06/11/1998 (2)
, . ',' . 'II. ~ " ' : . "" . ~.. :', I:, .'. " ,', , ' .." . ':.' . I . ,. . ,'.' , I . I \, ",: . I'" . " ,~ :" '. t '. ~.',: '. , \ It.: '. " '. '. I
,> '
" ,
l;. -.'.1
"
"
.. .
'I
,J
, '.'
. "
,~~.'~I\~:..;. :',\~:
< 'j .;r~, ~t": :.. ~ ';;:.
.: .~ ' ~ , ..' ',,' >. ~ ,
.'. ','. I"'
;,
r,\+
~ i'
; ": /'
. i.
", './
"
. ~ ~ : L
. T.~
"
"
, '. . ~
"
::-0
". ,:' "~~~~)
:":,
'1
.'
:. .~~.
;", ,
~: .
't"
'. .;
DeAB
I'
"
" .
, "
;\: ....
f'
,Development Code Adjustment Board
, ,
Minutes
'I
,.',' .
o
Date
,I, "
~ ; t'. T "
iL~!~<:<> ". ~ t'
'.!>. .
~;.::> ~',~ '
\:,'
r:
;',{
r~tl
~~" ,
~
i.'
" '
J':, .
r':
~, "
f"
.;
, ,
,
,',
'"
t~ .
'"
I,
,I,
I, ,
,0
.'
'"
'I'
\: .
"
O?Pt/
.... . '''~''''''''.~i'~'''''''''~'''''~''''''''''''
, ,
i.1
~~''''~''',l,~.t'''tll. ..LI......;".-/'. ...;I....",~..:l\
., r:~: ':. '. ,::: ~,::J'., ,,'~:.~ ;~.~ ; < +.~~ I:'~' . .../.~>.;'L~: ~'~~:';,! \~~ ~:h '~~':':i "':f:'.~1:~:; ,.,,~ ~j, \':5,'4~~
',~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING - ACTION AGENDA
June 11. 1998 - 1 :00 P.M.
Call To Order, Pledge Of Allegiance, Invocation
B. Continued Variance Requests
B1. Scott & Ruth Hale/LeC International. Inc, for the following: (1) a setback variance of
10ft to allow a monopole tower 50 ft from the east side property line where a
minimum setback of 60 ft is required; (2) a height variance of 70 ft to allow a
monopofe tower 120 ft high were a maximum height of 50 It is permitted; and (3) a
height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence B ft high were a maximum height of 6 ft is
permitted at 1496 Belleair Rd (Proposed). See 23-29-15, M&B 33.05, zoned CG
(General Commercial.) V 98.39
ACTION: Denied
C. Conditional Uses
C1. Linda D. Tennev for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the
setback area from the Barton Lane right-at-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is
permitted at 3045 Oak Hill Rd, Shady Oak Farms, Blk B, Lot 1, zoned RS 6 (Single
Family Residential.) V 98-44
(<i~;~' ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 11 Variance is based on the
'\~;.). application, testimony, plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board. Deviation from any at the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of 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 30 days and the fence shall be relocated within 60 days; 3) within
30 days after the fence is relocated, the property owner shall plant a landscape buffer
outside the fence parallel to Barton Lane. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 1 8
inches in height at the time of planting, and shall form a continuous, solid screen at
maturity. Prior to installation, a' landscape plan shall be submitted to the City's
Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain
the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances; and 4) the fence shall be moved
17 feet from the Barton Lane right-of-way.
C2. Ronald J. & Mlrellle Pollack/Frances C. Marsh for the following; (1) a height variance at
3,5 ft to allow a wall 6 ft high within the setback from the Druid Rd right-at-way
where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted; and (2) a height variance of 4 ft to
allow a nonopaque fence 7 ft high within the ,waterfront setback area where a
maximum height of 3 ft is permitted at 1100 & 1104 Druid Rd S, Harbor Oaks, Lots
M&L with submerged land, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential.) V 98w45
~
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Variance is based on the
application, testimony i plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board, Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of any physical structure located on the
~
site, w11l result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within one year; 3) prior to the approval of a final inspection for the wall,
the property owner shall plant a landscape buffer outside the wall parallel to Druid Road to
soften its appearance from the public road. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18
inches in height at the time of planting. Before the landscaping is installed, a landscape
plan shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval
by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the
variances; and 4) the wall shall be constructed in accordance with City Traffic Engineering
requirements to ensure pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk along Druid Road South.
C3. James R. & Jovce B. Talbott for a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a wood deck 7 ft
from the north side property line where a minimum setback of 10ft is required at
18675 US 19 N #169, Bay Aristocrat Village Mobile Home Park (Unrec,) zoned RMH
(Mobile Home Park.) V 98~46 \
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Variance is based on the
application, testimony, plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board. Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of any physical structure located on the
site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing.
~
~
C4. M~K Real Estate Investment Co.lJohn M. Searcy for the fallowing: (1) a perimeter
landscape variance of 4 ft, along the southwesterly lot line of Lot 3, to allow 6 1t
where a minimum of 10ft is required; (2) a perimeter landscape variance of 8.67 ft,
along the southeasterly lot line of Lot 3, to allow 1.33 ft where a minimum of 10ft is
required; and (3) a perimeter landscape variance of 3 ft, along the southwesterly lot
line of Lot 15, to allow 7 ft where a minimum of 10ft is required at 2715 SR 580,
Acker's Sub, Blk 1, Lots 3 & 4 less rd right-of-way on NW & Lot 15, zoned OL (Limited
Office.) V 98-47
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Variance is based on the
application, testimony, plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board. Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of any physical structure located on the
site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing.
Minutes Approval .- May 14, 1998 approved as corrected by staff; May 28, 1998
approved as submitted
Board and Stoff Comments .. Discussion
Adjournment u 4:35 p.m.
,~
I
1
I
i
I
l
,
,
;
,~
DEVELOPMENT CODe ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 11, 1 998
Present:
William Schwab
William Johnson
Mark Jannatti
Ron Stuart
Shirley Moran
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed in that order.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance, Invocation, and review of meeting procedures.
B. Continued Variance Requests
.
B1. Scott & Ruth Hale/LCC International. Inc. for the following: (1) a setback variance of
10ft to allow a monopole tower 50 ft from the east side property line where a
minimum setback of 60 ft is required; (2) a height variance of 70 ft to allow a
monopole tow'er 1 20 ft high were a maximum height of 50 ft is permitted; and (3t a
height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 8 ft high were a maximum height of 6 ft is
permitted at 1496 Belleair Rd (Proposed), See 23-29-15, M&B 33.05, zoned CG
(General Commercial.) V 98-39
Senior Planner John Richter related case background at length, explaining in detail
reasons the request to construct a 120-foot monopole telecommunications tower on the
subject property does not meet Section 45.24 standards for approval #1, #2, and #4,
However, he said pro'visions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act drive approval.
Applicants stress the need for a tower at this location to avoid a gaping hole in their
wireless service. They are amenable to collocation on another tower in the vicinity (Young
tower}, but Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) owns the land and has been
unwilling to allow collocation. The City is working to gain FOOT approval. Applicants are
willing to work with the City as long as the City continues to work with FDOT toward
collocation. Applicants have a mobile tower that could be located on FOOT property
temporarily, and removed if FDOT's permission to collocate is not received, or if the
requested variances are granted. Applicants must have their antennas in place by August
1 to enable adequate testing before their September 1 start-up date. If variances are not
granted, BellSouth Mobility's attorney has indicated applicants are prepared to take the
City to court as provided in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Mr. Richter reviewed
Telecommunications Act requirements, and provisions of the City's draft tower siting
ordinance. Staff recommended granting the requested variances subject to 11 conditions.
',J
mdc06a98
1
06/1 1/98
':,~ '~"""", .,11.:". ',' "'1' -,"',". ,~.~ .,.'': "".': ',,', :..,'~t...,.., .. .,,"~.~ ,~' '. .' ':.', '. .': ,I.. "~'" '.,,:' .... '. I. . ,I'" . .:::; ','~'~ ~'. ",'.
,~
"<1ll.
t::-~
\
''-)
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Planning and Zoning Board
approved a June 2 conditional use request for the tower as a utility facility, subject to 11
conditions. City Resolution 97-08 encourages joint use of existing towers. She counseled
the board to apply current code. as the draft tower siting ordinance has not been enacted,
She noted the board has authority to review the proposal for compliance with City code,
hear staff recommendations, and determine whether Section 45.24 standards for approval
are met. Concerns were expressed regarding the implication the applicant will sue the City
if variances are not granted, Questions were raised regarding the City's obligation to
provide service, and whether it is considered discrimination to deny an inappropriate
variance request when setback variances have been granted for other towers.
Ms. Dougall-Sides responded the board is not bound by decisions in previous cases, Each
geographic location is reviewed separately. The City is not obligated to approve each
company that comes forward with a business plan, but to provide enough geographic
locations to enable wireless coverage.
In response to a question reg9rding location of antennas on Florida Power electrical
towers, it was indicated 20 feet is the maximum distance a telecommunications signal box
can be located away from the base of a tower. Staff declined to speculate on outcome of
negotiations with FOOT.
Jane Kelly, with LeC International representing BellSouth Mobility submitted for the
record: 1) a manufacturer's letter attesting to the proposed tower's structural integrity and
fall zone; 2) a radio frequency, propagation map showing the cell site and links to
surrounding cell sites; 3) receipts for certified mail notifying surrounding residents and
businesses of the proposal; 4) an article concerning safety issues; and 5) FAA
acknowledgment form ensuring no operational or obstructional hazards, She read from a
prepared statement regarding history of the application to date, type of tower structure
proposed, BellSouth's location, subscribers, public service activities, wireless technology,
work with local landowners and jurisdictions, coverage area, characteristics of signal
propagation and location dynamics. While it is in BellSouth's best interest to collocate, the
need exists to provide seamless coverage in the service area, in accordance with FCC
requirements. She thanked staff for their cooperation and addressed provisions in the staff
report at length. Variances are needed for a fence to provide security and safety, prevent
vandalism, theft, trespassing, accidents, and for liability reasons, She related efforts to
pursue collocation and find alternate sites. She reviewed benefits of wireless
communications to provide emergency medical services, job opportunities, and emergency
post-disaster service. She concurred with staff's 11 recommended conditions of approval.
Khaled Juma, engineer representing the applicant, reviewed a coverage area map and
explained signal strength and coverage calculations. He said about four 50-foot towers
would be required to achieve the coverage provided by the requested 120~foot tower,
Concerns were expressed the applicants have not proven they have adequately explored
alternatives. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding alternatives to the proposal, rationale for
the applicant's time limit, appropriateness of the proposed location in a generally single~
story residential and commercial area, and the possibility of purchasing land in a more
compatible location.
mdc06a98
2
06/11/98
~
Ron Daniels, representing Lee International, said BellSouth does not purchase land for
its towers. Use of the subject property is on a 5-year lease with four 5-year renewal
options.
No verbal or written support was expressed. An attorney representing adjacent land
owners and residents submitted a petition with approximately 25 signatures of peopte who
strenuously object to the proposal. In response to a question, he said not all signatories
reside within 500 feet; some work and attend church in the vicinity. He submitted staff's
report from the May 28 DCAB meeting, and a copy of an amendment to the National
Wireless Telecommunications Siting Policy. He spoke at length regarding the applicant's
failure to meet Section 45.24 standards for approval. A nearby business owner expressed
concerns for the safety of occupants of his office building if the tower should fall during a
storm, and said reduced property value is likely. He resented having a big company
pressuring people to agree to their demands and suggested it would be more expedient to
pursue the application to the Federal level. Six letters and a petition of opposition with
approximately 44 signatures were copied into the staff report.
Applicant representatives spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, reiterating earlier
testimony. It was indicated the tower could fall in a force 4 tornado with 200 to 280
miles-per-hour wind speeds, but such a storm would destroy every other structure in the
area as well, No evidence of property devaluation was produced. The applicants have not
threatened legal action as their only remedy. but have demonstrated their willingness to
cooperate and pursue collocation. Ms. Dougall-Sides affirmed that, during a meeting with
,"\ ~ the applicants. BellSouth's attorney had listed legal action as one item in a list of options
r:',~;'J' available to the client. but the suggestion was not made in a threatening manner. In
I. ~.'
response to a request for clarification of the applicants' time constraints. it was indicated
the September 1 start-up date is not mandated by FCC, but has been targeted in the
marketing campaign as the date seamless coverage will become available to the public.
In response to a board question. the attorney representing the opposition noted the
coverage gap about which the applicant is concerned could be filled with a 50-foot tower.
according to engineering testimony. Discussion ensued regarding concerns over a
profiferation of 50-foot towers,
Applicants were given the opportunity to introduce into the record supporting
documents provided at previous hearings. Board members concurred with staff's
observation the proposal does not meet three standards for approval, however did not
agree that standard 113 is satisfied. It was indicated the property owners' role in leasing
the property to the applicant is not for public service, but solely for economic gain. No
board support was expressed for a temporary tower. The board encouraged pursuit of an
agreement with FOOT, or collocation on Florida Power poles. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded
to questions regarding the board's authority to decide whether the proposal meets code.
and is appropriate for the surroundings. She felt that denial would not be considered as
unreasonable discrimination among providers, in view of the evidence,
\"..)
Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variances as requested because the applicant has
not SUbstantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms.
I
\
\
I
~
,
\
l
1
, 1
mdc06a98
3
06/11/98
:,,:."" :i-, .'. .1.,.,... ".'~\ ......'. ...,;...,.....:.~, ..I....~ .f:.',..~:......~..:.."....~...:'.: .:.I.I....'.\:~t. ": '. ," :,,"':".\.' .'.~:. .,.'>':>.'
'1
DougallwSides was requested to prepare a statement of the board findings and final order
for adoption at the next meeting,
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Linda D. Tenney for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a fence 6 ft high within the
setback area from the Barton Lane rightwof-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is
permitted at 3045 Oak Hill Rd, Shady Oak Farms, Blk 8, Lot 1, zoned RS 6 (Single
Family Residential.) V 98-44
"
Mr. Richter related case background at length, stating staff recommends denial of the
applicant's request to retain an existing 6-foot-tall fence in its present location, as the
request does not meet Section 45.24 standards for approval #1, #2 or #4. As an
alternative to denial, he recommended granting a 2-foot fence height variance to allow a 6-
toot-tall tence 17 feet back from the Barton Lane right-at-way, subject to four conditions.
"'t~)
'l.~ p"
Applicant Linda Tenney said she needs the existing fence to enclose her yard for
recreation, privacy, security, and buffering from adjacent unimproved land used as a cow
pasture. She did not know the fence violated setback requirements when her ex-husband
built it four years ago. She explained why she feels her request to keep the fence in its
current location is justified and satisfies the standards for approval. She disagreed with
staff's recommendation for landscaping outside the fence line. Mr. Richter explained
exterior landscaping buffers are generally recommended to soften appearance of fences for
the benefit of neighboring properties. Clarification was provided regarding what is needed
to bring the fence into compliance.
Discussion ensued regarding the adjacent cow pasture, its zoning, County jurisdiction,
right-of-way location, and position in relation to the subject property. In response to
questions, it was indicated this item came forward in response to a notice of violation
issued about a year ago, possibly prompted by a neighbor complaint. Fence requirements
have been enforced in the neighborhood and variances have been granted. The majority
supported staff's recommendations, because the fence in its present location would be a
problem in the likely event the pasture land is developed in the future. One member
argued the merits of allowing the fence to remain, as the situation was not caused by the
applicant. Alternatives were discussed.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
,J
Member Jannatti moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) variance is based on the
application, testimony, plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board, Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of 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 30 days and the fence shall be relocated within 60 days; 3) within
30 days after the fence is relocated, the property owner shall plant a landscape buffer
outside the fence parallel to Barton Lane. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18
inches in height at the time of planting, and shall form a continuous, solid screen at
mdc06a98
4
06/11/98
'~'
maturity. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City's
Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain
the buffer In a healthy condition shall void the variances; and 4) the fence shall be moved
17 feet from the Barton Lane right-of~way, The motion was dUly seconded. Members
Schwab, Johnson, Jonnatti, and Moran voted "Aye"; Member Stuart voted "Nay," Motion
carried.
C2. Ronald J. & Mirollle Pollock/Frances C. Marsh for the following; (1) a height variance of
3,5 ft to allow a wall 6 ft high within the setback from the Druid Rd right-of~way
where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is permitted; and (2) a height variance of 4 ft to
allow a non-opaque fence, 7 ft high within the waterfront setback area where a
maximum height of 3 ft is permitted at 1100 & 1104 Druid Rd Si Harbor Oaks, Lots
M&L with submerged land, zoned RS 2 (Single Family Residential.) V 98-45
Mr. Richter related background, stating staff recommends approval with four
conditions,
Applicant Ronald Pollack said the variances are requested to improve security, define.
and separate his property from the adjacent medical center, and from Druid Road. Walls
similar to the proposal appear elsewhere in the neighborhood. Noting variances were
granted in December, 1997, for a two-story house on the property, Mr. Pollack said he has
since purchased the adjacent lot to the north and designed a new home spanning the two
lots. Parking and landscaping areas are to be reconfigured.
~l~~'a
(,~,?J
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
DeveJopment Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) Variance is based on the
application. testimony. plans and documents submitted by the applicant; including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board. Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of any physical structure located on the
site, wlll resuJt in this variance being null and of no effect; 21 the requisite building permit
shall be obtained within one year; 3) prior to the approval of a final inspection for the wall,
the property owner shall plant a landscape buffer outside the wall parallel to Druid Road to
soften its appearance from the public road. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18
inches in height at the time of planting. Before the landscaping is installed, a landscape
plan shall be SUbmitted to the City's Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval
by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the
variances; and 4) the wall shall be constructed in accordance with City Traffic Engineering
requirements to ensure pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk along Druid Road South.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ca. James R. & Jovce B. Talbott for a setback variance of 3 ft to allow a wood deck 7 ft
from the north side property line where a minimum setback of 10ft is required at
18675 US 19 N #169, Bay Aristocrat Village Mobile Home Park (Unrec,) zoned RMH
(Mobile Home Park.) V 98-46
J
mdc06a98
5
06/11/98
.1
Mr. Richter said staff recommends approval of the request for a 10 by 16-foot sun
deck behind an existlng mobile home, subject to two standard conditions, Appllcant James
R. Talbott concurred with staff's recommendations, stating the mobile home park manager
supports the request. One letter of support was submitted,
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land
Development, Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) variance is based on tho
application, testimony, plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board. Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of any physical structure located on the
site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building
permit shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanfmously.
, ,
C4. M-K Real Estate Investment Co./John M. Searcy for the following: (1) a perimeter
landscape variance of 4 ft, along the southwesterly lot line of Lot 3, to allow 6 ft
where a minimum of 10ft is required; (2) a perimeter landscape variance of 8.67 ft,
along the southeasterly lot line of Lot 3, to allow 1.33 ft where a minimum of 10ft is
required; and (3) a perimeter landscape variance of 3 ft, along the southwesterly lot
line of Lot 15, to allow 7 ft where a minimum of 10ft is required at 2715 SR 580,
Acker's Sub, Blk 1, Lots 3 & 4 less rd right-of-way on NW & Lot 15, zoned OL (Limited
Office.) V 98-47
/:'-';:"
~ : ~,.~~;1
Mr. Richter said staff recommends approval of the request for variances to develop the
subject property with an office building, subject to two standard conditions, The City is
processing a related annexation request.
Architect Ed Walker represented the applicant, who purchased the property recently.
Annexation to obtain City sewer service requires bringing the property into code
compliance, Mr. Walker related site constraints and difficulty of meeting all landscaping
requirements. He felt the proposed landscaping improvements were sufficient to buffer the
parking lot. He suggested the retention pond on the adjacent property diminishes the need
for a perimeter landscaping buffer as wide as required by code. In response to a question,
Mr. Walker said the property will have an entrance on Daniel Street.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Jannatti moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has
substantially met all standards for approval as listed In Section 45,24 of the Land
Development Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) Variance is based on the
application, testimony. plans and documents submitted by the applicant, including
applicable revisions incorporated by action of the board, Deviation from any of the above
documents regarding work to be done to the site of 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 one year from the date of this public hearing, The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
,~
Minutes Approval -- May 14 and May 28, 1998
mdc06a98
6
06/11/98
;,f
.,. .
"
',. ,,'
....,
, Member Moran moved to approve the May 14 minutes as corrected by staff, and the
May 28 minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter., The
motion was duly' seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 4: 15 to 4:20 p.m.
Board & Staff Comments
The board approved staff's new report format.
Ms. Dougall:-Sides reported an appeal hearing was held regarding Maria Curry's group
home separation distance variance, A certified site plan for Don Pablo's restaurant was
approved without the additional paved parking spaces protested by Bay Aristocrat
neighbors, and a settlement agreement has been entered. It is hoped the agreement will be
submitted to the Administrative Law Judge who ,heard the appeal.
Board members hoped the new telecommunication ordinance would not allow towers
similar to today's proposal, without variances, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the draft ordinance
requires a conditional use-type hearing and would not permit towers in or adjacent to
residential areas.
CM;.\
TT~j~-t1
Due to the frequency of fences and sheds being built without permits or variances,
staff was requested to contact and work with the Homeowner's Coalition to provide
educational opportunities for homeowners. In addition, it was suggested to encourage
homeowners associations to publish permitting information in their newsletters.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p,m. .
d~~
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
(~,
mdc06a98
7
06/11/98