Loading...
FLD2015-03008 - NOTICE OF OBJECTION, PIERNICK 06-01-15Anthony T. Piernick 805 Bay Esplanade Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 -1302 727.443.7750 Date: 1 June 2015 Subject: Notice of Objection, FLD2015- 03008, Re: 801 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach, Florida To: Community Development Board, City of Clearwater, Florida HAND DELIVERED Dear Members of the Board; JUN 0 r 2015 CffYOFCLWWAM This letter is in response to your notice of hearing on the application by William Blackwood, in Re: 801 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach Florida, (FLD2015- 03008, scheduled to be heard Thursday, 4 June 2015). The below signed are entitled to "Party Status ", and should be so granted, by virtue of the fact they are adjacent property owners and stand to be substantially affected. We have lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years, the last 37 at 805 Bay Esplanade adjacent to the property subject to this application. Please excuse the format of these objections and their somewhat disjointed presentation. Objectors have had little more than two weeks to obtain and review all of the relevant documents and Code involved in this matter, read and comprehend the new Code rules applying, perform whatever research that was able to be squeezed in, and to compose some sort of a response. Objectors are not set up to so quickly respond to such a matter (this is not a city staff or a consulting agency, and other ongoing aspects of life cannot so quickly be cast aside), and objectors have not been accommodated with the same time to prepare as that afforded to applicant (infinite time) or City Staff (as much as they felt they needed). This letter serves to register the objection of the undersigned to the application by William Blackwood, in Re: 801 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach Florida, (FLD2015- 03008, scheduled to be heard Thursday 4 June 2015). This exercise has been in progress going on to two years as outlined in the site history section, page 1, of the staff report. It has been a series of applications, denials, appeals, delays, last minute continuations that have sufficed to keep the neighbors in a continuous state of apprehension and turmoil to the point that it could be termed harassment. It is time to send this applicant on his way with a "no, thank you, good bye ". Contrary to the conclusions of the Development Review Division (DRD) staff, the application and proposed project does not comply with the requirements of the Community Development Code (CDC) as outlined in the following discussion. 1) Applicant is entitled to a dock equal to one half of the width of the property, which in this instance is of the width of 67.5 feet allowing a dock and boat lift length of 33.75 feet. Section 3- 601.C.l.b. is quite clear that the allowable length includes both dock and boatlift. 2) Variances to the above criteria are allowed, but a party must apply and justify such a need; the variances are limited to an additional 50% of the previously delineated length (in this case a total of 54.63 feet). This is not an entitlement, but must be justified. The staff report seems to allude to the premise this application does not exceed what is due to applicant by a significant amount, which is not in fact true. 3) As stated above, length includes dock and boatlift. The Code section contains the following language: "The length of docks and boadifts shall not exceed ... half the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line...." There is no provision in the Code for the boatlift to extend beyond the approved length of the dock — in fact, it is specifically prohibited by a plain reading of the Code language. The structures in this application total approximately 90 feet in length. This application is not in conformance with the Code, and its title is grossly misleading. 4) A recent change to the Code has allowed for an additional deviation (Section 3- 601.C.l.g.iii) (it is interesting that this specific Code change should occur approximately two years into this applicants' quest, but this is a question left for another day). For the sake of discussion we will refer to this deviation as the "super variance ". The City Council did not create a "gimmie" here however, and they set the bar quite high to qualify for this super variance. The Code requires four conditions, all of which must be met before consideration can be given to such a deviation. a. A dock of lesser length poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetland habitats or water quality; Discussion: The sea grasses have been making a comeback to this area of the Mandalay Channel for the last 10 to 20 years, which has been quite evident to all of us who reside thereon. There is and has been no indication that any dock, including the Code conforming dock that was on applicants' property (and was there for decades) has inhibited or injured any of these sea grass beds or the progressive comeback they have experienced. Applicant offers no competent evidence that a dock of lesser length than he requests poses a threat to the marine environment, natural resources, wetland habitats or water quality. The placement of the T -head is largely offset by the extension of the dock itself Applicant attempts to invoke the name and authority of the Pinellas County Environmental Management 'Staff in an effort to bolster their efforts to magnify the effect of their claims, and to prove objectivity and endorsement, but that agency made no such determination or approval. Applicant states (hearsay ?) that the visit did no more than establish the limits of the grass beds, an exercise that anyone with adequate vision could have performed on a day the water was clear. There is no evidence the agency "determined the dock should be located further out..." (again, hearsay ?). That statement by itself, even if it could be entered as evidence, would not establish that a threat to the marine environment would occur. A dock by itself of the currently permitted length should have minimum, if any, adverse effect on the sea grass, and would not pose a threat to those areas. Without documentary evidence to support them, the self - serving assertions or opinions of applicant or his agent do not constitute evidence or satisfy applicants' burden of proof'. b. A literal enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the project and the applicants' property; Discussion: There is nothing unique about this project or of applicants' property, and no evidence has been offered otherwise. The project is the construction of a dock for a parcel of land that has been platted since the 1920's2. Further, this section does not require a mere hardship (required in some cases for any variance), but an extreme hardship. No evidence of any such occurrence is offered here, either. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that the loss of a driver's license is most definitely an extreme hardship, in that driving has become an increasingly important part of American life and a near necessity in obtaining and maintaining employment3. The immigration courts, which use the term quite frequently, have by statue and case law established a list of 14 items to be considered (but not limited to) in determining extreme hardship. Among them are tenderness of age when being deported and not being able to speak the language of the country being sent to, unsettled political and economic situations (including possible persecution), and the inability to get necessary or needed health care in the destination country; no one factor can normally control, but the totality of the situation must be considered. The hardship cannot be a natural result of the denial of the action sought by the applicant4. The U. S. Supreme Court, in a Florida case, described an individual who fought in combat on the front lines for an extended period in the Korean War under gruesome conditions to the point that he received two Purple Hearts as having served under extreme hardship$. The U.S. Supreme Court further stated in another case that a narrow interpretation is consistent with the "extreme Hardship" language, which itself indicates the exceptional nature of the ... remedy" 6 Applicant's inability to tie up his boat to his dock at low tide does not come close to approaching the categories described herein for extreme hardship. Allowance of such an exception would be an insult to all of those who truly do have an extreme hardship. Applicant most certainly has not met his requirement of burden of proof for this subsection for a super variance. 3 c. The deviation sought to be granted is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the applicant's property; Discussion: Applicant offers no evidence that the denial of this application will prevent the reasonable use of his property. This claim is almost laughable. Applicant will be able to live on the land. He will be able to reside in the house on the property. He will be able to modify the house (within Code) if he so desires. He will be able to provide his wife and children (if any) with a place to live. He will be able to provide friends or other relatives (within reason) with a place to live. He will be able to modify his landscaping (within Code) to his desires. He will be able to construct a dock. He will be able to enjoy sunrises from this dock. He will be able to fish from this dock. He will be able to swim from this dock. He will not be able to construct a ten story residence. He will not be able to conduct most commercial enterprises from this property. He will not be able to keep a cow or any pigs on this property. He will be able to conduct all the reasonable uses the previous owners have enjoyed since approximately the I940's7, and are currently using the property for today. Applicant most certainly has not met his requirement of burden of proof for this subsection for a super variance. d. The granting of the requested deviation will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental or of adverse effect to the public interest and welfare. Discussion: The structure applied for as defined under section 3- 601.C. I .b. of the Code is a few inches less than 90 feet in length. There are no other structures known to the undersigned extending into the Mandalay Channel to this extent, and most certainly none in the immediate area of the property the subject of this application. This extension of length is approximately 23% greater than the average of the longest docks in the area as identified by applicants' submittal. Applicant says his dock length would be 64.6 feet. If boadifts are not considered part of the length limitations, all dock owners should be able to place 25' (or whatever length they want) boatlifts beyond the length of their docks. Not only is this application requesting a flagrant violation of the Code, but its approval would create a dangerous precedent on the Mandalay Channel and for waterfront navigational purposes throughout the City of Clearwater. It is this Boards' responsibility to examine not only the specific requests' of individual applicants' but to consider the ramifications on the remainder of the city and its areas possibly subjected to, or affected by the decision. The Code has been enacted for the benefit and betterment of the community as a whole, and in particular, enacted to prohibit this type of flagrant violation from appearing in different forms on every lot in the 4 city. Allowing such an extension beyond the legal length would change the entire face and core of the waterfront of the city. It is not this Boards' place to do this. 5) The staff report addresses the general applicability requirements. The staff and applicant have chosen to ignore a number of Code requirements as addresses above, but in addition the undersigned points out: a. Section 3- 914.A.6., which states "The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Discussion: Staff ignores the purpose for which this project is proposed to be built. It emphasizes building to Code and no walls or enclosures, but neglects the drawn sidings on the dock rail walls, the fact that a substantial vessel will be hung in the boat lift (what is it for ? ?), and two large vessels can occupy the two boat slips extending there from. These objects are not transparent. This project if constructed as a super variance to Code will create substantial visual adverse effects to the properties both north and south of applicants' property. b. Section 4- 206.D.4. states "Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested (emphasis added) Discussion: As outlined in numerous places and sections above, applicant has submitted virtually no substantial evidence at all to support any of the required conditions he must meet to gain approval of his request. 6) Our own 6t" Judicial Circuit has given significant guidance and direction to the city and to this board as to the course they must take in this matter. In a case with many similarities to this situation, the 6'" Judicial Circuit (in its appellant capacity) agreed with the denial of the variance request. There was an existing dock, but the City denied the application for tie poles to be placed beyond the dock. Sea grass beds were involved with the project and City Staff had recommended approval in regard to this factor. There were a number of requirements of the city Code to be met, including one that stated that the literal enforcement of the City's Code would result in extreme hardship due to the unique nature of the property and another that referred to the variance requested being the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the property. The court stated the Board must adhere to all the requirements of its Code (emphasis added), which is subject to the same rules of construction as statues. The Court further stated that the landowner was not entitled to a variance where there was no hardship una que to his land (emphasis added), citing a Florida Appellate Court case. (Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 485 So.2d 1318, (Fla 5" DCA 1986). The variance request did not meet the Code criteria, and the Court approved the Board denial of the application $. 7) Applicant knew or should have known what he was purchasing and what the requirements were for what he could do with the property, when he bought it. Applicant speculates on page 1 of his application that nearby longer docks "appear to have been permitted" to allow for extension over the sea grass ". The more likely explanation is they predated the Code, and were grandfathered in (see dock dates on property records). The dock subject to this application was not. The skeletal remains of the dock that had existed there for at least 40 years were quite evident and readily visible. Applicant even has two pictures of that long existing dock in his application. Applicant acquired this property at roughly !/2 its county projected market value of a few years previous (Exhibit 1a) from a desperate older widow lady, and now is trying to transform it into something it is not, at the expense of his new neighbors. The applicant owns property just down the seawall from the subject property which is waterfront and subject to the same Code and should have given applicant knowledge and pause. The applicant could probably keep his large vessels there, as that property appears to have five large vessel slips running from property line to property line (Exhibit 2). Or he night keep the large vessels in the huge Mandalay Mooring Field he is attempting to develop or sell in the middle of the Mandalay Channel (Exhibit 3). If applicant desires to have a residential property with a similar capacity to that applied far, he needs to sell this property or at least acquire another that would allow him to build what he wants, with sufficient frontage and deep water access to allow its construction; he should not to try to squeeze all onto a property that cannot legally and physically accommodate such construction, to the detriment of all around him. There are properties around that can accommodate this within Code, and they are probably visible from the seawall of the property subject to this application. If this is what applicant wants, he must be willing to pay the price, not shove his non - compliant projects down the throats of fellow citizens. Objectors have attached a copy of a letter of objection submitted during a previous incarnation of this project (Exhibit 4). Although the project has been modified in some respects, and some changes have been made to the Code, many of the objections, observations and issues still prevail. Summary: 1) The length of the dock does not conform to Code as the added length of the boatlift greatly exceeds the length of the dock as applied for; dock length includes the boatlift. 2) Applicant has submitted virtually no substantial competent evidence, and tries to substitute hearsay, or his or his agent's self - serving assertions or opinions as substitute therefore, and therefore does not satisfy his required Burden of Proof. 3) There is no evidence that a like replacement for the dock that has existed at the property would pose a threat to the marine environment, and certainly would not pose a greater threat than that which applicant proposes (The piles are still there now). 4) Applicant shows no extreme hardship, and no uniqueness of his property or the prof ect. 5) Applicant has not and cannot show that granting this super variance is the minimum deviation that would make possible the reasonable use of his property. 6) An allowance of such an extension into the channel beyond nearby structures and incorporating a boatlift beyond the supposed allowed length of the dock would create a dangerous precedent and threat to navigation not only on the Mandalay Channel, but throughout the City of Clearwater's waterfront_ Such an allowance would change the Clearwater waterfront immeasurably. 7) The local Court, citing State appellate law, directs the local board must follow the applicable Code provisions, and further stated there must be uniqueness to the property to grant a variance. 8) Applicant must meet all of the requirements as stated in items 3), 4), 5) and 6) of this summary in order to qualify for the "super variance" deviation. He has not done so. Based on the above, it appears the Board must deny the application. The below signed objectors strongly object to the subject application for all of the above outlined reasons, and respectfully request that the Board deny applicants' application. Respectfully submitted, Anthony T. PiernIck Maijo6e L. Piernick 805 Bay Es lanade 805 Bay Esplanade FOOTNOTES Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I &N Dec. 533,534 (BIA 1988), Matter of Laureano, 19 I &N Dec. 1 (BIA 1953), Matter of Ramirez- Sanchez, 17 I &N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 2. Plat of Mandalay Subdivision, Plat Bk 14, Pgs 32 to 35 Inclusive, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 3. Hernandez v. Florida I3ep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 74 So. 3d, (F1a.2011) 4. dvink, The Hardship of Proving Hardship, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook 114 (2006 -07 Ed.). 5. Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) 6. Jong Ha Wang v. INS, 450 U.S. 139 (1981). 7. See Exhibit 1 b showing Pinellas County Property Appraiser records, stating year residence built (1937). 8. Ritchie v. City of Treasure Island, App. No. 06 -0051 AP -88A, (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct., April 13, 2007). 5121/2015 Property Appraiser General Information Ill macuie Map of this pau l SaIes ()<rery Back to Quca Re3ults Ii Fax Colletior I -lomc Page C'ontacl tis WM 05- 29- 15- 54666- 033 -0010 Cgmnact Propery Record Card lIat whila� C'alculatpr Data Current as Of May 28, 2015 LIML Prins Radius Scarch lmpro%ement Value pgt 1 ti , $44 s��3a Zf1 Wrl:n t; I , 01 10 (Single Family Home) j O+wn�ailrAddress Chantc NIgilingAddress Site Address 1 . 1�j File fur BLACKWOOD, WILLIAM 801 BAY ESPLANADE Exem lion P- - J 2015 627 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER Homestead: No CLEARWATER FL 33767 -1617 Pomestead Use Percentage- 0.00% Government: I Zf1 Wrl:n t; I , 01 10 (Single Family Home) Living Units: 1 Most Recent Recording Cam am ri on [click here to hide] Legal Description MANDALAY SUB BLK 33, LOT 1 - - Mortgage Letter 1�j File fur Homestead 'Exe i " mart I Ca 2015 Parcel Use Exem lion P- - J 2015 2016 Homestead: No No Pomestead Use Percentage- 0.00% Government: I No No on- Homestead Use Percentage: 100.00% Institutional: No No ,lassified Agricultural No Historic: No No '$645,197 $539,217 5539,217 Eijrcel information Latcsl Notice of Proposed PEOperty Taxes ('I'RI'S'( Npticel Living Units: 1 Most Recent Recording Cam am ri on Census Tract 1N01 Evacua on one ti Z rhr same as a FE%Lj FlaoJ 7.�qtr Plat Book/Page I 0141032 j 1769411729 5783,500 ,�, 12103020021 A 2014 Final Value Information Year JusVNarkci Value Assessed Valuci SQH Can County Taxable Value $c pl Ta-u le Val ie Munic pal Taxable Valise 2014 '$645,197 $539,217 5539,217 $645,197 $539,217 jclick here to hide] Value History as Certified (yellow indicates correction an file) Year I { rucst cLtd Exemption .Pustiflfarkt:LValue rhssesscd VaIU&:S01I Cap Count} T4N;Ihlc Value Schuul -1 ixa6le Valor Municipal Taxable Value 2014 No $645,197 $539,217 $539,217 $645,197 $539,217 2013 No $490,197 $490,197 $490,197 $490,197 $490,197 2012 Yes $379,813 $223,890 $173,390 $198,390 $173,390 2011 Yes $413,933 $218,991 $168,491 $193,491 $168,491 20tO Yes $612,648 $215,755 $165,255 $190,255 $165,255 2009 Yes $650,352 $210,083 $159,583 $184,583 $159,583 2008 Yes $910,000 $209,873 $159,373 $184,373 $159,373 2007 Yes $1,064,500 $203,760 $178,760 NIA $178,760 2006 Yes $1,092,500 $198,790 $173,790 NIA $173,790 2005 Yes $705,800 $193,000 $168,000 NIA $168,000 2004 Yes $489,900 $187,400 $162,400 NIA $162,400 2003 Yes $416,500 $183,900 $158,900 NIA $158,900 2002 Yes $,424,300 $179,600 $154,600 NIA $154,600 2001 Yes $283,200 $176,800 $151,800 NIA $151,800 2000 Yes $198,500 $168,700 $143,700 NIA $143,700 1999 Yes $188,000 $164,300 $139,300 NIA $139,300 1998 Yes $169,200 $161,800 $136,800 NIA $136,900' 1997 Yes $162,000 $159,100 $134,100 NIA $134,100 1996 Yes $160,900 $154,500 $129,500 NIA $129,500 2014 Tax Information Ranked Sales INN hM are naahcd Sala'] See all transactions Click llere for 2014 Tax Bill Tax District. (.LW Sale Bate Book/Page Price Silt YJ 1i C,41w,RMa,k 21{114Itt001, Woh� 31 24 Aug 2012 176941 1729 ■ $500,000 Q 1 2014 Final Millage Rate 21.2599 29 Jul 2002 1212912530 M $16,000 U 1 2014 Est Taxes w/o Cap or Exemptions $13,71682 03390 / 0618 Q $28,000 Q A significant change In taxable value may occur when sold due to changes In the market or the removal of axemptlons. Cli;k h= fgr m!2re Information. 2014 Land Information j Seawall: Yes Frontage. Bay View: Land C se Land sixe I Init Value Units Total • diustments Adjusted Value Method Single Family (0 1) 68x I 11 8100.90 67.5000 1.0500 $574,088 FF Iclick here to hide) 2015 Building 1 Structural Elements 11ack to To Site Address: 801 BAY ESPLANADE htkp:/M,ww,pcpao.org/gerwal.php*?strap= 152905546660330010 r--,l k t i 112 5128!2015 Property Appraiser General Information Quality: Average Square Footage: 1684.00 Foundation: Continuous Footing Floor System: Wood Exterior Wall: Frame Siding DGU Roof Frame: Gable Or Hip Roof Cover: Shingle Composition Stories: 1 Living units: 1 BAS Floor Finish: CarpetlHardtilelHardwoIcA Interior Finish: Drywall /Plaster I OPU Fixtures: 6 Year Built: 1937 Effective Age. 37 Heating: Central Duct Cooling, Cooling [Central] Open plot in New Window Building 1 Sub Area Information CornpaCt Properly Record Card Description Liriug area Ft 3 Gross Area F Fat ur Effective Ft� Open porch-UnI intshed 0 ] p2 0.15 17 Detached Garape Unfin ished 0 324 0.35 113 [ 1,248 1,248 1.00 1,248 Total Living SF: 1,248 Total Gros. SF: 1,684 Total Effective SF: 1,378 ------ - - - - -- - [click here to hide[ 2015 Extra Features Description Value /Unit Units Total Value as New Depreciated Value Year FIREPLACE $0.00 1,00 $0 -00 $0 -00 1947 Iclick here to (aide[ Permit Data 'smnit inrormatian is received from the !:Dung and piles. This data may be Incomplols and may exclude permlts that do not resull in Gold reviews (ear example for water beattir replacement permits} Vlte are mquimd to pia all improvemerrlm, which may laclade unpomilaod consmicdmt Any quesitern ragerdlnG permits, a the staha of nnn{.termlued Improvements, should be direcled to the permildnG office in wldch the structure is located, Permit Number F Description_ Issue Date Estimated Valve lnteractivc Man oftltis parcel Men Leeen 1 Sales Oucry B tc;.k. to f kicp, Kcsults t. ":c %v Se: ifc I Tax Culler t a lionic PaLe f'Uotu, I rmpJM +ww.pcpao.t)rglcgerpral -php? strap = 1529053:30010 tf ,I i , / 2J2 512812015 Property Appraiser General Information lntetsct1%e Maj irlhcs & 5al V's t k eD LljA tv 111 SIN 1�ts New dearth 'rax CollectQr Home l> Va" Conlaci Us WM 05 -29 -15 -54756 -078 -0070 (,ermpact Fr9i7�Fty_R'.) urd Cara I'ortabillix c lcdator Data Current as of May 28, 2015 Lffila L'CM Radius Search Ownership/Mailin g Address Site Address (First Building) RAYESPLANADE -COM LLC 627 BAY ESPLANDE CLEARWATER FL 33767-1617 627 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER Jump to building. (1) 627 BAY ESPLANADE . Propu:L} Use 3913 (Hotels and Motels (49 units or less)) Living Units. 6 [click hereto hide] Legal Description MANDALAY UNIT NO. 5 REPLAT BLK 78, LOT 7 AS SHOWN ON PL 20 PG 27 TOGETHER WITH SURM LAND IN SW 114 OF SEC 5 -29 -15 BEING PART OF TIIF DEED 1#17451 DESC BEG NW COR LOT 7 TH NO3D4641 "E 98.81FT TH S89D39'24 "E 239.51 FT TH S43D5VG4" W 191.14FT TH CUR LT RAD 111.91FT ARC 80.72FT CB N65D1 I'47 "W 78.98FT TH N89D33'22 "W 48.87FT TO POB File for Homestead F,xemntion 2015 Parcel Use Exemption 1 2015 1 2016 plat Book/Page (lick Here for 2Q14 1".tr Bill Tax District: CW Homestead: No No 1578310771 omestead Use Percentage. 0 00% Government: No No No on- lomeste-ad Use Percentage: 100.00° /" Institutional: No Na $493,600 riassified Agricultural: No Historic No No of Prtypmsed Property Taxes ITRINI lolicel $515,000 Earrgl Information Latest Notice - Most Recent Recording Sales Comparison- Census Tract Evacuation Zone plat Book/Page (lick Here for 2Q14 1".tr Bill Tax District: CW Year l lomestead (',NOT the same its a FENIA Flood 7.aeel Just. - Market Value 1578310771 121030260022 A 0201048 2014 Final Value Information Year Just/Market Valuc Assessed 'v',?l.tic/ 5011 C'an (uunh taxable Value School Taxable Value Municipal Ttlxable_Vi u 2014 41493,600 5493,600 $493,600 5493,600 $493,600 2014 Tax Information Ranked Sales [click here to hide] Value History as Certified (yellow indicates correction on file) (lick Here for 2Q14 1".tr Bill Tax District: CW Year l lomestead Exemption Just. - Market Value Assessed Value/ SOH Cup Count) Taxable V41ue School Taxable• Value Mun&ipal Taxable Value 2014 No $493,600 $493,600 $493,600 $493,600 $493,600 2013 No $515,000 $515,000 $515,000 $515,000 $515,000 2012 No $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 2011 No $594,9011 $594,901 $594,901 $594,901 $594,901 2010 No $681,228 $681,228 $681,228 $681,228 $681,228 2009 No $775,0({) $775,000 $775,000 $775,000 $775,000 2008 No $800,(300 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 2007 No $1,410,000 $1,410,000 $1,410,000 NIA $1,410,000 2006 No $1,480,100 $1,480,100 $1,480,100 NIA $1,480,100 2005 No $958,800 $958,800 $958,800 NIA $958,800 2004 No $575,300 $575,300 $575,300 NIA $575,300 2003 No $431,500 $431,500 $431,500 NIA $431,500 2002 No $415,000 $415,000 $415,000 N/A $415,000 2001 No $320,900 $313,700 $288.700 NIA $288,7-00 2000 Yes $299,000 $291,700 $266,700 NIA $266,700 1999 Yes $271,700 $270,900 $245,900 NIA $245,900 1998 Yes $265,200 $265,200 $240,200 NIA $240,200 1997 Yes $265,200 $265,200 $240,200 NIA $240,200 1996 Yes $265,200 $265,200 $240,200 NIA $240,200 2014 Tax Information Ranked Sales ti all_ (lick Here for 2Q14 1".tr Bill Tax District: CW Sale Date Book/Page Price �- YL 'I'- CW1w,4,#ia1s 2014 F. B,1N O.I ba3l 04 Feb 2004 13155/0400 $730,000 Q 1 2014 Final Millage Rate 21.2599 01 Jun 2001 11403 10250 $510,000 Q 1 2014 Est Taxes Nv /o Cap or Exemptions $10,493.89 19 Oct 1992 09063/0826 $350,000 Q I A significant change in taxable value may occur when sold due to changes in the 04 Sep 1990 073691 0558 $)10,000 U I market or the removal of exemptions. Glick ham for more information. 041St} 10435 0 $110,00() U Seawall: No Land Use Land Size Rivers And Lakes f `61 0x0 !Hotels And Motels (39) 0x0 tktp:)Avww pcpao •orglgerleral . php?strap= 1529055475607811070 2014 Land Information Frontage: Bay Unit Value l hits 1000.00 0 4900 48.00 11}4i 1 (111(111 Focal Adjustments 1.00[10 1 00110 k'�1-� View Adjustej %'nine 'llrlhod $490 AC $101,648 SF 2�- 4 113 5)2&2016 t Property Appraiser General Intorrnabon [click here to hided 2015 Building I Structural Elements Back lu t tales Site Address: 627 BAY ESPLANADE Quality: Average Square Footage: 2604.00 OPF Foundation: Continuous Footing Floor System: Slab On Grade Exterior Wall: Concrete BlklStucco Roof Frame: Flat Roof Cover: Built Up /Composition Stories. 2 u SF Living units: 4 Floor Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish: Dry Wall SAS Fixtures: 12 Year Built: 1951 Effective Age: 35 Lu TE1 Cooling. None Building I Sub Area Information Description Building Finished E gross Area F12 Factur 84 84 0.55 1,166 1,116 0.90 0 160 0.30 1,244 1,244 1.00 Total Building finished SF: 2,444 Total Gross SF: 2,644 [click here to bide) 201; Building 2 Structural Elements Back to Too Site Address: 625 BAN' ESPLANADE Quality: Average Square Footage: 1048.00 Foundation: Continuous Footing Floor System: Slab On Grade Fxterior Wall: Concrete BlklStucco Roof Frame. Flat Roof Cover: Built Up/Composition Stories: 2 Living units: 2 Floor Finish: Carpet Combination Interior Finish Dry Wall Fixtures 6 Year Built: 1951 ,Effective Age: 35 Cooling: Heat & Cooling Pkg L TF Effective Ftt 46 1,004 48 1,244 Total Effective SF: 2,342 Co+npatil Property Record Card Effective Ft2 40 428 7 476 Total Effective SF: 931 Depreciated Value Year Building 2 Sub Area Information 2006 $16.000.00 Description $1,03700 Building finished Fr2 [.ross:lrea Ft2 1•aetor f� $2,10000 72 72 0.56 lUnne[ Slocy 476 476 0.90 _ Open Porch O 24 0.29 Bl= 476 476 loo Total Building Finished SF: 1,024 Total Gross SF: 1,048 ]click here to hide] 2015 Extra Features Description Value/Unit Units Total Value as New DOCK $45.00 1,848.00 $83,160.00 13001_ $40.000.00 1.00 140.000.00 PArHOIDECK 69.00 288.00 $2,592.00 SH UFBDCT $ 3,OU0.00 1.00 $3.000 OO ASPHALT $1 75 1,200.00 $2,100.00 Effective Ft2 40 428 7 476 Total Effective SF: 931 Depreciated Value Year $64,033.00 2006 $16.000.00 1970 $1,03700 f 970 $3,00000 1951 $2,10000 0 httpJlw m. pcpao.orgl9wwal.php ?strap = 15290554756078+11070 2/3 612&2015 Property Appraiser General Information lWc=tl%.c map k)1'1hlS VA&CI Map Lc •c J.. 1, I t,ck ttl OuAgy kewljN http:)M— pcpao-xg/qenera1 php7strap- 152905547,%'0780070 NctiN Searcl Tax couwof Home U44C Contact [Is '- ), " � 1, + 2 c— 318 [click here to bide] Permit Data Permit 4011t)rrnation Is received from R18 cqunty and clu". this data may lbe Incomplete and may exclude peirrnft that do not racult In Reid reviews #" example kv water heaver replacement parrnit5l. We are requked to list all improv*nierft, which may gwtuda uriparmimea cormb tlen, Any questions regarckip, p&nrft, or the, status of non -Im7T!d 1mFmv@moMs, shoiAd be directed to ttw pe—itting office in which the stmcl-e is locala-d. Per it Number Description Issue Date Estimated Volue 09 Nov 2010 $3,600 BCP2U 11i -07505 ROOF 29 Jul 2010 $2,000 BC P2[t 10 -07206 ROOF 14 Jul 2010 $4,200 BOAT LIFT/DAVIT 08Augj0_97 $1,950 BC 2007- {75568 SHUTTERS -.02 Jul 2007 $5,650 SPECIAL USE 05 Feb 2007 $12,5.00, DOCK 05 Jun 2006 $0. b(T2C 6- 04537 ROOF 23 May 2006 . $9,600 ROOF 23 Mar 2004 $2,0_C0' 7— -1 1 IL • r P J4 4 r L L -AL lWc=tl%.c map k)1'1hlS VA&CI Map Lc •c J.. 1, I t,ck ttl OuAgy kewljN http:)M— pcpao-xg/qenera1 php7strap- 152905547,%'0780070 NctiN Searcl Tax couwof Home U44C Contact [Is '- ), " � 1, + 2 c— 318 .A. [.VVr VL x&%. x..+rw..+ cu. r,x., V2 /i JxVVr ai VU —V r'A? n..•. r..v=u..�ar�a r rxv Q $18.50 KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDM0 A Prep awed by and return to. FREEDOM TITLE AGENCY 140 S. Ft. Hamson Ave., Suite 102 Clearwater, 1, 33756 07 -3126S This deed is being recorded to clarify the legal description of the submerged lands that will be retained as part of 625 -627 -bay Esplanade, Clearwater, FL QUIT CLAIM DEED �] This Quit Claim Deed is made, executed and entered into this ay ok'►' 4 all by and between BAYESPLANADE,COtM, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company (H reinailer calk-if GRANTOR), and BAYESPLANADE:CyOM,LI.0 aFl+ orida Limited Liability (7ompiany,(Hereinaftercaoed f =RANTEE), whose mailing address is_ tpZ7. Iz��,� W ITNESSETH: That the GRANTOR for and in consideration of the Burn of Ten ($10.00) Dollarssik49+ther valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledgAcj, lyas rcmi�ect, released, and quit claimed to the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs and assigns frx (,ver, the TQ110{yi4g described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida, to -wit: Vk `` SEE ATTACHED LEGAL. DESCRIPTION EXHJBIT S'UBM Cl TO Covenants, restrictions, easements of rec9rd'attd taxes ti lbe outrrent year. Parcel Identification Number: 03/29/15154756/078/0070 } TO LIAVF AND ,rO HOLD the saute, togethar r 4 all anti singular llie appurtenances thereunto belonging or m anywise appertaining, and all the estgtt, tight, titlq.1nterest,-f icn, equity and claim whatsoever of the said Grantor; either in law or equity, for th6xiie, bertefit and profit of the said Grantee forever. IN'WPrNESS WHEREOF, the satdCIRANTOR has hereunto set his/her /its hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our prcAente� y. f $AYESPI.,ANADE,C()M, LLt mess a Florida Limited Liability Company (Print Witness Name) Witness William Blackwood .lid Managing Member ( infsWitn ss ti�aite) STATE,0F ~ ' CE7t7NTi' 17� , P� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me Lhts-y j. day 2007, by William Blackwood as Managing Member of Bayesplanade.com, LLC, 1J: ARY PUBLIC My COMM Expires- Personally Known _,OR Produced Identification ✓ Type of Identification Produced Z)L T vw 4 ,�y •3 15 LoopNet - 26.04 Acres Fee Sample Submerged Land Clearwater, CommerclWOther (lard), C B' Esplanade. Clearwater. F! Valuation Advisors Land For Sale Bradley Page — (813) 333 -881' 26.04 Acres Fee Simple Submerged Land Clearwater d Bay Esplanade, Clearwater, FL 3376 1 Lot Available ..o V,#I �f YY xs rt Price Lot Size. Pf rce)AC Lot Type APN /Parcel ID Commission Split Pnce. Lot Size: Property Type Property Sut� -tyi.„ I tchnq IF) Last Updated Find Out More.., $2,490,000 26.04 AC Land Commercial/Other (land} 19076305 13 days ago $2,490,000 26.0+4 AC $95.622.12 Commercial/Other (land) 05- 29 -15- 00000 -340 -0140 5% Descfiption Rare opportunity to OWN submerged land acreage with good water depth for many uses. This 26.04 acre property is located between Clearwater and Clearwater Beach in Mandalay Channel north of the Clearwater Memorial Causeway just east of Clearwater Beach. Great opportunity for primate mooring field development without limitations of length of stay. Owner has plans underway for mooring field, see attached exhibit for preliminary 45 position/buoy mooring field. The potential number of mooring positions depends on placement of buoysisize of boats and approvals. Alternatives include submerged land swap with State to potentially increase /secure development entitlements for your waterfront project, mitigation of impacts to submerged lands, aquaculture... This is a chance to secure a unique parcel of fee simple. real property, submerged land with adequate water depth for many uses. The mean water depth is approximately 7 to 12 feet_ Don't miss out on this one of a kind opportunity. Z�� 1, h ; � 3 ", 3+23Y2015 L©opNet - 26.04 Acres Fee Simple Submerged Laud Clearwater. CornmerDall0ther (land), 0 SW Esplanade. Clearwater, FL Size based on survey completed by George A Shimp II and Associates. Property is north of the Clearwater Memorial Causeway. Best viewing from Clearwater Beach Recreation Center boat ramp from Bay Esplanade with property beginning Just east of the sea wall at the boat ramp or by boat. Map of 0 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater, FL 33767 (Pinellas County) Additional Photos LT 9 6: 26.04 Acres Fee Simple Submerged Land Clearwater 26.04 Acres Fee Simple Submerged Land Clearwater L k I I bJ - �-2 X �� 4 Ll. -� 30M15 Property Appraiser General information Sates Ouen Back to Ouery Results New Search lax Colleclor ilomc I'asre 05- 29 -15- 00000 - 340 -0100 GomoM PMOM lid Card Data Current as of March 25, 2015 G3#AA.V"'JUA:1ZY.311:1 ftaDcM I3e: 9500 (Submerged Land - river, take) Lai" &m1 Radius Scareh 0 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER Coma,[ L W1.14 IlnnrovemellL VaILIC tl.5 551.44 ~� 4. I.tvrng [Units. [click here to hide] Legal Description SUBM LAND IN SW 114 OF SEC 5 -29-15 BEING PART OF TIIF DEED # 17451 DESC BEG AT POINT ON SEAWALL E OF NE COR OF BLK 76 OF MANDALAY UNIT 5 REPLAT TH S89D37 26 "E 332.85FT'CFl S32D45' 16 "E 478.75FT TH S29DSU 16" E 263.24FT TH S45D24'28 "E 312.24FT TH S361)23'47 "F 215.56FT TH S28DI8'40 'E 134.87 TH S16D50' 14 "W 989.57FT TH N89DOI "32 "W 594.05FT TH N07DU1' 10 "W 982.71 FT TH N83D14 "07 "E 20UFT TH N 19D 21'59 "W 317.48FT TH 543D 50'04 "W 200FT TH CUR LT RAD 11 1.91FT ARC 80.72FT CB N65D1 1'47 "W 78 98FT TH N89D33'22 "W 161.69FT TH N22D46'05 "W 29.39FT TH N12D32'03 "W 42.46FT TH N 12D20'39 "F 75 43FT TH N28D53'50 "E 62 98F "i FH S89DO6'49 "E 73.03FT TH CU-R LT RAD 106 5FT ARC 194 -45FT CB N42D21'33'E 162.25F'T TH N06D58'23 "W 558.5FT TH N04DIV 12 "E 22.73FT TO POB LESS THOSE PARTS DESC IN O.R 15261/467,0R 1 568411 1 66, O -R. 15783 PGS 708 & 771, U.R 1 5 8 3 711 679, O.R 1 59691 1 096, O R 1598&1092,0.R 1 605 1 /695, O R 1639K1316. O R 16510/ 2603, O R 16391 PIGS 1222& 1270, O R. 16375!568 CUNT 26 04 AC (C) II 8 File for Homestead Etemottion I 2615 Parcel Ilse 11 Government. No Institutional No No No tend Use Use No a , ,,,,: , . r " . I�last Recent Recording � Settles mtparison — �Ceoaus Tract EVatUAtl4n ,one -- — Plot Book/Page J 1529012076 0 Exemption JLtsVMwkct yalue :Nsse •sed A I Year 7 2414 Just/Market Value A s sscd VWUCC SOH Cap Cuym JaKawe Value Sch i I axahie Valk Municipal Taxable Value 522,092 $2YA92 522,092 $22,092 522,1192 j 2014 7'ax Information ra c M„a. m 14 a s a,u, ,,j,,bff , a T'ax District 1A 2014 Final Millage Rate 21 25,99 2014 Est Taxes wia Cap or Fxemptlom $4614 r;7 A signift ant change In taxable value may (,cr.ur wtter sold arise tr r,aalges rn Thu market or ft removal of exemptions. QU hers 12 mote dnlormauOn Ranked Sales ,See all tranaamcdann Sale Dale Book/Page Price SM1 la No regent sales on record 2014 Land Information Z�l [click here to hide) Value History as G"Red (yellow Indicates correction on Me) Year IlorrtesLead Exemption JLtsVMwkct yalue :Nsse •sed Value/ SOH Cai CauoU'raxable VarL School Taxable Vallie Muni] ;ire Taxahlr VAIN 2014 No $22,092 $22,092 522.092 $22,092 $22,092 1f 2013 No $22.092 $22,092 $22,092 $22,042 $22,092 12012 No $22,330 $22,330 $22.330 $22330 $22330 2011 No $22,330 $22,330 $22,330 $22,330 $22,331) 2010 No $22.330 $22,330 $22,330 $22,330 322,330 2069 No $22.330 $22,330 $22,330 $22,330 $22 -330 2008 . No $22.000 $22,000 $22 (100 $22,000 $22,0(X) 2007 No $23,200 $23,200 $23,2110 NIA $23.200 2W6 No SO $0 $0 N/A SU� 2005 No $t) V S0 WA So; 241(A No $0 SO $0 N-1A $0 , 2003 No fi0 So $U N)A $0 2002 No $t1 VI $(l NIA $[i 2001 No $U SO $0 NIA $n 2[10!1 No $0 $0 so NIA So 1999 No $0 $0 So NIA it) ' 1998 No $O $0 so N/A so 1997 No 'fill $0 $0 N, /A $ti ' 1996 No $U $0 $t1 N/A $t_3 2014 7'ax Information ra c M„a. m 14 a s a,u, ,,j,,bff , a T'ax District 1A 2014 Final Millage Rate 21 25,99 2014 Est Taxes wia Cap or Fxemptlom $4614 r;7 A signift ant change In taxable value may (,cr.ur wtter sold arise tr r,aalges rn Thu market or ft removal of exemptions. QU hers 12 mote dnlormauOn Ranked Sales ,See all tranaamcdann Sale Dale Book/Page Price SM1 la No regent sales on record 2014 Land Information Z�l l.4 Seawall: No Ia Use rzi—, And I a eq 1911 Land Size ()XO Property Appraiser C*wwal Information Frontage None Unit Value Units Total. Adjustments 1000.00 259900 1 ()(XA) 11—k Tnt.1 W.- ac N— View %djusted %slue Method $25.4411 AC DenrPi'IAIM VAhle yvar ('� 1\ i'6J 3 c- C� 4 l.1 All. LVV r1VVLVb L]A \. 1,VJ ;V r ra, VJj 1V1 LVV, P� -JV ti4'a, n++4Vau.raN a. ti- a\aae� $18.50 KEN Bt.JRKE, CLERK GP COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL. BY DEPUTY CLERK: ,LKD 0a pmpived by wo resurn to FREMOM TITLE AGENCY 1465 S Ft. Hanson Avc , Suite 102 Clearwaear, FL 33756 07 -31255 This deed is being recorded to clarify the legal description of the submerged lands that will be retained as part of 625-627 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater, FL QUIT CLAIM DEED y� This Quit Claim Deed is made, executed and entered into this 446 of %(Kintitfia'calk;+r 2f1U7 by and between BAYESPLANADE.COM, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company GRANTOR), a Florida Limited Liability Company. (Hereinafter Gated GRANTEE), whose mailing address is �p_(4ZtJa61 e-� iNi"INESSE'TEI: fa_ That the GRANTOR for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Doiiarsagd9thcr valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledgN, has remi§ezL released, and quit claimed to the said Gmiritee and Grantee's heirs and assigns fnrcver. the 'rullo(Wing described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida, to -wit: ; SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXIHBiT SUBJECT TO Covenants, restrictions, easements of rccpirk6 td faxes Iti+r be c�vrent year V Parcel Identification Number: 05/29/15/54755/078 /0070', ! f TO HAVE AND Tr) HOLD the same, together, with,all and singular t ie appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the es4tt, tight, titlg,`wterr art,iien, equity and i:la im whatsoevei of the said Grantor, either in law or equity, for the Ahm. bcnrrfit aM profit of the said Grantee forever IN WHWESS WHEREOF. the satdO ANTOR has hereunto set his/hct/its hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our pre.Wt4c' . BAYESPLANADE.COM, LLC ncs -- y a Florda Limited Liability Company V (Print Witness Name) Wan William Blackwood AA _ _ w- 'L ,� Kai 6 Managing Member ( nkWAn s "l'itgilxe) STATE,OE The foregoing instrument was acknowledgcd before me thislay of _� 2007, by William Blackwood as Managing Member of Bayesplanade.com, LLC. % N ARY PUBLIC My {'omen. 6xpireA' N>f� %UCK%- *4, �*oti�.•..r�,o Pemonally Known OR Produced Identification ✓ I ypc of ldcntification Produced �1G t-� 1, b; � 3 F w5r2015 August 16, 2015 Registered On August 16, 2003 Updated On April 23, 2013 Name Servers Bayesplanade.com Wt)6s Lookup - Who.is - Who,is ns 1. magnetic. corn (/nameserver/ns 1. magnetic com/) ns2. magnetic. corn (/nameserver/nsZ magnetic. com/) Raw Registrar Data Domain Name: BAYESPLANADE.COM Registry Domain ID: 102157363 DOMAIN COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois tucows.com Registrar URL: http://tucowsdoniains.com Updated Date: 2013-04-23T20:44:05Z Creation Date: 2003-08-16T14:42:38Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-08-16Tl4:42:387. Registrar: TUCOWS, INC. Registrar IANA ID: 69 Registrar Abuse Contact Email; djonairtabuse@tUCOW3.com Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4165350123 Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: William Blackwood Registrant Organization: BayEsplanade.com, LLC Registrant Street: 627 Bay Esplanade Registrant City: Clearwater Registrant State/Province: FL Registrant Postal Code: 33767 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: il.'12i4472503 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: wb1ackuo@tampahay.rr.,-om Regis-try Admin ID: Admin Name: William Blackwood A dirL i n ()tganizatioii: BayEsplanade.corn, LLC Auto in ,street: 627 Bay Esplanade AdmIn City: Clearwater Admin State/Province: Fl, Admin Postal Code: 33767 Anthony T. Piernick 805 Bay Esplanade Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 -1302 727.443,7750 Date: 12 November 2013 Subject: Notice of Objection, FLS2013- 08027, APP2013- 00402, Re: 801 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach, Florida `1'o: Community Development Board, City of Clearwater, Florida Dear Members of the Board; The below signed are entitled to "Party Status ", and should be so granted, by virtue of the fact they are adjacent property owners and stand to be substantially affected. This letter is in response to your notice of the appeal of the decision of the Community Development Coordinator by William Blackwood, in Re: 801 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach Florida, (Case No. FLS2013- 48027, APP2013- 00002), and to express continuing extreme opposition, serious objection, and disapproval of the proposed project of Mr. Blackwood. We have lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years. For at least the last 40 years (we 35+ years at the same above residence) the residents of this neighborhood (the initial 800 block of Bay Esplanade and the surrounding area of the "Triangle Park ") have enjoyed peace and harmony, and "quiet enjoyment" of their respective properties amongst a continuously evolving community of delightful neighbors. No More. Mr. Blackwood has earned the dubious honor of upsetting this community tranquility by his incessant and repeated efforts to stuff this heinous project down the throats of his objecting neighbors, ignoring and disregarding their objections and disapprovals, and heedlessly neglecting the fact that City Boards and officials have pointed out to him his plans and desires ridiculously exceed those permitted by law, code and regulation. He causes extreme unrest, apprehension and discomfort in the community, not to mention wasted time and concern (and possible costs and expenses). He endeavors to cajole the government to permit his fantasy wharf by repetition, hoping for attrition and acceptance by "making him go away'; he wishes for the City to ignore its own rules and regulations,. enacted for the benefit and betterment of the community as a whole, and in particular, enacted to prohibit this type of flagrant violation from appearing in different forms on every lot in the city. "Wharff" is not a lightly utilized term. The proposed structure more closely resembles a structure found in a commercial setting, rather than a residential enclave, and most certainly greatly exceeding anything found in the immediate residential area. It gives rise to speculation of the true ulterior motives ofthe proposer, is it his intention to lease dockage or slips to others? is it his intention to entice wealthy out- of- oowners with large yachts to temporarily rent his premise (either existing or _yet to be built) and have space to i-1 o- park their large vessels? Is he to become another of these "vacation short term renters" with a large dock space (after all, he does seem to be in the hotel or motel business)? The length of this proposed new structure is 234% greater than that allowed by code and regulation. The width of the proposed structure is 200% greater than that allowed by cede and regulation. This is all more than twice the amount allowed. The south side setback is reduced to 35% of its required spacing, and the north side setback is reduced to 64% of its required allowance. Access to any portion (the greatest majority of it) of the structure other than its extreme end by anything larger than a canoe will require encroachment onto the waters of the adjoining property owners. It is inconceivable that Mr. Blackwood would continue to press for these excesses time after time, level after level. The only way he may be permitted to exceed the code requirements is by variance. He has little or no basis or right for any variance whatsoever. He most certainly has done nothing to engender the support of his neighbors or fellow community members. He has mere riparian rights to his property; he does not own the land under the structure he is proposing to build, as opposed to some of his neighbors. (See Exhibits "A ", "B ", and "C" attached). The variance he wants greatly exceeds code allowances, and he refuses to take no for an answer. If Mr. Blackwood desires such a structure in a residential area, he needs to sell or otherwise dispose of this property, and look to another part of the County or State where he might be able to rind a residential property of sufficient size and waterfront to allow him to legally build his desired dock. We strongly request the Board to reject and firmly deny this appeal. Mkxj( e L. Piernick