The Issue The ultimate issue in this appeal is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Development Order issued to Appellee Pinellas Education Organization, Inc., d/b/a Enterprise High School (Applicant or School), by the Board on December 3, 2019. Specifically, the following issues must be resolved: Whether Appellants have standing to appeal the Development Order. Whether the issues raised by Appellants at the Oral Argument were properly preserved for appeal. Whether there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support approval of the Development Order.3 Whether the Board's decision departs from the essential requirements of the law. If the Development Order is affirmed, whether any additional conditions are appropriate. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee School filed an application to renovate an existing building to operate a high school at 2495 Enterprise Road, in Clearwater, Florida.4 The Board held a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application on November 19, 2019 (Board Hearing). The Board approved the School's application with conditions and the City issued the Development Order on December 3, 2019. On December 4, 2019, two separate Appeal Applications were filed regarding the Development Order: (1) by 2521 Countryside Blvd., LLP, Countryside Property Principals, LLC, Bruce Levine, and Joan Levine; and by 2505 Enterprise, LLC, and Greg Willsey, and Sandra Willsey. The Appeal Applications were fairly similar and raised a number of issues: four issues pertaining to traffic and parking requirements; and one issue as to whether a high school is a compatible use with the surrounding area. The City referred the matter to DOAH on December 4, 2019, and it was 3 Section 4-505C states, "The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the community development board cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the board, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law." 4 The School's application went through a Level Two approval process which requires a quasi-judicial public Board hearing to approve flexibility (i.e. deviation) from the minimum development standards set forth in the Code. See Code at §4-401. Level Two approvals must meet both the general applicability criteria and the flexibility criteria outlined by the Code. See Code at Art. 4, Divisions 1, 3, 4 and 6. assigned to an administrative law judge. On December 13, 2019, a telephonic scheduling conference was held to determine the record on appeal and set the oral argument hearing. During that conference the parties agreed not to submit pre-argument briefs, but rather, chose to file post-hearing proposed final orders. The Oral Argument was held at the Clearwater Library and was open to the general public. Applicant, the City, the Board, and all persons who were granted party status at the Board Hearing were allowed to present arguments at the Oral Argument. See Code at 4-505B. At the Board Hearing the following people were granted party status: Dr. Richard Gottlieb, who was represented by Todd Pressman; Sandra Willsey; Greg Willsey; and Todd Burch. The transcript of the Oral Argument was filed with DOAH on February 19, 2020. Pursuant to section 4-505D, the proposed final orders were due within 20 days after the filing of the transcript, or no later than March 11, 2020. Per the City's request, the parties were granted an extension to submit proposed final orders. The additional time was to allow the parties to collaborate on a master index to the record on appeal (Index), which they intended to cite to in their proposed orders. The Index and the proposed final orders were timely submitted on March 23, 2020.5 5 At the Oral Argument, the parties stipulated that the undersigned could take official recognition of the Code provisions and City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) found online. As such, the undersigned takes official recognition of the Code found at https://library.municode.com/fl/clearwater/codes/ community_development_code?nodeId=CODECO (last visited April 14, 2020); and of the Comprehensive Plan found at https://www.myclearwater.com/government/city- departments/planning-development/divisions-/development-review-zoning/comprehensive- plan (last visited April 14, 2020). FACTS IN THE RECORD Pursuant to section 4-505A, the record includes the application file of the Clearwater Planning and Development Department (Planning Department); the agenda packet of the Board Hearing; all exhibits accepted into evidence at the Board Hearing; and the streaming video of the Board Hearing.6 The following findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence found in the record. Parties and Property The School filed an application with the Planning Department to renovate a 16,696 square foot building located on a 1.730 acre site at 2495 Enterprise Road in Clearwater, Florida (proposed development). The proposed development is in a retail/office plaza known as Village at Countryside (Plaza), located on the east side of Enterprise Road, just south of Countryside Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The Plaza consists of 11 parcels, including a large vacant building that formerly housed a Toys-R-Us store. The Plaza is located within the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and has a designation of "US 19 District, Regional Center sub-district" (US 19-RC). Property within US 19-RC is subject to the special zoning district and development standards found at Appendix B of the Code.7 The School seeks to operate Enterprise High School, a charter high school, at the proposed development site.8 As explained below, relevant to this appeal is the number of students at the School and whether there will be adequate parking for the proposed development as required by the Code. 6 See Video of Board Hearing held November 19, 2019, on Agenda FLD2019-8026 at time marker 9:25 at http://clearwater.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=50&clip_id=3782 (last visited April 1, 2020). 7 See Code at Appendix B – US 19 Zoning District and Development Standards, found at https://library.municode.com/fl/clearwater/codes/community_development_code?nodeId=APX BUS19ZODIDEST (last visited April 14, 2020). 8 Enterprise High School is an existing charter school which intends to move from its current location to the proposed development site. The School is subject to section 1013.33, Florida Statutes. Appellants own and operate property within the Plaza and adjacent to the proposed development site. Specifically, Bruce and Joan Levine own Appellants 2521 Countryside Blvd., LLP,9 and Countryside Property Principals, LLC. The LLP and/or LLC operate the Countryside Foot and Ankle Center.10 The Countryside Foot and Ankle Center's administrator, Todd Burch, was granted party status at the Board Hearing. Greg and Sandra Willsey own Appellant 2505 Enterprise, LLC, which is a property in the Plaza. The Willseys were also granted party status at the Board Hearing. At the conclusion of the Board Hearing, the Board voted to approve the School's application. On December 3, 2019, a Development Order was issued to memorialize the Board's action. Thereafter, Appellants filed the Appeal Applications with a document titled "Notice and Statement" which stated the following grounds for the appeals: The Neighbors assert that the decision of the Community Development Board ("the Board") was not supported by substantial competent evidence and was a departure from essential requirements of law. Specifically: The Board's decision was based upon a high school with two, 200-student shifts. However, the record below established that these student shifts would substantially overlap during the noon hour. In other words, the evaluation of the proposed change of use was based on impacts and site requirements that were substantially less than what would actually occur on the site. 9 The Appeal Application lists this entity as 2521 Countryside Boulevard Land Trust. 10 Although Appellants state that Bruce Levine was granted party status at the Board Hearing, there is no substantial competent evidence in the record supporting this statement. See Appellees' Proposed Final Order at p. 3; compare Tab 30 of the Index, Board Meeting Minutes for November 19, 2019, at p. 3 and 5. The Board's decision was based on a traffic analysis provided by the applicant that used a wrong ITE trip generation code - an elementary school instead of a high school - so it cannot be relied upon as a basis for the underlying decision. The change of use to a high school required that the applicant establish that it had one parking space per three students. There is no substantial competent evidence to establish that this parking requirement was satisfied. To the contrary, the substantial competent evidence establishes that the parking on the property failed to meet this requirement. In fact, granting this change of use would result in a substantial oversubscription of the available parking at the site. The proposed use would create tortured on-site parking and traffic circulation patterns that would substantially impact the existing medical office uses on the property, including a kidney dialysis office that serves a substantial elderly population. There is no substantial competent evidence to support the finding that the change of use would "have no impacts on the adjacent retail plaza." To the contrary, the change of use would have substantial impacts on the current retail and office plaza. The proposed change of use would have substantial negative impacts on the surrounding community and is incompatible with the existing surrounding retail, office and residential uses. At the Oral Argument, Appellants raised for the first time whether the operation of a school is an inconsistent use with: (1) an Amended and Restated Declaration of Establishment of Restrictive Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, and Grants of Easements dated December 7, 1983 (the "Parking Easement"); and (2) the Comprehensive Plan. The Studies The first four issues raised in the Appeal Applications are related to the Parking Study and Traffic Study (collectively referred to as the Studies) which were submitted by the School as part of its application. The Parking Study, dated September 2, 2019, consists of overall parking calculations; aerial photographs of the development site and surrounding areas; and the Parking Easement. The purpose of the Traffic Study was to analyze the impact of the development on the traffic intersection at Countryside Boulevard and Enterprise Road, as well as the full access drive at the site. The 50-page Traffic Study, dated October 18, 2019, included numerous charts, maps, and tables with underlying information and data relating to the traffic counts for the proposed development. Jerry Dabkowski, a local traffic engineer who prepared the Studies for the School, testified at the Board Hearing about the traffic and parking calculations. To rebut the Studies, at the Board Hearing Mr. Pressman presented a two-page letter from a professional engineer dated November 15, 2019, titled "Traffic Study Review." Relevant to the appeal, the letter finds fault in the number of students and the "ITE Code" used in the Traffic Study and in the Planning Department's Staff Report and Recommendation (Staff Report), dated November 19, 2019, which was also presented to the Board. These factors would affect the calculations for the number of parking spaces required for and the trip distribution caused by the proposed development. Number of Students Appellants argue the parking calculations should be based on the total number of students enrolled at the School, or 400 students. The Studies and the Staff Report calculated the traffic and number of parking spaces necessary based on two shifts with 200 students per shift. At the Board Hearing, Donna Hulbert, the School's Director, testified that unlike a traditional high school, the School operated in two shifts to allow the students to hold employment while completing their high school education. Although the School intends to enroll a total of 400 students, she explained, each of the two shifts would have a maximum of 200 students. Additionally, the students are eligible for a public transportation bus pass, which some students utilize instead of driving their personal vehicles. The Study establishes that "[t]o reduce the impacts during the AM and PM peak hours, the school intends to split the day into two shifts, each with 200 students attending." Although there was conflicting information between the School's application and Ms. Hulbert's testimony at the Board Hearing about whether the shifts would overlap, the Staff Report recommends approval of the application because, "[t]he applicant has provided the school will operate in two shifts . . . with no more than 200 students present per shift." There is substantial competent evidence that there will be only 200 students at the School at a time, and that this number was correctly used in calculating the required parking spaces and the trip generation for the proposed development. ITE Trip Calculation Appellants argue the Traffic Study utilized the wrong Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Code, 520, which is the code applicable to an elementary school. The Study, however, states it utilized ITE Code 530 from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, 10th Edition for Office, to calculate the change in trips attributed to the proposed development. A copy of the ITE Code 530 was attached to the Traffic Study. Additionally, Mr. Dabkowski testified that ITE Code 530 was the correct code for high schools. There is substantial competent evidence that ITE Code 530 was used in calculating the change in trips for the Traffic Study which was relied upon in the Staff Report, and which was accepted by the Board. Parking Requirements Table 2 in section B-303, Permitted uses and parking, provides the following parking requirements relevant to this appeal. Use Regional Use Specific Standards Minimum Off-Street Parking Spaces Retail Plaza BCP[Level 1 Minimum Standard(Building Construction permit)] [Not included] 4/1,000 SF GFA Schools FLD [Level 2 Flexible Development (Board approval required)] 1. All off-street parking is located at least 200 feet from any property designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas 1 per 3 students Based on this criterion, the School would require 67 parking spaces (200 students/3 = 66.6667). The Staff Report and Studies establish the proposed site has 55 parking spaces, but five of these spaces cannot be used because they are within 200 feet from a parcel designated as Residential. Thus, there are 49 available parking spaces "on site," leaving 18 spaces to be designated. As stated earlier, the proposed site is one of 11 parcels in the Plaza. The Parking Study contains a copy of a Parking Easement that allows cross- parking among the parcels. Based on the square footage of the buildings on the parcels (including the proposed development site), the entire Plaza is required to have 975 parking spaces. The Plaza actually has 1,137 parking spaces, an excess of 162 parking spaces. The Code also requires off-street parking spaces be located within 600 feet of the principal and accessory uses they serve. See Code at § 3-1404A. Next to and within 600 feet of the proposed development site is currently a vacant building that formerly housed a Toys-R-Us store. That parcel has 228 parking spaces, but only 177 spaces are required for that building, leaving an extra 51 parking spaces. Based on the excess spaces available through the Parking Easement, there is substantial competent evidence supporting the City's staff finding of adequate parking spaces to satisfy the additional 18 spaces necessary for the proposed development, and the Board's approval of the same. Compatible Use The fifth issue raised in the Appeal Applications is regarding the use of the proposed development site as a charter high school. Whether this site is appropriate for the type of school operated by the Applicant was a topic of discussion among the Board members at the Board Hearing. At the Board Hearing, Planning Department Manager Mark Parry testified as an expert witness. Mr. Parry explained the nature of the US 19- RC standards and gave his opinion that the proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Code, including the use requirements. In contrast, Appellants expressed anecdotal fears that the types of students attending the School would disrupt Appellants' medical businesses. For example, at the Board Hearing, Mrs. Willsey expressed concern that the students at the School were known to have "behavioral problems." Mr. Burch spoke about the increased number of pedestrians in the Plaza and cited to a letter in the record from Dr. Levine: "For us to have to monitor and police our properties for trespassing students would be untenable." There was no actual evidence in the record that the School's operations would cause any problems such as increased crime or trespassing in the area. At the Oral Argument and in their proposed final order, however, Appellants' argument shifted away from the potential effects of the students in the area and instead offered the new arguments that the School was inconsistent with the Parking Easement which states the Plaza shall be used "for commercial purposes only, including without limitation the operation of merchandising establishments, restaurants, and professional offices."11 Regardless, as explained below, this argument is not appropriate on appeal because it was not raised at the Board Hearing or in the Appeal Applications. At the Oral Argument, Appellants also argued that the School is an inconsistent use with the Comprehensive Plan. Appellants cited a paragraph from the Staff Report: The proposal includes a new charter school with grades nine through 12 and constitutes a public educational facility as defined by Policy J.2.1.2. The school will be located within the US 19–RC future land use designation. The prior designation was Commercial General (CG). The intent is that all uses permitted in the CG are also permitted in the US 19–RC classification. The City is planning to update the Comprehensive Plan to reflect this. Schools are a listed permitted use in the CG classification. As explained below, this argument is also inappropriate because it was not raised at the Board Hearing or in the Appeal Applications. Appellants also argue the proposed development is an inconsistent use with the existing businesses because the adjacent properties are commercial in nature and the School is not commercial. The Code, however, clearly allows Schools as an allowable use in the US 19-RC zoning district, and in the 11 The Complete section of the Parking Easement titled "Uses" states: 2.1 Uses in General The Property, consisting of both the Building Area and the Common Areas, shall be used for commercial purposes only, including without limitation the operation of merchandising establishments, restaurants, and professional offices. No portion of the Property shall be used or operated as a discotheque, bar or cocktail lounge (except in connection with a restaurant) ... theatre, bowling alley, skating rink, roller disco or catering hall, funeral parlor, or for the sale of pornographic literature or material, or an adult book store or so called "head shop" or for a video or other game arcade, flea market, or for a use which would be noxious or immoral or otherwise constitute moral turpitude or constitute an undignified, disreputable use. previous zoning designation of CG. See Code at § B-303. Moreover, unlike the Parking Easement, the Code does not divide use categories into "Commercial" and "Non-Commercial." Rather, the uses are categorized as "Residential" and "Non-Residential." Id. Based on the Code and the review of the application submissions, the Staff Report concluded the School will be an appropriate use in the area. Based on Staff visits, aerial photographs and material submitted by the applicant it is evident that the proposal will be in harmony and consistent with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties and, generally, with properties in the greater neighborhood. The reuse of the 16,700 square foot building with a school will not result in any adverse visual impacts on adjacent properties. Since the character of the site will not change with the proposal, and it is currently similar in nature vis-a-vis placement of other uses in the area it is not expected to impair the value of those properties. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The testimony of Mr. Parry, coupled with the Staff Report, constitute substantial competent evidence supporting the Board's finding that the School is a compatible use with the area.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987, an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (2COP) was filed on behalf of Leland Farnsworth for property located at 2838 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and single family residential (RS-8). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, Farnsworth seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property from a motel to a restaurant and bar. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pierson is the owner of a parcel of land located at 7 Heilwood Street, Clearwater Beach, Florida. This parcel consists of the North 1/2 of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Block 6, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 11, page 5, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. The westwardly portion of the parcel is beach front property on a coastal barrier island. When the subdivision known as Clearwater Beach Subdivision was platted, fifteen lots were placed in Block 6. The three beachfront lots were smaller in area than the other twelve lots which were uniform in size and shape. However, when Lot 2 was divided and the northern half went to Lot 3 and the southern half to Lot 1, fourteen similar parcels were created in Block 6. Pierson purchased the parcel in question as unimproved property in Clearwater Beach Subdivision in 1962. This was nine years prior to the creation of Coastal Construction Control Lines by the Florida Legislature. The establishment of the Coastal Construction Control Line for Clearwater Beach in 1977, caused building setbacks previously established by the City of Clearwater for this unimproved parcel to become even further restricted. The Coastal Construction Control Line deleted the seaward 5/8ths of the Pierson property on which a building could have been erected previously on Clearwater Beach. Few parcels on this island were impacted as severely as Respondent Pierson's by the creation of the Coastal Construction Control Line because most of these parcels already contained permanent improvements. This parcel remained vacant until Respondent Pierson erected a duplex in 1986. This improvement was constructed according to the Land Development Code in effect at the time with the following exceptions: A variance of zero setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line and a 6 foot height variance to permit construction of a building 31 feet in height were granted by the Board. At the time the variances were granted, Respondent had the option to build either a duplex or a triplex at the site. Respondent seeks to expand this structure and to convert it into a triplex. In order to complete the planned expansion, a variance of 18 feet was requested from the Board to allow construction 7 feet from the Heilwood Street right-of-way. Currently, the Code requires a 25 feet setback from a street right-of-way. In addition, a variance of two feet from the eastward property boundary was requested to allow construction up to 6 feet from this side property line. Code provisions require an 8 feet setback. The existing structure is 6 feet from this side property line. The proposed addition to the current structure would continue with that eastern setback of 6 feet to the north, with an additional 25 feet of structure extending towards Heilwood Street. The expansion of the building to the west would terminate at the Coastal Construction Control Line. The property is zoned RM-20 with a land use plan designation as high density residential developed. The parcel is 95.12 feet in length and 87 feet in width, an area of 8,242.38 square feet. Ordinarily, a parcel with these dimensions is of sufficient size to build the structure proposed by Respondent Pierson without violating the street right-of-way setback and the side property line setback mandated by the Code. In this case, setback variances are required to complete the triplex because of the Coastal Construction Control Line's location on the parcel. In his application for variance, together with evidence presented, Respondent Pierson contends that the variance request arises from a condition unique to the property. The "unique" condition being that he did not build what he now wants to build on the property before the land use restrictions currently in place limited development of the parcel to such an extent. All other lot owners in the locale chose to develop their lots earlier than Respondent did, under less restrictive conditions. As a result, Respondent Pierson's duplex is setback further from Heilwood Street than the other buildings. Deciding when and what to build as a real property improvement is part of real estate ownership. Now that Respondent Pierson wants to change his previous development decision to reflect his current intended property use, he wants the same setback benefits as those acquired by other property owners on Heilwood Street who developed their parcels during past time periods with less restrictive setbacks. The Coastal Construction Control Line and the building setbacks have been placed on the property because of legitimate state and local concerns. A driveway was placed by Respondent Pierson in front of the duplex as it faces the water at the end of a dead-end street. The location of this driveway and the existing setback of the duplex from the road beyond all of the other property setbacks on this street, make this portion of Respondent's property a convenient area for traveling cars to turn around or to park while using the beach. Respondent Pierson contends that the variances he has requested will discourage the use of his land as a turnaround area, because it would be clear to those attempting to use his driveway that they were trespassing. His primary interest is to maintain his private interests in the property which should go beyond those currently enjoyed by the public. It is a desire for these rights that control his request for the variances as opposed to a desire to secure a greater financial return. The variances granted by the Board will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the Vasilaros property. The variances, however, could impair the present value of the Petitioner's property because the expansion of the Pierson duplex into a triplex would block a large amount of the Gulf view the Vasilaros building was designed to acquire. Petitioners' lot is in the same subdivision as the parcel owned by Respondent Pierson. Even before the Vasilaros lot was improved, the landowners knew or should have known that another parcel separated this lot from the beach. Respondent Pierson is under no statutory or contractual obligation to restrict his land use to allow Petitioners a view. The variances granted would result in a nonconforming building. All of the other structures in the immediate vicinity are nonconforming because these structures were built before current zoning regulations were adopted. Respondent Pierson seeks to blend with the neighborhood on the street and to have the same nonconforming advantages. Respondent Pierson could convert the current structure into a triplex. The apartments would be much smaller than the ones contemplated in the proposed plan. He seeks to create the third apartment for his own retirement home. On August 22, 1991, the Board granted a variance of 15 feet to permit construction of a triplex 10 feet from a street right-of-way and a second variance of 2 feet to allow construction up to 6 feet from the side property line to the south because the Board found that the applicant has substantially met all the standards for approval, as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code. More specifically, the Board found: a) The variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant; b) The Coastal Construction Control Line restricts the use of two- thirds of the property, allowing only 19 percent use, c) The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions involved and the strict application of the provisions of this Development Code would result in unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; and d) The variances granted are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the minimal use of the property subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the variances granted by the Board be set aside and the application for the variances submitted be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: JOHN T BLAKELY ESQ PO BOX 1368 CLEARWATER FL 34617 GEORGE W GREER ESQ 600 CLEVELAND ST - STE 685 CLEARWATER FL 34616 MILES LANCE ESQ PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 34618 CINDIE GOUDEAU/CITY CLERK CITY OF CLEARWATER PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 34618 MICHAEL WRIGHT/CITY MANAGER CITY OF CLEARWATER 112 S OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 34618 VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1992.
The Issue 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.
Findings Of Fact When the Appellant, Valentinos Koumoulidis, bought the subject property, the building was being used as a six-unit motel--three units on each of two floors. There were approximately 1600 square feet of space on each of the two floors. The property fronts at 606 Bayway Boulevard; the back of the property is waterfront. In 1991, the Appellant applied for and was granted a parking variance and variances to enable him to convert the first floor to retail use and convert the second floor to a residence. Apparently construction was delayed, and in October, 1992, the Appellant reapplied for the variances to enable him to convert the first floor to retail use and convert the second floor to a residence, while withdrawing the application for a parking variance. (He had decided to convert from straight- in/back-out parking to an off-street parking lot.) In 1994, the Appellant again applied for variances, this time to allow him to add approximately 300 square feet of commercial space to the back of the first floor and approximately 900 square feet of residential space to the back of the second floor. The Board denied those variance requests in October, 1994. Rather than appeal, the Appellant decide not to pursue the addition of commercial space to the back of the first floor and, on December 22, 1994, instead applied for variances to allow him just to add approximately 900 square feet of residential space to the back of the second floor. (Of the 900 square feet, approximately 550 would be enclosed, and approximately 350 would be open deck.) The evidence (primarily through the testimony of Noel Woods, one of the Appellant's neighbors) was that the residential property in the immediate vicinity is comparable, in terms of square footage of living space per dwelling unit, to the Appellant's current second floor--i.e., approximately 1600 to 1700 square feet. There was some evidence that residential properties across the intracoastal waterway from the Appellant's property are valued as high as a million dollars. But the evidence (again, the testimony of Noel Woods) also was that condominium units in the immediate vicinity are valued at approximately $175,000. There was no evidence that the use the Appellant is making of his property (retail on the first floor and residential on the second floor) is not a reasonable use.
Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 9, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow off-premises sale of beer and wine (2APS) was filed on behalf of Petitioner for property located at 2030 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on August 4, 1987. At that hearing, the Petitioner's representative was not allowed to give rebuttal testimony, although the Board's by-laws do allow the applicant to rebut testimony in opposition to the application, and rebuttal is, in fact, usually allowed. The Petitioner's representative did not specifically request an opportunity to rebut the opponent's testimony, but assumed he would be given an opportunity to speak before the Board voted. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 3-2 to deny conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioner on August 18, 1987. With this application, Petitioner seeks approval to sell beer and wine at a 7-11 convenience store. By subsequent application and approval of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 1, 1987 Petitioner has been granted a conditional use for 1APS, package sale of beer only. However, this 1APS application and approval is not at issue in this case. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of a church and several residences.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Austin is the owner of real property located at 1580 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Heslin is the owner of real property located at 1530 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Lighthouse is the applicant for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for structures and activities proposed to occur on property located adjacent to Austin’s property. Heslin’s property is located within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The property for which the CCCL permit is sought is located landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). On January 31, 2006, the Department gave notice of issuance of a CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The proposed permit authorizes activities 228 feet seaward of the CCCL, specifically, the construction of a subdivision roadway/cul-de- sac including asphalt and limerock foundation, excavation of soil, filling of soil, ornamental street lights, stormwater management swales, below grade utilities, and dune enhancement plantings. Lighthouse obtained a subdivision plat for the site from Gulf County, Florida, on June 28, 2005, which includes 12 platted lots seaward of the CCCL, each approximately one quarter acre in size. When issuing the CCCL permit, the Department did not consider the platted subdivision that will be serviced by the permitted roadway project. Austin filed a petition challenging the issuance of the CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The challenge is styled Gloria Austin v. Lighthouse Walk, LLC and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 06-1186 (hereafter “the Permit Challenge”), and is pending before Judge Alexander. Heslin sought and was granted leave to intervene in the Permit Challenge. Paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (Petition) in the Permit Challenge state as follows: 6. The proposed subdivision that is intended to be built by Lighthouse, will result in incompatible high density residential development seaward of the costal control line and seaward of the Petitioners’ homes. The incompatible and inappropriate nature of this subdivision will greatly increase the danger of Petitioners’ homes being damages by storm driven debris in the event of a major storm event such as a hurricane occurring in this area. * * * The area in question on Cape San Blas is presently developed in very low density single family home sites. The proposed development would create high density development seaward of the coastal construction control line for which construction is totally unnecessary and could easily be greatly minimized. The parcel in question could accommodate a residential subdivision without encroaching seaward of the present coastal construction and control line. In light of the above, it is clear the project violates Rule 62B- 33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. * * * 18. The proposed permit would create a high density subdivision which would create a multitude of small single family lots on this site. By granting the permit for this site development, the Department is condoning the intended construction of a multitude of single family residences which are totally inappropriate for the beach dune system in this area. The combined effect of the construction of single family residences on the proposed plat seaward of the coastal construction control line will maximize impacts to the beach dune system, not minimize the impact as required by the Department’s rules in Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Lighthouse moved to dismiss the Petition in the Permit Challenge, to strike certain allegations, and for an Order in limine in that case. The Department filed a memorandum of law in support of Lighthouse’s motion, stating, in part: Contrary to Petitioner’s argument in paragraph 2(b), the Department’s rule contains a standard for determination of “cumulative effects.” Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., provides that “[I]n assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell.” The Department’s rules also contain a regulatory definition of “impacts” (not “cumulative impacts” as argued by the Petitioner). Therefore, consideration of future applications not yet pending with the Department is outside the scope of the Department’s permitting jurisdiction under the rule. Contrary to the arguments made by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) and (d) construction of a “residential subdivision” is not a foregone conclusion. First, in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., it states that “[e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision; therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Second, use by an applicant of the single family home general permit authorized by Section 161.053(19), F.S., and existing in Rule 62B-34.070, F.A.C., is not governed by the principle that a general permit is authorized without additional agency action. The concept of a general permit adopted by rule exists in many different permitting programs of the Department. The different permitting programs are created and governed by their organic statutes, and only those statutes (and rules promulgated under them) should be looked to for the legal principles that apply in the permitting program. (See paragraph 4. above). The case law cited by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) of her response refers to general permits established under Chapter 403, F.S., specifically authorized by Section 408.814, F.S. Section 403.814(1) provides for use of a general permit 30 days after giving notice to the department “without any agency action by the department.” See § 403.814(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). No similar provision appears in Section 161.053(19), F.S. In addition, Section 403.814, F.S. provides for administrative review of the use of a general permit where the Department publishes or requires the applicant to publish notice of its intent to use a general permit. See § 403.814(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Hamilton County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and City of Jacksonville v. Department of Environmental Protection, 24 F.A.L.R. 938 (Fla. DEP 2001). By Order dated May 23, 2006, Judge Alexander struck paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition in the Permit Challenge, holding, in part: Second, the Motion to Strike is granted in part, and paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 are stricken. The Motion to Strike paragraphs 9 and 19 is denied since paragraph 9 simply tracks the language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), and neither paragraph makes specific reference to impacts from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Although paragraphs 5 and 13 refer to alleged impacts to “wildlife habitat,” “drainage,” and “wind and water borne missiles during a storm,” which might arguably include matters unrelated to this action, the granting of the Motion in Limine below precludes Petitioner from introducing evidence regarding impacts to habitat other than sea turtles, the stormwater exemption, and wind and water borne missiles caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Finally, the Motion in Limine is granted, and Petitioner (and Intervenor) shall be precluded from introducing evidence in support of allegations relating to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, debris and wind and water borne missiles from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, the exemption of swales from stormwater discharge permit requirements, and any habitat impacts unrelated to sea turtles. See § 161.053, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005, 62B-33.007, and 62-25.030(1)(c). Petitioners have alleged in this case that Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Lighthouse has disputed that allegation in its Motion for Summary Final Order, which is fully supported by the Department. Section 161.053(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was first adopted by the Legislature in 1983. The statute was amended without any substantive changes to its text in 1987. Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2005),2 currently states in pertinent part: Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to subsection (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location as described in subsection (1) upon receipt of an application from a property and/or riparian owner and upon the consideration of facts and circumstances, including: * * * 3. Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 1996 as follows: (3) After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: (a) Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other activities proposed within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. * * * (7) An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site, however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. An exception to this policy may be made with regard to those activities undertaken pursuant to Subsections 16B-33.005(3)(d) and 16B- 33.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 2000, as follows: After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: * * * Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) currently appears as set forth in the preceding paragraph, but without the underlining. One of the provisions in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases states that the Department shall: [d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. It was amended on August 27, 2000. The other provision in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases is the requirement that: [e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. Rule 62B-33.005 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the statute. Rule 62B-41.002 was first developed on August 23, 1992, as part of the newly enacted Rule Chapter 16B-41, which was later designated as Rule Chapter 62B-41. Rule 62B-41.002(28), first developed in 1992, is the precursor to Rules 62B-41.002(19)(a) and (b), which were added on October 23, 2001. Rule 62B-41.002 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-41.002(19)(b) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.041(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the Statute. The current language of Section 161.041(2), Florida Statutes, was adopted by the Legislature in 1987, as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location upon receipt of an application from a property or riparian owner and upon consideration of facts and circumstances, including: Adequate engineering data concerning inlet and shoreline stability and storm tides related to shoreline topography; Design features of the proposed structures or activities; and Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system or coastal inlet, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-41.002(19) was amended to its current form in 2001, as follows: Renumbered as (19) * * * “Adverse Impacts” are those impacts to the active portion of the coastal system resulting from coastal construction. Such impacts are caused by coastal construction which has a reasonable potential of causing a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. The active portion of the coastal system extends offshore to the seaward limit of sediment transport and includes ebb tidal shoals and offshore bars. "Cumulative Impacts" are impacts resulting from the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell individual coastal construction which, if permitted as a general practice on other coastal properties in the same general area, or if added to the adverse impacts from existing coastal construction are expected to result in an adverse impact. The scope of the "cumulative impact" review under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is described in the “Basis of Review” used by the South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management. Under the “Basis of Review,” cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities, would result in a violation of state water quality standards or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an assumption that reasonably expected future applications with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future applications. In reviewing impacts of a current ERP project application, the agency will review impacts from pending projects and extrapolate from those impacts to see what impacts future projects could contribute, using objective criteria, such as comprehensive plans, plats on file with local governments, or applicable land use restrictions and regulations. Tony McNeal, the administrator of the Department’s CCCL permitting program, acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the last sentence of Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) “is a way of saying that the Department is not going to be bound by its prior actions in similar cases.” However, he also explained that the sentence does not allow the Department to act inconsistently because the Department “consistently applies the same rules” to each project that comes before it and “[t]he only thing that changes are the facts surrounding the project.”
The Issue Whether Appellant was wrongfully denied a variance of 21.33 feet to construct a second floor deck at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact John Shaw, a resident of Massachusetts, purchased the condominium for which the variance is here requested in December, 1988 without first visiting the property or inquiring about zoning restrictions. The unit purchased is on the second floor of a two story building earlier converted from a hotel or motel into condominiums. The seller told Shaw he could construct a deck over the existing deck on the ground floor condominium below the unit purchased by Shaw. While the construction of this deck was in progress it was discovered no permit had been pulled for the project and the work was stopped. The subsequent application for a permit was denied because the proposed deck encroached some 21.33 feet into the setback area. The application for a variance was denied by the Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board and this appeal followed. The two buildings comprising this complex were erected many years ago and are non-conforming, i.e., the buildings themselves violate the current Development Code. An existing deck extending into the setback area was constructed on the unit directly below the condominium purchased by Shaw and a similar deck extending to the seawall was constructed on an adjacent building. No permits are on file for those decks. Construction of the proposed deck would improve the livability of the condominium greatly by expanding the area usable for looking seaward. The condominium has been used without this deck for many years. This property is zoned CR-24 and the setback requirement is 25 feet from the water's edge.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evidence sustains the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) to deny the application of the Appellant, Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc., for a 62-space parking requirement variance (200 spaces instead of the 262 required under the Code) for its property located at 900 North Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. (The variance is required as a result of the Appellant's desire to use a part of the property as a cruise ship docking facility.)
Findings Of Fact On or about October 25, 1993, the Appellant, Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc., applied to the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) for an 81-space parking requirement variance (128 spaces instead of the 209 required under the Code) for its property located at 900 North Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. After filing the application, the site plan was modified, and the variance application was modified to request a 62-space variance (200 spaces instead of the 262 required under the Code). The variance is required as a result of the Appellant's plan to have Adventure Seaways Corporation use a part of the property for use as a docking facility for its 600-passenger cruise ship, the Majestic Empress. The City of Clearwater Development Code (the Code) has no parking space requirements specifically designed for cruise ship operations. To establish the parking space requirements, it was decided to utilize Section 42.34(6)(d)2.c. of the Code, which addresses certain "retail sales and service uses," and states: Theaters, indoor and outdoor recreation centers, swimming pools, skating rinks and other public or private recreation and amusement facilities: One parking space per three customers or patrons computed on the basis of maximum servicing capacity at any one time, as determined by the requirements of the city, plus one additional space for every two persons employed on the premises at peak period of use. Specific provisions over and above the standard may be required for uses such as movie theaters involving successive changes of patrons with a corresponding overlap in parking required. Under that provision, it was calculated that 200 spaces would be needed for peak capacity for the 600-passenger cruise ship. An additional 62 parking spaces are needed for other uses proposed in the site plan (including boat slips, a dive charter operation, a sail charter operation, a 2,800 square foot parts and service business and three work bays), for a total of 262 parking spaces for the overall site plan. The evidence was that no adjustments to the calculation under the "one space per three customers or patrons" formula were "determined by the requirements of the city," and that no additional spaces were required for "persons employed on the premises." (There was some evidence that the Adventure Seaways employees will park off-site.) Nor was there any evidence that there were any "[s]pecific provisions over and above the standard required for . . . successive changes of patrons with a corresponding overlap in parking required." The Adventure Seaways Corporation plans two excursions of the Majestic Empress a day, one during the day and one in the evening. It is expected that the ship would sail at full capacity only approximately one day a week, on Saturday. At peak capacity, it is expected that 30 percent of the passengers will arrive at the docking facility by tour bus. During the day cruise, the buses would leave the facility and return at the end of the cruise to drop off passengers for the evening cruise and pick up off-loading day cruise passengers. They would not remain at the facility during the times other cruise ship passengers would have their cars parked at the facility. Using only the "one space per three customers or patrons" formula under Section 42.34(6)(d)2.c. of the Code, the 70 percent of the total complement of passengers, who are expected to arrive by personal vehicle on peak days, would require only 140 parking spaces (420 passengers divided by three per parking space), well below the 200 spaces allocated to the cruise ship operation under Clearwater Bay Marine Ways site plan. Since Adventure Seaways has not been able to use the Majestic Empress at the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility without the parking space variance, it has transferred a smaller cruise ship, the Crown Empress, from its docking facility at Johns Pass on Treasure Island in the interim. The Crown Empress's capacity is only 400 passengers, and no parking space variance is required to use it at the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility. Meanwhile, Adventure Seaways has received temporary permission to utilize the Majestic Empress at the Johns Pass facility on the condition that it make greater than normal use of tour buses to transport passengers to and from the Johns Pass docking facility. Adventure Seaways purchased the Majestic Empress after being encouraged by City officials about the prospects of being able to utilize the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility. After purchasing the vessel, it had the vessel reconfigured to reduce its draft to accommodate the shallow waters it would have to navigate getting to and from the facility. Adventure Seaways also closed in the top deck of the vessel to meet Code requirements for noise control. Neither the special shallow draft configuration nor the noise control measures are required for utilization of the Johns Pass facility. Part of the encouragement by City officials about the prospects of Adventure Seaways being able to utilize the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility included assurances that the City would help Adventure Seaways gain access to additional parking, or develop or acquire additional parking, in the vicinity, if needed. Another option would be to utilize off-site parking and transport passengers to and from the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility by bus.
The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board denying Petitioner's application for variances for certain signage on his property 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of certain property located at 1923-1943 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida (Section 05-29-16, M&B 23.05). This property is zoned CC (Commercial Center), and is the site of a strip shopping mall. On or about March 23, 1989, Petitioner applied for three variances for the subject property, as follows: 243 square feet to permit a total of 411 square feet of property identification signage; 13.5 feet in height to permit a 33.5 foot high pole sign; permission for a roof mounted sign. The Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for variances on April 13, 1989, and Petitioner timely filed this appeal of the Board's decision. Under the provisions of the City of Clearwater Land Development Code applicable to the Petitioner's property, only 168 square feet of property identification signage and pole signs not to exceed 20 feet in height would be allowed without a variance, and roof signs of any kind are prohibited unless a variance has been granted. Several months prior to Petitioner's filing for these variances, a roof sign was erected on the building located on the subject property. This roof sign consists of individual letters spelling "Harbor Square", which is the name of this shopping mall. The letters are from 3 feet, to 4 feet 9 inches in height, and span a distance of 34 feet 9 inches in width. The roof sign replaced a property identification sign at the right of way which previously carried the name of the shopping center, but the space on the pole sign previously used to identify the mall was not eliminated. That space is now used to identify a uniform business in the mall. Petitioner is seeking these after the fact variances to authorize the roof sign which has already been erected, and to approve the height of an existing pole sign. An enforcement action initiated by the City is pending this variance determination. Tenants in the Harbor Square mall testified that the change in signage has made the mall more visible and accessible, and several of their customers have commented that their businesses are now easier to find. The tenants feel that this change in signage will benefit their businesses financially. The Development Code Adjustment Board has previously granted variances from the signage limitations imposed by the Code, but the evidence produced at hearing indicates that none of these variances were granted after the fact. The two variances which were approved for roof signs were based upon a finding of conditions unique to the property which created a hardship for the applicant. In both instances, the Board found that the applicant had not created his own hardship, but that it arose from the size or positioning of the property involved in each application. In this case, nothing unique about the property can be found. The applicant has caused his own problems by allowing a sign to be erected without first obtaining a permit or variance. The Petitioner urges that it was the responsibility of his sign contractor to obtain all necessary permits or variances, and that the contractor did not inform him that a variance was necessary before he erected the sign. However, neither the sign contractor nor the Petitioner himself was present to testify, and therefore, there can be no finding with regard to his credibility, or with regard to whatever arrangement he had with the contractor. In any event, as the property owner seeking a variance, Petitioner has failed to establish any basis for a finding of a hardship or circumstance unique to his property, other than the fact that he allowed this sign to be erected without obtaining the necessary approvals from the City.
