Loading...
CEB_02-23-93_MinThe code Enforcement Board of the City of Longwood, Florida met on February 23. 1993 at 7:30 P.M. Present: Pat Corbin, Chairwoman Bob Lomax, Vice Chairman Warren Bull Gloria Lato ski Ernest Tolos George Valkenburg (arrived 7:42 P.M.) Daniel Mantzaris, CEB Attorney Leslie Blau, City Attorney's Associate Bob Baker, Code Enforcement officer Dick Wells, Planning Director Cathy Price, (Substitute) Secretary 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. 2. The roll was called and all members were present with the exception of Mr. Valkenburg who arrived at 7 :42 P.M. 3. Approval of Minutes: Ms. Corbin asked that on Page 5, (CEB 1213) where mention was made that Mr. Baker "presented" the case that it be changed to reflect that he "stated" the case. The motion was made by Mr, To los to accept the minutes with the amendment as stated by Ms. Corbin and Ms. Latoski seconded the motion. 4. Public Hearing: 1. CEB -1209 Steve Grier ( Mr. Baker advised that Mr. Grier is in the process of applying for a permit to bring the violation into compliance. 2. CEB -1212 William S. Largent Mr. Baker advised that this needed to be rescheduled. 3. CEB-1213 U.S. Sprint Ms. Corbin advised that anyone who would be testifying needed to sign in and be sworn in at the same time. Mr. Baker presented his qualifications and gave a history of the original citation which required an 8' wall to effect screening from the residential property. Mr. Baker proceeded to say that this was amended to say that "screening i s required to comply with the buffer criteria as required in 620.2C f or the outside storage. He then submitted photographs which have been designated as City Exhibit A. These photos show equipment, generators, crates, what appears to be missile casings, fuel tanker trailer (parked at the rear of the property near the homes) and several other trailers. Mr. Baker stated that in 1978 the LPA approved the use with the stipulation that appropriate landscaping areas be provided to protect the residential structures to the rear of the property. He CODE ENF, MTG, Page Two 2/23/93 said that as f ar as could be determined this request had never been complied with. He then said that in the current zoning ordinance ( Adopted 3/81 which contains the outside storage regulations, i.e., 620.20 ) it then required that outside storage not exceed 8 ,1 in height and must be screened with opaque fencing, hedge, etc. The lease for the property was signed by the Armory on September 19, 1989 and they moved in with no approval from the City and no occupational license was issued thus the City was not aware of the use of the property or the type of storage that would be present on the property. He said that the City is now asking that this screening requirement be complied with, i.e., that they put up the required wall, fence, etc. in the back area by the homes or remove the storage. He reiterated that there is a fuel tanker that is parked along the back of the property and that it should be removed. He mentioned the large packet of letters and correspondence since April, 1992 or agreements and cancelling of agreements but the city is now asking for the screening to be put in or the storage be removed within thirty days or a fine of $250 a day be imposed. Ms. Corbin asked if the Board had any questions and then asked if the people were notified of the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1981 and Mr. Baker said he wouldn't think so but since the change of use took place in 1989 it would have been regulated by the ordinance in effect in 1989. Mr. Lomax asked if the structure would have been "grandf athered" in under the 1978 use and Mr. Baker said that the approved use was office and manufacturing with no outside storage and when wintel moved out and the Armory moved in the property should have come into compliance at that time with the current zoning. At this point Mr. Bob Green, of Gurney and Handley in Orlando, attorney for U.S. Sprint, stepped forward and said that he apologized for the fact that no one was there to represent the National Guard but that they were on maneuvers at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. He said that the Guard has informed Sprint that they will not be renewing the lease in October 1993 so a definite end of the violations is in site when this takes place. He said he felt that since Desert Storm, activity at this location has increased thus aggravation to the neighbors has also increased. He asked that the Board clarify for Sprint and the Guard exactly what items constitute storage. He said it is their position that the trailers are military electronic gear that are mobile and are part of their combat readiness equipment so they do not feel that these are storage. He said he felt that a tanker truck is a vehicle and does not constitute storage and that in industrial zoning a truck such as this should be allowed, He said if it constituted a safety hazard it might pose a different problem. He repeated that clarification of "storage" was necessary so that they would know CODE ENF. MTG. Page Three 2/23/93 specifically what was in violation. He also felt that a $250 per day fine as requested by the Code Enforcement officer was excessive. Mr. Green commented that he thought the Guard's low profile choice showed very poor public relations and he said that he was embarrassed that they chose not to appear at this meeting. He said that, whether government or private citizen, they should try to make peace with the City for the remaining term of their lease. Mr. Baker, at this point, gave the definition for "storage" stating that it is anything kept in an unoccupied outdoor space for eventual removal not expected within 72 hours or for continuous replacement by same or similar goods or products. Mr. Baker said that the trailers are not attached to any tractor and, when mowing, they had to use a forklift in order to mow the grass. Ms. Corbin asked if anyone else wished to speak in regard to this matter and Mr. Richard Palmiere came forward. Since he wanted to address a drainage problem at the Sprint property he was advised that there were other Code violations that would be addressed at a later meeting. Since the violation being addressed at this meeting was in regard to outside storage no other concerns could be brought up. The public hearing was closed at 8:03 P.M. Mr. Lomax said that whether or not the vehicles were considered outside storage there were enough other items to determine that there was a violation. He asked Mr. Mantzaris if it had to be determined at this point if the vehicles were, in fact, considered to be storage. He said "yes" that the Board needed to determine Whether there is a violation and also what needs to be done to bring it into compliance. Ms. Corbin asked for someone to Lomax proceeded to say that the Section 520.20 due to the outside and put this into a motion which state the Findings of Fact. Mr. Respondents are in violation of storage of items on the property was seconded by Mr. Valkenburg, Mr. Valkenburg continued the motion by adding that he further moved to give the Respondents 14 days to bring the property into compliance ( this date determined to be March 9, 19 9 3 ) or a penalty of $250 per day that would continue for each day that the property is not in compliance and in the case of non - compliance the Board authorizes to begin lien and foreclosure proceedings. Motion was seconded by Mr. Tolos. Motion passed with 5 -1 vote, with Mr. Lomax voting "no'l. CODE ENF, MTG, Page Four 2/23/93 5. old Business: Ms, Corbin asked Mr. Baker for the status of the following cases: A. CEB -1208 Dorelli Complied Bo CEB -1210 Almaroad /Mary Jones Not served. C. CEB -1211 Hubbard /Mullis Compliance 5. New Business: Ms. Corbin said that she was not aware until 10:00 A.M. of the day of the special meeting that the meeting had been canceled. She also advised that the Board Attorney was not aware until 4:00 P.M. of the same fact. She said that the City Commissioners made the public aware before the Board was notified and requested that from this point on that the Board be notified first. Mr. Valkenburg added that he was very displeased because the Board's action was nullified by someone other than the Board. He felt that Mr. Green got his continuance that he had asked for when the Board was trying to expedite things for the residents. Ms. Blau advised that their paperwork was not in order, thus the case could not be presented and Ms. Corbin said that the City should have asked the Commissioners not to make it public notice until the Board was notified. Ms. Blau added that they (City Commissioners) didn't realize that the Board had not been notified. 7. Adjournment: Ms. Corbin called for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Lomax made the motion which was seconded by Mr. Tolos. The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Price Secretary (Sub.) Pat Corbin, Chairwoman