...0f6~~....... .....lil~., ., "1 ,.,,:,:,::>_..:, ' "". ;.'. "'.: :. "" ,,'. ,',:>: ',' <',:',"; ,'; ':",' '".:'.:.:,:":'>>' ';,,";';"'::".'~,,,',':'.<,:'~':': ,.>".:.:::..',:: ":',::.':','. ,,\.'~..,",,:,',:,"~',',,~'~';,',:'i',.~"": :: .'-,', :,':::,~: ":',',"~""'.<:~:,:"':, !', " '.. ' ,..' ',,"\ "': ~.," .>: "(f'-" "., 'e- """\ .......,. . :..1." ,,'.'" ",', ,.'..."... :'.' :' "'" I.....', '..,..\'.,: .':.,<:"\;+"~'~q:. :..',':..: .;. "~"":'.'l' .',."q. ".'. t .....,:.: ~~'.:~:.~:.4:.:.\ . , ,.,. . ,.'" ,', I ',' J '" . , ' ," I ., ,", ,'+",:'{.I ,I.,;, ", '. I""~""'" _ '"';,,.' ... IJI.'.":~'. ;.: _...... .:':\ ',:~ :.. ..~~.. ".,:';.