Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 11 15 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1982 . The Code Enforcement Board Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Ben Kaplan. Roll Call: Victor Suarez, Chairman, late Jay Alpert, present George Mahoney, present Ben Kaplan, present Robert Smedley, present J. R. Hattaway, present Kenneth Smith, late Jack Cooper, City Prosecutor, present Wesley Dowell, Code Inspector, present Charles Sexton, Code Inspector, present Motion was made by Mahoney to approve the minutes of September 20, 1982. Seconded by Smedley. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Alpert, yes; Mahoney, yes; Kaplan, yes; Smedley, yes; Hattaway, yes; Smith, absent; Suarez, absent; motion carried. Chairman Suarez arrived at 7:07 p. m. He welcomed the new member Mr. Smedley. Election of the Chairman: Ben Kaplan nominated Victor Suarez to continue as Chairman. J. R. Hattaway nominated George Mahoney. Nominations were then closed. . Vote for Chairman: Alpert voted for Mahoney Mahoney voted for Suarez Kaplan voted for Mahoney Smedley voted for Mahoney Suarez voted for Mahoney Hattaway voted for Mahoney Mr. Mahoney is the new Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. Nominations for Vice-Chairman: Hattaway nominated Suarez for Vice-Chairman, seconded by Alpert. Motion was made by Alpert, seconded by Smedley, to appoint Suarez Vice-Chairman. Motion carried. Discussion of new, pending and closed cases: Mr. Cooper stated that 7-11 through a series of stipulations agreed to an experiment in that the experiment would be to have the Code Inspectors view the sign as it was. Then to turn off the sign and to attempt a modification and then to turn the sign on, for the Code Inspectors to again view the sign and to request then if and fact they have corrected the situation to be permitted to continue to use their sign. In compliance with the order of the Board, the 7-11 with a few "faux pas" have accomplished this. The Code Inspectors have accomplished this. I have the Code Inspectors' report and I wish to call to your attention that Mr. Bennett still objects to the sign. The Code Inspectors are here for your further questioning and in the event you are unable to arrive at a decision upon the conclusion of your discussion of the matter with the Code Inspectors, which you are going to hear tonight, that you may want to take a view of it yourselves in order to determine a conclusive result. . The Board reviewed the report from the Code Inspectors. At the present time the light is off. Mr. Cooper said the 7-11 could correct the problem if given an opportunity to do so. The conditions that the Board imposed were the Code Inspectors would view the sign as it was then. They would then turn the sign 90 degrees. The Code Inspectors would then view the sign again. This report you are reading now is the Code Inspectors ~ ~ Code Enforcement Board Meeting, Nov. 15, 1982 ~ view of the sign after it was turned. Alpert - both the Inspectors feel the sign increased the illumination at Mr. Bennett's residence? Page 2 Mahoney - it decreased it - after they had turned the sign there was less light into the residence. Mr. Cooper - the protest is still being lodged by Mr. Bennett. At the present moment the Code Inspectors are providing the Board with a factual report rather than arriving at a conclusion and requesting the Board to arrive at the conclusion. Mr. Alpert asked what Section of the code this refers to and Mr. Mahoney answered Sec. 5-ll4(d) and 44.76. Mr. Cooper said that if the Board is unable to arrive at a conclusion, then at the conclusion of the Case, the Board could go out and view the sign and arrive at a conclusion at that time. The Board agreed to do so. Mr. Smith arrived at 7:25 p. m. Case - Mr. Monson: Mr. Monson was represented by Mr. Tom Lang, Swann & Haddock of Orlando; Mr. John W. Daniels was also present to speak for Mr. Monson. Mr. Monson was cited under Sec. 13-1, doing work without a permit in the City's right-of-way. Mr. Cooper contended the only issue was that the work was done without a permit. Mr. Monson contended that he asked the City (Mr.Ray Bradshaw, former Building Official) and was told he did not need a permit. Attorney Lang argued that because of the ambiguities in the City's Codes, it was not intended to require a permit for the mulching that Mr. Monson did. He contended this was merely a neighborhood argument. ~ Motion was made by Suarez that the Board issues the Order of the Board which included findings of fact and conclusions of law, as presented to us by Mr. Cooper. Seconded by Mr. Smedley. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Alpert, no; Mahoney, yes; Kaplan, no; Smedley, yes; Suarez, yes; Hattaway, no; Smith, no; motion failed. Motion was made by Alpert, seconded by Hattaway that Mr. Monson is not in violation of the Code and this is landscaping and not excavation; and there is no violation and no need to get a permit. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Mahoney, no; Kaplan, no; Smedley, no; Suarez, no; Hattaway, yes; Smith, yes; Alpert, yes; motion failed. Motion was made by Alpert that Mr. Monson was not in violation and therefore, there was no need for him to get a permit. Seconded by Hattaway. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Kaplan, yes; Smedley, no; Suarez, no; Hattaway, yes; Smith, yes; Alpert, yes; Mahoney, no; motion carried. The Board then went to view the 7-11 sign in Tuscawilla. The Code Inspector caused the sign to be turned on and off. The Board reviewed the illumination being cast onto a residential area. Upon motion and second the Board unanimously agreed that the illumination from the sign was in violation of Section 5-ll4(d) of the Code. There being no further business upon motion and second, the Board adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~ Mary T. Norton, City Clerk