Loading...
10/18/1988 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1988 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Vice Chairman Hogan, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, and Schwob Also present: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Members Absent: Chairman Johnson A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the minutes of the October 4, 1988 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). Vice Chairman Hogan outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, with regard to conditional uses, has two weeks from this date in which to file an appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED IN THAT ORDER. B. Conditional Uses: 1. Lot 79, Ambleside 2nd Add. (585 Casler Avenue) Edwin & Nina Foster CU 88-86 Request - Level I Group Care (Increase from 5 to 8 cared for adults) Zoned - RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for Level I Group Care, specifically an Adult Congregate Living Facility in the Single Family Residential "Eight" zoning district; the specific request is to increase the number of persons cared for from 5 to 8 people; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(14); the Traffic Engineer had no objection; and, 4 parking spaces are required, 2 have been provided and applicant is requesting a variance of 2 spaces. Ms. Harvey stated the variance is scheduled to be heard by the Development Code Adjustment Board on October 27, 1988. She also stated the variance was applied for at the staff's suggestion because this Board felt ACLF's should expand in such a way so as to retain the residential character of the neighborhood. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; and 2) That the license from HRS for 8 persons be obtained within 6 months. Mr. Edwin Foster, applicant stated the existing ACLF is licensed for 5 people and he wants to expand to 8 persons because of the need for such facilities. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Foster advised as follows: He received his license from HRS in March, 1988 and began operation in May, 1988; he and his wife supervise the operation and have attendants present during the day; he intends to have 2 people on 48-hour shifts but if there is a live-in attendant, there will be 7 cared-for individuals; the average age of the residents is 80 years; transportation is provided for the residents to doctor's appointments which usually number one or two a month; no residents have automobiles; and, families of residents reside in the area and visit residents on the average of one time a week. Ms. Harvey advised that one letter of opposition was received from a neighboring resident. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments: Mrs. Woodard Steppe, daughter of property owner of 621 Casler Avenue, stated the area is a strictly residential neighborhood and cars should be parked in the garage. After questioning by Board members, Mrs. Steppe advised as follows: Her main objection is cars being parked outside; she has not noticed lately if cars have been parked at the subject location; and, the current facility looks very nice. Mrs. Steppe felt the ACLF is a commercial use since it is a money-making operation. In rebuttal, Mr. Foster stated the property is large enough to support 8 people without remodeling the garage. He also stated that staff usually parks in the garage, but sometimes parks in the driveway or on the street. Mr. Foster stated that other cars are parked in the street and he felt the facility is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Ferrell felt it is a plus that the staff can park in the garage. Mr. Hogan stated he drove by the facility and it didn't look any different from the other properties in the neighborhood. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; and 2) That the license from HRS for 8 persons be obtained within 6 months. Ms. Harvey suggested the Board may want to consider adding a condition specifically limiting the total number of persons allowed to reside in the house. Amended motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; 2) That the license from HRS for 8 persons be obtained within 6 months; and 3) That a total of eight (8) persons are permitted to reside in the house. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. M&Bs 21.00, 23.01, 23.02, 23.10, 23.11, 24.05, Sec. 17-29S-16E (430 Park Place Boulevard, #500) Gulf Bay Venture & MDC Assoc. 81-A, Ltd. (Mattie's Seafood & Grille, Inc.)/Matthew Tiernan CU 88-87 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages located in the commercial area of the Park Place Development and zoned Commercial Center; the specific request is for a change in license designation from a 2-COP license to a 4-COP-SRX which requires 51% food sales; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no comments; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no variance to the separation distance will be required. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new Occupational License be procured within six months; and 2) That the new alcoholic beverage license be procured within 6 months. Mr. Matthew Tiernan, applicant, stated he wants to have a full service seafood and grill and wants to serve alcoholic beverages to accompany the menu. He felt he met all the criteria of the Land Development Code without requesting any variances. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Tiernan advised as follows: He operated Julie's restaurant on Clearwater Beach for 6 years; he is familiar with the 51% food requirements; he will have outside dining; and, there will be no outside entertainment. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new Occupational License be procured within six months; and 2) That the new alcoholic beverage license be procured within 6 months. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 3. M&B 33.05, Sec. 05-29S-16E (1715 Coachman Plaza Drive) Steve Simotes (B&M Beverage Center, Inc.)/Herschel McNees CU 88-88 Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Mr. Green announced a conflict of interest (form attached) in regard to the above applicant and stated he would not vote on the above request. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Highway Commercial zoning district; the specific State license being applied for is a 2-APS license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the applicant proposes to reopen a vacant convenience store; the Traffic Engineer had no comments; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license. Ms. Harvey stated no variance to the separation distance will be required. Ms.Harvey advised that staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months; and 2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months. Mr. Herschel McNees, applicant, stated he plans to reopen an existing convenience store which has been closed for about 4 months. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. McNees stated he has been self-employed for 18 years and he will be supervising the operation. Mr. McNees stated he also owns the window tinting business next door. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months; and 2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months. Motion carried (5 to 0) with Mr. Green abstaining. 4. Lots 10 & 11, Blk. 14, Country Club Add. (509 North Prescott Avenue) Diane Hearing/M. Jane Roberts CU 88-89 Request - Level I Group Care (Increase of 5 to 8 cared for adults) Zoned - RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for Level I Group Care, specifically an Adult Congregate Living Facility in the Single Family Residential "Eight" zoning district; the specific request is to increase the number of persons cared for from 5 to 8 people; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(14); the Traffic Engineer had no objection; and, 4 parking spaces are required, 2 have been provided and applicant is requesting a variance of 2 spaces. Ms. Harvey stated the variance is scheduled to be heard by the Development Code Adjustment Board on October 27, 1988. She also stated the variance was applied for at the staff's suggestion because this Board felt ACLF's should expand in such a way so as to retain the residential character of the neighborhood. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; and 2) That the license from HRS for 8 persons be obtained within 6 months. Ms. Margaret Jane Roberts, applicant, stated she is requesting an increase of cared for individuals from 5 to 8. She also stated an existing one story cottage will be attached to the house. She further stated the driveway will be widened to accommodate 2 vehicles and she is requesting a variance of 2 parking spaces in order to retain the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Roberts stated the facility is not in operation at this time, she has 15 years experience as a nurses aide and 6 years as a State certified nurses aide, and there will be no live-in supervisor but 24 hour care will be provided. Ms. Harvey advised one letter of objection was received from Ms. Karen Harvey. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments: Mrs. Woodard Steppe, daughter of property owner of 621 Casler Avenue, expressed concern regarding the conversion of garages for use as extra bedrooms and regarding the use of driveways for parking. Ms. Harvey advised that both applicants requesting approval of an ACLF have applied to another Board for parking variances so that the appearance of the property will not change. She added that if that Board did not approve the variances, the applicants would not be permitted the increase in requested residents. Mr. Galbraith further advised that there may be different requirements in deed restrictions than in the City Code and the City does not enforce deed restrictions. After further questioning by Mr. Schwob in regard to the letter of opposition, Ms. Roberts advised she has worked for 15 years as a nurses aide with senior citizens and has worked in home health care for the last 6 years. She added she has been in many ACLFs. Mr. Hogan felt many of the concerns expressed in the letter should be handled by HRS. Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; and 2) That the license from HRS for 8 persons be obtained within 6 months. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 5. M&B 11.01, Sec. 08-29S-16E (2907A S.R. 590, Suite 1) Adamo Investors I, Ltd./ John Nadeau CU 88-90 Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption & Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption and package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district; the property is located in a shopping center adjacent to Mission Hills Condominium; the specific request is for a 2-COP State license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no comment; and the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated a variance to the separation distance from a residential area will be required. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That a variance to the separation requirement be approved by the City Commission; and, 2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months. Mr. John Nadeau, applicant, stated he currently has a restaurant and he is moving to a bigger storeroom within the shopping center. He stated he has been in business for 8 years and he has been at his current location for about 2 1/2 years. He also stated he operates a family style restaurant and caters to a lot of senior citizens. Mr. Nadeau felt the sale of alcoholic beverages would be an asset to his operation. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Nadeau stated he supervises the operation. In support of the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. Andrew Mattyial, stated he has known the applicant for several years and applicant has operated some fine restaurants. Mr. Mattyial felt beer and wine would be an integral part of the operation. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. James Jenkins, 2888 State Road 590, expressed concern that the surrounding area is residential. He stated a convenience store that sold alcoholic beverages was previously located in the subject storeroom and there were problems with noise and drinking in the parking lot. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Jenkins advised as follows: he would like to see neither package sales nor on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages at the subject property; since the convenience store closed the area has been quieter; he lives directly across the street from the subject property; and, at times, there is loud music but no one has complained. Mr. Jenkins felt that if alcoholic beverages are sold, there will be problems. He also felt alcoholic beverages should not be sold in residential areas. In rebuttal, Mr. Nadeau advised the convenience store did draw a lot of traffic and some undesirable elements. He felt if he did not move into the vacant store a convenience store will move in. He stated there had been problems with the convenience store and he wants to avoid those problems. He stated the property owner knows his reputation. He added that the package sale portion of his business will be conducted from a small area where he can also sell bread and milk and similar items. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Nadeau advised as follows: the on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages is his main goal; package sales was requested because of the unique cooler he has in the storeroom; he would not mind giving up package sales but felt he should not be required to; and, hours of operation will be from 11 AM to 10 PM, Monday through Thursday, 11AM to 11 PM Friday and Saturday, and 11AM to 9 PM on Sunday. Mr. Nadeau also advised that he runs a family owned business, he supervises his staff and his operation personally. He stated a lot of his clientele are from Mission Hills or the surrounding area and he has catered to the family restaurant all his life. He stated the reason for package sales is because of the increased overhead. He advised that many of the senior citizens were upset when the convenience store closed. Ms. Nixon expressed concern regarding package sales. Mr. Hamilton felt the applicant had a genuine concern regarding package sales. Mr. Hamilton also felt the applicant seem more concerned about being able to provide milk and bread to area residents than he was concerned about providing package sales of alcoholic beverages. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a variance to the separation requirement be approved by the City Commission; and, 2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months. Motion carried (4 to 2) with Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, and Schwob voting "aye" and Ms. Nixon and Mr. Hogan voting "nay." Ms. Nixon and Mr. Hogan advised the reason they voted against the motion was that, though they are in favor of on premise consumption, they oppose package sales. After questioning by Mr. Jenkins regarding an appeal of the Board's decision, Ms. Harvey advised as follows: An appeal must be filed with the City Clerk to a State Hearing Officer within two weeks; there is a cost involved; and, when the appeal is heard by the Hearing Officer, legal representation is a near necessity, though not a requirement. She also advised Mr. Jenkins could received complete instructions and information from the City Clerk's office. 6. M&B 13.01, Sec. 08-29S-15E (126 Island Way) Helga Glaesel (LaRose Gourmet Restaurant)/Cyprian Enterprises, Inc./Vasos Miltiadou CU 88-91 Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Ms. Harvey advised the above item has been cancelled. The Board recessed at 2:40 PM and reconvened at 2:45 PM. 7. Part Lot 1, Lots 2, 3, 4, 24 & 25, Blk. B, Bayside Sub. No. 5 (630 Gulfview Boulevard South) Elias Anastasopoulos (Jo-Go Amusement Center)/Bill Walters CU 88-92 Request - 1. Outdoor Commercial Recreation/ Entertainment AND 2. Video/Electronic Game Rooms Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: These requests are for outdoor commercial recreation/entertainment and a video/electronic game room in the Beach Commercial zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b), (c)(21), and (c)(29); and, the Traffic Engineer commented that, though he had no objection to the uses, he has concerns regarding parking and driveways and the garage shown on the plan cannot be approved. Ms. Harvey advised the parking does meet the requirements of the Code and, after conversation with the Traffic Engineer, it was determined that the Traffic Engineer's comments came from not being able to tell if there was adequate access from the garage to the facility itself. She also advised the Traffic Engineer's concerns have been answered in regard to the garage. Ms. Harvey advised a preliminary site plan was reviewed by the City Commission and was forwarded to staff for final review subject to the following conditions: Signs and fencing/walls are subject to separate review and permitting processes; Developer must contact Utilities Department to discuss the size, location, orientation and shielding of refuse container; all site data calculations including the applicable formula for parking shall be placed on the final site plan; names of adjoining streets must be placed on the final site plan; final site plan should be kept to a minimum number of sheets by placing more information on the site plan or combining sheets wherever possible; dimensions should be provided on the site plan to identify the setbacks provided for all structures over 12 feet in height, including any structural "mountains"; and, conditional use approval from the Planning and Zoning Board for an expanded outdoor/commercial recreation use. Ms. Harvey also advised that drainage calculations must meet requirements and be provided to the Public Works Department, as well as provide, prior to final approval, copies of applications to D.E.R. and SWFWMD. Ms. Harvey stated the use is already established at the above location and the use is intended to be expanded which expansion has prompted the conditional use request. Ms. Harvey stated there appears to be considerable opposition to the above request for the reasons of noise, lights, boisterous teenagers, etc. She also stated she felt the request would not be a detriment to Clearwater Beach but the City cannot insure the location will not be a teenage hangout. She stated the proposal is to be a tourist/family facility. She stated the Board should question the applicant's mechanism for control and security. She advised there will be no alcoholic beverage sales from the property. She also advised the Board should be concerned with lighting and hours of operation. She stated staff has no objection to the actual use on Clearwater Beach as Clearwater Beach is primarily a tourist and family oriented community. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommends approval of the conditional uses with conditions the Board feels would be appropriate for addressing concerns noted in letters of opposition. Mr. Elias Anastasopoulos, property owner and applicant, stated he purchased the subject property 3 years ago. He stated the property needs to be remodeled and he wants to improve and upgrade the facility. He advised most of his business is only from 6:00 PM and he currently provides miniature golf and use of a video game room. He also advised that most of the motels around the subject property are in agreement and felt the proposal would be an asset to the area. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Anastasopoulos advised his hours of operation would be from 9:00 AM to 11:30 PM, there will be no alcoholic beverages on the property, there will be no music, and the operation is family controlled. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Anastasopoulos advised he will expand into the adjacent property and part of the expansion is for use as a parking lot. After further questioning by Board members, Mr. Bill Walters, representative of applicant, advised as follows: lighting must be directed inward and in accordance with Code regulations; it would not be feasible to sell parking space to beach goers; during renovation the property may need to be closed down; the game room is completely indoors and will be manned at all times; and, the property will be well landscaped. Ms. Harvey advised several letters were received in opposition to the above request. In opposition to the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments: Ms. Janet Nassif, Continental Towers, 675 Gulfview Boulevard South, stated she lives nearly directly across the street from the above location and she is distressed about what the proposed improvement will do to property values. She expressed concern about noise, security, and lighting of the facility. She stated this is a high volume area and expressed further concern about the hours of operation and use of the Clearwater Bridge. Mr. Noel Woods, #201 Bayway Shores, 640 Bayway Boulevard, stated traffic will be a problem. He stated he does not oppose the development but felt it should be more in character with the neighborhood. He felt the project is incompatible. Mr. Don Gunderson, 606 Bayway Boulevard, felt the beach is getting away from being family oriented. He felt the City should be prepared to police a proposal that will allow rowdies. After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. Gunderson stated enthusiasm at the subject property and customers become very noisy but the noise does not last too long. He stated he has seen the operation open past midnight. Mr. Peter Zhun, Continental Towers, 675 Gulfview Boulevard South, stated Continental Towers represents a large portion of taxes. He felt there is currently too much inconvenience in the area. He felt property values will go down. He expressed concern about the height of the buildings. He expressed further concern that beer is available. He felt that more information and more study was needed in regard to the project. In support rebuttal, Mr. Bill Walters stated lighting will be done in accordance with Code. He stated no alcoholic beverages will be sold, served, or tolerated. He also stated the hours of operation can be controlled. Mr. Walters advised there have been no reasons to call the police. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Mr. Walters stated if miniature golf games need to be stopped because of closing time, a rain check is issued for play the following day. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Walters stated the parking lot is designed with buffer wall. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Ellen Zhun, Continental Towers, 675 Gulfview Boulevard South, stated she is all for family oriented facilities. She expressed concerned about the parking that may be taken away. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Janet Nassif stated there is no need to sell alcoholic beverages. She stated that security has not been mentioned. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Noel Woods expressed concern that property values could drop. He stated that many seasonal residents from the North have not returned as yet. In support rebuttal, Ms. Nikki Anastasopoulos, felt Mr. Woods was only representing a few friends and not the entire condominium. She stated there has been no problem with kids and no problem with police. She stated most of their customers are not teenagers but are families. She also stated the facility has been in this location for over 20 years. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Noel Woods stated the condominium Board did meet regarding the above subject. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Janet Nassif, stated there have not been problems in the past but she felt the character was being changed. In final rebuttal, Mr. Elias Anastasopoulos stated he wants a family trade and he wants to upgrade the facility. He stated he lives across the street also and he doesn't want the area to look bad. He stated he keeps control of his facility. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Anastasopoulos advised as follows: If it is necessary, more security personnel will be hired and he will do what is required to maintain a secure facility; there is no music at the facility; there are no alcoholic beverages at the facility; if the Board feels 48 parking spaces are enough, the top floor will not be used for parking; very few people play miniature golf during the day; the 36 holes of miniature golf are needed to meet the demands of the business; and, majority of customers are 40 to 65 years of age. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey stated she is not an expert regarding property values but the property is in such a condition that improvement to the subject facility would not detrimentally affect property values. Ms. Harvey stated that the Board may want to consider approving Phase I of the project and withhold approval of Phase II of the project until such time that part of the project was ready for completion. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve Phase I of the above request subject to the following: 1) That there be no consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises; 2) That there be no external speakers; 3) That the lights be turned out at 11:30 PM; and, 4) That the lighting be directed to minimize any glare beyond the property lines. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 8. M&B 14.18, Sec. 21-29S-15E (1569 South Fort Harrison Avenue) Fairwinds Properties, Inc./ Jeff Moore or Greg Veltman CU 88-93 Request - Use Not Specifically Identified In The Code (Residential Treatment Facility for 28 Adults) Zoned - CN (Neighborhood Commercial Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a use not specifically identified in the Land Development Code; on September 1, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use for a congregate care facility for 28 persons at the subject location and testimony at that hearing led the board and staff to believe that what was proposed was an elderly housing project; Mrs. Cormier brought to the City's attention that more was proposed at this facility than elderly housing; there had previously been miscommunication between applicant and staff and the property owner was contacted to clarify the situation; after contact with applicant, it was determined that applicant intends to provide the final stages of drug and alcohol abuse therapy and counselling; and, applicant was advised that what was proposed for the facility was not what was approved and the intended use is not specifically identified in the Code. Ms. Harvey further advised as follows: The applicant does intend to have a residential aspect of the project, as has already been approved; and, the drug and alcohol abuse therapy and counselling will not include detoxification. She stated there is provision in the Code for substance abuse facilities limited to 20 persons and there is provision in the Code to provide adult congregate care for more than 20 persons. She added that since this facility does not strictly fit into either of the aforementioned categories it was determined the proposed use was a use not specifically identified in the Land Development Code. Ms. Harvey advised that staff has no objection to the proposed program. She stated the facility is mainly oriented away from residential areas. She suggested the applicant should explain what kinds of control they will have at the facility. Mr. Edwin Ervin, representative of Fairwinds, stated the subject property was previously approved as a congregate care facility and this request made today is being done to clarify any misunderstanding. He stated the facility will provide outpatient treatment programs. He also stated there will be no detoxification facilities. He advised the program is on a voluntary basis for persons who don't need detoxification or lock-up facilities. He requested the Board include a condition of its approval that there will be no detoxification or lock-up facility on site. Mr. Ervin felt the project is compatible with the neighborhood. He stated the use should generate less traffic and the parking requirements have been met or exceeded. He stated landscaping and a screening wall will be provided. Mr. Miles J. Moore, part owner of the facility, and Dr. Benjamin Keyes, Administrator of the facility, appeared to answer questions the Board may have. After questioning by Board members, Dr. Keyes advised as follows: Recreational therapy, such as swimming or basketball, is typical during daylight hours; this is an after-care facility; it is a private pay program costing approximately $300 a day; eating disorder therapy is also provided; patients are currently limited to 16 years of age or older; and patients are at the facility on a voluntary basis. Mr. Moore stated there was no intent by applicant to deceive the Board when it made its previous request. He added that the facility has an agreement with a Seminole hospital to handle detoxification when necessary. Mr. Keyes also stated the facility has received accreditation from J.C.A.H. and are nearing completion of licensure from HRS. In support of the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments: Mrs. Lois Cormier, 625 McLennan Street, stated though errors were made by staff and the applicant, she is not in opposition to the above request at the subject location. She felt some additional buffering should be placed along Sadlon Avenue. She stated that at the hearing one year ago the applicant did not indicate any use for drug or alcohol abuse. Mrs. Cormier felt the public hearing notice was not sufficient and should have included the word "intensive." After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mrs. Cormier stated she would feel better if there is not detoxification or lock-up facilities. She stated the Code does not address such a facility having more than 20 persons. In rebuttal, Mr. Ervin stated the focus has been on the drug and alcohol treatment the facility offers but family counselling and eating disorders are among some of the other treatments offered at the facility. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That there be no detoxification carried out in the facility and there be no lock up in the facility; and, 2) That a maximum feasible buffer be provided. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). Meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM.