04/21/1988 - 11:07 AM PUBLIC HEARING
April 21, 1988
11:07 a.m.
*Present:*
J. Lawrence Johnson, Hearing Officer
*Also present:*
John Richter, Planning Official
Susan Stephenson, Deputy City Clerk
*Issue:* Fred Thomas for variances 1) of 9% open space to provide 26%
for lot and 2) of 40% open space to provide 0% for front yard, 730 Eldorado Ave, Mandalay Sub, Blk 2, Lot 8, zoned RS 8 (single family residential).
*Case No. 88 1191*
*Appearances:*
Fred Thomas, representing himself
Don Williams, architect representing the appellant Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney, representing the City of Clearwater
*Exhibits submitted by City:*
Exhibit #1 Notices of Public Hearing of 1/28/88 and 2/11/88 Exhibit #2 Excerpt of minutes of Development Code Adjustment Board meetings of 1/28/88 and 2/11/88
Exhibit #3 Appeal dated 2/18/88 Exhibit #4 Variance request and application Exhibit #5 Drawing and/or maps
Exhibit #6 Variance transmittal
Exhibit #7 Verbatim tape of hearing on Fred Thomas Exhibit #8 Four letters for approval and one letter in opposition
*Appellant's exhibits submitted:*
Composite Exhibit #1 Several photos of homes in the area
Donald Williams stated renovations began some time ago and during this period, the appellant decided to replace the concrete front yard with brick pavers. He thought the removal of
the concrete was included under the building permit for the renovations. He did not realize there was a problem until after the concrete was removed and a stop work order was issued.
He now needs a variance to replace the paved area. His entire front yard is only 600 square feet and, at the variance hearing in January, no landscaping was proposed. The Board continued
the request to allow the applicant to return with a lesser variance. In February he proposed 12% landscaping in the front yard which was denied and is the subject of this hearing. The
denial of this variance left him with no way to get vehicles into his garage as he has no driveway. During cross examination
by the Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Williams stated he became involved with the renovation in November, 1987, after it was well underway. When the house was built 30 years ago, there
was only a ten foot setback required. On March 10th, he again appeared before the Devlopment Code Adjustment Board with a revised variance request. This allowed him a driveway to his
garage and a sidewalk entrance to the house. He does not feel the applicant has reasonable use of his property.
Fred Thomas stated 100% of his front yard was concrete for 30 years. During renovations to the house, the concrete cracked and he decided to remove it. The concrete had no permeability
but the brick pavers he proposes to use will. The neighbors decided they did not wish on street parking and requested the City place signs along the roadway stating that parking on the
street is not allowed. If he is not granted the variance, he has no place for guests to park their cars. Someone in the Building Department told him if he had obtained a permit prior
to removing the concrete, he would have been able to replace it. He advised the Hearing Officer that there is current litigation with the City regarding the house itself. If he is not
permitted to put in additional concrete other than the driveway and sidewalk, it creates a hardship because there is no place for his guests to park without blocking his garage.
One citizen spoke in support stating that in the eleven years he has been there, the entire yard has been concrete. There are parking problems and the police do issue tickets for on street
parking.
The Planning Official stated this area has some of the smallest single family lots in the City and the structure is nonconforming. The Land Development Code states that nonconformities
may continue to exist but are not to be extended. In response to a question, he stated the purpose of requiring open space is for aesthetic purposes and ground water recharge. It is
his opinion that cars can be parked along the side of the house if trees and shrubs are not planted to obstruct access. There is no requirement that open space be landscaped and sod
would be sufficient in this area. If the appellant had requested a variance to the front yard setback, the front yard area would have been computed by subtracting the portion of the
home that intrudes into the setback. Because no variance was requested for the front setback, the front yard area is computed based on the setback line and the width of the property.
He stated
nonconformities as to setback and open space are common occurences on the north end of Clearwater Beach.
In closing, the Assistant City Attorney stated the applicant has been before the Board several times and in March was granted access to the house and garage. The Board has been reasonable
and the appellant has reasonable use of the property. There are no grounds for overturning the Development Code Adjustment Board's decision.
In his closing statement, Mr. Williams stated a variance should be granted to allow Mr. Thomas to pave an additional 100 square feet to minimize the hardship on the property. It is
unacceptable to drive on the landscaping to reach the area along the side of the house.
The Hearing Officer advised that any proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and proposed orders should be submitted within fifteen days.
The meeting adjourned at 12:48 p.m.