Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-1988 Minutes MINUTES OF THE CITY OF OCOEE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING HELD JANUARY 11x 1988 I . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman John Linebarier, Vice Chairman Joe Marbais, Members Frank Carlsson, Douglas Rush and James Skirvin, Attorney Ike Cool, Building Inspector Bill Hager, Sergeant William Gailit and Deputy Clerk Susan Amesbury. ABSENT: Member Gary Carroll (excused) and Member Kathleen Shidel (unexcused) . Chairman Linebarier called the meeting to order at 7:29 P.M. and led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and prayer. II . REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Carlsson moved to accept the minutes as printed and distributed. Motion seconded by Mr. Skirvin and approved unanimously. III . VIOLATIONS HEARINGS Robert Duquette, Case 87-44 As a matter of record, Mr. Robert Duquette was present to represent himself. Mr. Duquette expressed some concern that he did not have an attorney present. Chairman Linebarier stated that Mr. Duquette has a right to counsel and if he so wished, the Board could continue the case until next month's meeting to give him adequate time to procure an attorney. Mr. Duquette waived this right and agreed to abide by the Board's decision. Mr. Duquette and Building Inspector Hager were sworn in by Deputy Clerk Amesbury. Building Inspector Hager introduced himself and stated that the violations at Mr. Duquette's business, Papa's, Inc. were first observed on December 07, 1987. He further stated that Mr. Duquette was cited with a Notice of Code Violations on December 09, 1987 and given until December 19, 1987 to correct the violations. Building Inspector Hager stated that according to the Code, Mr. Duquette is allowed 2 1/2 square feet of sign for each foot of building frontage. He further stated that Mr. Duquette's building is 20' wide which would provide for a sign area of 50 square feet. Building Inspector Hager stated that there was one wall sign, 1 marquee sign and a door sign for a total of 148 square feet of sign which is 98 square feet over allowance. Building Inspector Hager showed the Board photographs of the building which is located at 1500-1 Wurst Rd. , Ocoee, Fl . Mr. Duquette stated that he owns Papa's, Inc. on Wurst Rd. He further stated that when he hired a sign vendor to erect the signs and paint a muriel on „�. his wall, he assumed the vendor had a sign permit. Mr. 1 CEB 1/11/88 PAGE 2 Duquette stated that when he discovered there was no permit, he came to City Hall and tried to purchase one. Mr. Duquette stated that Building Official Nagel would not sell him a permit because he was not sure what to charge for the wall muriel since there was not an Ordinance addressing the issue. He further stated that Building Official Nagel told him to wait until he could resolve the issue. Mr. Duquette stated that after waiting two weeks, the sign vendor went ahead and completed the project. He further stated that the next action by the City was to cite him with the Notice of Code Violations. Mr. Duquette stated that he has been down to City Hall to talk with the City Manager, who made an agreement with him that if he removed one sign, the others would be acceptable. He further stated that he removed one sign but Building Official Nagel then cited him with a Statement of Violation and a Notice of Hearing. Mr. Duquette stated that his attorney has advised him that he is not in violation since the City has addressed his muriel as a billboard and the muriel cannot be considered a billboard because it does not protrude from the building. He further stated that he is confused since he has tried to buy a permit and the City will not sell him one yet he is cited for installation of signs without a permit. Mr. Duquette stated that Building Official Nagel has been loud and abusive with him in his store three times. He further stated that his agreement with the City Manager was to remove one sign, which he did 12/31/87, and to remove his name from the wall muriel and replace with ice cream cones. Mr. Duquette stated that he feels the situation arose because no one at City Hall has an answer to the price of a permit for a muriel . He further stated that there was nothing in the City Code that prohibits a painted wall muriel . Mr. Duquette stated that he has not done anything wrong and that Building Official Nagel is rude. Mr. Duquette stated that he and Building Official Nagel have had problems since the day they met. He further stated that this whole situation has made him a nervous wreck with all of the confusion. Mr. Carlsson asked Building Inspector Hager if he was present the day Mr. Duquette attempted to procure a permit. Building Inspector Hager answered no. Chairman Linebarier stated that he wished Building Official Nagel were present to present his side of the case. Mr. Carlsson stated that he does not feel Mr. Duquette is in violation. Vice Chairman Marbais stated that he must abstain from voting in this matter because he can not vote against Mr. Duquette and if he were forced to, he would have to resign. Mr. Carlsson stated that he does not consider the muriel a billboard. Mr. Rush stated that it seemed to be up to the Board to decide if the muriel is indeed a billboard. Mr. Carlsson agreed that it was wrong for Mr. Duquette not to have a permit but stated that the muriel is not a violation. Chairman Linebarier read from Ordinance # 964. He then 2 CEB 1/11/88 Ler PAGE 3 stated that the muriel could be considered artwork if only it did not advertise a product. He further stated that, as is, the muriel was an advertising sign. Mr. Carlsson stated that he did not agree with Chairman Linebarier's assessment and said that it comes down to how you define the term "billboard" . Attorney Cool stated that the Board members were reading from Ordinance # 964 which revises parts of the City Code so that you can't look just at the Ordinance and get the full flavor. He further stated that the Board needed to look at the Code along with the Ordinance to fully understand. Chairman Linebarier asked Attorney Cool if he would interpret the muriel as a billboard and Attorney Cool answered that he would have to say no. Chairman Linebarier stated that a billboard is just a type of sign. Vice Chairman Marbais stated that if he advertised something off of the premises that he would consider the muriel a billboard but since he used his own building to promote his own product, he could not agree that it was a billboard. Chairman Linebarier stated that the code read that a billboard is a type of an advertising sign. Mr. Duquette asked for the definition of a muriel and stated again that he has done nothing wrong. He further stated that he could show the Board at least 30 billboards throughout the City. Attorney Cool stated that the interpretation of the term Ciro "billboard" was up to each Board member to interpret themselves. Chairman Linebarier asked Attorney Cool if an advertising sign is a billboard. Attorney Cool answered that it depends on the interpretation and read from Ordinance #964, Section VI (b) and Section VII (c) . He further stated that the Ordinance could be interpreted either way. At this time Sandra Doss introduced herself to the Board and was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Amesbury. Ms. Doss stated that she manages Papa's for Mr. Duquette. She further stated that she understands that Mr. Duquette needs to pay permit fees but that since no one will take his money, she cannot understand why he is in violation. Chairman Linebarier called a short recess at 8:29 P.M. Chairman Linebarier called the meeting back to order at 8:33 p.m. Chairman Linebarier stated that the Statement of Violations issued by the City refers to Ordinance # 710, Appendix A, Chapter VI, Section 1 (89) as the section of the code violated. He stated that it appeared to be incorrect since this was just a definition of a sign. Chairman Linebarier further stated that he believed that the section to be cited would be Zoning Ordinance, Chapter III, Section 10.8. Attorney Cool stated that he agrees with the Chairman. Chairman Linebarier stated that he was not convinced that Mr. 3 CEB 1/11/99 PAGE 4 Duquette did not attempt to obtain the permit and that in Building Official Nagel's absence, it could not be disputed. Chairman Linebarier further stated that in view of the fact that the wrong section of the code was cited and that Building Official Nagel was not present, he feels that if the City wants to pursue the case, the citation needs to be reworked. Chairman Linebarier stated that he would like to come to a gentleman's agreement with Mr. Duquette. Chairman Linebarier asked Building Inspector Hager what the City would accept to resolve the issue. Building Inspector Hager stated that Mr. Duquette needed to come to City Hall, apply for a permit and pay the double fee. Mr. Duquette agreed to Building Inspector Hager's request. Building Inspector Hager stated that although this would satisfy him, he could not speak for Building Official Nagel . Chairman Linebarier stated that since Building Official Nagel was not present, Building Inspector Hager is the City's representative. Mr. Carlsson recommended that Mr. Duquette deal with Building Inspector Hager vs Building Official Nagel due to the personality conflict. Mr. Carlsson then moved to dismiss the case in view of the evidence presented pursuant to the agreement by Mr. Duquette to obtain the permit for a double fee. Motion seconded by Mr. Rush and approved unanimously. IV OTHER BUSINESS A. Distribution of Ordinance # 964 for case reference The Ordinance was distributed in each Board member's packet. B. Notice of Dismissal - Glenda Hasty, Case #87-32 Mrs. Hasty complied and the case was dismissed by the City. C. Update of Case #87-43, Carl C. Hodges Chairman Linebarier stated that City Manager Ryan has issued an affidavit of noncompliance in Case # 87-43 and requested the Board issue an order assessing penalties based on Attorney Cool's recommendation. Chairman Linebarier then read the Order assessing penalties to the other Board members and further stated that he needed a Board motion to assess the penalties. Mr. Skirvin moved to issue an Order assessing penalties, seconded by Mr. Carlsson and approved unanimously. Attorney Cool suggested that the City file a certified copy of the order in Orange County public records. Chairman Linebarier asked if the Building department could issue an order for the building not to be used. Building Inspector Hager stated that the property owner could be cited with this order. Chairman Linebarier suggested the property owner be 4 CEB PAGE 5 1/11/88 issued an order not to allow the building to be used for any purpose until a certificate of occupancy is issued and the building is brought into compliance with safety and health codes. D. Distribution of CEB members listing The listing of Code Enforcement Board members was provided in the packets. E. Discussion of meeting night change - Chairman Linebarier Chairman Linebarier stated that several people over a period of years have remarked that Monday evenings were not good for them. He then sugggested the third Wednesday of each month. Vice Chairman Marbais stated that Wednesday might present a problem due to Church services. Chairman Linebarier then suggested the fourth Tuesday of each month beginning in March. He further stated that the meeting time would stay the same (7:30 P.M. ) . Attorney Cool recommended a motion to amend the Board's rules and regulations. Mr. Carlsson moved to change the Code Enforcement Board's monthly meetings to the fourth Tuesday of each month commencing in March, 1988 which will effect section 2.4 (b) of the administrative rules and regulations. Motion seconded by Mr. Skirvin and approved unanimously. V. COMMENTS A. Building Inspector - None B. Police Dept. - None C. Board Attorney - None D. Citizens - None E. Board Members - Mr. Skirvin asked about results from the Board's discussion last month in reference to animal control . Sergeant Gailit answered that it was a problem for the City to have animal control enforcement since there is not a holding facility for any animals that might be picked up. He further stated that training was not a problem, just holding the animals until Orange County could respond. Sergeant Gailit stated that he would do some checking and see what answers he could come up with for the next meeting. Chairman Linebarier asked that the City Manager be notified of the Board's request and ask him to coordinate this with Chief Boyd. Mr. Carlsson stated that he is glad to see that the City anticipates the hiring of a Code Enforcement Officer. Chairman Linebarier stated that if a particular staff member functions as the Code Inspector for a case, that staff member needs to be present at the meeting to represent the City. He further stated that it hurts the City's case when there is 5 CEB 1/11/88 PAGE 6 no one from the city to answer questions. Chairman Linebarier stated that to see the Building Official and the Building Inspector at the meetings would be ideal . VI . ADJOURNMENT Mr. Carlsson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mr. Rush and approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9: 12 p.m. hn H. Linebarier, Chairman ATTEST: tit e Deputy Clerk Amesbur ifCow L 6