Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PERKINS OF CLEARWATER, LTD. vs CITY OF CLEARWATER AND ANTONIOS MARKOPOULOS, 89-005575 (1989)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 89-005575 Visitors: 19
Petitioner: PERKINS OF CLEARWATER, LTD.
Respondent: CITY OF CLEARWATER AND ANTONIOS MARKOPOULOS
Judges: DONALD D. CONN
Agency: Contract Hearings
Locations: Clearwater, Florida
Filed: Oct. 11, 1989
Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Monday, February 12, 1990.

Latest Update: Feb. 12, 1990
Summary: The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance for certain signage is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.Petitioner's attempt to secure a variance for continued economic benefits from a non-comforming sign is not a basis for approval.
89-5575.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


PERKINS OF CLEARWATER, LTD., )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-5575

)

CITY OF CLEARWATER, )

)

Respondent. )

)


FINAL ORDER


The final hearing in this case was held on January 23, 1990, in Clearwater, Florida, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Ronald E. Nichols

Perkins of Clearwater, Ltd. 2626 Gulf to Bay Blvd.

Clearwater, FL 34619


For Respondent: Miles A. Lance, Esquire

P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 34618


STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE


The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for a variance for certain signage is supported by the evidence in the record, or whether it departs from the essential requirements of law. See Section 137.014(f)(3), City of Clearwater Land Development Code.


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT


At the hearing, Ronald E. Nichols testified on behalf of the Petitioner, and introduced one exhibit. John Richter, Development Code Administrator, testified on behalf of the Respondent. The record of proceedings before the Development

Code Adjustment Board was accepted into evidence. No transcript or proposed findings have been filed.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. On or about August 2, 1989, the Petitioner applied

    for a variance concerning certain signage on its property located at 2626 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, in Clearwater, Florida, which is zoned CH (highway commercial).

  2. At hearing, Petitioner abandoned its variance request concerning total square footage of its signage, and stated that the only variance presently by the Petitioner

    is for 21 feet in height to allow a 41 foot high pole sign to remain after October 13, 1992. This is an sign which

    has been in place since 1971, and, thus, was in place when the pertinent provisions of the Land Development Code governing sign height were enacted. The Petitioner does not propose to change this sign in any way, but simply seeks authorization to retain the sign after October 13, 1992, the date on which all nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance.


  3. Petitioner's property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. At that point, U.S. 19 passes over Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and

    Petitioner contends that without the additional 21 feet in height, this sign will not be visible to motorists along U.S. 19,

    or to those approaching this intersection driving east on Gulf to Bay Boulevard.


  4. Without a variance, Petitioner will be required to bring this sign into conformance with the signage height requirements of the Land Development Code by October 13, 1992, and for property zoned CH, the maximum height allowed for signs is twenty feet.


  5. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's variance application on September 14, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision.


  6. The only reason given in support of this variance

    is that without the continued authorization for the additional height, this sign will be of little economic benefit to Petitioner after October 13, 1992, and Petitioner would be unwilling to expend the funds necessary to reduce the height of this sign since the resulting 20 foot high sign would be of little benefit. Petitioner would rather just remove the sign than to have a 20 foot high sign that is of no economic benefit, according to Nichols.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties, and the subject matter in this cause. Section 137.013, City of Clearwater Land Development Code. In this proceeding, the applicant has the burden to show that the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board cannot be sustained by the evidence, or that the Board's decision departs from the essential requirements of law. Section

    137.014(f)(3).


  8. The standards for variance approval are set forth in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code to include the fact that the requested variance arises from a condition unique to the property, or from an unnecessary hardship resulting from the physical surroundings or shape of the property, and that the

    variance is not sought primarily to secure a greater financial benefit for the applicant.


  9. Section 134.015(f)(1) through (15) sets forth factors which the Board may consider in approving an extension for a nonconforming sign beyond October 13, 1992. The Petitioner offered no evidence at hearing which would show that the Board failed to consider these factors, or that it acted contrary to

these factors and thereby departed from the essential requirements of law. In fact, it was shown that the primary reason Petitioner is seeking this variance is to secure continued economic benefits from this nonconforming sign, and this is not a

valid basis for approval of this request.


Accordingly, it is:


ORDERED THAT the Petitioner's application for a variance is DENIED, and the prior action of the Development Code Adjustment Board is AFFIRMED.


DONE AND ORDERED this 12 day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.



COPIES FURNISHED:


Miles A. Lance, Esquire

P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 34618


Ronald E. Nichols

Perkins of Clearwater, Ltd. 2626 Gulf to Bay Blvd.

Clearwater, FL 34619


City Clerk

P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 34618


DONALD D. CONN

Hearing Officer

Division of administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12 day of February, 1990.


Docket for Case No: 89-005575
Issue Date Proceedings
Feb. 12, 1990 Final Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 89-005575
Issue Date Document Summary
Feb. 12, 1990 DOAH Final Order Petitioner's attempt to secure a variance for continued economic benefits from a non-comforming sign is not a basis for approval.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer