07/16/2019
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 16, 2019
Present: Chair Michael Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz, Board
Member Mary A. Lau, Board Member Mike Flanery, Board Member John Quattrocki,
Board Member Jordan Behar, Acting Board Member Elizabeth Van Scoyoc
Absent: Board Member Brian Barker
Also Present - Jay Daigneault – Attorney for the Board, Michael Fuino – Assistant City
Attorney, Gina Clayton - Interim Planning & Development Director, Ellen Crandall -
Development Review Manager, Patricia O. Sullivan – Board Reporter
A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at the Main Library followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 18, 2019
Member Flanery moved to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2019 Community
Development Board meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
D. CITIZES TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Mayor George Cretekos thanked the Board and staff for their efforts at the June 25,
2019 Special Meeting and thanked the neighborhood for their organization and high
standards of decorum.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant,
staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote
at the beginning of the meeting: (Items 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2019-04012 – 500 North Osceola Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: Harbor Bluffs Waterfront Condo Assn. Inc.
Agent: Joe Burdette and Kurt Enget; Jonnatti Architecture, Inc. (615 Pineland Avenue,
Belleair, FL 33756; phone: (727) 458-4528; email: joeburdette@outlook.com)
Location: 1.832 acres located at the northwest corner of North Osceola Avenue and
Georgia Street.
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing an application for
termination of status of nonconformity including density of 92 attached dwelling units
Community Development 2019-07-16 1
where 52 attached dwelling units are able to be permitted, height of 118 feet where 55
feet is able to be permitted, setbacks and the location of accessory structures and
providing a minimum of 92 off-street parking spaces in the Downtown (D) District for the
property located at 500 North Osceola Avenue. The project requests allowable flexibility
from landscape requirements (Community Development Code Sections 6-109.C and 3-
1202.G).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
Member Lau moved to approve Case FLD2019-04012 on today’s Consent Agenda
based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report,
with conditions of approval as listed. Members Anuszkiewicz, Lau, Flanery, Quattrocki,
Chair Boutzoukas and Acting Member Van Scoyoc voted “Aye”; Member Behar
abstained. Motion carried.
2. Case: FLD2019-04009 – 1200 Rogers Street Level Two Application
Owner: Patricia P. Meek TRE
Agent: Sandra Lee Bradbury, Northside Engineering, Inc. (300 South Belcher Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: (727) 443-2869; email: sandy@northsideengineering.net)
Location: 0.155 acre located on the north side of Rogers Street on the northeast corner
of the South Missouri Avenue and Rogers Street intersection.
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a 4,166 square-foot
off-street parking lot in the Commercial (C) District for the property located at 1200
Rogers Street. The project consists of 10 off-street parking spaces, and requests
allowable flexibility from lot width, lot area, setback requirements, and landscape
requirements (Sections 2-704.F and 3-1202.G).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Senior Planner
See below for motion of approval.
3. Case: FLD2019-04011– 801 Chestnut Street Level Two Application
Owner: FT Clearwater, LLC
Agent: Robert Pergolizzi, Gulf Coast Consulting (13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605,
Clearwater, FL 33760; email: pergo@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com)
Location: 2.304 acres located on the southeast corner at the South Myrtle Avenue and
Chestnut Street intersection.
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing an application for a
termination of status as a nonconformity including density of 208 attached dwelling units
where 172 attached dwelling units are able to be permitted, height of 150 feet where 75
feet is able to be permitted and providing 90 off-street parking spaces in the Downtown
Community Development 2019-07-16 2
(D) District for the property located at 801 Chestnut Street. The project requests
allowable flexibility from the landscape requirements (Community Development Code
Sections 6-109.C and 3-1202.G).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Member Lau moved to approve Cases FLD2019-04009 and FLD2019-04011 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the
Staff Reports, and here by adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in
the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2019-04007/TDR2019-04001 – 26489 US Highway 19 North (TDR
receiving site and development site); 2515 Countryside Boulevard (TDR sending site)
Owner: U.S. Happy Homes, Inc. (TDR receiving site); 2515 Countryside Boulevard, LLC
(TDR sending site)
Agent: Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq; Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A (625 Court
Street, Suite 200, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: (727) 444-1403; email:
bja@macfar.com)
Location: 26489 US Highway 19 North; 0.813 acre located on the east side of US
Highway 19 North approximately 700 feet south of Countryside Boulevard (TDR
receiving site); 2515 Countryside Boulevard; 1.177 acres located at the southwest
corner of Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road (TDR sending site).
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a request for a
93,083 square-foot Self Storage use and 2,838 square-feet of required non-storage use
for the property located at 26489 US Highway 19 North (Community Development Code
\[CDC\] Appendix B Section B-303) and the use of Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR2019-04001) (11,000 square-feet) (CDC Section 4-1403). The project will be 68
feet in height and will include 14 parking spaces.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
Member Anuszkiewicz declared a conflict of interest.
Member Quattrocki moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2019-07-16 3
Senior Planner Mark Parry reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant agreed to a change
to Condition of Approval 17; stub outs will be required on the north and east property
borders to meet US 19 Zoning District requirements and allow for cross access when
future redevelopment of abutting properties occurs. The City did not have the ability to
force a cross access agreement between property owners at this time.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said the CDB (Community Development Board)
had voted against recommending to City Council a Community Development Code text
amendment to expand the allowance of self-storage warehouses as a Flexible Standard
Use to the Regional Center Subdistrict of the U.S. 19 Zoning District; the City Council
later approved the text amendment.
Attorney Brian Aungst, representing the applicant, distributed packets and requested
the Board accept expert witnesses.
Member Lau moved to accept Chris Anuszkiewicz as an expert witness in the fields of
landscape architecture, urban design, master planning, and arborist consultation. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Quattrocki moved to accept Michael Yates as an expert witness in the fields of
transportation planning and traffic impact, trip characteristic, and parking studies. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Behar moved to accept Michael Costello as an expert witness in the fields of
civil engineering and land development design. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Member Behar moved to accept Chris Culbertson as an expert witness in the fields of
architecture, construction, renovation projects, and marketing. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Attorney Aungst reviewed the limited self-storage and active retail and office use
project. He said property owners of the Pizza Inn across the street, the other site
affected by the November 2018 text amendment, were not interested in redevelopment
at this time. He said the applicant was not requesting flexibility; the proposed 68-foot
building height was less than the maximum 150 feet allowed.
Attorney Aungst said only Dick’s Sporting Goods had objections: 1) rear access -
applicant clarified the proposed development would not have access to Dick’s Sporting
Goods’ property; 2) traffic - self-storage had the lowest traffic use in the City; 3) visibility
- the development’s height was lower than allowed, the Code did not consider views,
and the development would not block the retail store’s monument sign as the new
structure would be setback 15 feet farther from the road than the current building. He
said Dick’s Sporting Good’s concerns were not legitimate. He said redeveloping the
blighted property would increase surrounding property values.
Community Development 2019-07-16 4
Michael Yates, representing the applicant, said the development would have 364 less
daily trips than the former restaurant use and an office use would significantly increase
the daily trip count.
Chris Culbertson, representing the applicant, said the project complied with the U.S. 19
Zoning District with a building height that was less than half of what was allowed.
Michael Costello, representing the applicant, said the height and visibility of Dick’s
Sporting Goods were not before the Board. He said both properties were on a frontage
road abutting an overpass. He said the rear of Dick’s Sporting Goods and the shopping
center did not have windows overlooking the subject site. He said the concerns
expressed by Dick’s Sporting Goods and the shopping center were not persuasive.
In response to a question re access to the storage-facility by a vehicle towing a trailer,
Mr. Costello referenced exhibits for single unit, 30-foot vehicles, which would enter the
property and pull into the rear loading area by the entry lobby and elevator. He said the
property would not require a slow-down lane as vehicles would turn directly onto the site
without passing through a gate. He said City Engineering staff had reviewed the site
plan and access maneuver.
Alex Evans, with Weingarten Realty, said Dick’s Sporting Goods objected to the height
of the proposed development to protect the Countryside Centre Shopping Center and its
tenants. He said the project’s height should conform with current development.
John Haggerty, with Weingarten Realty, said the applicant’s photograph of the site was
misleading; he said the structure would block the view corridor and cause customers to
drive past the frontage road entrance to Dick’s Sporting Goods and the shopping center,
especially at night.
Interim Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said the City Council had not
vetted the site plan when they approved the text amendment.
Attorney Aungst said the shopping center fronted Countryside Boulevard and did not
have a rear entrance. He said Dick’s Sporting Goods’ representative arguments were
not persuasive and should not be considered. He said the project represented the type
of development envisioned in the U.S. 19 Zoning District. He thanked the Dick’s
Sporting Goods’ representatives for being proactive re their concerns.
Member Behar moved to approve Case FLD2019-04007/TDR2019-04001 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the
Staff Report with conditions of approval as listed and modification of Condition 17 to
read “That, prior to the issuance of any permits except for clearing and grubbing,
demolition or the provision of fill, a revised site plan (currently Sheet C-4) be submitted
to and approved by Staff which eliminates, at the northeast driveway, the shown stop
bar and stop sign and adds a note that the driveway constitutes a future cross access
Community Development 2019-07-16 5
point.” The motion was duly seconded. Members Lau, Flanery, Quattrocki, Behar, Chair
Boutzoukas and Acting Member Van Scoyoc voted “Aye”; Member Anuszkiewicz
abstained. Motion carried.
G. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. Meeting Procedures: Section 2, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, Cross Examination of
witnesses by Persons with Party Status
Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault said a cross examination time limit was not
included in the latest CDB (Community Development Board) Rules of Procedure
update. Due process needed to be satisfied and participants needed a full and fair
opportunity to be heard. The cross-examination process was difficult and confusing for
Party Status holders without legal representation. He suggested creating a handout to
help guide Party Status holders and provide them a better understanding of the scope
of a cross-examination. He suggested a reasonable time limit could be established.
Discussion ensued with comments that due process was important, cross examinations
usually had no time limits as lengthy answers could take up all of a questioner’s time,
attendees needed to be informed in advance if time limits are imposed, and the Board
could have the discretion to extend time limits. A 15 - 20 minute time limit was
suggested to encourage cross examiners to stay on point as one recent cross examiner
meandered, filibustered, and rehashed material for more than an hour. Concern was
expressed that time limits hurt residents without legal representation. It was commented
that attendees at a recent special meeting were passionate and all were heard. It was
stated that speakers in large crowds often repeat the same point.
It was suggested the procedure require all qualified parties to cross examine one
witness at a time so resulting testimony is not disjointed. Recommendations for a
handout included an explanation of the cross examination process, what was
permissible, that permissible questions were tied to testimony, possible time limits,
Party Status information, including the right to appeal, and meeting decorum as several
attendees at a recent meeting breathed loudly and/or applauded during testimony. It
was recommended the handout be posted on the City’s website and available in
Chambers before meetings. It was suggested that notices of hearing include a link to
the handout and that residents requesting Party Status be required to verify that they
had read it.
Concern was expressed that interested parties may not have known a controversial
case was being decided at a special meeting instead of at a regularly scheduled one. It
was stated the CDB could better focus on a single disputed case at a special meeting
than be distracted by other cases at a regular meeting. It was suggested the one week
delay provided more time for resident preparation.
Attorney Daigneault expressed confidence that a court review of the recent special
meeting would not find any due process omissions. He stated the cross examination
Community Development 2019-07-16 6
process had only been problematic twice in the past 5 to 6 years and the Board could
clamp down if it became a frequent problem. He suggested limiting cross examinations
to a maximum 30 minutes. He recommended the handout avoid the impression of giving
legal advice and agreed it could be posted on the City's website, though probably few
would review it there. He said the community needed to be aware that facts were more
important than passion and enlisting an expert may be the best way for residents to
present cohesive arguments.
Concern was expressed that the CDB had not had a training session in years. It was
questioned if members were responsible for protecting the City or representing the good
of the City and its image, the wishes of residents, or the City's quality of life. Concern
was expressed that hearings seemed to be weighted in favor of applicants while
residents without the wherewithal to hire attorneys or create accurate exhibits were
unfairly pitted against experts. It was felt the City should help residents present their
perspectives against developers who stood to benefit financially.
It was stated the CDB filled in gaps in staff expertise and could provide insight into
interpreting the building code. It was recommended that residents protect themselves
when zoning changes are considered. It was indicated the Board's job was narrow and
members needed to base decisions on zoning district development standards and
competent substantial evidence, not resident passions. It was stated it was difficult for
untrained members of the public to compete with certified experts.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Fuino said board members needed to apply the Code to
presented evidence and could not go outside the Code. He expressed concern that
members not view themselves as advocates as decisions not based on case law may
be subject to successful appeals.
Ms. Clayton said for the recent special meeting, staff provided all interested residents
information re the process, all submitted materials, encouraged their participation, and
contacted all residents who had emailed the City when a newspaper article contained a
factual error. Staff also told the developer that they needed to talk to and work with the
neighborhood. Staffs job was not to represent neighborhoods but to make Code based
recommendations to the CDB, who could choose to accept or reject them.
H. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
Attest:
B• and Repo
Community Development 2019-07-16
Chair — Community D= 'elopment Board
7
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
S rE—F R NAME—MIDDLE NAME
MAIL NG AD ESSA �7 A 1('t LA` WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OFCITY/�/"v• 1 CCOUN
ei-t4IvK/F1 LJV V
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
GD
DATE ON ICH VO OCCURRED
THE BOARD, COU COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
❑ CITY ❑ COUNTY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
MY POSITION IS:
0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of govemment on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of
interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
would inure to his or her special private gain or Toss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or Toss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or Toss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or Toss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative* includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
* *
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,
whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
*
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, i15 f-S2)'JA. l/I(L
, hereby disclose that on
7/14
, 20
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more)
Y. inured to my special private gain or Toss; L1 -114116r:41 ?� �I�.& t ?C'
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative
inured to the special gain or loss of , by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or Toss of , which
is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules goveming attorneys, a public officer,
who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict.
Date Filed
1/1 1-)m
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE AN . .IRED D1SCL+SURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLL• ING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 813 - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME
c.SvZ-fl V — Tcc DIN
MAILING ADDRESS
4190 --E)+4-`C WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY
�tJV+Sc �W CCT �Z 12—
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
3--/4 •
COUNTY
Pt 1-..%
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
THE BOARD. COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
CITY Li COUNTY
NAME OF POUTICAL SUBDIVISION:
MY POSITION IS:
❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
0 ELECTIVE ay(APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of govemment on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of
interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
would inure to his or her special private gain or Toss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or Toss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or Toss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a 'relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publidy stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,
whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 11/2013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
'2"4"—) t_ A 2 ---hereby disclose that on -1 4 • )4;:f , 20
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or Toss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of , by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of , which
is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
Ht.`i f1e-i-N w ('r -: -e1,-3,e- e
P>;l NA A \L t N (f k c vk-rd a 0► 1 E \ rn i► -k t vJ
OkiPN�t-� - Cor zM rrl•
FL° -.7 —c 17
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules goveming attorneys, a public officer,
who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict.
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1112013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.C.
PAGE 2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOU'YH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Interim Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items July 16, 2019
DATE: July 11, 2019
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 18, 2019
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2019-04012 — 500 North Osceola Avenue
Presenter: ark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
2. Case: FLD2019-04007/TDR2019-04001 — 26489 US Highway 19 (TDR Receiving site and development
site); 2515 Countryside Blvd (TDR sending site)
Presenter: Mark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
3. Case: FLD2019-04009 —1200 Rogers Street
Presenter: vin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes: J No:
4. Case: FLD2019-04011-801 Chestnut Street
Presenter:,Kevin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes:
I have conducted a
No:
er
nal invest'
rsonal site visit to the followin
ro
erties.
Si: Z Date: 7/(o/2,s/
Print Name: Di / t C L%0 c I % /q iref
nat re:
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Analyst
CITY OF CLEARWATER
CL ARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, NT, POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARW:TTER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEAR\PATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Interim Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items July 16, 2019
DATE: July 11, 2019
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 18, 2019
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2019-04012 — 500 North Osceola Avenue
Presen/teer: Mark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes: 2 No:
2. Case: FLD2019-04007/TDR2019-04001 — 26489 US Highway 19 (TDR Receiving site and development
site); 2515 Countryside Blvd (TDR sending site)
Presenter: Mark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
3. Case: FLD2019-04009 —1200 Rogers Street
Presenter: Kevin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
4. Case: FLD2019-04011-801 Chestnut Street
Presenter: Kevin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes:
No:
I have conducted a •erso . inves
Si_ nature:
e • enal site visit to the followin: • ro
erties.
Date: "1-\t-0 ' 9
Print Name:
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Analyst
CITY OF CLEARWATER
CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Interim Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items July 16, 2019
DATE: July 11, 2019
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 18, 2019
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2019-04012 — 500 North Osceola Avenue
Presenter: ark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes:
No:
2. Case: FLD2019-04007/TDR2019-04001 — 26489 US Highway 19 (TDR Receiving site and development
site); 2515 Countryside Blvd (TDR sending site)
Presenter: ark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes:
No:
3. Case: FLD2019-04009 —1200 Rogers Street
Presenter evin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes:
No:
4. Case: FLD20 -04011-801 Chestnut Street
Presente Kevin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
I have conducte
Signature:
Print Name:ar La J
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administ ve Analyst
ation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Date: (C' — 2-0 (1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, POST ()RICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL, SERVICES BUILDING. 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLF AR\C'ATER, FLORIDA 33756
TPI.EPHONE (727) 562-4567
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Interim Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items July 16, 2019
DATE: July 11, 2019
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes ofJune 18, 2019
Level Two Applications (Items 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2019-04012 — 500 North Osceola Avenue
Presenter: Mark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes: V No:
2. Case: FLD2019-04007/TDR2019-04001 — 26489 US Highway 19 (TDR Receiving site and development
site); 2515 Countryside Blvd (TDR sending site)
Presenter: ark Parry, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
3. Case: FLD2019-04009 —1200 Rogers Street
Presenter: Kevin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
4. Case: FLD2019-04011-801 Chestnut Street
Presenter: vin Nurnberger, Senior Planner
Yes: V No:
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature:
Print Name: Va4C--
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Analyst
Date: c7/13/Zvi