Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 09 20 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes , ~ . CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS SEPTEMBER 20, 1982 The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Victor Suarez. RollCall: Victor Suarez, Chairman, present Jay Alpert, present Ben Kaplan, absent George Mahoney, present Gary Hunt, present J. R. Hattaway, absent Jack Cooper, Code Prosecutor, present Officer Sexton, Code Inspector,present Officer Dowell, Code Inspector,present Motion was made by Alpert, seconded by Hunt to approve the minutes of July 19, 1982. Motion carried. Mr. Cooper introduced Officer Sexton and Officer Dowell to the Board as the permanent Code Inspectors. The Board reviewed the case load of the Inspectors. The Board recessed briefly and then was called back to order by the Chairman. . Mr. Cooper explained that prior to presenting the case and in the form of a pre- trial conference he would like to advise the Board that we have present tonight Mr. B.R.Royal representing 7-11 stores. Mr. Royal is willing to accomplish certain items which mayor may not correct the alleged defect without prejudicing the right to have his case heard at a subsequent date. The City was going to show the Board that the 7-11 store had a valid approved Site Plan upon which was permitted a valid approved point of sale sign to be constructed on top of a pole. The City was going to show that this sign was installed after taking out a valid sign permit and that the siqn was intended to be lighted. The City was going to then present evidence to the Board that the issue which constituted a violation was due to the fact that the illumination was intruding on a subdivision which l. constituted a violation of the municipal code, and that 2. the intrusion of this light onto the subdivision was in the form of a nuisance to some of the city residents. Mr. Royal advised Mr. Cooper that 7-11 was prepared to take action on the removal of the illumination into the subdivision by an attempt to re-direct such illumination, that he was willing to cause the sign to remain unilluminated until such time that the modification was accomplished, and then to arrange for a test of the results, and to have the proper City official advise him as to the results of the test. In the event that we can accomplish these results it is my opinion that the complaining party, 7-11 and the City will be satisfied. I am going to ask Mr. Royal, by his discourse to you to demonstrate that the activities of the 7-11 were not intended to be a flagrant violation of the municipal code and were done by 7-11 due to the fact that they believed they were not violating any Code. If Mr. Royal stipulates to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and the proposed order of this Board that this Board enter into those findings, enter into those conlusions of law and enter into such an order at the conclusion of Mr. Royal's discourse to you, I will present to you the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of this Board and afford the complaining party an opportunity to determine whether or not this would meet his approval and acquiesance. . . . . ~ ~ ,~ Code Enforcement Board Meeting, Sept. 20, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Royal said that 7-11 did not intend to cause a problem or break any Code; they did not want to offend anyone. Mr. Royal felt if he turned the sign around to face his commercial property as well as the commercial property across the street, this might solve the problem. Mr. Cooper explained he did not want to present any facts that would prejudice any subsequent hearing. As a consequence Mr. Cooper asked that they discuss the law only and the law which is being alleged to be in violation. The violation allegations are Sec. 5-114(d) of the Code and 44.76. Exhibits E-l and E-2 are excerpts from the Code. E-l is an excerpt of Sec. 5-114(d) and the alleged violation is that the sign is focused and directed and so arranged so as to provide direct illumination onto a residential district and 44.76 the alleged violation is that the sign on the lot has become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. The facts of the matter are not being presented to the Board in view of the fact that Mr. Royal as an agent of his company is entitled to his subsequent day in court before an unprejudiced audience and were you to be presented with any facts tonight, I am suggesting to you that you will become prejudiced and will not be able to afford him an unprejudiced hearing in the future. Mr. Cooper read a proposed Order of the Board. (See attached). Mr. Cooper asked the Chairman to question Mr. Royal and Mr. Bennett as to whether or not those results would be satisfactory. Mr. Royal and Mr. Bennett were in agreement with this pre-hearing agreement. Mr. Cooper advised that if this agreement is entered into, and the Board issues this Order based on it, and the complaint is filed again, the net effect of the aqreement beinq entered into, 7-11 attempting to resolve the situation, the City staff ad- visinq 7-11 it has been resolved, 7-11 would then put on their liqht. At that time Mr. Bennett is free to complain again; the net effect of that testimony would be presented to this Board that the City staff found the liqht does not intrude upon Mr. Bennett. That testimony can be rebutted by Mr. Bennett's testimony that it does intrude; the Board then will decide on the relative weight of the testimony of both parties. It does not preclude from Mr. Bennett again complaining. However, what it does do is present to this Board that in good faith 7-11 attempted to correct the situation. In the interim it caused 7-11 to remain with an unlit siqn and the end conclusion is that whatever testimony is presented to this Board will be presented by a third party, so that this Board can determine which of its two citizens is correct, Mr. Bennett or 7-11. This Board was created to make such determinations. Motion by Suarez, seconded by Alpert that the Board issues the Order that was proposed by the Code Prosecutor so that we can qo into the compliance aspects. Motion carried. Mr. Cooper advised and assured Mr. Bennett that no one will arrive at a conclusion or make a determination without consulting him. Motion by Alpert, seconded by Hunt to adjourn. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Mary T. Norton, City Clerk