Clearwater board approves single‑family infill at 848 Dempsey with fence condition after neighbors raise safety, use concerns

The Clearwater Community Development Board voted to approve a flexible‑development application for 848 Dempsey Street on May 20, allowing a two‑story detached dwelling in the city’s commercial district so long as the applicant installs a six‑foot, non‑opaque fence along the north, east and west property lines from the front wall to the rear of the lot.

The decision matters because the lot sits on Lakeview’s commercial corridor and neighbors and business owners told the board the site’s recent use as a community garden had drawn people who, they said, created safety and nuisance problems. The board’s approval authorizes the residential infill under the City Development Code’s comprehensive‑infill criteria but leaves enforcement of current activity on the vacant lot to police and code enforcement.

Staff presented FLD2024‑04010 and recommended approval. Ted Kozak, Planning and Development, summarized the application and staff findings and said the proposal meets the city’s infill criteria and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable code sections. Kozak told the board the commercial future‑land‑use category allows residential uses at densities up to 24 units per acre when the infill criteria are met and said staff “recommends approval of FLD2024‑04010, subject to conditions in the staff report.”

Rich Batters, the applicant’s architect with SDG Architecture, told the board the owner had previously attempted commercial redevelopment but that existing site constraints — notably a large live oak with a wide protection radius, stormwater requirements and limited lot area — made traditional commercial construction impractical. Batters said the design is a roughly 1,200‑square‑foot, two‑story detached house intended to “mimic” nearby single‑family scale and that the owner plans that unit as income property.

Several neighbors and property owners opposed the application or sought stricter conditions. Kevin Sexton, who obtained party status and owns businesses on Lakeview Road, said the lot’s current operations have produced repeated police calls and disorderly conduct; he told the board the property’s recent use “is not a community garden” and described arrests and other incidents nearby. Sexton asked the board to preserve the commercial zoning.

Other nearby residents raised design and compatibility concerns. Bill Johnson said the elevation facing Lakeview “looks like a barn” and questioned whether the structure fits the corridor’s scale, bulk and character. Quentin Quirino, representing several adjacent property owners, and other neighbors said they worry the permit could create a precedent for residential encroachment into the commercial strip or for uses the owner might later pursue.

At the same time, supporters of the garden and the owner addressed the board. Dagmar Ortiz, president of the Lakeview Association, said the garden’s original purpose was to teach residents—especially lower‑income neighbors—how to grow food and that volunteers and participants benefited from the beds and donated plants. Ortiz asked the board to recognize the community service the garden provided.

Board members repeatedly noted the limits of the Community Development Board’s authority. Chair Michael Butzkes told the room, “We’re here to evaluate whether those criteria have been met through the application,” and that enforcement or criminal matters are for police or code enforcement, not the board.

The board adopted the staff recommendation with an additional condition: the applicant must include a six‑foot, non‑opaque (picket/visibility) fence along the north, east and west property boundaries from the home’s front wall to the rear property line, with any code‑required perimeter landscaping. The motion passed; the board recorded one dissenting vote.

The approval is a final decision by the board but remains subject to the city’s appeal procedures for level‑2 hearings. Any development on the site will still require building permits and compliance with other city standards.

The meeting record shows the board also accepted procedural testimony and granted Kevin Sexton party status for this case; staff reiterated that short‑term rentals are permitted in the commercial district and must be regulated under existing licensing and code rules. Lauren Matzke, Planning and Development staff, noted, “This is in the commercial district, so short term rentals would be allowed,” a point several neighbors cited as a concern during testimony.

The board’s action resolves FLD2024‑04010 but does not address ongoing calls to police or code enforcement investigations into current activity at the vacant lot; speakers were told those issues lie outside the board’s land‑use review.