Loading...
CEB_03-23-93_MinCODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING MARCH 23, 19 9 3 PRESENT: Pat Corbin, Chairwoman Bob Lomax, Vice Chairman Warren Bull Ernest Tolos Gloria Latoski Lynette Dennis George Valkenburg (Unexcused) Daniel Mantzaris, CEB Attorney Leslie Blau, city Attorney's Associate Bob Baker, code Enforcement officer Bill Culbertson, City Building official Dick wells, Planning Director Cathy Price, secretary (Sub.) 1. The meeting was called to order at 7;32 P.M. 2. The secretary called the roll. All members were present except for Mr. Valkenburg. 3e APPROVAL OF MINUTES* Mr. Tolos asked for clarification in sentence 6 under New Business, the third sentence. Ms. Latoski made the motion to accept the minutes of February 23, 1993 as amended, per Mr. Tolos' request, and Mr. Lomax seconded the motion. Motion passed by 5 -0 vote. Ms. Dennis abstained from voting as she was not at the meeting for which the minutes were being approved. 41 PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Corbin advised that those wishing to speak would have to fill out an information form prior to being sworn in. She then asked for those who filled out the forms to stand and be sworn in. CEB - 1214 U.S. Sprint 881 W. Warren Avenue Mr. Baker identified himself and presented his qualifications. He advised that this case is a violation of the buffer area required between I -1 zoning and residential districts. He said that this is a continuation of CEB -1213 which required screening for stored materials. compliance was requested within 14 days after the previous meeting and compliance was not met, Mr. Baker advised that, in regard to the present case, requirement is that a buffer yard be put between residential and I -1 zoning. He also said that there is presently a chain link fence running along the back of the residential properties and a partial 8 wooden fence behind the buildings on the I -1 property. Mr. Baker said that the Respondent has been requested to put in a buffer area consisting of an 8 wall and a 40-70 buffer yard depending on what Sprint chooses to utilize in the area -- -the width variance requires a different number of trees and shrubs, depending on how many are planted per loo ' . He added that the City is requesting that a wall be erected along the rear of the property , since the properties to the East and West are vacant properties. Sprint came originally in 1978 as a telephone repair business with no outside storage. The new ordinance came into effect in 1988 requiring that the buffer wall be put in. The property was vacated by Sprint and then not occupied again until occupied by the Armory in 1989; thus the ordinance was in effect at the time of the Guard moving in. Mr. Baker advised that there were also noise and pollution complaints but the necessary testing had not been done to substantiate it according to the ordinance requirements. Mr. Baker said that his main concern was to get the buffer wall issue settled at this time. He requested that the plans and permits be obtained for the wall within thirty days and the wall to be installed within ninety days or to have a fine of $250 per day for every day of the violation. Ms. Dennis asked if the wall was installed if it would cut down on the noise and Mr. Baker advised that it would be a solid 8' masonry wall and that it should help some. Mr. Robert Green,, of Gurney and Handley Law Firm in Orlando, representing U.S. Sprint came forward. He presented a copy of the lease between Sprint and the National Guard as an exhibit. He advised that numerous correspondence has been written between Sprint and the National Guard in an attempt to resolve the matter. Included is a letter from Congressman John Mica's office saying that he had contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville which has overall responsibility for all real estate holdings for the National Guard units in Florida. He read a paragraph from a letter dated March 22nd from the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, signed by acting Chief, Real Estate Division, stating that the property was leased by the government to enable the establishment of a temporary armory which requires the operation of a variety of motor vehicles and equipment as well as the outside placement of military mobilization storage containers which is basic and essential to the armory activities, and to terminate or limit such activity would severely impact the armory activities. It went on to say that the National Guard must continue to operate its motor vehicles and equipment and place its storage containers on the leased premises in the same manner as it has since the beginning of the lease, or the temporary armory will be useless to the support of training for which it was established. Mr. Green said he disagreed with Mr. Baker that Ord. 808, dated 1990, was the controlling Ordinance for the property and said that it was Sprint's feeling that it was the one that was in of f ect when the lease was signed which was dated June 6, 1988. He said that under this ordinance there are classes of intensity for the use stating that a "C" buffer yard does not require any wall but class IV & V of intensity, which he feels that the Armory comes under, and not category VI which is what the City had cited them under. He went on to say that the primary use of the property is a National Guard Armory with a less intense use being outside storage which is required for this particular activity (as stated in the letter from the Real Estate Division of the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers). He said that Class VI refers to I -2 zoning but said that the property in question is zoned I -1 and that the significance of Class IV & V is that a wall is not required if there is a 40' buffer yard. He said that since 1978 there has been a 40 buffer yard in existence which would mean that the property is and has been in compliance with the governing ordinance. He reiterated that you have to use the ordinance that was in effect at the time of the lease. He went on to say that under Section 614.4 of the present ordinance in order to be required to come into compliance with the new Code requirements, one of three things needs to happen. (1) the structure needs to be altered or enlarged which would increase its non- conformity, (2) destroyed to more than 50% of its replacement cost or ( 3 ) He said the original buffer was native Florida vegetation which was removed as a result of the neighbors' complaints. He added that U.S. Sprint would be willing to get the proper landscaping in the buffer area. He also supplied the Board with copies of the original lease agreement and a copy of the 1988 Ordinance #839 . Mr. Baker said that the City did use ordinance 839 which includes Section 808. He said that there was a change in the table and that the buffer yard required had four options. He said whether or not a wall was required depended on the width of the buffer area. He said that this table requires a buffer yard "C" whereas the table from the 1990 ordinance required a buffer yard "D" . The options are : 60 wide buffer yard with the landscaping and trees and shrubs required. a 40' wide buffer yard with more trees and shrubs, a 25' wide buffer area with 6 1 wall and appropriate trees and shrubs or an 8 wall with appropriate trees and shrubs. Mr. Mant z ari s , the Board Attorney, asked if he understood Mr. Green to be saying that Sprint was acknowledging that they were not in compliance with Ord. #839 and Mr. Green said "no" because he felt that at one time there was a landscape buffer and it was removed because of a citizen complaint. Mr. Baker added that at one time the Armory and Sprint did agree to resolve the matter and put up the wall and the agreement fell apart. He said that the buffer area just needed to be replaced to resolve the problem for the residents. He added that as far as the non - conforming information the property does not meet this criteria. He added that in Section 614 it states that if any property remains vacant for 180 days the new use must comply with all existing ordinances. Mrs. Corbin called for comments from the audience concerning the buffer area and then closed the public hearing. Mr. Lomax made a motion to find the Respondents guilty as stated in the Notice of Hearing and amended by Mr. Baker, that U.S. Sprint is not in compliance with the buffer zones as stated in Ord. #839, Section 808. The motion was seconded by Ms. Latoski. Motion passed by 6 -0 vote. Mr. Lomax made a motion to give the Respondents 30 days to formulate the proposal (April 30, 1993) and ninety days to bring the matter into compliance ( June 23, 19 9 3) . Motion seconded by Ms. Latoski. If compliance was not met by June 23, 1993 a fine of $250 per day would be assessed as long as the violation exists. In case of non - compliance lien and foreclosures proceedings to be initiated. Motion passed by 6 -0 vote. Mr. Baker advised that on CEB -1213 the Board had found them in violation in not having the proper screening. He said that as of the compliance date they were not in compliance and as of this date they are still not in compliance. He said he was asking the Board to go ahead with the fine that had been imposed. Mr. Baker said he had submitted the non - compliance form requesting the penalties to be enacted on the given date. Mr. Mantzaris advised that as of the date of non - compliance that the fine runs from the date of filing the form of non- compliance and that the next step would be to come back before the Board and request an order imposing a lien. The Board then would f ile a certif ied order which imposes a lien on the property, and after three months authorization for foreclosure proceedings can be requested. CEB -1215 Henry Jr. and Mary D. Hardy 1485 S. cR 427 Ms. Corbin advised that she had filed a Conflict of Interest Notice because she is in the process of doing business with the Respondent and passed the gavel to Mr. Lomax, the Vice - Chairman. Ms. Dennis advised the Board that Mr. and Mrs. Hardy are personal friends of hers and that she would to file a Memorandum of Conflict within 15 days. Mr. Mantzaris advised that the only time one can abstain f rom voting is when there is potential for economic gain or if it involves a relative. Mr. Lomax advised that it would be so noted. Mr. Baker proceeded to say that the owner initiated annexation from Seminole County in 1985. THe property was zoned A -1 (agricultural) while in the County, with an exception allowing for retail nursery. Incidental mulching was being done and sand and fill dirt was being stored on the property. The property was never zoned by the City of Longwood, so legally it retained its A -1 County zoning. Mr. Baker advised that the outside storage issue ( Item 3 on the Violation Notice) could not proceed since Longwood has no A -1 zoning and the Longwood ordinance only addresses outside storage in C-2, C-3, and Residential zoning. Concerns at the time of annexation dealt with floodprone lands, wetlands, removal of trees, etc. Mr. Baker advised that he met with the Hardys in an attempt to resolve the problems on the property, and in researching he found that DER was involved with this property in January of 1991 insofar as environmental violations. He said that they are presently licensed under DER to accept yard materials up to 3,000 CY per year. He advised that a walk - through inspection was made with the Asst. City Planner to review any problems but Mr. Baker advised that since DER was working with the Hardys and had set deadlines the City held back on pursuing violations since DER was working on some of the same violations. Rather than adhering to the deadline, DER chose to extend it thus the City decided to proceed with the City Code violations for resolution. Mr. Baker said that he originally sent out a notice on August 17, 1992 citing eight violations. These were for signage, building violations, additional construction, a mulch building with no permit, outside storage ( which cannot be cited under City Code), destruction of trees, junk vehicles, travel trailers,( one of these having been occupied at one time), unposted address numbers and a dumpster on site that did not belong to IWS with whom the City has an exclusive franchise. Mr. Hardy responded to Mr. Baker's letter giving his input on each of the violations. Signage - permitted in Seminole county. Final inspections - someone notified Florida Power or neither buildings would have had electrical service. outside storage -- mulch is dispensed from a conveyor which exceeds 8 in height. Trees - lightning damage and heavy equipment use around pines will cause decline and pine borers from firewood sold on site will move to weaker trees. Vehicles - several trucks on site are used for parts. Travel trailers - have been moved. Street numbers -- have been posted. Dumpster -- has been changed to IWS. Mr. Baker said that since then he has added some violations to the original ones, specifically refuse and trash collection which is only allowed in I -2 zoning, thus would not be allowed on this property. Also added was obstruction of natural waterf low and f loodprone land, which DER is presently addressing and should be coming to resolution soon. In addition, the business is in violation of business license of Longwood as it is licensed as retail nursery and tree service), Mr. Baker stated that the City sign ordinance was adopted in 1981 and all signs were to be brought into compliance within two years. He said that through annexation, this property's signage should have been brought into compliance whether permitted in Seminole County or not. He also said that the one large double -sided sign has 160 SF which exceeded the allowable size. This sign would need to be permitted by the City and meet all criteria. Mr. Lomax requested the date of annexation and Mr. Baker advised April 18, 1988. He said that the City Planner had said at the time that he would hold off rezoning the property until the comp Plan was adopted but no rezoning of the property has occurred to date. Mr. Baker said that Mr. Hardy claimed that the non - permitted building was a minor extension to an overhang but he said that a considerable amount of roof was added to the mulch building which was not permitted. He said the City is requesting that they obtain the proper permits with the right documentation and plans. He said there are expired permits on the mulch building tower on the property. The City is requesting that these permits be renewed and all inspections be done. Mr. Baker said that #3 (storage materials) would not be addressed. He then showed aerials which depicted the progression of destruction of the trees from 1980 through 1993 and noted that the trees to the North of the property were not affected by the lightning and pine borers as Mr. Hardy had suggested the other trees had succumbed to. Mr. Baker said the trees on Mrs Colle I s property and the Casselberry side were still in good shape, only those on the Hardy property were affected by pine borers and lightning destruction. He mentioned a pile of vehicles which Mr. Hardy claimed were trucks being used for parts, but the same vehicles were loaded and hauled from the property on March 3, 1993. He commented that one of the travel trailers was removed but one of them had been moved closer to the office and is being utilized on a daily basis as he has observed workers going in and out during the day, He said that the building numbers have been posted and the dumpster has been replaced by an IWS dumpster, Obstruction of natural water flow will be addressed by DER. In regard to the business license violation, Mr. Baker said that the Respondents are operating as a solid waste disposal site which is not permitted. He said this type of operation cannot be considered a retail nursery and asked that the matter be referred to the City Commission for the license to be revoked. He then submitted photographs, addressing this particular issue. He showed pictures of junk vehicles and equipment, storage and fuel tanks, refrigerators, batteries, etc, on site. He mentioned a mound of mulch in the middle of the property which exceeds 25 in height and a couple of hundred feet in length. At this point he showed a video tape on the property. He said that the site needs to be cleaned up and all of the mulch and dirt removed to the original elevation of the property. He asked that the Respondents be required to replace the trees since the drainage area which was blocked, caused flooding and, subsequently, the demise of the trees and natural foliage. He suggested that if the Respondents do not comply, that a fine of $250 per day be imposed. Ms. Dennis asked if Mr. Baker was requesting that the Respondents license be revoked and he stated "yes ". Mr. Lomax asked "permanent or until they are in compliance". Mr. Baker said that the City cannot refuse a license to do business which is in compliance with the City ordinance, Ms. Dennis said that in a sense this would be forcing them to comply with the violations and Mr. Baker agreed. Ms. Dennis asked if this was not a bit harsh and Mr. Baker said that what is going on on the property is merits such action. Mr. Mantzaris advised that the revocation of the license and /or referral of the matter to the City commission was beyond the scope of the Code Board and should not be considered by them. Mr. Lomax called for a five minute recess at this time. When the meeting resumed, Mr. Ken Wright of Shutts and Bowen in Orlando stepped forward representing Mr. Hardy. He addressed the issues as cited. Signage - Mr. Hardy has a Seminole County permit for the pole sign on the property. Mr. Wright said that if it was not in compliance it was a non - conforming use that was accepted during the annexation process. He said that any other signs on the property would either be brought into compliance or be removed. Building construction - Mr. Hardy maintains that the buildings were inspected and finalled and Mr. Slick Helms approved the final inspection and authorized that power be provided to the buildings. The overhang addition was added to cover the walkway to the office building. Storage - has been removed for consideration by the Board. Damage and destruction of the trees - being deferred since DER is presently addressing this, obstruction of natural water flow - being addressed by DER. Mr. Wright briefed the Board on the status of the DER and Fish and Game Commission violations and said that they are in the process of negotiating a consent order. He also advised that there is a temporary restraining order prohibiting Mr. Hardy from activities that would otherwise violate the DER regulations. He said the vehicles have been removed and that one of the travel trailers has been removed and the other is being used as a facility for a security guard which will either be permitted for this use or be removed. He advised that the street numbers have been posted. He addressed Mr. Baker's reference to the 3,000 CY figure for compost but also mentioned that the industry standard for mulch is that the material has to be 90% recyclable. He said that because of the recent storm there has been an influx of recyclable material and Mr. Hardy had gotten a dumpster to put these materials into when they are separated from the yard waste, Refuse and trash collection - asked that this be handled through DER, occupational license --- felt that this was a question of definition and that this will be resolved. later. He stated that Mr. Hardy is providing a service for the City by recycling yard trash, limbs, etc. and making mulch which can be utilized again. He said that Mr. Hardy has contracted with Aquatic Symbiotics to prepare a restoration plan which would include the creation of additional wetlands on the site and the enhancement of the wetlands which Mr. Baker stated is being impacted. Mr. Hugh Harling introduced himself and briefed the Board on the history of Mr. Hardy' s business which was first located across from Lyman High School. Mr. Hardy then purchased the present location and went to the County for the appropriate use considerations for the relocation. He purchased a building which was being moved, set the foundation, had the foundation inspected through the County. He said that he was not part of the inspection process to upgrade the house but had been present for the foundation inspection. He said they then spoke to Mr. Chris Nagle, the previous City Planner, who advised him that the rezoning would be done when the Comp Plan was adopted. He said because of this Mr. Hardy was under the impression that the City would follow through and make the zoning consistent with the land use which he says the City map should show to be Industrial. Mr. Wright explained what the County had done when the west side of CR 427 was developed, dumping all of this water onto Mr. Hardy's land. The County then purchased an easement across the Hardy property so that they could outf all the drainage. Milwee Elementary School filled in the wetlands, through proper permitting, displacing the water onto the adjacent wetlands which reverted to Mr. Hardy's tract. when the County put in turns and tapers they put in larger pipes to carry drainage from the road structures and the high school parking lots which also enters the Hardy property on the North side and along the East side of the property. He said that they are working with DER and that the drainage and wetland issues will be resolved. He added that if the City allowed Mr. Hardy to continue his business, this would reduce the volume that goes to the dump and in essence, he is helping the City meet the State law requirements of reducing this volume by 30% by accepting this material at his business. Mr. Lomax then called for those who had come to speak against the issues. Mr. Brian Carr introduced himself and said that he was not present as a representative of DER but as a citizen of Winter Park and as a biologist. Mr. Wright objected to Mr. Carr' s testimony but Mr. Mant zaris advised that he is entitled to public hearing and to say whatever he wishes to add to the meeting. He addressed the matter of the tree deaths which had just occurred in the last year whereas the work that the County had done had been done for considerably longer. He addressed the moving of vehicles from one point to another on the property and the fact that a hose Bibb would not have been necessary on the travel trailer if someone had not been living in it. He addressed the importance of resolving the matters that Mr. Baker brought before the Board. Connie Knapp, a resident who lives on Lake Griffin, addressed the Board next, handing out packets of information for the Board members. She stated that the problem with the Respondents has been going on for years and felt that no one is taking responsibility for what is happening on the property and felt that she was being bounced back and forth between agencies. She spoke of the contents of the packet saying that there are aerials showing the destruction of the trees in the last few years, stating that there are very few trees left now. She made mention of the drains which were installed to take the water from the high school parking lot and said that these drains go into Trout Lake and not Lake Griffin as stated by Mr, Harling . She commented on the odor from the property and the fact that she felt that the Respondents should not be able to accept recyclables at their property. She said that there are construction materials that have been dumped on the property and voiced concern over this. She said that the residents around the lake have been there from 5 years to 30 years and are concerned about the demise of the area recently. She asked that the dumping be stopped, clean -up operations begun, regular inspections of the property be conducted to assure that it remains in compliance and the imposition of a severe fine which could be used toward the restoration of the area. She was in agreement with the request of the Code officer to revoke the occupational license until the there is a plan in effect. She also asked for part of the area to be rezoned as protected wetlands area which would disallow future development. Mr. Lomax asked for any other comments and carol Cowan, also a resident of the Lake, came forward. She spoke her concern for the growing algae in the lake which will eventually turn the lake into a retention pond rather than a living lake . She asked that the Board enf orc e the Codes that they had been asked to respond to at the meeting, thus responding to the frustration of the property owners who appeared at the meeting. Mr. Ken Wright asked to be able to make some closing remarks. He said that they have suggested appropriate drainage and pre- treatment to Lake Griffin as part of the resolution to the problem. He said he understood that Items #1,2,3,4,9,10 and 11 were being addressed at this meeting. During the presentation of staff, #3 and #10 have been deferred to be handled by DER, thus #1,2,4,9 and 11 are the remaining items to be resolved. He suggested that Item #4 be included with Items #3 and #lo , Mr. Wright felt that #11 should also be deferred as progression in the DER process might provide more facts. He added that they want to comply with the City and the Department of Environmental Regulation. Mr. Baker closed and asked that the Board take immediate action on the violations rather than wait for the DER matters to be resolved since no time frame was available for resolution. Mr. Lomax called for a motion for the public hearing to be closed. Mr. Tolos made the motion and Ms. Latoski seconded it. Motion passed by 5 -0 vote. Mr. Lomax made the motion that the Respondent was in violation of City Ordinance x`621 and Ms. Latoski seconded the motion. Mr. Wright asked that the Seminole County sign permit be made a part of the record. Mr. Tolos then amended his motion, stating that he moved to find the Respondent guilty of setbacks and allowable signage under Section 621 of the City ordinance, adding that there are also no permits listed with the City for the signs on the subject property. Ms, Latoski seconded this motion. Motion passed by 3 -2 vote. Mr. Tolos made the motion for the respondents to be given 10 days (April 2, 1993) to bring the property into compliance or $100 per day fine be imposed as long as the violation exists and, in the case of non - compliance, lien and foreclosure proceedings are to begin. Mr. Lomax called for a second, passed the gavel and seconded the motion. Motion failed with a 3 -2 vote. NO ORDER. Mr. Lomax called for a motion in regard to the buildings. Mr. Tolos made the motion to find the Respondents guilty of not having buildings inspected, additional construction without permits, and expired time limits on permits. Mr. Bull seconded the motion. Motion passed by 4 -1 vote. Mr. Tolos made a motion for the respondents to be given ten days ( April 2, 19 9 3 ) to obtain the necessary permits and have buildings inspected and finalled or fine of $100 per day as long as the violations exist and in the case of non - compliance lien and foreclosure proceedings are authorized. Motion seconded by Ms. Latoski. Motion passed by 4 -1 vote. Items # 3 9 and 10 are being addressed through DER. Mr. Bull made the motion to continue Item #4 until the next meeting. Mr. Tolos seconded the motion. Motion passed by 5 -0 vote. Motion was made by Mr. Tolos to find the Respondents not guilty of 602.2 (Dump Site) and seconded by Ms. Dennis. Motion passed by 5 -0 vote. Incorrect zoning information on Item #9. Cited for I -1 zoning, not A -l. Mr. Tolos made a motion to continue Item 11 until next meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lato ski . Motion passed by 5-0 vote. 56 old Business A. CEB -1120 Bryan Almaroad Not in compliance Af f idavit of non - compliance was f i l ed and request f or $ 10 per day fine be imposed beginning March 1, 1993, B. CEB -1211 Mary Hubbard Not in compliance Affidavit of non- compliance was filed and request for $100 fine be imposed beginning on March 15, 1993. c. CEB -1213 U.S. Sprint Not in compliance Affidavit of non - compliance was filed and request for fine to be imposed as suggested by Board. 6. New Business None. 7. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 P.M. Unanimous voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Price, Secretary Sub.) Pat Corbin, Chairwoman