Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Request to rehear Third Street North patio waiver discussed; commission takes no rehearing motion
Summary
A lawyer for homeowners asked the Safety Harbor City Commission to rehear a previously denied impervious-surface and setback waiver for 1052 Third Street North, arguing new evidence and procedural errors; commissioners heard the request but did not move to rehear the case.
Attorneys for homeowners Ed and Desiree Faulkner asked the Safety Harbor City Commission on Oct. 6 to rehear a waiver denial the commission issued Aug. 4 for an enclosed patio at 1052 Third Street North. The commission did not vote to rehear the matter at the meeting.
Valerie Smith, speaking as counsel for the Faulkners, said the August denial of an impervious-surface-ratio (ISR) waiver and rear-yard setback reduction was based on “limited and inaccurate information” and procedural errors that denied her clients adequate opportunity to respond. Smith said the requested ISR relief would move the site from 0.58 to 0.63 — an increase she described as only 72 square feet beyond the 0.6 limit — and that the engineering department had conditionally approved the addition with drainage to an existing city-approved swale.
City staff explained the rehearing standard under the city’s Land Development Code: a rehearing may be scheduled only if the commission finds evidence not previously considered or a factual mistake in the evidence originally considered. Staff and the city attorney reminded commissioners that the rehearing request is a request to schedule a rehearing, not the rehearing itself, and that the commission must find new evidence or mistake before authorizing reconsideration.
Commissioners asked Smith whether new evidence would be presented; she said she would show diagrams of roof pitch and drainage and evidence rebutting what she called incorrect claims in an objecting neighbor’s letter. Commissioners also noted that the original action had been a 4-1 denial on Aug. 4. The commission discussed whether the materials Smith described would meet the code standard for rehearing; several commissioners said they did not see an obvious procedural or staff error and were not compelled by the argument presented.
No commissioner moved to grant a rehearing at the Oct. 6 meeting; staff closed public comment and the commission moved on to other business. The request for rehearing remains on record as a written request received Aug. 19; further action would require a commission motion finding new evidence or a factual mistake related to the earlier decision.
