01/03/1992 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER
January 3, 1992 - 10:10 a.m.
Jack and Sophia Vasilaros vs. City of Clearwater
and Don Curtis Pierson - V 91-54
Hearing Officer: Veronica E. Donnelly
Also Present: Miles A. Lance, Esquire, Assistant City Attorney
Scott Shuford, City of Clearwater Planning Manager
Gwen J. Legters, Staff Assistant II
Issue: Petitioners contest the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board to grant variances to Don Curtis Pierson as follows: 1) 15 feet to permit construction of a triplex
10 feet from a street right-of-way and 2) 2 ft to permit construction of a triplex 6 ft from a side property line at 7 Heilwood St, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, Blk 6, Lot 3 and
part of Lot 2, zoned RM-20 per RM 12 (multiple family residential). V 91-54. DOAA Case No. 91-006190.
Appearances: John T. Blakely, Esquire, Representing Petitioners
George W. Greer, Esquire, Representing Respondent
Jack and Sophia Vasilaros, Petitioners
Don C. Pierson, Respondent
Exhibits Submitted: Six additional photographs, a survey of the Pierson property, a copy of a Staff report to the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) recommending denial of variances,
orders of Hearing Officers on prior proceedings regarding the same issues in 1983, 1984, and 1990, and copies of Sections 131.058 and 131.059 of the City's Code.
A question was raised with regard to the order of proceedings. Hearing Officer Donnelly determined new evidence and rebuttal by Mr. Pierson will be allowed.
During opening remarks, a history of the Pierson/Vasilaros dispute was discussed. Mr. and Mrs. Vasilaros own a residence immediately adjacent to the Pierson property.
Don C. Pierson, responding to questions from Mr. Blakely, stated he has enjoyed the benefits of the existing duplex. He wishes to convert his building to a triplex in order to reside
in one unit, and lease the other two, using the earnings to supplement his retirement income. It was indicated the existing duplex has 2,400 square feet of living space and the Code
requires each triplex unit have not less than 550 square feet; therefore, Mr. Pierson could construct a triplex without variances if each unit were smaller in size than what he proposes.
Mr. Pierson did not agree that interior walls might be reconfigured to convert his building to a triplex.
Upon cross-examination by Mr. Greer, Mr. Pierson stated his situation is unique due to being unfairly impacted by the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) restricting his use of
85 percent of his property. He feels building closer to the street right-of-way would help control beach traffic currently driving and parking on his property.
Scott Shuford, in response to questions, indicated the CCCL affects properties differently, having a greater impact on properties located farther north. He indicated Mr. Pierson's property
is substantially affected.
Jack Vasilaros testified any enlargement of the Pierson duplex would obstruct his view of the water, afternoon sunlight, ventilation of breezes and substantially diminish the value of
his property.
The Hearing Officer afforded the opportunity to submit closing statements in writing; however, both attorneys preferred to give oral closings.
Mr. Blakely concluded this request meets none of the standards for approval and there is no substantial competent evidence to support granting the requested variances.
Mr. Greer indicated Mr. Pierson is not able to use land impacted by the CCCL. He stated this request is not primarily based on financial return, that Mr. Pierson only wishes to make
reasonable use of his property. He indicated the proposed addition will not further obstruct light or air nor affect public health or safety. Mr. Greer feels the requested variances
uphold the spirit and intent of the Code and should be granted.
The Hearing Officer requested a copy of the verbatim tape and indicated the proposed recommend ed orders from the attorneys are due to be postmarked within 10 days from the date of this
hearing. She stated the applicant will be notified in writing of her decision within 30 days from the date of this hearing.
The hearing was adjourned at 12:00 noon.