The URL can be used to link to this page

APP2012-00001 A i . � APP2012-00001 Appeal case Amscot Corporation Administrative Interpretation of Community Development Code Section 8-102 Planner: Michael Delk, Director Planning and Development Department . , APP2012-O�.,J1 ' Amscot _ Amscot Corporation Administative Interpretation of Com Zoning: Atlas#: -- � = Planning&Development Departnnent � C��_�crwater �1,ppeal Appllcation U t7 iS INCUMBEN7 UPOfV 7HE APPLICANT TO SUBMiT COMPLE7E AfVO CORRECT INFORMA710N. ANY MISLEADING,UECEP7IVE, {NCOMPLkTE OR IfVCORREC71fVFORMA710N MAY INVALIDA7E YOUR APPLICATiON. All APPIJCAT10N5 ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLfTELY AIVD CORRECTLY,AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON(NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE ClTY CIERKS OFFICE. SECTION 4-502.A: AN APPEAL OF A LEV�I ONE (FLEXIBLE 57ANDAROJ APPUCATION MAY BE lN1TIATED BY AN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWtVERS WITMIN THE REQUIRED NOTICE AREA AND WMO PRESENTED COMPE7ENT SU657ANTIAL EV(DENCE IfV THE LEVEL ONE REVIEW, WHICH t5 7HE SUBJECT 0� THE APPIICATION WITHIN S�VEN DAYS OF THE DATE THE DEVELOPME(VT ORDER IS ISSl1ED. THE FIUNG OF AN APPLICATION/NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL STAY THE EFFECT OF 7HE DECISIOIV PENDlNG THE F{NAL DETERM{NATION OF THE CASE. SECTION 4502.8: APPEAL OF AtL O'TMER APPLICATiOfVS OTMER 7NAN LEVEL QNE APPROVAL FLEXtBLE STANDARD MAY BE IIVI7IATED BY 7HE APPLICANT, OR 8Y ANY PERSOfV GRANTED PARTY STATUS WiTHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DECISION. SUCH APPUCATION SHALL B�Fii.ED WI7H TtiE CkTY CLERK IN A FORM SPEClFIED BY THE COMMUNI�Y DEVELOPMENT COORDONATOR IDEIVTlFYING WITH SPECkFICiTY THE BASIS FOR 7HE APPEAL AfVD ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 4202�E). THE FlLING OF AN APPLICA710fV/NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL STAY THE EFFEC7 �F THE DECISION PENDING TME FINAL DETERMtNATION OF THE CASE. APPEAIS TO 7HE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: $250 APPEALS TO HEARIIVG OFFICER: � PROPERTY OWNER(PER DEED): AA�I�i�:v�v✓ilNJJ. vVV iv :':CS�`�++viC nl"u �ui� ic�.vv �iaiTiNca� i�i� .�i��v� PHONE NUMBE� g13-997-5715 EMAIL: ;..�.....ac�(p�ams�^tfnan�ial rom AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: R Donald Mastry Esquire MAILING ADDRESS: 200 Central Ave. Suite 1600 St. Petersburq FL 33701 PHONE NUMBER: 727 g24 6140 EMAiI: dmastry(a�trenam com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPfR7Y: ��pjp.jctr�t��p i�rAr�,rPtation of .nmmunity� .�velopment Code Sr c�t�d�� y-�d Z PARCEL Nl3MBER(S): � _ _____, __ LEGAI DESCRIP710iV; CASE NUMBER TO BE APPEALED: Administrative Interpretation DA7E OF DECISION: Planning 8 Development[)epartment,100 S.Myrtle Avanue,Clearwater,FL 337fi6,TeL•727-56 a�t-27-5�-�t'86��!� Page 1 of 2 pU,NNiNO 8�DEVELOi�MENT DEPT - � , SELECT THE SPECIFIC APPEAL: APPEALS TO TNE COMMUNfTY DEVELOPMENT BOARD{CDBj: ❑ Orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made ❑ Any denials deemed to have occurred as result of the by an administrative official in the administration of tne failure of the Community Development Coordinator to ac± Community Development Code, except for enforcement within the time limits provided in this Communi*.y actions. Development Code. � Administrative interpretations of the Community ❑ Denials of any permit or license issued under the Development Code. provisions of the Community Develc.pment Code. �7 Level One (Flexible Standard Development and Minimum Standard)approvai decisions. APPEALS TO A HEARING OFFICER: � Decisions of the Community Development Boartl regarding ❑ Decisions of the Community Development Board regarding Level One applications. Level Two applications. ❑ Any denials deemed to have occurred as a resul�o*tne failure of the Community Development Board to act within the time limits provided in the Community Development Code, or as a resuit of the failure of any other administrative official or body (other than the Community Development Coordinator or the City Council)to act within the time fimits provided by any other applicable law, rule, policy,or regulation then in effect. BASIS OF APPEAL(Explain in detail the basis for the appealj: .S-c',e u_ f-f�� e �-� � STATE OF FLORIDA,COUNTY Of PINELLAS -yh j i I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Swom to and subscribed before me this � day of i � representations made in this application are true and ,SV y1�.`rn 1j��v �/ .to me and/or by i accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize •� City representatives to visit and photograph the who is personally known has i ; property described in this application. produced /�`J�� as identi`icatior,. i I � .,-�o-�l`Z.�� ,y�✓i/ i �____-��-v -`-�-) �� -,�'' I i Sign ture or property owner or repr sentative Notary public, 2o��ar a��c DOLORES DOUGFiERTY I My commission expires: ! � , * * —' i ��'�JFno no��Oe Bended ihtu Budgel Noluy Senites Planning&Develop a¢�p�it,�OQ S„I�y�le A �, learwater, FL 33756,Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 SkN u 1ul �� Revised 01/12 PLANNiNG d�OEVELOPMENT DEPT � p � yl UUI� � 5�� a �o�� pLANNING�DEVELOPMENTDEPT AMSCOT CORPORATION BASIS FOR APPEAL On July 20, 2012, R. Donald Mastry, as authorized representative of Amscot Corporation, sent a letter to Michael Delk, City of Clearwater Planning and Development Director, requesting an interpretation Section 8-102 of the Clearwater Development Code ("Code") as it relates to the business conducted by Amscot Corporation ("Amscot"). A copy of that letter is attached. The letter requested that Mr. Delk interpret the Code in such a maru7er as to find that Amscot is not a problematic use as that term is defined in the Code. The letter sets forth the basis for requesting this interpretation. A summary of the positions taken in the letter are as follows: 1. The City takes the position that Amscot is a "check cashing center" but the Code does not define that term. 2. Amscot does more than cash checks. The services it provides are described in Mr. Mastry's letter and.on its website. 3. Banks and credit tmions cash checks but are not found to be check cashing centers. 4. Problematic uses, by definition, are typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight. Amscot's facilities do not meet this definition and there is no indication that any check cashing center (however that is defined) meets this definition. It is an assumption without facts. Retail service uses like Amscot are not problematic uses unless they typically have those characteristics found in the problematic use definition. 5. After a hearing on July 19, 2005, the Community Development Board found Amscot not to be a problematic use at its location on 1874 North Highland Avenue. 6. The lack of a definition for check cashing center as well as the vague characterization and assumption that check cashing centers are typically poorly maintained facilities with indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight renders the definition of problernatic use unconstitutional on its face. It allows arbitrary application of that definition to Amscot. An example of this arbitrary application is the fact that banks and credit unions, each of which cash checks, have not been deternlined to be check cashing centers. 7. The definition of problematic use found in the Code is unconstitutional as applied to Amscot because it is based on assumptions that are not permitted by the equal protection clause of the constitution. , On August 28, 2012, Michael Delk, AICP, Planning and Development Director, responded by letter to Mr. Mastry's request for an interpretation of the Code. A copy of his letter is attached. Mr. Delk's letter takes the position that Amscot is a problematic use as defined by the Code. Mr. Delk correctly asserts that Amscot is not a bank or credit union. He establishes that Amscot is a financial service center. Based on his finding that Amscot is a financial service center, he concludes "that Amscot is neither a bank nor a credit union, but is a check cashing center, and therefore is also a problematic use." Mr. Delk never addresses or defines what a check cashing center is but reaches the assumption that a financial service center is a check cashing center. Mr. Delk's letter gives an accurate description of a financial service center. He quotes from the Financial Service Centers of America (FiSCA) website: "The current financial and other consumer services officered by FiSCA members include: check cashing, debit cards; money orders; pre-paid card based savings accounts; money transfers; ATM access; electronic bill payment services; DMV license plates and title pick-up; small dollar, short-term loans (i.e. payday advances); and electronic tax preparation and filing." Amscot is a member of FiSCA and provides these services as a financial service center. Mr. Delk takes the apparent and unsubstantiated position that a financial service center is the same as a check cashing center. One can only assume that it is because financial service centers cash checks. But banks and credit unions also cash checks. Yet they are not determined by Mr. Delk to be check cashing centers. If the City of Clearwater wants to take the position that financial service centers, as defined in Mr. Delk's letter, are problematic uses, it needs to add financial service center to the list of those uses that are typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight described in the definition of problematic use. Absent the addition of financial seivice center to the definition of problematic use and absent the definition of what a check cashing center is, Amscot takes the position that the Code does not include its business in the definition of problematic use and that Mr. Delk's letter reaching that conclusion is wrong. In conclusion, Amscot takes the position that it is not a problematic use for the reasons stated in its letter to Michael Delk dated July 20, 2012, and that Mr. Delk's interpretation that Amscot is a problematic use for the reasons set forth in his letter dated August 28, 2012, is wrong. U �� SEP 1 0 2012 PLANNING d�DEVELOPMENT DEPT APP2012-00(�'1 �� ' Amscot ��,��,�� ,�„� Amscot Corporation Administative Interpretation of Com ��'�� Zoning: Atlas#: -- A7TGRiv�YS Please r=oly!c. S;. Petersburg D;rect Line_ (727)824-6140 d;n2stry@trenam.com 7llly 20, 2012 D � [� � Mr. Michael Delk SEP � � 2�s� Planning Director PLANNING 3 DEVELOP�AENT OEPT City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearvvater, FL �37�8-4748 RE: Amscot Corporation 1227 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Flo:ida Dear Mr. Delk: I am writing you this letter on behalf of my client, Amscot Corporation ("Amscot"). Arriscot presently operates four stores within the City of Clearwater. Amscot desires to move the store located at 922 South Missouri :�venue to a new location a few blocks away at 1227 South Missouri �venue. Both locations are in the Commercial (C) District. You and I met previously to discuss this proposed move and you advised me that vou considered .Amsc�t to he a nrnhle:mati� ii.cP ac (�P.fT1P(j in QPrt;nn R_1(l� �f thv r1P�,-;:'µ��; Tl��'�l^...,-,a„+ r'^a� a �.t.,i..,iii �.vu�, uiiu, therefore, required to meet the conditions set forth in Section 2-704 M. As you are aware, Section 2-704 M 1 prohibits a problematic use adjacent to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas and also prohibits a problematic use within �00 feet of another problematic use. The site at 1227 Missouri Avenue violates these locational prohibitions if Amscot is determined to be a problematic use. You may recall that at the meetin� I questioned the application of the problematic use definition to Amscot's business and strongly sugaested that Amscot does not fit the definition of a problematic use. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that .��mscot still intends to occupy the space located at 1227 Missouri Avenue and takes the position that it is not a problematic use. I am asking for ��ou to give me an interpretation of the Clear�ater Development Code that Amscot would not be considered to be a problematic use at the 1227 Missouri Avenue location. Section 8-102 of the Clearwater Development Code defines a problematic use as follov��s: "Problematic Uses rneans commercial retail and service uses, including but not limited to, day labor, tattoo parlors, body piercing, pav�n shops, check cashina centers and blood plasma centers which are tvpically characterized bv poorl� maintained facilities,yloitering and other indices of neiQhborhood deterioration or urban bli�ht." � _ _.r:erneo�� oulev_r� Su��t- ��'�C �0� ��rra' .�,�.��° ��,�� ,o:�� -amoa. Flericia�3602 5- , st�:��u�� . ��ridc�� I�I .. 'J�' ��- G-�. i.. ._. �' . � ,i.. . �� v...�.J - - ��.. �... -._ - �-��^ _ � oL � .� --, . , , <<� f��; , �; I s�� o zo�z �_ �J : Mr. Michael Delk PLANiVIVG 8,p �.^�J� 1ulV 20, 2012 E�LOPMEN�r��;�; ! I PaQe 2 ' :�mscot does not fall within this definition. While Amscot does provide many commercial sen�ices to its customers, its facilit�es are not poorly maintained and there is no loitering or other indices ot neighborhood deterioration or urban blight associated with an Amscot location. :�s I previously stated, there are four Amscot locations presently located in Clearwater. Visit any one of them and you will find a clean, well lit, properly maintained facility that looks as good as or better than any other retail or service use in the city. There is no loitering outside any of these locations and no reason for loitering as almost all traffic is vehicular. People come by car, conduct their business and leave. The assumption may be that Amscot is a check cashina center but nowhere in vour code is a check cashing center defined. Banks and other businesses cashychecks. Yet thev are not considered to be check caslung centers. Certainly bar�s and other businesses do things in addition to cashing checks but so does Amscot. Check cashing is not the sole activity that takes place in an Arriscot store althouah, like banks, check cashing ser��ices are provided. In addition to cashing checks, arnscot stores provide ATM machines, prepare income tax returns, issue no cost money orders, facilitate Western linion ��irin� of funds, provide cash advance loans, issue prepaid MasterCards, sell prepaid wireless minutes for cellular phones, provide notar�� services, provide services for the sending and receiving of faxes, provide photocopy services, sell stamps and envelopes, and offer electronic bill paying services. Some Amscot locations even provide mail drop and postal services. If�nscot does not fit neatly into the definition of a particular commercial service classification that the city presently utilizes for issuing business tax receipts, then I suggest that a ne�- defiiution be created. It is simply wrong to assurne that the onl�� aGii v iiy iliai iai�cS �iaCG ai dil ti[I1ScOi S LUI C LS GLiCGiK GdSR1II�. Even if you believe that Arriscot is only a check cashing center, it is still not a check cashing center which is typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loiterin� and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight. As I read the definition of problematic use, these other tactors must be present in addition to being a check cashing center, or one of the other enumerated uses, before a commercial or retail service use can be classified as a problematic use. Amscot has a history of four well-kept locations in Clearwater and each of these facilities look a lot better than some of the convenience stores and souvenir shops one finds in the city. Amscot locations look as nice as a bank or credit union and attract the same type of customers. One Amscot location shares a site with a credit union and both facilities have similar appearances. Amscot is onlv requesting approval to move its e�isting Missouri Avenue store just a few blocks do�m the street. Look carefull�� at the 922 South Missouri Avenue store that Amscot intends to relocate. It is not a poorly maintained facilit�� with loiterina and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight. The .Amscot location at 1874 North HiQhland Avenue was found by the Communit�- Development Board not to be a problematic use. That store was approved in 200� adjacent to residentially zoned property and within �00 feet oi a problematic use, contrary to the location prohibitions applicable to problematic uses found in Section �-704 M 1 of the Clea��ater Development �� . o L �� I� � �' � � i , ;�� 20�2 Mr. Michael Delk July 20, 2012 PLRNNf��u u D�VELOPMENT DEFT C F C� T Pa�e 3 Code. That store is not a poorly maintained facility with loitering and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight. It has co-existed with its surroundings for seven years and has not presented any of the�roblems described within the city's definitioii of a problematic use. Amscot stronal� questions the constitutionality of the Clearwater Development Code definition of a "problematic use'. The standard imposed in the definition of problematic use that these uses "are typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of neiahborhood deterioration or urban blight" provides no proper basis to objectively evaluate an alle�ed problematic use. Many uses, other than check cashing centers, could easily meet those definitional requirements because they are so vague that they provide no standard for evaluation. This vaQueness renders the definition unconstitutional on its face. Compounding the problem is that there is no definition of a check cashing center in the City Code and it therefore becomes subject to staff interpretation as to who is and ��ho is not a check cashing center. More importantly; however, we believe that the definition is unconstitutional as applied to Amscot. By your classification of Amscot as a check cashing center, automatically renderin� it a problematic use, Clearwater is denying Amscot substantive due process because Clearwater is treating Amscot differently than banks, credit unions, and other businesses providing the same check cashing services without being burdened with the problematic use labeL There is a bank located in the same shopping center where Amscot is proposing to locate this store. There is a credit union in a shoppinQ center where an Amscot store is presently located. The banks and credit unions are permitted uses yet ^��scot, uy yoi:u ciassi icatiuii ds a checx casning center, is a probiematic use. We also think that the problematic use ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to Amscot because its application turns on factors that discriminate based on assumptions about the socio- economics of the customers that visit an Amscot store. This is a violation of equal protection. You are assuming that an Amscot customer is less worthy of cashing a check at an Amscot store than a bank customer cashing a check at a bank located almost next door. The questionable constitutionality of your problematic use ordinance makes it clear that application of the problematic use label to an Amscot store is improper and you should determine that Amscot is not a problematic use for the reasons stated in this letter. In conclusion, I would respectfullv request that you find that the �rriscot operation that I have described is not a problematic use and would be a permitted use at 1227 South Missouri Avenue, subject to any other site development conditions of the Clearvvater Development Code. I am only aslcin� that you agree that the use is permitted at this location. Amscot full�� understands that it must still obtain appropriate permits before the store can be opened for business but needs to lcnow that it is a permitted use in order to take those additional steps. If there is other information that you need pertaining to the Arrzscot operation in order for you to make vour determination, please let me lcno�� and I will promptly provide it to vou. �� o �� I� C � � � �� 0�2 � Mr. Michael Belk ^�'°' �tily ZO, 2012 PLAN�Vit�G E C�VELOPMENT DEPT Page 4 r R I have enclosed is a check in the amount of$150.00 as the application fee for this interpretation. Thank you very much for considering this request. Very truly yours, �� R. Donald Mastry Amscot Corporation hereby authorizes R. Donald Mastry to make this request to the City of Clearwater as its authorized agent� Amscot Corporation By: ,� ��—�-� N e • Title �Ece_�i�4�� 1�S�t��4�Wt-�Y�tsi:r� STATE OF FLO DA COUNTY OF ��.�S�S�.�.�1� �e foregoing authorization was ac�nawleclged before me on this�O day of 3uly, 2012, bS� � ,��,�� , as��v��"��;tr�Qf Amscot Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He is personally known to me or has produced '��- as identification. .�.........•� : Notary Public—State of Flo 'da ` '�=�'8� = My Commission Expires; (�Z�t� �,,,,�N,, = :ra'4<°U�; . :.a.i • �!�ZU1Z � °� = . .. � ::^id..�Y1C : .qOrdlc '% • aaos.w•� +M�r ..:..a�u:�a_-•:>= a..oce�.¢ se ' ............�•••• Riii�lO/�[lI�4Ft!{lt��1�If lHE�!_!_.....s' �►i�FtON!.,ItVS��M�► __ � : ,�„n p��,, c�„�t�aoawso7 : -� �ir�'t21T12012 � "�� •As�..tnc �<;'.� ,>.,��..��.......Q....:i �� ,�� » ,_ . _.. 5 - �p ' Y 1 � S �� k� t' i ,R � Fy"'� �8.� � " �� _1 �` t� s. �' t�i. �1 �� t`1 � � .._.; Il� _ : � -, , _ r .,. ::u. � 1`s .��.�,.;� .t.!..t .. ....,. _,� ��; , �:� .:. :�. _�.._ � �!I�.;:�t.�.L_.. .i�.� -"•:'� f�17 ;1�ii'I'I�iih'�lAr,.L_�.�\'Cv�:Y..t.��.-�hi��.7ci?}t � �..I.\li..: _. -� _J..t_... ;;r�7�3 'J � �� L !r`Ft+�� ?is��1�� 1'�h'�. \ ��J �t)��--tl)Q'l _ • . � ;� _ _ j rl,I -,- �, � . + ; �;r;. .•�F, I?� � — � c`v�/ i'!.:�rt�:nvc �S: �»,_u;:,..;.,:,;j (� :aL<��st "�8: ?O 1? R. Donald Masti�% 8y— -- -------_ Trenarn Ken�er D (� (� (� (y� (� ' � 200 Central Aver.ue; Suite 1500 LC v l{ L'1 (� � ►� I; St. Petersburg, FI_ ��7Ci1 ' SEP 1 0 20�2 �� R�: <,.?'.'�c;CO' r.".E.�,_�t]O:t � '��'7 �ou±�:,; ��iissouri ��enue, Clear��ater, t=lorida �'I��NING80EVELOPUENTD�PT i T R 1 Dear Mr. Ma�trv. This letter is in �esponse to your request for an interpretation of the Clear«�ater Coi7ununitv Development Code i CDC j reQarding Amscot being classiried as a Prablematic �;s�. and more specificall_�� as i; ;etates to the proposed Amscot (re)location al 1227 S�uth Missou:�i .avenu�. As you state�j in vot�r ietter, the City of Clear��ate?- detines a problematic use as � ct�mmercial retail and ser�:cc� uses_ including but not limited to, day labor,tattoo parlors. bod� �ier�in`_. pawn shops, checl� �a�l�in�� centers and blood plasma eenters ��hieh are typical+� charactPr;zed bv poorly maintaine�� i�acili�ies, loitering and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban }1�10-�1Y �� TI�;'� i 1t1 �_aC "�:.�,i.°,tAnt�<r ��o.�l rl.:.- .7..L:..,: ' t ' �__ . � _ - y ��.t,t,.i.,u uuJ uc�uui.iGu iU, iLilU (;l'dL51.11�'Q r'1TT1SC0[ 3S 1 P*_-oblematic ?�se. �'�lile our position on Amscot beir.g a Problematic Dse has not eh�nged, it should be »ot°:: iliat the City has supported propasals to establish new .^,n:scot bra�c?ies when They have met tl-�e applicable fle�:ibility criteria, such as wiih th� Amscot branches at 9�� South ?��Iissouri Avcnue anci �?50 Gulf to Bav Boulevard. In vour )etter vot: a��,, state thai ,4mscot is simiiar to a l�ank or credit union: ho�ve`e: �ne .=�rn�cot ��ebsite mai:e:� �re;�; .frc�rt to distinguisn nselt from be�tt� banl:s an� �r�ii;i uT_�o:�s (��.arr:scotf�nan�;ai.�.on�,`financiali'pa�es.�sen-ices.ntill) in the rollowino excerp?: [�`c. �un crrsh ��ir;uctl?y ata�� check for an�% arnoi.��zt, includino personu', puyroli, insz�rurzce ar�.d bank cheeks. In addition, we cat� also casn m.one�. �rders, tT-al%eter- s ci�eck.s. governnzen; c.hec�:s and out-of-staie check,s. _4nd the he.��i t�a,�, is, ��hii� hun�� an� credit unions ��ill oflen "/�old" the fta�ds unti� ti�e ci�ucic . clear�:. ��,�� c�nf�; 't. Gi e g�ive you cas�h up�i�un! �-irhoul �vr�iling fur II-ie �heck to .�i�ar tne hurrk. �:�r credit union. The .�i�1sc��t �vehsite al,o lisis and discusses check cashing (d�scribed as "fii:ancia; sei-�-ices"1 �eTO[�e �l] ot th: ��.1�er s�r��ices that Amscot provides. 1( is even �h:. ilrst se.�ice the� �her,,,e':v�s � , �._._. . .�. .1,.�'�III!:.I tir".li. . '.l"�.'.. 1 ��ir. Y.. Jrnzir ,ti�ia�r•: l�:IiQL::,'t�J,=U'._ ?;ca � list wl�en aescribiil� �he:r bu�iness ('vtitit,��.c1IT1SGOC�Lt�11lCI�i.CiJ1i1!I1i1�I1C1aL�pol�',ES�Olii�'Ol?]�7:1Il\' I11iI1�. Addi�ionally, amscot is a member of several tracie associatioils, including thc Coi�imunity Fi�lancial Se�vic°s Assoeiation of:�mei-ica (CFSA). ��hich is "the �7ational trade as5ociation ior companies ihat oi�r s_nail dollar, short-term loans or �ayday advances" (cfsaa.com/about- cfsa•aspxj. It should be noted that ��nile CFSA courits Amscol among their members (cfsaa..:om%about-ctsal2012-cfsa-corporate-mPn�bers.a_s�j, t.ley do n�5t count any btiiic or credit union. A ftu-ther ti-ade association to which Aniscot is a �z�ember is th� Financial Service Cen�ers of �nerica (FiSCA); which describes itself as "the national trade asso:,iatien iepi-esenting :�nerica's expanding financial sen�ice centers industri-." The current financial ��d other consumer services offered bv PiSCA members inciude: check cashin�; deLit cards; monev O1CiC1S� ��:-t)�:1� Cill�j rJc.�ZCl S3�%I11�S 3CGCOl1C'i;i� II)O]lCti t''d125`„'_"S; :�i�� aCCC�S; �lt'Ct!'OT11C �1�.� payment services; DMV license plates and title pick-up; sma11 dollar; shoi�t-�er:n loans (i.e., paYday advailccs,; and electronic tax preparation a��d filina (w-vr��.fisca.ar�'Contezlt-'�avi�ationMenu,%aboutFISC.4/FAns.%default.htir�;what is?. FiSCA also differentiates financial service centers trom financial institutions in the frequently �sked questions �FAQ) sections of their website as follows (same reference a� ahove): O: t�T'hy� r10 people clroose to cese fc�tancia! service cercters ir�stea�l of f�an�s or credit utiions? A: Con.s�nners choose to utilize Finuncial Service C'eniers i�ecause the products and services offered by them macch their needs and ti�e�� cr��e hr�Nrl�r s�atisfed with the ��cry in vrl�ich tizeir t'i-ansaction.� are conductea. Ti�� :„n�l„�� .7 :a_� �__ -,r , . .-- , �. ��.> u,�u s�;vice; y;vi%�ceec.� <�� r�iv�,t� memDers Jalt' a niche ihal ;frnancial instirutiot�s have chosen not ro.fill. The 1�'inancial .Ser��ice Cen�er indusv�� has been succes,sful because it satisfes the rnost jundanaet�tal neecr's �;its cusr.omers. These are: • Liguia'iiy A�fany low-Ut��d-nzoderate-income indzvidarals and fami?ies live puycheck to paycheck and do no� hu>>e ti�e jneans ,-o leave r.heir ha;-d- earned nzoi�ey zrz a bank c�ccoiuzt. Fi�zcrncial service cer�ters allo�� c.u.stomers la access 100% ofpl•esented,funds instanrll. �rithozrt h�n�;:nc to wait for the fuf7ds io clear, thereby bringirc tlzer� immec�iat�e �ri�uiuil)�. a Access (Convenience) Lo�>>-crnd-moderate-income consanners need access i o f nan�iai � � se��ices in �he communities ti��here they line and �1�nrk ,�i� a resulr oj o den��arzdif�ig lifes�j�les, cona�itmej-,s need ro con�uc� _ffz�ncia� � z� transac,�ions where and 1�,her. it is convenieru, and in a safe r� o a a er�l�ironment tivhere the�� fee� con Jn,�•�able and j�especred �ijzur�ici7i o `'`' o J ser��ice centers maintain stores irr the cnmmuniiies ��lzere t,�ese ° > cot�sum�r,s' li��e and��ork, cfjerir��>,fexible hou�-s ;nrar,}- ��:�,�i. �ustiiers � � � W � � Z z z 0 � _ _ _ ___ _ _ . . �.. �;. ._ J:l..... ��.c�i-- n L:+�i:S, •.C. `.. . ."cY�_. '0�_"' �..�. 1;(7G )D�Q7C il:E' !'U)?cr7rilPPS' '� r'1iG COP7r77.'"?it� ' �-----� F- i', .:!i;t�� :i'iin :)i[I��1"$1�1�7C7 Q �� W i.'i1.5'i0%)7E7',S �1�C'Cj,S i:7i7t1 i'017;;�;';iS, ttr�'�y�" � a Service -- z� -�:-� �Q Fir�afzcial s<�rl-ice ce��.ter represenra��i��es delire�� cjuicic, cor�rtcou.s crj;d �_ ' �erso��ali�ed service tn c�.rstn��aers i,�itl� each �t�a�zcral r'ra��saciio��. .'�� -'' ww ua'drtio« �o i�1�e �i��a��cial .cen�ices l;sted above, Fi�z�znciul Service �� ' � �� .. � Cente��s alsn offer t�el�jz,l pr�Qi�cts li�e tra��sr! s}�s'/em ucces,s-�cards, ��''�� ; a� stnmps and��za�e. - _�.� `�`� z ° Tr�nsparercy — – . �--•-.....� � Loi� und n�ocleraze-ii�cnn�e con51lIJ1L'1"S need co IFiQ71GoC' !i�I�t hud,ets � a��d car�zot be subject to surPr�se {ees a�7d incotnprclze�r.sihie charoes. lT�ie�a mnne�� is tigizl, a�a arne��ecled chaJge can LSe c.atasvroplzic. r%nlilce ba�iks and credir u��inr�.��, all fces cha�gc-d tii:.fna��cia1 se,�>>ice il,'"C' pC%��Eli�C171L:� k"?4:,N'1? 1lJ �'Ot1! — 1;''?St',° �1'v n0 ,S?l7pY1SF'S .4�!' {,L'ES <II'P paid at the time of the trarrsaction, at the nnint of sa?e. FLU�her. financial service. centers that meei onc or more of the definitions of a tvp� af Money Ser��ices I3usiness (1��ISB) (i.e., check cashing) ��e desi�nated as MSBs aild mus: compl}' with the Banl: Sec�ecy Act requirements as applicable. .An MSB is classified b�� the Financial Crimes En�o:-cement ?�let�voi•k (FinCEN) of the linited States Department of the Tr�easu,v as u "nou-banlc financial institution for the pu:-poses o f t he Bank Secrec�� • Act (BSA)." («��.iincei,.�ov!fi.nancial institutians,%ir.sb!amimsb.htnll) ...ihe C�de �f}�edet-aI Regulations, Ti�le ��: ?�/oney and Finance: Treasurv, specificallv excludes ?��SBs from its definition or banl: ;ecfr.�noaccess ��-!c?�i-! � idx?c=ecii-:sid=;decif�;99ca3cld8aGb:l4f��a32?ca96;r�Tn=div5:��iew=te�t:nocie=; �; ,` text tezt �:idno-�1:cc=ecfr�=1:3.1.6.1.2,1 3 l); and ;pec;ncally includes check cashi:�� 1 G��'.1.6.1. MSBs. - � ir, its definition of Based upon ail ot the above, we reaff'i1�ci� our posicion that Amscot is neither a bai� nor a cr�dit u.liot�, but :ti a checl< eashing center, and therefai-e is a]so a probi�matic use. It shouid also be noted that «�hen the appii�ation proposing the Arnscot located at ??60 Gulf to Ba�� ?oulevard «�as originallv submi�ed :i1 20Q�, it was propesed as a Probi��matic lise. The applicat�or; materials pro��ided bv the apn�icant :na1<e no objection �-liatsoe��e� to Amscot bcing colisi�erec a Yioblema�ic Lise. I note t:�is because ��o� ��ere the applicant for :ris proposal, and because it appea�s that .lmscot oniti� has objec;ion to bein�� considel-ed a Proi,�lematic L�se «�hen ti�c Cit� is not supportive of theu-proposea iocatiori. !n ad;l;ti;�r t�> tJ�e abo�Je, I do have a couple o��points of clarificatior with re�ard to references made in ��our lerer. As vou indicated, the .Ar:lsco? located ai 1�74 Nort;� Hi��1la:ld �, � A ' ' �enu� ��as iound b> the Communiry Development Board (CDB) (on Jul�� 19, 200�) not to be a Problematic L'se. «'):iie� ,l�is is corr�ect, it should be noted ti:a± th�s approval was "iiiniied �o this specific use a�id thic spec:fic site, and t�iat this ap�aro��al i� not rrar.sferrable". It s6oulc a!so be noteo :hat the S3i11� BOc12"Cl �1�Jpi'O�%el7 i�IlOtr1L'I' �I17S�;Oi c7i .�'iJ�� CJUif t0 ��\' J'7l1jeZ'81'Cj �1S � I�l'OJ1e;1x3tiC �'SP ()I? f3-�uar�� ;�- 2006. Therefore, it is possiblc tLat the Board no ion�er held the sa��ie opinion on � .'�'li. t�. .. ..^�cl;`�� 'v,�-.. `\ .`�.U�'LS, _�_ , ._ j�ac;C =1 :z1:iS�iil il�ii Jt�i1� . �'�i��'�lc;?�1:tiIC l,ic �S Ciic�' �l�j i]Ol 1?13i;: �'.1L S?ii�C i?i1';:1� :� illi\ �1;1:i ��0:�: )U�l �:\ ';i1p!)i�l� (^i'01'. :'�1�;,, vosr lettei� references cne .�mscot location sha�-in� a site „-ith a credit unicn and that bati� iacil;ties hz�-e similar appearanees. ��'l:iie you do uot specir�- ��hich ,�vnscot ��ou are _�efen-ina to. it can b;: assumed that you mean the �?nscot at 2760 Guif to I3ay �3ouiev�u-d as the other three Amscot loca�ions do not sha:�e a site ��,�ith a credit union and ?��acDi11 ;ederal Cre�it Union �a�as origi�ailv },�roposed to be a p�u1 oi thi� de��elopment sire. Ho��ever, :h:. �ui]dinU that ��ould h��e housed "vlacDill Federal Credit L:nion ��as never const:�ucted. :?s s�c.h, this Amscot Iocat?or. does no�, and could not possibl��, have an appear�ice e��en re�motei�� similar to that of the none�:istenr credit union. � Should ��ou have any° iurther questions, please feel free to contact me at (??;j �62-4�61, or via em�iil a.? �?lic.!iael.dclki�mvclear��ater.con�. Respe�iful l��, _;� :-, ��i�-` .;. ?��iicha�l��1'�AI"CP^`-' Plaiviing and Development Director �:� a" o.. w 0 � z �~ "� a . e� O :� � v�},. �=� �, - wU � ,� :�_ � JLLf� �,.^' .L .� � �� CDB Meeting: October 16, 2012 Case: APP201?_-00001 Agenda E-1 Appellant: Amscot'� Corporation Michael Delk, Planning and Development Department Director CDB Meeting Date: Oetober 16. 2012 Case Number: APP2012-00001 Agenda Item: E. l. Appellant: Amscot Coi-�oration Age11Y; R Donald Mastrv Esquire. Trenam Kemker CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND D�VELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: An appeal of an administrative interpretation of Section 8-102, Coinmunity Development Code. with regard to the definition of problematic use as it pertains to Amscot. BACKGROUND & AtiALYSIS: Earlier this vear Amscot representatives met with Planning and De��elopment Departinent staff to discuss relocating from their current location at 922 Missouri Avenue to 1227 Missouri Avenue. Staff infortned Amscot that the proposed use was considered to be a ``pl�oblematic use" and that, as such; the proposed location would not meet the applicable critei•ia for approval as it would be adjacent to another property with a residential designation in the Zoniilg Atlas. Amscot questioned the applicability of the problematic use definition to their business, and on July 26, 2012, the Department received a letter fi•om their attorney, R. Donald Mastry, Trenam Kemker, formallv requesting an inteipretation of the Clearwater Coinulunity Development Code (GDC) that Amscot would not be considered to be a problematic use at the 12?7 Missouri Avenue location(copy attached). On August 28. 2012, an inteipretation pertaining to Ainscot (in general and not just limited to an individual location) being a problematic use was issued. A copy of this interpretation is attached to this staff report. On September 10, 2012, an appeal of this interpretation was received by the Planning and Development Departnient. The basis of this appeal, as stated by the appellant in their application. is that, in part, the City considers Amscot to be a "check cashing center," but does not define such a tei71�; that Amscot does more than cash checks; that banks/credit unions cash checks but are not found to be "check cashing centers;" and that this is an arbitrar�� application of the definition of problenlatic use to Ainscot. The Cit�� has made clear its position on these matter�s in our determinatiou letter of August 28. 2012, in that it appears that Amscot wants to establish two positions. For the purpose of this appeal, they- �'ish to be associated with banks/credit unio�ls: ho��ever for all other business purposes a vety clear line has been drawn between Amscot (and other financial service centerslmone�� service businesses) and baiilcslcredit unions. APPEAL PROCESS: The appeal fi-om the aforementioned deternlination ��as filed on b�� R. Donald Mastr<<�_ Esquire_ of tlle la«� tirm Trenanl Keinker. on behalf of the appellant. Anlscot Corporation. on September Comm�mit�� Development Board— October 16. ?01? APP2013-00001 - Pa�e I of? 10. 2012. consistent wit11 the timefi•ame; established fol• an appeal to be initiated in Section �- �02.B., CDC. Pursuant to Section 4-�OI.A.I., CDC. tl�e Community Development Board (CDB) has the atrthority to hear appeals from ordei•s, requirenzents, decisions or determinations made b�� an administrative ofticial in the adnlinistration of the development code. Pursuant to Section 4-504.A.. CDC, the CDB shall review the application. the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application, and render a decision in accordance ��ith the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5., CDC, granting Che appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal. It is noted that pursuant to Section 4-504.B., CDC, in order to gi•ant an appeal, overtunling or inodifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall f�ind that based on substantial coinpetent evidence presented by the applicaut or other party th�t eacl� and ever}� one of the following criteria are tnet: L The decision appealed from nliscoilstrued or iticorrectly inteipreted the provisions of this development code; and 2. The decision of the CDB will be in hai-�nonv with the general intent and purpose of this development code; and 3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety� and general welfare. �,.� Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: � �' Michael Delk, AICP Planning and Development Director Attacl7ments: ■ Letter receiti•ed Ji�l�,26, 2012 fi•an R. Donald�Nastr.�•, Trennnl Ken:ker reqirestir�g aia i��ter•pretation ■ Lette�•of i»ter�relatio�a dated Azrgi�st 28, 2012 Community Development Board—October 16. ?012 APP2012-00001 - Pa�e ? of 2 . Robert G. Tefft 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater,FL 33756 (727)562-4539 robert.tefft an.mvclea�-�vater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ■ Development Review Manager Ciry of Clenrwate�•, Clean��ater, Flo�°ida Augus12008 to P��esei�t Direct Development Review activities for the City. Supervise professional planners, land resource specialists and administrative staff. Conduct performance reviews. Serve as staff to the Communitv Development Board. ■ Planner III City of Cleuria�ate�•. Clearwater, Flor�ida Jame 200.5 to August 2008 Duties include performing the technical revie�� and preparation of staff repo►-ts for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. ■ Planner II Cily of Cleartivater, Clea�°wate�-, Florida May 2005 to Jza�e 200� Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data a��d its displav in order to track iuformation and provide status repocts. ■ Senior Planner Citt�of Deb�cry I3each, Deb�ay Beach, Florida October 2003 to May 2005 Performed technical revie�v of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as. but not limited to: site plans. conditional uses, rezoning, land use a►nendments, and teat amendments. Organized data and its display in order to track information and �rovide status reports. Make presentations to various City Boards. ■ Planner City of Delrcry Beach, Deh�ay Beach, Florida A7rn�ch 2001 to October 2003 Performed technical review of and prepared staff repo►-ts for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided i�l-deptl� training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job fwictions and continuous guidance. ■ Assistant Planner Cit}%qf Delrcn-Becrch, Delr•ay Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001 Performed tecllnical review of ai�d prepared staff reports for site p(an development applicatio��s. Perfocmed reviews of building permit applications. Provided info�-mation on land use applications_ ordinances, land development reQulations. codes, and related planning progra�lls/services to otller professionals and the public. � EDUCATION Bachelor of A►-ts. Geograph� (L'rban Studies). Universih� of South Florida. Tam�a. Florida