CCMtg09-15-802t3ti
Ian9wrod City CnmN.ssion
Septaii~ 15, 1980
'fie Iongwaxl City Cmmissim held its cegulaz neetin9 at "1:30 p. m.
Present Mayor Oskert
Cmmissioner Grant
Gmaissioner Hopp ~~
- ~
Commissioner It:niann
Cmnussioner ltchell
David Chacey, city Adnllnistratoz
Mazvin [a-oks, City Attorney
IXmald Rerxy, City Clerk
Mayor Uskest called tl~e mseting to order, Inraation follomd bi' pledge of
allegianm to the United Htates Plag.
1. Approval of minutes - 9;8 /80 Boaxd of £kP~alization, Seng~.m3 Industrial Park.
on by Commissioner Hopp, secmded W Commissioner titchell to approve minutes of
9/8/80 &urd of £qualizatian, Im9urznd IDdustrial Park. Fbtion carried on imanvmvs
3. Aoproval of minutes - 9/ 8 /BO Peazd of Fclualizatron, Waynan 5
b
by C<mmissione Mitchell, seamded by Cmmissioner Hepp to aopxove mv:utes
of 9/A /80
Poazd of equalization for Waymazi Street as sutmitted. tbtron css-Tied trv unani~mus wt
e.
3. Ftopmval of minutes - 9/ 8 /80 IrEgulaz ring. on q~ Cmmissimer Grant,
seceded M' Corte titdiell to appxow minutes of 9j 8 /60 as sulmitted. lbtion
carried lIi' wartvnous wte.
Public Participation Period: FHyor Uskert explained nroailures for Public
e 1~
ar-rioiparion Perioa.
s. omm, rutr~,ela srarea u,at he wishaa ro o~nt on to auegaa charges
n ~
against t9yo
USkart and wanted to open it ~ £or discussim anvng Camissien mertbers.
tbtron by Camussioner Mitchell, s cariazd 63' CamSssioner Hopp that an stigation
to opened for aiscussion letnaen Commussion mertbers cmcerning allege:] chazges against
Mayor Uskert.
6. ated that he tad not received any xules or guidelines £or the
e
s
Cmmis
Doer tL~ stated that he did not Celieve that Ma}mr U.skert did anY-
hearin9~
thin
wron
intenti¢all
and that he zeosmended llat
o a
tio
t
tak
C
i
i
y.
g
g
n
c
n
o
en.
om
ss
w~
tested [hat she believed that any alleged wrong was no intentronal and that es
rl,e matter Mesa gore far enoagn. on by mmm e< loraan~, eeoxa by c«m~isaia~e
~
i~
rQe o <
ev.tcl,eu eat xtayor Uskert be ~
a
md exonera
f anY wrm:g mi,:g. tmtirn passea
tE of 4 to 0 with Mayor Uskest abstainiru; dce th cmflict of interest. I>K.
on~~w~gested that IM1ayor Uskert file a conflict of into t form.
Ordinance No. 496 - Amnaing Ordinance No. 143. Public Heazin9 - Mr. Rinks mad
by title only.
0. s. Barhara Itlritte, Mrs. Vlrginia Warner and Mr. Zen Fboa spoke in £awr of the
ordinanre.
9. [ Robert Wws questioned wMm this left an individual. who had purGased
lots Mr. Fooks stated that it was rot appropriate Fo discuss the inaividual. ',:
10. Dbtion by Commissioner FRpp, seconded try Cannissioner Fitchell to close I
Publre Heazing on Ordinanw ha. 996. .btrwi passed by unaninous roll call veto.
289
11. ~ by mmdeeioner Mita,au, semnaea try Camdasioner l~rnann that ordinano
No. 496tb=_ apy ved. 4btion Eased by a mote of 4 to 1 with Camussimers Repo,
L xrteinn and MitcF 11 and Mayor tlskert Voting Aye and Camussioner GYant wring Nay.
12. Ordinance No. 991 - Mc. Rvks stated that Ordinance Nb. 491 Czcwes mot with
H>° passage of Ordinance No. 496 and stated that no further action was necessary.
13. Ordinance No. 499 - Annezatron of Staten tbtel Property. Mr. Rvks read by title
or:ly. Cation by-Camussioner Mitchell, seoanded by Cbmnissicner utant that ordinance
No. 499 ~ Fassed on first reading. Mctam was passed on a unanvrous roll call mote.
14. Sits Plan - Inngxvcd Mini ]ioases. Mr. t]~acey stated that Hite was prq~erly
zoned and was n a flood prone are Itr. Ciwcey stated that there was a problem
getting fire Txurhsnarowd building and stated t}at t7r. Tan einford tad agreed to cut
back eadi building fiuE feet to provide adequate sparn. This rlan9e was indicated
fE plan, er BeFP gwstion~ velvet assurance City had tlwtMx. BinfoN
would cut Lack eadt building five feet. tk. Chacey stated Hat Mr. einfozd was wt
present; expactitg that s th plan would no cone up this early. on try ¢'nmissioner
F(epp, seconded by Commissioner etant that 5r e Plan be tabled to abait Mr. Rinford.
Nation caz-ried by :manvrous roll call mote.
15. Nut on by Ccmar shell, seocnoed by Cwmissiocer Hepp Hat Wayman Street
paving to renoved fmnrtableeWt carried on w roll call mote. Mr.
Ctaacey awtea mat th a pavir~9 wsi ~h~ one mandssion naa agr~aea to three atipmaeiona.
ae, if so percant of the Proeerty w,ners on t r~erea that m to Pa~ea,
tl~e paving as srzent will to 45/45/10 F'-rcent.s £bxty F ve Parrnnt to each abating
pr perty wmeceand ten Ecr t to tlx City. mnsi'~ced a thoroughfare
try the City and City in tes paving, the City will pay fifty percent of assesa~~t and
abating property omersrwill each pay tzenty fine percent. Three, if a ProFCrty amer
wim a r lot wasp usly assessed in a 45/45/10 paving as and the City
Tiated aesubsequent as t for another strc¢t, he would not Lc r Tiired to pay
and the City mould pick up tFn assesstmnt fee.
16. Camussioner Inniann gcestiaied what prornaure mould ~ used fox old streets.
Mayor tlske explained that if a property oanei' amed a corner lot and Fad previously
paid an assesgrent fee of forty five percent, tMn the 2nd paving fee mould to picked
vp bf the City.
17. Mr. Pinks stated that no mom siwuld be taken this :tight on 4wyaan Street paving;
ttat it cost to plarnd on the agenda and that ads to platad in ne+spapers and another
resolvtim prepared.
18, twn by Ccmnissioner xepp that City arbp[ Ordinance ron ming paving wArem
City assesses 45/45/10 ce streets Uat have petitions signed by 51 percent of the
proi~rty owners and Hat the City pay 50 percent with abating pxolxXrty wmers paying
25 percent on streets wMre the City inrtrates the paving.
19. Fh. [kok stggested ttat the Cmmission only ~sider an Ordinance on paving
wayrtan Street. tmtaon bJ Ccmnissioner Hepp died for lack of a sewnd.
20. hbtion lry Cc. issioner Mittltell, secmi~d by Ceram er Hepp chat City A[tomey
prepare resolution for paving Wayman Street with City paving 50 parcent and abating
pxocerLy o.~niers paying 25 pex'cent. Nation carried m wani;rous roll call mote.
21. City ArLVnistrator's Fnpart: Mr. Ctucey stated Hat he had rereived a letter fmn
a develoler mnceming the TaUm area ragcestinq that the City provir~ water and sewe
to ~proxinately 330 propwed w Mr. (Macey stated ttt Winter Springs has
aeprivately wined utility so City of Lm, ma would not to en marking er Springs.
. Chaay stated mat he believEd that City would receive finan ial LvneF~itstof between
$100,000.00 and $SSO,oo0.00 that could b° used in the purchase of a new cewer plant.flr.
Chacey stated there was no chance of Ixm9xcod annexing property.
`lyU
22. Mayor Uskert quesllored what would happen if Wintez Springs annexed property
and Mr. CbacMy replied tlut the City would tavE additional scorer taps and capability.
Mx. Chacey xegneste3 authorization to puesue matter as was done previously with Irng-
t ] G[een. , ~
23. Camussioner Grant stated that lie had no objections to Mr. Chacey piocce ling
but that he bslieved That the d=_velop=_rs should pay ~rore for water and sewage than ~
City residents. Mr. Chacey stated that they urould be diarged note.
24. m by Commr Hopp, seconded 61' Cantu ant that Mr. Cnacsy th
auHa(r~ized to ororeed an0 attanpt to develop a pxeggsal £ran the develope Pbtiai
passed on unanimous roll call mote.
25. Mr. Cnacey stated that he had written the M1Wyor and Coemnssioners wnwsning flu
need fora ter System Engineering Study. Mr. Cnacey stated that City does not have
full time engineer and he thought the antrcipated most of Hie project ($],000 - 515,000)
would be saved by acre efficient water plants and sexvice.
26. on by Comnissioner HePp• s anded by Canty. xmann that Mr. (liacey to
avUmxiz~ w oxcceed with engincering study on waterrsystem. Notion r>~-ied by
unanu~ous roll call mote.
2]. city Attorney's Freport: Mr Frocks discussed the Handy Way suit and reanmended
that City negoTiaTe settleemnt and grant approval for site plan. Mr Pinks stated
that M tud linked into the possibility of rezoning property and denying site plan
because t he s of properly zoned but he cited a 19]3 c of pale Cowty/vs
Williams wFgrercityatried to one pxoF 'ty to Yfeat a uit and the moat held Heat
this was wring and capricious and done to defeat law suits
za. e><s. virgin' resident of rongwoea craves civic Ass~iation s~xe and 11
read a Namorana~ oiiawr~ipting sevEral legal prace~„th whore ra ,nq naa heen _. J
used as m prevenr. permara fray Feing is uea. airs. warner seaeea chat sne
Fad a pzop~sedsordinance to acoxplish this action.
29. Mr [inks stated that when he first gave report and recremendaticros, the Crnmission
talking re Doing. He s d that [(rs. W indicated that three a mays
had agrced that xe Doing was a feasible defense Wt that Fe Fad not heazd fmmtany of
tMm and Fad not seen the M1k~mo o£ law before. Mr Ikoks stated flat City has two
questions to as thz City justified in denying s to plan and can City &iange
zoning aftee beingrsued. Sn his opinion the answer rs no.
30. Pinks stated that the o of zmung cases depend u(mn the facts of the
individual ca and in ew of Hie probable outwrm and the expectc+l exi» ses inwlved,
he reo~n~,~a settle,~,c.
31. Mayer Uskert questioned whether citizens mould in injunction Tn prevent
Camdssion from acting. Mayor Usker[ stated Hwt a majority of the G.nmission objected
to srte plan aopmval for Handy Way but that the Ca!mission must follwr the las.
3z. rarad that sre Fad o~n+ac a all me s rounainm sutai~isin„s and sFe
has £o~n,a o~u.ye~ pacple that aim,~t oppose Handy euay sip plan ~prwu. [ er
stacea H,at ahe ~~as deliversng a pmpcscH ordinance ~ 9.01 cin' oe~
and 9.03 of the city a,areer » H,e city clerk and rne~~ii~rea raiuest xo rim
City Clerk.
1
33. C rtmissioner Hepp addresse3 Mrs. W and stated tFat the Rmti.ssion was n ~
oploss3 to her remmendatrons; tlwt tFe City Crnmussion was for her but he Yelieved
that the ¢amission should £ollw Hie advice of the City Attorney.
~~t
39. Mr. Ned Mueller suggested that the C1ty rezone pxenezty and [ten find out wnat
mould haipen.
35. Qmnissioner Hepp questioned if it would nshmve a wmany such az Handy Way th
fight public opinion where it ss obvious that the people don't want a stpxe i.n azea.
36. Dick Shannon stnt¢d tMt he was very w cemea afoot s and telieved that
as the duty p£ the Cwartission to pursue ttn natter to full extent of law. He stated
that Mrs, War]ror had offered other mart cases that disagree wish the City Attorney's
repsrt and remmmndatims.
3]. Mr. Sidney Certel sryvke against the City settling law suit.
38. NK. Qiazles Parton spoke against the City settling law suit and q~psiimed the
is o£ the lawsuit if the City lose and had to pay Wth attorneys. Hr. Masks stated
that it could pact bly mst t txeen $2o0p.00 and $3,000.00.
39. Mayor Oskert questioned whether each Conmissiorer would be liable i£ The City
atta~Qted to rezone pxcpex'ty: Mr. Pocks stated that each Cmmissioner has M n sued
and stated that other side has not, but mould see]c to in{nse individual liabili[.
90. Mr. Fooks stated that his nane and views m Ming the Handy Wav sort had
lemrte so uel.l kno«n, that he xsmmended that theCity hire a special attorrey m
defend the lawsuit i£ the City chose that muxse of ac[ron.
41. Mxs. VirgiKa Warner suggested that ar, oxrlinance Lc drawn ~ protecti.ng individual
Cmnnissim narbem £mn liability.
42. Ch. Cnacey stated that he believed the suit should L defended on the basis TJUt
rre srnre wala oanstiture a traffic hazard and saia chat ne aia not believe The
c~daaionera uvula re liable if they oceyea Tlp laws of .h° acy bar. ha r.~n~a~
against using mzoning as a defense.
43. Crsmissimer [ormann suggested that City Mend against suet and qo th wort.
44. Mayor Ilskext stated that iE it was the desire of the people to fight the suit,
the Commission should m m.
45. M1b m by ComN.ssioner Hepp, secmded by Camissiomr Mitchell that City proceed
to defend against Handy way lawsuit and in view of City Attorney's previous opinions
that city appoint a special attorney. [boon was pazsea by a unaeuerous roll call vote.
96. Connassroner Thrown suggested that City appoint Haxvey A1pes to defend lawsuit.
97. Virgini ated that in ew of Cmmission's vote she wished to
withdraw Mr [ztitim fox inrteative and she picked up the affidavit fran the City
Clerk.
9e. Mayor oskert aTnrea that the mnndeeioa ra acrea th acmraanm with the aesiret
o£ the c rated that the decision was no reflection m !7<. Rinks, that the
city naaefmi wnfidenm in Rooks ana mnsiaerea him a rmeate,+t aetomey.
Commssrmer Inxnwn sWtea that she agreed with Mayor Uskert.
49. ta. Finks rep'~rtea on the Cede £hfoxcen'act Baaxd and stated that Fe had talked
with a representati~,s in Palm Peach, Florida. Pahn Feach enacted Ne board under
authority o£ a special ac of Js Iegislature a a pilot pro3ram. The bxr3 has
Veen effective and the City has not had to go teyma giving anyone a arcing. Mr.
Popks stated that the ode P]'~forcenvit Poard is tend>d +o ao away with tl'n
utt system and that it gives Teeth to City oxHinanms. Fcoks e~q~lained the
p aural rules of me bo3ra ana srama enae rte noara eoula rearh Lmal or £acewl
mnmusioas. violamra mina be finea Sspo.oo per aay for a aa,~i,~m of ss,ppo. po.
29`L
N . Rmks state3 that the Code Ehforcenent Board has not been tested to determine
50. Mr SinQSCn stated tlwt the City Attorney was mnect in teat the hard
endorsed by the Florida Ieoque of Cities. Mr. Sirtpson sryke strongly against
beard, s ring Nat it violated the seluration of the legislative and judicial
Wdies o£ gowr~et. Mr. Sinpscn questioned wheNU:r legislators had been adequately
briefed on the hill.
51. Ibbert Da s aq -a with t1r. SirtQSOn and spoke against t} CNe Q~forcemst
Boazd~ Mr suggested that the aakerq~ of Ne MaN indicated that it mould ne
used to hear~v violations and he questioned whether loarct could mver otlffir
orainances. Mr.aGracegy stated that th¢ Poacd mould mvzr those ordinances designated.
N4. Da s suggestSd that all City ordinances be examines to deterine whether tF¢y
are enforceable.
52. Mitrfell sta d that the City ra'luires additional re eazch m the
mac ciforSe~ne mars. laaror uskert swtea u,at ins legislatve has acne re ears,;
that this was an effort to help the c with a problem. +tayoc Uskert stated that
ne dtsagrted with the mnclusions of Mr.esSm~son.
53. Co stated Nat she thought pressure should be put on the State
Attorney'ssoffim to have City Ordinances enfor d.
s4. Hepp sNtea u,ae he naa talked to several pities and thae ue cities
nave ~aa laughing sto ~: beeaese Nev ean•i nape their o~anms enforces.
c~naieaioner tffipp aratea use ne diaagxeal with ru, si,~pson.
55. Mr. Ctacey statril that the Cose Eiforcermnt Acard was suggested by the Florida
Isague of Cities as a way to lave ordinances enforced.
56. Mayor tlskert suggested that decision on boaN be delayed for one w ]:.
5"I. m by Crnmu MitrAell that City conduct further study on Cale
Eliforrn~mnt (bard andsthat City contaR State A mey's offim to determine how
to prnssum Tallahassee to get state Attomey'sto£fice noxe Feip.
59. on bl' ~missioner t~epp, semndeid by Nnnissimer [a
site Plan for Mir;i-warehouses from table. Notion was passed by a wanrmsus roll
call mote.
60. Mr Binfoxd alnlogized forting late and initralea site plan indiratina
that 5 fce would to cut faun buildings. Mr Binford sta[e3 that he would provi~
a letter to Cmmission agreeing to t}nse actions.
61. Moti¢; by CamSSSioner Grant, seconded by Camu Mitdiell that 5
Plan for ttini-Wacelrouses b=_ appmved. tKrtron was passs3 by a warwnus roll call
62. City Attorney's It=lnrt on ordinance for Charter Advisory Cartaittee reose;rendation~
nr. reds approves r~naations of the darter Advisory cnamitrEe. ~
63. ~roeion by coma Hepp, seconded M mamissioner ror,ra„n that reo-re,enaacion . J
nwber five of the Charter Advisory Crnmittce, to t: that Cmmi wally appoint
City Administrator fora rm of one year, to disapproved and thatsSectia~ 4 of the
City Charter mava s is~ carried by a of 4 to 1. Cwnnissi0onus
Mitchell, WrnaemNand Hepp and1Nayor Uskert w ing Aye and Coamissimer Grant wring Nay.
X93
64, twn by Gmussimer Hepp, s corded by Camussioner Grant that City
xney draft an ordinanrn se tingeforth the approved remnre:datione of the
Chart r Advisory Committee as fl~aztcr a:mn Nn ts.
65. Mayor and Cmmissioners I+eports:
66. on by Cmmissioner Ipxnev:n, seem led by Grtnissioeier Mitdiell tbat Cmmission
autho[b e payrent of approved bills, irotaon was passed on a wairinous roll call vote.
6>. Cmmissimer Hepp questioned whether tl:e CVm:issim should take ~ the pr~sal
fox an ordinance on hwr future paving would ~ done. Mr. Fooks suggested H'at the
pxo[nsal First to liste4 as an ream on the agenda.
68. Nx:t on by (bmnissioner PlitcJxll~ second i by Cmmissimer Fkpp that "--Ling
be adjourned. t~btron was carried on wanurovs wee and m=eting was adjouxrnd at
10:00 p.m.
~y~'~Gry~ r~
A~:
Clerk -~