11/14/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 14, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Ron Stuart
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
Absent:
Mark Jonnatti
Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:01 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
1. (cont. from 10/24/96) John & Sandra S. Ladd for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the St. Thomas Dr. right-of-way where a maximum
height of 4 ft is allowed at 1529 S. Fredrica Ave, Brookhill Unit Two, Blk C, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-68
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. This item was continued from the previous meeting at the applicant’s request, to be heard concurrently
with Item C6, below. The applicant has constructed a six foot wood privacy fence, without permits, to enclose the back and side yards of the single family home on a corner lot. The
application states this was done to enhance the visual appeal of the corner lot; screen the air conditioning unit, pump and trash receptacle; buffer street and barking dog noise; and
to enjoy a fence similar to those on other corner properties. Mr. Richter noted only two similar fences exist in the neighborhood. One is more than 600 feet away; the other has been
constructed across the street, without permits, and is the subject of Item C6, below.
John Ladd, the owner/applicant, stated he mistakenly constructed his fence in the setback because he measured 25 feet from the street, not the sidewalk. He has two dogs that need a
fenced yard. He reiterated the above reasons for extending the fence toward the front. He responded to board questions, stating he has had the dogs for five months. He said he does
not know Mr. Barry, the applicant in Item C6, and did not speak to him before the fence issue. He constructed the fence during one weekend and was not aware a fence permit is required.
He plans to install shrubbery around the fence.
No verbal support or opposition was expressed. Mr. Ladd submitted a photocopy of the same petition submitted in support of Item C6. Two letters were submitted in opposition, citing
concerns the fence is not attractive in its current location, and is not in harmony with the code or neighborhood standards.
Board discussion ensued. Although most felt landscaping makes an attractive property divider, one member expressed strong concern with the extent of the fence. Mr. Ladd expressed
willingness to cooperate with the board and the neighbors about the type of landscaping and improvements they want to see on his property. The majority of the board members indicated
they would support the fence with sufficient perimeter landscaping to provide a solid and continuous screen for the fence at maturity. Consensus was to continue this item to allow time
for the applicant to install such landscaping. Mr. Ladd agreed to have the requested landscaping completed and ready for board member inspection prior to January 9, 1997.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item B1, VR 96-68, to January 9, 1997, for landscaping review. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Schwob, and Stuart voted "Aye"; Member
Gans voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. Norman R. Roffey, TRE for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a masonry wall 6 ft high within the setback area from Countryside Blvd. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is
permitted at 2664 Gleneagles Dr, Clubhouse Estates of Countryside Unit 4, Lot 195, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-70
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a six foot high wall on the west side of the corner lot,
along Countryside Boulevard. The wall will not be visible from Countryside Boulevard because it is to be constructed behind an existing seven foot high hedge along the right-of-way.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said the code does not restrict the distance of a hedge
from the public right-of-way.
Norman Roffey, the owner/applicant, said he wishes to attenuate the traffic noise from Countryside Boulevard so he can enjoy his pool. The landscaping hedge he planted is not sufficient
and he hopes a solid surface will reflect noise and provide more relief. He may add stucco to the wall, but did not feel it will be visible from the sidewalk. He will continue to trim
and maintain the hedge. Board members praised Mr. Roffey’s viburnum hedge, citing it as the perfect example of the type of planting material the board recommends for perimeter landscaping.
One member asked Mr. Roffey to notify the board whether the wall helps mitigate the noise.
No one spoke in support or opposition to the request. Staff was not aware at the time of the hearing one letter in opposition had been faxed to the City and the letter was not presented
to the board. The letter cited concerns by six property owners as follows: 1) a six foot masonry wall is not compatible with the neighborhood conditions of natural shrubbery and split
rail fences; 2) such a wall would be unsightly, whether or not it was screened by a hedge; 3) approval could open the possibility for everyone along the boulevard to construct inconsistent
walls and turn the area into a walled neighborhood; and 4) walls are an invitation for graffiti.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has substantially met all the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the
variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation
from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will
result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing and 3) The property
owner shall maintain the existing hedge in a healthy condition. Failure to do so shall negate approval of the variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Evelyn R. Tokasz for a variance to allow a commercial vehicle to be parked in a residential neighborhood in the setback area from the S. San Remo Ave right-of-way at 1240 S. San
Remo Ave, Forrest Hill Estates Unit 3, Lot 72, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-71
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. The City’s Community Response Team received a complaint regarding an oversized commercial vehicle parking
in the driveway of a single family home, in violation of the code. The applicant maintains it is necessary to park the vehicle at the residence to satisfy a contractual obligation to
provide 24-hour emergency tire service to the City of Clearwater. Mr. Richter detailed commercial vehicle parking restrictions in residential neighborhoods. He said there is no effective
way to screen the vehicle or lessen its visual impact. Staff felt the request does not support the standards for approval. In response to a question, he said the vehicle’s size was
verified at eight feet wide and seven feet high.
Evelyn Tokasz, the owner/applicant, said she and her husband were not aware of the commercial vehicle parking restrictions. When they purchased the property they understood they could
park their commercial vehicle, and have done so for nine years. The vehicle is well maintained, is kept in the driveway, and is never parked in the grass. Her husband takes the truck
to work in the early morning and does not return until various times in the evening. He cannot park the truck at his place of business in Tampa, because it contains the tires and equipment
needed to provide 24-hour, on call emergency service.
Ms. Tokasz submitted a petition with 14 signatures of neighbors in support of the request. She submitted three enlarged color photographs showing a commercial vehicle parked in the
driveway of a single family home.
Richard Whitaker spoke in support of the application, stating he is the operations manager at the tire company that employs Mr. Tokasz. His company handles all the tires for all City
of Clearwater vehicles. He listed the hours the truck is away from the house, reiterating the need to have it available for sudden start-up in the event a City emergency vehicle needs
tire service. The applicants keep the vehicle neat and clean. Some advertising can be removed to make the vehicle less obtrusive, if necessary. He stressed they are under contract
to provide this service to the City. It was indicated the contract does not specify the truck must be parked at the residence in violation of the code.
In response to questions, Mr. Whitaker said they have not looked into parking off-site at a nearby commercial business for security reasons. The truck contains several thousand dollars
worth of equipment. The truck is 19 feet long, less than the 20 foot code requirement for maximum length.
Two letters were submitted in opposition, citing concerns about lawn and street parking in the neighborhood, and the potential for the vehicle to block safe view of the street for neighborhood
children. No verbal opposition was expressed. Ms. Tokasz reiterated no vehicle has ever been parked on the lawn at her home. She believed the writer had misunderstood her variance
request. They park the vehicle very close to the house to avoid blocking anyone’s view, as illustrated in her photographs. She said the neighbors have many vehicles parked on and in
front of their properties in the street.
Discussion ensued regarding in what ways the application does not appear to support the standards for approval. It was indicated the current parking standards were set 11 years ago,
so the applicant’s parking is not grandfathered. Some members felt the applicants’ vehicle is not as obtrusive as a large number of boats parked on the property next door. Staff was
asked to investigate.
Member Johnson moved to deny the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, more specifically because no special circumstances exist related to the particular physical surroundings, that require the vehicle to be parked on the subject property. The
motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Johnson, and Schwob voted "Aye"; Member Stuart voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C3. Emanuel & Dimitra Kotakis, TRE (Kotakis Auto Body Shop) for variances of: (1) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a wall 6 ft high within the setback area from the Court St right-of-way
where a maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed; (2) a setback variance of 5 ft to allow a wall zero ft from the Court St right-of-way where a minimum setback of 5 ft is permitted at 1141
Court St. Sec 15-29-15, M&B's 31.06, 31.08, & 31.09, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96-72
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver of the setback requirement for an existing six foot tall
fence/wall along the front property line of their auto body shop. Staff felt conditions support approval, as a substantially sized landscaping buffer was recently planted in front of
the wall. The landscaping will grow to completely screen the wall and provide an attractive appearance from the street. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval
with three conditions. In response to questions, Mr. Richter said the landscaping is planted within the City right-of-way and a sprinkler system was recently installed
Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated this family has been at this site for 25 to 35 years. He detailed the history of the property’s use, configuration, variance
approvals, and site plan changes. The applicant has worked extensively with Central Permitting and Environmental staff to bring the property into compliance. Detailing special circumstances,
he said neighborhood buildings are built up to the front property line, so the absence of setback represented by the fence/wall is not injurious to the community. The business must
have its customers’ vehicles secured inside a fence. The shrubs will help visually screen the body shop, and the application is not for economic gain. A photograph was circulated,
showing the landscaping planting in front of the wall.
One member expressed concern the planting seems sparse and does not appear to be thriving. Mr. Richter responded the landscaping is sufficient to provide screening if the applicant
takes adequate care of it. The sprinkler system should help. Discussion ensued regarding the locations of service bays, office area and heavy body work on the site.
Elefteria Mantzaris, daughter of the owner/applicants, stated she runs the business. She responded to concerns regarding landscaping irrigation, frequency of her lawn maintenance service,
and cleaning the retention pond. Concern was expressed with the deteriorated condition of the fence in the photograph. She said she will do a much better job maintaining the property
than did her parents. Mr. Richter and the board requested assurance the applicant will assume responsibility for maintaining the landscaping in a healthy condition. Ms. Mantzaris stated
for the record she will be personally accountable for maintaining the landscaping. She planted the shrubbery and will personally attend to it. One member gave Ms. Mantzaris three snapshots
of unacceptable conditions he would like to see corrected on the property.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Board discussion ensued. While some attention must be given to aesthetics, it was indicated the subject property is appropriate in its surroundings. The applicant was warned to watch
for caterpillars on the oleanders. The fence/wall is needed for security. It was indicated customers have been pleased with work done at the facility. While the board wished to ensure
reasonable use of the land, questions were raised regarding how the application will affect neighborhood harmony and public welfare. Conditions of approval were discussed.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within 30 days from the date of this public hearing; and 3) The property owner shall maintain the landscape buffer and fence in a healthy condition. Failure to do so shall negate approval
of the variance and necessitate compliance with the code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C4. Dawnn M. Kerr & Douglas E. Keimig for a separation variance of 351.5 ft to allow an Adult Congregate Care Living Facility 648.5 ft from an existing Adult Congregate Care Living Facility
at 2377 Covington Dr. where 1000 ft is required at 2329 Moore Haven Drive East, Woodgate of Countryside Unit 2, Lot 42, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96 73
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to use their single family home as a family care facility occupied by
a maximum of six residents. He profiled code requirements for family and group care facilities and the use of the existing facility in the neighborhood. Staff felt conditions do not
favor granting the separation distance variance designed to avoid concentration of group living facilities in a neighborhood. Brief discussion ensued regarding other similar variance
requests.
Dawnn M. Kerr and Douglas Keimig, the owner/applicants, addressed the board. Ms. Kerr is a registered nurse working at Morton Plant Hospital and in home health care. She read a prepared
statement regarding the importance of caring for the elderly, problems that arise, and alternatives to the more common practices. She referred to the Florida State statutes regarding
the intent of ALF’s (adult living facilities). She and Mr. Keimig take pride in the care of their home and surroundings. She stressed the residence will have no noticeable exterior
changes. She could take in three persons without any type of license, but wishes to help the maximum number of people possible. They will take in no more than five residents, who will
have 24-hour assistance from one or more professionals trained in emergency procedures. She did not realize anyone in the neighborhood would be upset by the proposal because her home
will have no signs, no additional cars and no structural changes. She said a petition in opposition was circulated in the neighborhood by people who thought she wished to open a group
home for youth. She appealed to the board to take into account those who signed the petition may not have understood what was being asked.
Discussion ensued regarding City and State licensing requirements for ALF’s. In response to a question, Mr. Richter said an ALF is a permitted use in this zone, and thus does not require
conditional use approval. It was indicated no other ALF’s exist east of Belcher Road. One member pointed out everyone seems to agree the ALF concept is wonderful, but no one wants
an ALF next door. Concern was expressed the variance is very large. Ms. Kerr stressed the only thing that will change is the occupancy.
One letter was received in support of the request from a property owner within 500 feet who supported ALF’s as clean, quiet and welcome additions to the community. No person spoke
in support.
Five persons spoke in opposition citing the following concerns: 1) the homeowners association strongly objects to the request; 2) the separation distance is small and a precedent for
overconcentration could be set; 3) the request will not preserve a normal residential environment; 4) property values will be driven down; 5) the variance too large; 6) overconcentration
will negate the benefit the elderly receive from personal assistance; 7) other means exist to care for the elderly without violating the code; 8) the applicants will not live at the
facility, but propose to move out and operate it as a business; and 9) the residents do not want the single family zoning to change. A petition with 128 signatures representing 105
households, was submitted in opposition to the request.
The speakers in opposition responded to board questions as follows: 1) neighborhood deed restrictions do not prohibit business in homes, but do not allow noxious or offensive trades;
2) the existing ALF has very little neighborhood impact as most residents do not realize it exists; 3) the homeowners association has no evidence property values have gone down in proximity
to the existing ALF.
The applicants were responded to the opposition, reiterating no external changes will be made. They did not understand the concern that five elderly people could adversely affect the
value of safety of the area. The concern that property values will suffer is an opinion not supported by any evidence. Ms. Kerr is strongly committed to providing the service as more
than just a business. She acknowledged she will not reside in the home, but will attend during
the day. Mr. Keimig will attend during the evening. They will hire a person to attend at night. Ms. Kerr pointed out the law does not require a resident attendant.
Board discussion ensued. One member noted, since and ALF is a permitted use in a residential neighborhood, his only problem with the request is the proximity to the existing facility.
Although property devaluation has not been proven, most members were inclined to uphold the established separation distance requirement. After researching the code and State statutes,
Mr. Richter verified State licensing is not required for an ALF with three or fewer residents, but the City’s separation distance requirement still applies. Ms. Dougall-Sides concurred.
Member Schwob moved to deny the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has not substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, more specifically because: 1) No special circumstances exist related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings,
or such circumstances are not peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district; and 4) the granting of the variance
will not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C5. William O'Callaghan for a setback variance of 7.5 ft to allow a portico roof addition 17.5 ft from Mandalay Ave right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 738 Mandalay
Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 12, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-74
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a portico roof in front a single family home entryway.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Larry Doum, with the architectural firm representing the applicant, said the proposal is a simple gable roof to provide protection for the entryway. The design will provide architectural
relief by reducing the visual scale of the house. In response to a question, he said the portico will not be screened or enclosed.
Member Johnson moved to grant the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; and 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 3:17 to 3:27 p.m.
C6. Douglas M. & Wendy L. Barry for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the St. Thomas Dr. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4
ft is allowed at 1535 S. Fredrica Ave, Brookhill Unit 2, Blk F, Lot 1, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-75
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. This item is related to Item B1, above. The applicant has constructed a six foot wood privacy fence,
without permits, to enclose the rear and a portion of the side yard of the single family home on a corner lot. Mr. Richter explained circumstances have changed since the DCAB denied
a variance for a six foot high fence three feet from the property line on July 27, 1995. The new fence is set further back, a similar fence has been constructed across the street, and
the property owner has acquired a police dog that could jump a four foot high fence. Staff felt conditions now support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. Background
information was provided to a member who was not on the board during the original hearing.
Doug Barry, the owner/applicant, stated his previous application was for a pool and a fence. The pool was approved, but the fence was restricted to four feet. He has been given the
additional responsibility of a German shepherd dog capable of jumping a four foot fence, causing concern for neighborhood children and pets. The dog is a working animal belonging to
the City, and needs freedom to run. Responding to questions, he said police dogs live with the officers who have charge of them. He said built the fence before seeking a variance because
he had forgotten the requirement, and wanted to follow up on the opportunity to get the dog.
Board members expressed concern with a police officer’s apparent disregard for the law. They expressed surprise Mr. Barry would not remember coming before the board and having a variance
denied. In response to questions, Mr. Barry said he constructed the fence when he knew he was getting the dog. The City did not ask whether he had facilities to take care of the dog.
He volunteered for the duty, it was not assigned. He felt this was desirable duty because of limited availability of dogs. He apologized for not coming back to the board and seeking
approval when his circumstances changed. In response to a question, Mr. Richter verified this new application is the result of a code enforcement citation.
No verbal support or opposition was expressed. Mr. Barry submitted a petition with five signatures in support of his application. Two letters were submitted in opposition, citing concerns
the fence is not attractive in its current location, and is not in harmony with the code or neighborhood standards.
Mr. Barry said his immediate neighbors are delighted the dog in the neighborhood. He will landscaping outside the fence. He said the code enforcement citation gave his 20 days to
comply or seek a variance. Mr. Richter added, if the variance is denied and the nonconformity is not removed, the case would go before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board that has
the authority to order compliance and set penalties. Mr. Barry said dogs are not available very often. The City has 5 dogs, and the dogs usually live five to ten years. He reiterated
he volunteered for the duty, intending to keep the dog inside the house. When he discovered the dog is very active, he decided to put up the fence. He pointed out he would have to
remove the pool to adhere to the fence setbacks. He discussed the location of the petition signers in support.
Board discussion ensued. It was indicated having moved the fence back provides more opportunity for green space outside. Clarification of the site plan configuration was requested.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the fence height is appropriate in the neighborhood. Some felt the application should be continued to allow time for the applicant to install sufficient
perimeter landscaping to provide a solid and continuous screen for the fence at maturity.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item C6, VR 96-75, to the meeting of December 12, 1996, for landscaping installation and review. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
After hearing Item B1, above, it was decided more time should be allowed to install the landscaping. Member Johnson moved to reconsider the motion to continue Item C6, changing the
date from December 12, 1996, to January 9, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C7. Dan's Island on Sand Key/1600 Gulf Blvd & Dan's Island on Sand Key/1660 Gulf Blvd for a variance of 10 ft to permit a sidewalk and a 3 ft retaining wall to extend 10 ft seaward of
the Coastal Construction Control Line, where no structure seaward of the control line is allowed at 1600 & 1660 Gulf Blvd, Dan's Island on Sand Key a Condominium 1600 Gulf Blvd & Dan's
Island on Sand Key a Condominium 1660 Gulf Blvd, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). VR 96-76
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a three foot high wall to contain the sand that clogs the
catch basin toward the rear of the property, causing drainage difficulty during severe storms. A sidewalk is proposed to the west of the wall to connect with existing sidewalks to the
north and south. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions.
Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the City Environmental group recommends obtaining the DEP permit prior to issuance of the City building permit.
David Tackney, with the engineering firm representing the applicants, profiled the problems caused when sand fills the catch basin during heavy storms. They propose the construction
to retard sand dumping directly into the catch basin, while allowing free drainage of standing water. He responded to questions about previous and current conditions on the subject
property.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variance(s) as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development
Code, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; and 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval - October 24, 1996
Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
1. Land Development Code/Development Review Process Revisions
Mr. Shuford reported the City Manager has requested a comprehensive Land Development Code amendment to make the code more friendly to the development community. Mr. Shuford is working
with Assistant City Manager Bob Keller, and Pinellas Planning Council Executive Director Dave Healey, to comprehensively review, revise and streamline the City development regulations.
He felt the number of cases coming to DCAB and the Planning and Zoning Board can be cut in half. City advisory board members, business leaders, and representatives from neighborhoods
and the development community will comprise a steering committee and focus groups to provide input to staff. He will provide updates of the process, scheduled for completion in April,
1997. Otto Gans and Bill Johnson will represent DCAB on the steering committee. Mr. Shuford invited board members’ ideas on ways to make the code user friendly while respecting the
high quality development standards for which Clearwater is known. He will provide an update after the beginning of the year.
2. Follow-up re co-locating telecommunication antennae on School Board property
Member Stuart complimented Mr. Richter on his letter to the City Manager regarding telecommunication towers and antennae. Mr. Richter said the School Board is considering allowing
another antenna on the space by means of a bidding process. Board members were gratified their concern and diligence may have a positive effect on the community.
Tom Sehlhorst addressed the board, complaining about the difficulty he is experiencing with the permitting, site plan approval and inspection processes, subsequent to variance approval.
Mr. Shuford suggested he work with Mr. Richter toward a solution to his complaints.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter