Loading...
CEB_07-27-99_MinCity of Longwood Code Enforcement Board City Commission Chambers 1753 W. warren Avenue Longwood, FL 32750 MINUTES OF MEETING July 27, 1999 1. CALL iN/IEETINO TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Bundy 2, ROLL CALL Ago%, Members present: Haywood Bundy. Chairman John Maingot John Lomax Cheryl Melvin Ernest Tolos Member absent: Charles Miles Staff Present: Amy E. voodblatt, CEB Attorney Russell F. McLatchey, Esquire, substituting for Richard Taylor, City Attorney Daniel Spak, Code Enforcement officer Carol D. Hoben. Recording Secretary 3. APPROVAL OF S OF JUNE 22 1999 MEETING Motion made by Ernest Tolos and seconded by Cheryl Melvin to approve the min utes of the June 22, 1999 CEB meeting. Minutes were accepted by unanimous vote. AVok S_ IAU Domnerw U I9 411A =99;July AM 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Attorney McLatchey swore in all parties who would give testimony. A. CEB 99 -06 -045 Howard C. Richmond Code Enforcement Officer, John Spak. presented the facts of this case: The investigation began in February, 1999. in response to a citizen's complaint about advertising signs in the medians and right-of-ways at the intersection of S.R. 434 and C.R. 427 in violation of LDC 24- 60.050). About a month later a citizen filed a written complaint regarding the same matter. an several occasions Mr. Spak drove by the location, but found no signs. He subsequently spoke with the complainant, who informed him that the signs advertising an auction were put out only on Fridays. Eventually, Mr. Spak did find signs and removed them. The Respondent, who was irate. came to the office to retrieve his signs the next week. and Mr. Spak explained the code violation to the Respondent and provided him with a copy of it. as well as a copy of the Notice of Violation. Signs were again removed from the right -of -way on April 23, May 7, June 4 and July 16. The Respondent was served with the Notice of Hearing on June 9, 1999. [Photographs were introduced into evidence.] on July 16` the Respondent ridiculed, harassed, cursed at, and made obscene gestures to Mr. Spak as he again removed signs from the median and right-of-way. The City recommends a $100.00 administrative fee and the imposition of the maximum penalty allowed. Testimony by Kathy Richmond, for the Respondent: Ms. Richmond stated that the correct name of the business is City Management Realty. Inc., a corporation. and Mr. Richmond is the President of the corporation. Ms. Richmond explained that the signs are directional signs for bi- weekly. Friday night auctions and have been used since 1993. Tile signs are put out for a few hours every other Friday. She said that notice was given on April 9, 1999, not April 7, 1999. Ms. Richmond feels that this matter is simply a personality conflict between Mr. Richmond and the Code Enforcement officer. and that Mr. Spak is practicing selective enforcement. She said both parties displayed rude conduct. The owners would like to keep the business in Longwood and do not see what harm there is in putting the signs out for just a few hours. A discussion period ensued. wherein Ms. Richmond was asked whether she was aware the signs were a violation. She responded that she did not see why their business was cited with a violation when there were so many other signs in the same area [photographs were shown] and those businesses were not cited. Ms. Richmond said that now that they know it is a violation, they will no longer put signs in the median or right -of -way. For the record, Mr. Spak stated that he had newer lost his temper with any citizen. Witness named Lorna Magee testified that the auction signs are an asset because they help the flow of traffic and. most likely, help prevent traffic accidents. SA 4H 2 J"` The public hearing portion of the case was closed and the Board commenced its discussion. Attorney Goodblatt pointed out that directional signs are allowed, however they must be on private property, and no signs whatsoever are permitted on a right -of -way. Attorney Goodblatt informed the Board that a fine is not allowed in this case, only an administrative fee. as long as the Respondents do not put any more signs out. She suggested that this may be a good case for the citation system. and the next time there is a violation. the police can simply serve a citation. Mr. Maingot said the Respondents were given ample opportunity to approach the City to remedy this problem. but they did not do so. It was agreed by the Board members that the City should assist the Respondents in finding ways to place signs to help the business, but also to be in compliance. Motion was made by Mr. Maingot that notice was properly given and the Respondent should be found guilty of violating LDC 24- 60.050). Respondent is to pay an administrative fee of $100.00 and is ordered to immediately cease erecting signs in the right-of-way. The Respondent shall pay a fine of $250.00 each and every time an infraction occurs. The Board recommends that the City meet with the Respondent to work out an effective way to advertise and promote the business without violating City Code. Motion was seconded by Mr. Tolos, and carried unanimously. B. CEB 99 -07 -0438 Gregory Gibson Code Enforcement Office Dan Spak asked for a continuance of this case. as the pool has been removed. There are other violations at this property that will be addressed at a future time. 5, OLD BUSINESS A. CEB 99 -04 -043 Richard D. Howard This property owner has still not paid his fine. B, Mr. Tolos recommended that the Board review its forms. It was agreed that this would be done when the new members joined the Board. 6, NEW BUSINESS Mr. Lomax informed the Board that, for medical reasons, he would be unavailable for the August meeting. S 'AU pocwn mff11M -VDV7 FF.I'49'q'.%* -� Ap Chairman Bundy informed the Board that a written. formal complaint is required for any residential code violation, whereas an anonymous complaint suffices for a commercial code violation. In his op4li.on, selective enforcement could be stopped if complainants did not fear retaliation. He recommended that the Board send a letter regarding this to the City Commission. Code Enforcement officer Spak suggested that an outside consultant be retained to review and revise the Code, because a well- written code is easier to enforce. Most citizens are unaware that they have violated Code and, once informed. are cooperative. 7. ADJOURNNIENT Meeting adjourned by Chairman Bundy at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol D. Hoben t, Recording Secretary August 15, 1999 .5--'AU MWWft,3M titp9WIAWMS199VU4 4