Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 01 19 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD January 19, 1993 r- The meeting was called to order at 7:25 P.M. by Chairman Hoffmann. BOARD MEMBERS: Bob Gray, Present Art Hoffmann, Chairman, Present Anne Schneider, Vice-Chairman, Present Lloyd Anderson, Present Jim McShea, Absent Lurene Lyzen, Present Gene Prestera, Present CITY OFFICIALS: Lt. Robert Pieper, Code Officer Al White, Code Inspector Lt. Glenn Tolleson, Code Officer Tam Lang, City Attorney Approval of Minutes of November 17, 1992: Lyzen moved to approve the minutes of November 17, 1992. Schneider. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Seconded by r CEB-92-486, Walter T. & Janet M. Kelly and The Kislak Corporation- 107 Alderwood Street North, Section 20-433(1) - Disabled Motor Vehicles: White gave the Board an up-date on the case. White stated that he has a photograph as of this date showing the violation has been complied with and mentioned that the second page of the up-date is an affidavit of compliance before hearing. Lt. Glenn Tolleson, Code Officer, said that Mr. & Mrs. Kelly are present to give testimony. Mr. & Mrs. Kelly, Tolleson and White were sworn in for testimony. Tolleson said that White became aware of this case on October 21, 1992, there were two disabled vehicles in the rear of the yard and asked if he could see them and was told no. On October 30, 1992, notices were sent to the owner and mortgage holder. On November 5, 1992, the police department was informed that kids were partying and playing in the junk cars, and also on November 25, 1992, the cars were next to the back fence and kids were still playing in them. Tolleson stated that on December 3, 1992, two vehicles were moved but that an additional vehicle was there. As of today the additional car that was there has been brought into compliance. However, since this is the third time they have had a disabled car there, we would like to get a ruling. Lyzen asked if the cars are there in the back yard at the present time. Tolleson stated no. Gray stated that there have been three violations, and they have all been corrected, but asked if there were any problems in getting them corrected. Tolleson stated no. r Hoffmann asked if the Board had any questions for the violators. Schneider asked Walter Kelly about previous violations on disabled motor vehicles in October 1991, February 1992 and again in October 1992, and after Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 r Page 2 the first instance he would have realized that the Code states that disabled cars cannot be left disabled for more that a certain period of time and that it happened once it would be happening again and this is a recurring pattern, are we going to see you back here again. Kelly said that he doesn't think so, that he is done buying cars. He stated that he got the cars for his children as ~ incentive to finish school. Kelly mentioned that he doesn't make a lot of money and that he does most of the work on the cars himself to save money. He understands that there is a time limit for having disabled cars, but because of his monetary situation it sometimes takes longer to fix the cars. He also stated that he is more than willing to put the car behind the fence to keep it out of everybody's eye sight. r Schneider asked Kelly that after the first time that he was aware of Section 20-433 states about the storage and repair etc. of disabled motor vehicles, is that correct. Kelly stated that he was not aware of the Code until White told him about it, and after he took care of the car the first time, he totally forgot about it. Kelly stated that he does not agree with the Code, but that Winter springs should be kept clean, but because he does not have a lot of money and cannot do the repair immediately that he feels he should be able to keep a car in his back yard behind the fence as not to discrase the neighborhood. Discussion. Kelly said that he doesn't believe that he is 100% wrong and the Code is 100% right. Discussion on this item. Hoffmann moved that the violations that began October 22, 1992 and preceded through January 19, 1993, have been cleared as reported by the code officer. Seconded by Lyzen. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Relief Order: Gray moved that Walter T. & Janet M. Kelly and The Kislak Corporation be fined $50.00 per any reoccurrence of Section 20-433(1) of the Winter Springs Code as determined by an officer of the City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. CEB-92-505, Sheldon G. Craigo and The Kislak Corporation - 80 South Devon Avenue, Section 4-2 and 4-1 (Seminole County Code, Chapter 20, Section 20.25) - More than 2 dogs and barking dogs: James Craigo, representing his son Sheldon G. Craigo, and Mr. & Mrs. Roy were sworn in for testimony. White gave the Board an up-date on this case. Tolleson stated that on November 12, 1992, the police department received a r-' complaint from Mr. Roy regarding barking dogs at 80 South Devon Avenue, and on November 17, 1992, White heard two dogs barking from the back yard and when he went into the driveway he saw three dogs in the back yard. Tolleson also mentioned that there was four additional complaints as the dogs Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 ~ Page 3 continued to bark. dogs and no barking. still three dogs at additional two cases On December 1, 1992, upon reinspection, there were two December 21, 1992, Mr. Roy advised that there were the residence and they continue to bard. There was an reported on December 31, 1992 of barking dogs. Tolleson stated that on January 15, 1993, he personally went and walked down the street to the house and I could hear the dogs barking as I walked from my car to the home. I drove around the block and came back to the home and somebody had brought the dogs inside the house and I didn't hear any barking; also, nobody responded when I knocked on the door. Tolleson also stated that on this date, he and White went to the home and the dogs were still barking, there were only two dogs present. Eugene Roy, 81 South Edgemon Avenue, Winter Springs, spoke about his complaint. He stated that the dogs bark continually, sometimes for one or two hours at a time. The people that live at 80 South Devon, never make any attempt to stop them, he said that he has never heard them try to make the dogs stop barking. They have two dogs outside and sometimes the third dog is in the house and sometimes it too is outside. r Roy said that he has a wood fence on his property and an easement, and every time he goes in his back yard the dogs start barking. He said that he has tried to talk to the homeowner and he does nothing about it, the dogs just continually to bark, and he said he doesn't feel a person has to listen to this noise. Gray asked how long have the dogs been barking and disturbing him. Roy said for about 1 1/2 years. Anderson asked if the dogs bark past 10:00 p.m. sometime the barking starts at that time. Roy said not necessarily, James Craigo, 600 Friar Drive Longwood, father of Sheldon Craigo, spoke on his son's behalf. J. Craigo stated that his son is out of town and that is why he is here this evening. Craigo said that he has the third dog and is keeping it so his son only has two dogs at this time. He mentioned that there are other dogs in the neighborhood that bark. Craigo said that his son doesn't like to hear the dogs bark, both my son and his wife work all day, so when he is there he brings them in. Hoffmann asked if the dogs are in the back yard all day while they work. Craigo said yes. Discussion on this case. ~ Schneider clarified that the violation of Section 4.2 has come into compliance and we are hearing the violation of Section 4.1. She asked Craigo if he could give the Board testimony that his son is exerting an effort or that the dogs do not bark, is he actually making an effort to Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 r Page 4 control the dogs during the day while no one is home. Craigo said that he could not answer that, but that he knows that his son tries to keep them quiet while he is home, he brings them in the house at night until he goes to bed then the dogs are chained outside. Schneider asked Roy if there was certainty in his mind that when he hears dogs barking at night that it is Craigo's dogs and not other dogs in the neighborhood. Roy stated that he is sure in his mind that when he hears the dogs he knows which ones are barking. Lyzen asked Craigo is there was anyway his son house in the evening. Craigo said that he can determined that Craigo is watching the dogs while that the dogs are outside day and night while his could keep the dogs in the not answer that. It was his son is out of town and son is away. r Lyzen said in the case of CEB-92-505, of the City of Winter Springs, the Code Board has read the complaint filed and the written information presented by the Code Officer and heard at this meeting the sworn testimony of the prosecuting officer and witnesses regarding this case. Now, based on these proceedings I move this Board find that Sheldon G. Craigo and The Kislak Corporation in violation of Section 4-1 of the City of Winter Springs Code (Seminole County Code Chapter 20, Section 20.25), and that an appropriate relief order be issued at this meeting. Seconded by Gray. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion. Attorney Lang said for clarification that Craigo's son will have to exercise due control over the dogs. Relief Order: Gray moved that Sheldon G. Craigo and the Kislak Corporation, be given five (5) days from this hearing to correct the violation of Section 4-1 of the Winter Springs City Code and be fined $50.00 for any future occurrence as determined by an officer of the City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. CEB-92-526, Metropolitan Advertising, Spring Land Inv. Parker et al - State Road 434 near Wagner's Curve, Section 16-77 - Non Permitted Signs: Ltd. and Edward H. Lots 1, 2, 18 & 19, Carol Halliburton of Metropolitan Advertising Co., and Andrew Moos of Jr. Poster and Lt. Robert Pieper were sworn in for testimony. White gave the Board an up-date on this case. White stated that this case started as a group of signs that were not permitted, and showed the Board pictures of the signs. Lt. Pieper said this case came to the attention of the Code Enforcement section in November 1992, when it was realized that a group of signs built r in 1986 in the area of S.R. 434, known as Wagner's Curve, did not have current permits. On December 2, 1992, a letter was sent to the Metropolitan Ad. Co., notifying them that three of the signs they maintain on S.R. 434 in the area west of Central Winds Park, are in violation of City Ordinance 16- Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 r Page 5 77. These signs which were originally permitted erected in 1986 were valid for a maximum of two years after which time the permits may be renewed. The City records show these permits expiring on June 17, 1988 and have never been renewed. Metropolitan Ad. Co., was instructed to remove these signs fram the area within fifteen days of receiving the letter. Our postal records show that that letter was received by Metropolitan Ad. on December 3, 1992, allowing for a compliance by December 18, 1992. Pieper said on Decembet~ 15, 1992, Carol Hall iburton and Andrew Moos, came to the Winter Springs Police Department and met with myself to explore the alternatives to removing the signs. Halliburton and Moos were directed to the City Building Official who at that time advised them that the permits for the signs would not be renewed. On December 22, 1992, a letter was hand delivered fram Metropolitan Ad. to City Hall for the City Manager, that letter requested additional time to appeal this matter. r Pieper stated that it is the City's position that the permits will not be renewed because the billboards do not conform to City ordinance 16-77 as they presently exist and are thus in violation. The City therefore, will not issue permits that violate our own City Ordinances, we therefore seek a ruling that these signs are in violation of City Ord. 16-77 and ask for appropriate relief at this meeting. Pieper discussed with the Board a diagram that was presented to the Board in the up-date. Attorney Lang stated that for the record the issue before the Board is whether or not the signs are permitted and it appears that that permit expired in 1988, the placen~nt of the signs is truly up to the permit issuer as to whether or not they could be reissued permits at this time; our only concern at this time is the fact these signs do not have permits and have not had since 1988. Prestera asked why is the City just getting to this now if the permits expired in 1988. Pieper said that the only explanation he could offer is that over the years and personnel changes in City Hall it has gone unnoticed until this point. When the permits were issued and this project was originally undertaken the permits were approved by the Building Official at that time. What happened to the process in City Hall, what happened to the system of checks and balances, I cannot speak for. Pieper said that City Ordinance 16-77 by definition an outdoor advertising display, billboard, off premises sign is any sign upon which advertising matter may be painted or upon which posters may be posted or otherwise secured to the face thereof, advertising goods, services or other things not sold or available upon the premises of which the signs are located. Under .r" 16-77 spec i f ica 11 y in paragraph (e) states "Such signs sha 11 not be erected or maintained within five hundred (500) feet of a church, school, cemetery, public recreation area, state or national forest, railroad intersection, or r' Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 Page 6 r any residentially zoned property, measured along a common right-of-way." Referring to the chart, sign "A", when measured by the myself and the Code Inspector was 48' away from the closest property line of Central Winds Park and 56' feet away from the intersection of the railroad intersection with the park entrance, obviously falls well inside the 500' limit; sign "A" cannot remain where it is because it violates the City Code. The fact that the permit has expired means the City could not renew a permit for an obviously in violation sign. Secondly, (referring to the chart) the central sign and the western sign are spaced 387' apart linearly or 406' apart when measured point to point; both of which violate the 2,000 'minimums estab 1 i shed inSect i on 16-77 (c) wh ich states: "On a 11 state, county and municipal roads, such signs shall be placed a minimum distance of two thousand (2000) feet apart...... , again these two signs could not remain in conjunction with each other because they violate the 2,000' limit. There was a fourth sign that was originally part of this project that when the road was reconstructed and the new curve was put in, had to be removed because it fell on the new road, that sign had to be removed and no pernlit has been applied for a new placement for that sign and that sign was removed from the road side. The western sign listed as "D" on the chart is partially concealed by the natural vegetation that grows in the area. On November 24, 1992, workers from Metropolitan Ad. were in engaged in removing trees from the area to enhance the visibility of the sign, without a review of the project or permit issued to disturb the natural vegetation by the City Forester. At that time a warning was issued and the work was stopped, that violation of the Arbor Ordinance has been turned over to the office of the City forester for further action. Pieper said sign "D" has an arbor problem, sign "D" and "E" are too close within proximity of each other to be permitted and sign "A" is within 500' of a public recreation area and a railroad intersection. Not the least of these concerns is that at the time these signs were originally permitted the character of S.R. 434/419 in this area was a winding country road with a 90 degree turn posted at 15 mph with cautionary state signs. Drivers could safely negotiate the slower speeds of that turn and still take advantage of the advertising display. Today what is traditionally known as Wagner's Curve has been rebuilt into a higher speed bank turn posted at 35mph with deceleration and turning lanes at the entrance and exit of Central Winds Park. The higher speed of the curve and the ingress/egress of the Park require greater attention of the driver; outdoor advertising in this situation could distract that attention and lead traffic to traffic crashes with tragic results. These considerations were taken into the planning process and the decision not to renew permits. Pieper said Ms. Halliburton and Mr. Moos are present for any questions. r Andrew Moos, Jr. Posters, Orlando, stated that the first thing he would like to admit, just like the City, is that his company has also been negligent, they have had a lot of turnover in personnel, just like the City, which is 100% of the reason they are present today. In 1986 the gentleman who was given the permits for the four locations that we had our Jr. Posters on, was Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 ,r'" Page 7 given receipts for the pennits (he said he was told this by City Staff) which have an expiration date on them. This gentleman, who is no longer with our company, somehow never put these permit receipts in the file, all we have is the pennits themselves which do not show an expiration date, thus we thought that the permits we had were great, were in compliance and that there was nothing wrong. Gray asked if they have other signs and do they have to be renewed. Moos said yes they have other signs and said the pennits do not have to be renewed; he said they comply with state regulations for sign permitting which is done on an annual basis. The State sends us a list of our signs and we just repermit accordingly each year. r Moos said they do intend to move sign "A", we are in complete agreement, if something does not comply it shouldn't be there. What we want to do is bring our signs into compliance if it means moving them to spaces that are further apart. Moos mentioned that usually signs are measured on the same side of the street not the opposite side of the street. He also mentioned moving the signs on the opposite side of the street from the railroad tracks, this is what we hope can be done. We are a small company, we cannot afford to be put out of business by the City of Winter Springs, we have had a tough year, we do not have a lot of signs. We have had to layoff people and cut back salaries. Moos mentioned that he and Halliburton have spoken with the Mayor and several Commissioners who have told us they sympathize with our case and that collectively we will try to work things out. As far as repermitting, obviously you can't permit something that is in violation, so if we can indeed bring these in can~liance, hopefully they would be repermitted and be legal. In the meantime, removal of these signs is a tremendous undertaking, we have to hire manpower, rent the equipment, and this is the reason we have not done it within the 15 days, because it is thousands of dollars to remove these signs. We don't have this money to waste if there is any possibility at all of us keeping these signs in the area, just redigging the holes and place them wher' e they can be in camp 1 i ance . Pieper asked Moos in his previous discussions with the Mayor and various Commissioners what hope did they give you that these signs would be repennitted and you would be allowed to keep them. Moos stated that they said they would try and work things out with us. Pieper asked if they had been given a City Commission agenda date. Moos said we have not been put on the agenda but we were told that if we were found to be in violation tonight, we could appeal on the 25th. Pieper said that appealing the Code Enforcement Board decision does not go before the Commission. Moos said that they were told by the Commissioners that it does. Pieper said that appealing the Code Enforcement Board decision goes before the Circuit Court r per Florida statutes. Moos said then we were misinfonned by your Commissioners. .. .-., , II> Code Enforcement Board January 19, 1993 r Page 8 There was discussion about if they came into compliance, if the City would permit these signs. Attorney Lang said that there is no one here involved with permitting, and the discussions would be between them as to what they might find to be acceptable. Lyzen moved that in the case of CEB-92-526, Metropolitan Advertising, Spring Land lnv. Ltd. and Edward H. Parker et al, are found in violation of Section 16-77, of the Code of Winter Springs and an appropriate relief order be issued at this meeting. Seconded by Gray. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Discussion. Relief Order: Gray moved that Metropolitan Advertising, Spring Land Inv. Ltd. and Edward H. Parker et al be given 30 days to came into compliance with all parts of Section 16-77 of the Code of Winter Springs and be fined $200.00 per day thereafter until coming into compliance. Seconded by Lyzen. Discussion. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. r Respectfully submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk r