H. NEUDECK, et al., )
)
Intervenors. )
)
ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on November 22, 1983, at Clearwater, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: William J. Kimpton, Esquire
487 Mandalay Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33515
For Respondent: Thomas A. Bustin, Esquire
Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33516
For Intervenors: Margot Pequignot, Esquire
Post Office Box 1609 Clearwater, Florida 33517
By letter dated October 20, 1983, Anthony A. and Kathleen M. Fuller, Petitioners, appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning denying Petitioners' application for a special exception to operate a real estate office in Petitioner's motel at 540 South Gulf View Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida. In this application Petitioners seek to utilize a small space (less than 150 square feet) in the Sea Cloud Motel, owned by Petitioners, as a real estate office intended primarily to serve foreign visitors desiring to invest in Clearwater Beach real estate.
Respondent called one witness, Petitioners' representative presented three exhibits and argued for granting the special exception, the Intervenors' representative presented arguments against granting the special exception, and one witness testified in support of the application. Proposed findings submitted by the parties which are incorporated herein are adopted; otherwise,
they are rejected as not supported by the evidence or unnecessary to the results reached.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners own the Sea Cloud Motel with 11 rooms located at 540 South Gulf View Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, in an area zoned CTF-28. CTF-28 is high density commercial-tourist and is dominated by motels, restaurants, and other businesses catering primarily to tourists.
The Sea Cloud Motel has only ten parking spaces at present, with two of these spaces so located that with the space behind them occupied a car cannot get into or out of those spaces. Petitioners have leased five additional spaces from the Clearwater Point Deli on property adjacent to the Sea Cloud Motel (Exhibit 2).
Adjacent to the Sea Cloud Motel is the Hibiscus Gift Shop owned and operated as part of the Red Carpet Resort Motel. Across the street from Petitioners' property is a convenience store with gas pumps and a car rental agency. Several realty offices are located in the general area of the Sea Cloud Motel in addition to restaurants and convenience stores.
The principal objection to the special exception here requested came from adjacent property owners who fear the real estate office will aggravate the inadequate parking facilities presently existing on Clearwater Beach. The addition of the real estate office in a space less than 150 square feet will not require the addition of another parking space. The leasing of five additional parking spaces will more than adequately compensate for the additional traffic anticipated to be generated by a one-desk real estate office, particularly where the office is intended to concentrate on foreign visitors interested in real estate investments at Clearwater and will be operated by the co-owner of the motel, Kathleen M. Fuller, a registered real estate salesperson.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Section 131.016(g), Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations, provides that in determining whether to approve any regulated special exception the board shall consider, inter alia:
Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe;
Off-street parking and loading areas where required . . . .
* * *
(11) That the use will be reasonable and reasonably compatible with surrounding
uses in its function, its hours of operation, the type and amount of traffic to be gene- rated, and building size and setbacks, its
relationship to land values, and other fac- tors that may be used to measure compatibility.
Here, the proposed use is compatible with other uses in the area and, by the acquisition of five additional parking spaces, Petitioners have defused the objection that granting the special exception will aggravate the parking situation.
Furthermore, this is a request for a special exception in which the applicants have requested a use compatible with the zoning. In such a case the burden is upon the zoning authority to demonstrate by competent substantial evidence that the special exception is contrary to the public interest. Rural New Town, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 315 So.2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). This, Respondent has not done.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that the special exception requested by Petitioners is compatible with the zoning and with the existing uses in the area. No evidence has been submitted by Respondent to show that granting the special exception will be contrary to the public interest. It is
