The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the decision of the Clearwater Planning and Zoning Board to issue a conditional use permit to do automobile repair work at the property located at 1139 Eldridge Street in Clearwater to Petitioners should be upheld.Appellant did not show board action was not supported by substantial competent evidence or not lawful.

Whether Petitioner's dismissal of Respondent from her position as an Accounting Clerk II effective May 5, 1994 was justified.City employee who failed to accomplish assigned duties while continuing to volunteer for other work is guilty of insubordination and merits discharge.

The issue in this case is whether to grant the appeal of Valentinos Koumoulidis from the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of his application for variances from the requirement of a minimum lot width of 150 feet at the setback line and from the requirement of a minimum of 20 percent clear space.DCAB was sustained by evidence. Nothing unique about applicant's waterfront property for clear space and lot width variance; Applicant has reasonable use.

The issue in this case is whether the City Manager should (1) demote the Respondent, Craig Reeves, from his employment as a Public Service Worker III (Range 54, formerly called Tradesworker) to the position of Public Service Worker II (Range 52, formerly called Public Service Technician), (2) assess 160 disciplinary points against him, and (3) suspend him without pay for ten days, on charges that he violated Rule 14, Section 1, paragraphs (d), (f), (k), and of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater. (For some reason, the City cites to paragraph (k)(2), which does not appear in the version of the Rule which the City had admitted in evidence as part of City Exhibit 1.) Specifically, the following facts are alleged: That the Respondent called City employees working under him names like "ignorant," "stupid," and "queer." That the Respondent told City employees working under him that they "are not paid to think." That the Respondent snatched safety glasses of the face of a City employee working under him and broke them or threw them away. That the Respondent retaliated against a City employee working under him by mistreating him by making him clean out a truck by himself. That, on several occasions, the Respondent poked a City employee working under him in the behind while the employee was bending over in front of him working. That the Respondent used racial slurs by referring to a fellow employee as a "bush nigger" and describing a new hire as "a white guy, not a nigger." That the Respondent teased a City employee working under him by referring to "bananas" in a sexual context. That the Respondent went "overboard" more than once in teasing one of the City employees working under him. That the Respondent retaliated against City employees working under him "in the form of orders or unnecessarily harsh assignments for the purpose of 'busting the chops' of employees/subordinates." It was concluded that the facts alleged supported the following findings of ultimate fact: There has been a misuse or abuse of authority by [the Respondent]'s intimidation of employees and general harassment of [more than one of the City employees working under him.] Statements made [the Respondent] of a sexual nature made the work environment a hostile work- place for [one of the City employees working under him.] Retaliatory actions by [the Respondent] existed for [one of the City employees working under him] and also, other employees expressed concern that [the Respondent] could "bust your chops" or retaliate against any one on his crew. It also was concluded that the Respondent's actions were governed by the following Guidelines for Disciplinary Action: Level 3, #14 - Threatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow employees, supervisors or citizens at any time while on duty, reporting for duty or leaving duty an on City premises, including the use of abusive or profane language. (20 points) Level 4, #8 - Abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of any City property, including records, tools, supplies, equipment and radio network. (40 points) Level 4, #16 - Making or publishing false, vicious or malicious statement(s) concerning an employee or a supervisor where such false statement(s) are damaging to the individual's reputation. (40 points) Level 5, #13 - Immoral, unlawful or improper conduct on or off the job which is contrary to honesty, modesty or decency and which tends to affect the reputation and citizen's good will toward the City, whether or not such act is a criminal offense. (60 points)City proved some not all of charges versus foreman. Enough for good cause to demote to non-supervisor job, 4-day suspension and 20 points, not 10 day suspension.

The issue in this case was to have been whether the evidence sustains the decision of the City of Clearwater Planning and Zoning Board to deny the application of the Appellant for a conditional use permit to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption at the Gallery Restaurant on Sand Key if a outside deck is added to the facility. However, a threshold issue is whether an appointed hearing officer has jurisdiction to decide the case.Appeal from P&Z Board denial of conditional use permit regarding alcoholic beverage, both after law change of jurisdiciton to City Commission. Final Order no Hearing Officer jurisdiction.

The issue in this matter is whether the evidence sustains the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board of the City of Clearwater denying the Petitioner's request for five variances required for the expansion of an existing deck.Appellant failed to meet burden to show variances for expansion of deck should be granted.

Whether Petitioner had just cause to dismiss Respondent from her position as Building Construction Inspector II on or about April 21, 1994.Petitioner had just cause to terminate Respondent on April 21, 1994.

The issue in this case is whether the City Manager should suspend the Respondent, Diane Hashil, from her employment as a bridge toll booth attendant for three days on charges that she violated Rule 14, Section 1, paragraph (e), of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater.Witness testimony that Respondent was rude and called toll bridge user "bitch" Polygraph of Respondent excluded - no testimony from operator. Recommended Order: suspension.

The issue in this case is whether the City Manager should dismiss the Respondent, Linda Ratcliffe, from her employment as a Library Assistant II on charges that she violated Rule 14, Section 1, paragraphs (k) and (l) [formerly and (k), respectively], of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater.City proved 1 of 3 charges against library employee. She checked out more videos than allowed. Just cause, dismissal too harsh. Recommended Order: suspend and demote.

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined, to include a three day suspension without pay, because of the misconduct alleged in the Notification of Suspension issued herein.City employee who wilfully fails to obey order of supervisor, even if believing he is correct, is guilty of insubordination.