Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.20.92MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS I OI MEETING of FEBRUARY 20, 1992 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS SANFORD CITY H L MEMB ERS PRESENT: Tom Speer John LeRoy Joe Dennison Ben Dyal Helen Stairs Leon Brooks Cathryn welch MEMBERS ABSENT Terry Johnson Eddie Keith OTHERS PRESENT Jay Marder, Director of Planning and Development Bettie Sonnenberg, Land Development coordinator Marion Anderson, Secretary Lon Howell, City Commissioner William Reischma n, Acting City Attorney The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P . M . by Chairman Dennison. The first item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 400 S. palmetto Avenue in a SR -1, Single Family Dwelling Residential Zoning District for the purpose of a two - family dwelling. owner: Richard so Casselberry, Trustee; representative: John W. Howell. Mr. John Howell of Bocan , Munns & Munns, Orlando, stated that in their application, every attempt was made to do this the right way. He stated that discussions had taken place with neighbors and they had met with neighborhood watch group. They asked for a chance to talk to the Historic Trust but were unsuccessful in arranging this meeting. Mr. Howell stated that they wanted input which some of the neighbors provided. Mr. Howell started that in Paragraph 2 of the Land Development Regulations under the SR -1 Zoning, that this property, as zoned is consistent with the comp Plan. They are not asking for a reinstatement of a non - conforming use, This was attempted and was denied. They are asking that this property be allowed to be used as a two family dwelling unit. Mr. Howell stated that the location of the property with regard to the zoning district is of interest and entered a map into record showing surrounding zonings. He MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PAGE 2 stated that this property almost missed being in a SR -1 zone. Immediately across the street to the north is SC -3 and east is - 2. He submitted a snap with general locations of particular properties marked in red described as existing structures 'where there are more than one family residing. Mr. Howell then entered some photographs into the record. Mr, Howell stated that the present structure has been divided into four apartments, two upstairs and two on the bottom. This structure has been used for this particular use since the beginning of anyone's memory. He stated that they would like to convert the upper story into one dwelling and the lwer story into one dwelling. There is not a problem with the parking because there are two curb cuts, one on Palmetto and one on 4th. Both curb outs provide parking for at bast two cars. Mr, Howell stated that the conversion of this property will go further in preserving the historical value of the property. Mr, Howell stated that the approval for 606 Park Avenue indicates conditions sot by the City Commission. He prepared a list of the development order conditions prepared for 606 Park Avenue in 1991. They have attempted to substantially duplicate the conditions put on 606 Park Avenue for 400 Palmetto Avenue. In addition to the development order conditions, they will be requiring a substantial deposit, a complete tenant check, credit check, if at all possible, a police check to the extent allowed by law without violating anyone's civil rights, before leasing to a possible tenant. In the lease, them will be a clause which states that if there's a violation of the law or any disturbance, the lease will be void. Mr. Howell stated that the recommendation of Planning Director it is based on a policy of the City to maintain a single family district. This is an unwritten policy of the city; it is not a law or a regulation. Mr, Howell proposed that the policy is not uniformly enforced because the property to the east, directly across the street, was approved as a three unit hotel. On May 1, 1991, 606 Park Avenue was approved for a conditional use for 6 units. of the 6 bullets of the Planning Director's recommendations, only two are applicable. The location of the property would lead to an equitable conclusion that this would be more appropriate with multi - family properties immediately to the east and to the north. Mr. Howell asked if it is proper to go outside of the written policies stating that they show that in SR-1 Zoning, a one family dwelling is a permitted use and a two family dwelling is a conditional use. The Code creates the right to use the property as a two family dwelling assuming that standards are met. Mr. . Howe l l MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING G o 11SSION MEETING of FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PR noted that a case came out in December in the 5th Circuit Court in which the initial burden is upon the land owner to show compliance with the reasonable procedures of the ordinance for rezoning, special exception, conditional use or site plan approval. Upon such a showing the land owner is entitled to use his property in the manner he seeks. Therefore,...... Mr. Howell stated that it is incumbent upon him to show that they have reasonably fulfilled the requirements of the City' codes. The majority of the provisions are procedural in nature, if there is new construction, subdivision plans should be filed. In granting any application, the Planning & Zoning Commission should make sure that such use will not adversely effect the public. The setbacks fail but the setback requirements, as they stand now, apply to new construction, not to existing structures. Chairman Dennison stated that he would be agreeable to a one year lease, the proposed rents and other safeguards. Mr. Speer questioned Item 5 on Development Order.. whether the heating and air condition would be central. He stated that it should state "central heating and air conditioning ". Mr, Speer stated that regarding dwelling unit across the street, approved on 8/16/90 for a three family dwelling unit, he does not know if the Planning and Zoning Commission approved this' request or not, but he does know that this Commission did not approve 606 Park Avenue. Wendy Reed, 404 Palmetto, stated that she lives next door and has had some initial problems, but after speaking with the manager, there has not been a problem. The owners are cooperative. If it can remain this way, she has no problem with the two family dwelling unit. Mr. Dyal asked if anyone lives there now. Ms. Reed said only the caretaker lures there now and he has taken care of all problems. Mrs. Stairs asked when did present owner take title to this property. Mr. Howell stated on 4/1/1991. Mrs. Stairs asked if he was aware of the Zoning restrictions at that time. Ir. Howell stated yes, Mrs. Stairs noted that for 2000 square feet, a rental amount of $350.00 looked low for this type of space. Mr, Howell assured Mrs. Stairs that the owner will get. Chris Brown, 209 E. 4th Street, stated that there are several properties and many in the City that are enormous houses, and that he could see that there are several where a single family use would not be practical. He stated that he does not want to see this house sitting vacant and waiting to fall down. He noted that it brings down the neighborhood if it is boarded up or rotting. It is MINUTES PLANNING 1 AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1 PAGE more desirable to have a two family home than a vacant house which degrades the neighborhood. Bob Cassel, 709 Oak Avenue, compared 400 Palmetto and 606 Park Avenue and the situation under which the properties were purchased, by site comparison, and by qualifications of the buyers. Mr, Travis of 606 Park Avenue went through rigorous inspections. Mr, Casselberry purchased the property knowing that it is in a single family zoning district. 606 Parr Avenue has never been used as a single family dwelling. Mr, Cassel stated that this was not build as a boarding house. Mrs. Pray was a widow who took in boarders. From 1917 to 1929 it was listed as a single family dwelling. we should not assume that all properties that have rented a room out should be rezoned to multi - family. If we fallow Mr. Howell's advice, all homes in the historic district will have to be converted to multi- family. Mr. Casselberry cannot prove the original intent of the property. Mr. Cassel stated that 400 Palmetto Avenue is located on part of standard city lot and occupies 9 of the buildable lot while 606 Park occupies 40 or less. Mr. Casselberry admits that he has never renovated any properties. Mr. Travis has won 2 Ann Arbor Historical Awards. Several prostitutes were seen going into 400. Palmetto. Mr, Casselberry has owned this property approximately 1 months. There have been no improvements except for a shoddy paint job. r . Casselberry paid $21,400 for 3100 square feet and owns 67 separate properties and claims economic hardships. Mr. Cassel asked if Mr. Casselberry consider Sanford an easy mark. There were approximately 30 people in the audience in opposition to this request. Liz Williams, 415 Palmetto Avenue, stated that she has contacted Mr. Casselberry regarding the problems at this address. she stated that there have been 37 calls to the Police Department within the last three months. Different people can be seen going in and out. Michele Tiero, 409 Palmetto, stated that she has seen a lot of problems with the surroundings multi- family use. There would be no problems with him to go back to single family use. The residents in the area have no proof that the guidelines will be followed. She stated that one reason she bought her home was that it was in a single family area. Mr. Lori Howell, 1109 Park Avenue, stated that when Mr.. Casselberry first carne to the City Commission regarding this property, Mr. Casselberry said he has some old beams to refurbish this house. There are no beams, no stains, nothing. Mr. Casselberry has not MINUTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PAGE lived up to what he said he was going to do in the beginning. Sue Olinger, 910 Elm Avenue, stated that Mr. Casselberry does not want to have a resident manager on the property. Having an owner or resident manager on property is critical. Mr, Howell stated that they are not asking for a non - conforming use to be reinstated but rather asking for a right that is guaranteed for a two family dwelling. The origin of the property is not pertinent. 40 Palmetto has single wide driveways. 400 Palmetto is undersized. 606 Parr does not meet standards for storm ater, but neither property meets stormwater codes. Mr, Howell stated that Mr. Casselberry owns a number of properties in Seminole and orange Counties and that he has nearer been cited for any code violations. Regarding the activities occurring on the property, Ms. Reed told the manager and the problems were taken care of, No arrests were ever made at 400 Palmetto. Mr. Dal asked Mr, Casselberry if he had received phone calls from Ms, Williams. He stated that yes he did, may be twice. Mr. Dyal asked if he had followed up on any of the phone calls. Mr.. asselberry stated that he had received one call from Ms. Williams but it was at 12:30 in the morning and that he did not get our of bed, Mr, Howell stated that there had been repeated ells to the Sanford code Enforcement. He had a computer printout but it did not show as many calls as commissioner Howell thought there were. Warren Skipper, 207 E. 10th Street, President of Historic Trust, was present to speak in opposition. He asked the Commission to do what is in the ]west interest of the historic neighborhood. Mr. harder pointed out that the action of the Planning & Zoning Commission on conditional uses is by a majority of the entire membership. Then any appeal of that majority decision would have to go to the courts. However, if the decision is by a majority of less than the entire membership, the decision is appealable to the City Commission. Mr. Dyal moved to deny the request, Seconded by Ms. welch. In favor of the motion was Ms. Stairs, Mr. Dyal, Mr. Dennison, and Mrs. welch. In opposition to the motion were Mr, Brooks, Mr. Speer, and Mr, LeRoy. Motion carried.. The next item on the Agenda was a Public Hearing to consider a request for a conditional Use for property located at 307 E. 2nd Street in a SC-3. Special Commercial District, for the purpose of a welding establishment. Owner: K & H Property Management, Inc.; representative: furl 0, Stairs. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of FEBRUARY 20, 1 PAGE 6 Due to personal involvement, Mrs. stairs abstained. Karl stairs, 5975 Highway 427, Sanf stated that he would like to open a welding shop. Mr. Dyal commented that this property is not all vacant. Mr. Stairs stated that the building there is part of the request. Mrs, Sonnenberg stated that the request is for the building. Mr, stairs stated that everything would be. kept inside, no outside storage. The hours of operation will be from 9 to 5, 6 days per week. There will be no remodeling, clean -up only. Mr, LeRoy asked if this property is in the Historic District, Mr, Marder stated that it is in the Historic Commercial District. Mr. Stairs stated that the two vacant lots will not be used, Mr. Leroy asked what type of items will be welded. Mr. Stairs stated he welds whatever he gets, trailers, etc. All welding will be done inside with inside storage. Mr, stairs stated that he is currently fixing up the inside. All deliveries and pickups will be done by a door in the back of the building, Customers would come through the lot by Goodwill and back the back door. . Dal moved to approve with all storage, welding, and display be conducted indoors.. seconded by Brooks. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 2601 S. Sanford Avenue in a -, General Commercial Zoning District for the purpose of automotive dealer sales (used. Owner; .Eldean Howard& represent David Alan Brannon, David Brannon, 617 Beth Drive, stated that he would life to clean up the place and have room for 10 cars. He would like to limit 10 in front and may be keep some in the back behind the fence. Ed Campbell, 2605 Sanford Avenue, owns 2601, 2603, and 2605 Sanford Avenue. He stated that all of his properties are occupied. He has watched this property deteriorate. It is unpaved, not fenced, has junk cars, and has had one motor home that people are living in. There are daily garage sales across the street. Mr. Campbell stated that Sanford Avenue is going down. He stated that there is no room for ears to pull in and drive out. Mr. Campbell said the Code requires a 6 ' f ence between the car lot and his property and that there is no fence. There is sewer, water and electric ]Hook behind the fence which is against city ordinances. He does not want cars pulling onto his property. This lot is not practical for MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMI MEETING of FEBRUARY 20, 1 PAGE 7 a car lot, Mr. Campbell stated that this lot is 85x100' and the building (house) is apart of this. Mr. Dyal asked if this property i on the corner. Mrs. Sonnenberg said that this is on the corner and that it is all under one ownership. Mr. Dyal questioned the paving. Mr. Marder stated that the Commission has on occasion considered mulch instead of paving for the display areas for automobiles. Chairman Dennison asked if Mr. Brannon would still have to come in with a site plan. He was told "yes". Mr. LeRoy asked Mr. Marder how did he core up with a limit of 10 cars, Mr. Marder stated that the Planning &t Zoning Commission came up with 10 cars back in 1988. Mr. Brannon said that he would mainly wholesale cars but would like to keep some cars for sale out front. There is no fence to protect the cars at night. No repairs and no details will be done at the site. Mr, Brannon would use the area behind the fence for storage. Mrs, Stairs roved on approval with Staff's recommendations as stipulated on the Director of Planning and Development memorandum of 2/20/92 and limited to 10 automobiles, seconded by Mr. Brooks. In opposition to the motion were Mr, LeRoy, Mr. Speer, and Mrs. Welch. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was to hold a Public Hearing to consider a request for a Conditional Use for property located at 2885 Highway 17-92 for the purpose of a temporary outdoor amusement fair. owner: Bob ones; represent Kenneth southward. Mr. Kenneth southward, 1501 s. Locust Avenue, stated that this would be the same type fair as requested last October. He said the church is raising money for a roof. They have caught up with some of the mortgage but not all. The McDaniel Brothers, owners of the fair, have 1 million of liability insurance. The hours of operation would be 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Fridays, and would run 10 days, March 4 to the 14th. Saturdays and Sundays will be from 2:00 p.m. to 10: 00 P.M. Mr. Leroy moved for approval for 14 days. seconded by Mr. Speer. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the site plan for Primo Foods, Inc,, a food processing establishment, located at 956 Upsala Rd., in a RI -1, Restricted Industrial District. MINUTES PLANKING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING of FEBRUARY 20, 1992 PAr.R Owner: Louis 0, and Alisa Noce; representative; Louis 0, Noce, President: {Tabled 02 - -92 Mr. Dyal moved to remove from table. Seconded by Mr. LeRoy. All in favor. Motion carried. Louis Noce, 4 0 Hunters Trail, Longwood, was present for representation. Mr. Speer roved for approval subject to staff's recommendations. The Fire Marshall says there rust be ors -site fire protection which, was an added expense to Mr. Noce, compared to running a water line, a water tank is cheaper. Mr. Noce stated that the tank is in place and holds 70 gallons of water. The Health Department had hire put in another well to take the place of the contaminated well. Seconded by Mr. Dyal. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the consideration of the site plan for a change of use to a retail . sales and service use for Beatty Hearing Center and the Yellow Cab dispatch office, located at 100 French Av, in a -2, General Commercial District. owner: ologero 7 Carmella T. Baio; representative: Iona I. Brown. Iona Brown stated that she would like to turn the old restaurant into an office. She has no problems with adding 2 trees and upgrading the landscaping. There are f our cabs but they are never on the premises. Each driver is assigned a car and they take then home. Regarding the hearing center, people do come in and out to be serviced. Ms. welch made a motion to approve with staff's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Dya . All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Marder stated that the Acting City Attorney, Bill Reischmann, was present at tonight's meeting and that he pointed out some things about how tY e Commission makes decisions. Mr. R ischmann had asked that the Commission be a little bit more careful on how it frame decisions because of certain responsibilities that are in our ordinance. The Commission is required to make findings on the decisions of conditional uses and that it should be aware that the decisions have standards that have to be complied with. Mr. Speer requested that when an assistant city attorney is present, there should be an introduction. The Commission did not realize that an attorney was present. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1992 'D AC_r Q Mr. Iyai moved to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Speer seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30. '` a Donnison, Chairman From the Director of Planning and Development February 14, 1992 TO: City of Sanford Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: Recommendations for Meeting of February 20, 1992 HOWELL - Request conditional use approval to permit a two- family dwelling in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District located at the southwest corner of Palmetto Avenue and East 4th Street. The site includes a tiro -story dwelling Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential. One of four residential electric meters appears to be active at the date of this writing. The site is noted as a "contributing structure" in the Sanford Historic .Survey of 1990. It was known as the Pray Boarding House and was identified as being of pre -1887 Frame Vernacular construction. 2. The site is one of several properties in the immediate area that was owned and licensed by J-L. Alexander for the purpose of weekly rentals. In a letter dated June 8, 1 989 to the City, Mr. Alexander voluntarily relinquished licenses for multiple family dwellings and abandoned the following properties: 400, 401, 404, 408, 4099 414 and 600 Palmetto Avenue; 209 E. 5th Street; 111 Cedar Avenue; 1305 Elliott Street; 606 Park Avenue; and 618 Sanford Avenue. 3. Because this request involves the number of dwelling units permitted in the building, a survey of the neighboring structures was conducted that also surveyed the number of electrical services. The active number of residential electrical services is often utilized as an indicator of the number of dwelling units; however, the number of active residential meters does not always equate to the number of dwelling units, especially in older neighborhoods such as the subject area. Existing uses in the immediate area include the following: The structure immediately bordering the south side of site is Zoned SR -1, Single Family Residential. The structure evidences four available spaces for electric meters with two active services a t the time of survey. The resident stated that the structure is currently used as a single family dwelling, The structure immediately east of site is Zoned GC -2, General Commercial and appears to include three active residential electric services out of four available. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use on this site for use of a nonconforming structure as a three unit hotel on August 16,1 9o. Previously on June 7, 1 990 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a conditional use request to permit multiple family use and associated use of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 2 , 1992 Planning Recommendations, Page 2 If nonconforming structure. This is the only structure facing the 400 block of South Palmetto Avenue that appears to be utilized for more than one dwelling unit per structure. • The structure immediately north of site is Zoned SC -3, Special Commercial and appears to include 10 active residential electric meters. • The structure immediately unrest of site appears to be a one - family dwelling with one electric service. • one property south of site in the same block appears to include two dwelling units, i.e., a main residence and a garage apartment. • A building at the southeast corner of 4th Street and Magnolia Avenue advertises for apartments and appears to evidence two electric meters. The phone number on the advertisement had been disconnected at the date of this writing. 4. In 1983 the City implemented a policy to reestablish and strengthen single family uses in an area generally identified as the Downtown Residential Historic Area. Prior to 1983 the neighborhood was Zoned for multiple family residential uses. During that time, many single family d wellings were converted into rooming houses, boarding houses, apartments and various short - terra occupancy establishments. In general, the widespread conversion of large, old homes to short -term occupancy and rental housing was viewed as detrimental to the character and stability of the neighborhood. Many of the conversions were being accomplished without compliance with building coda requirements, Also, the increased concentration of transient population fostered by short -term rental housing appeared to contribute to deteriorating conditions in the neighborhood. The already old buildings were not physically equipped to accommodate the increased use associated with multiple occupancy and as a result, an increasing number of old buildings were becoming deteriorated or simply run down. It should be noted that the Downtown Residential Historic Area was planned and developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's prior to the automobile. Therefore the buildings, even those that were originally planned for multi le occupancy, did not envision the space necessary to adequately accommodate the automobile, In general most of the older buildings treat the automobile as an afterthought and do not devote sufficient area for off - street parting facilities. Increased density caused by the conversion of buildings to multiple family use exacerbated an already tight on- street parting situation. All housing fronting the 400 block of S. Palmetto Avenue and most of adjacent buildings are listed as "contributing structures' in the Sanford _ Historic Su by Florida Preservation Services in 1990. It would appear that the 400 block of Palmetto Avenue is typical of the Downtown Residential Historic Area in that: 1 the majority of structures Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 20, 1992 Planning Recommendations, Page 8 are historic, many of the houses were utilized for multiple occupancy as evidenced by the available electric services and most of the mousing appears to be utilized for single family use at the present time. 5. On December 5, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request for conditional use approval to establish a two-family dwelling in an SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District located on Magnolia Avenue between Tenth Street and Eleventh Street. The site included a one - fatally dwelling and an accessory building on approximately 8,775 square feet. The above- mentioned 1988 rezoning from multiple family residential to SR -1, Single Family Residential Zoning based on the City's policy to reestablish and encourage one- family dwellings in the area was cited in staff's findings and recommendation. The City has taken numerous actions to reestablish the single fruity character of the neighborhood. While the City's Code Enforcement Program is city -wide in scope, violations in the Downtown Historic Residential Area precipitated the implementation of the program. In 1983 the City rezoned the area to SR -1, Single Family Residential. Properly o wners were allowed to "grandfather" their multiple family residential uses as well as bring their buildings into compliance with building and zoning codes to the extent feasible. Since 1983, the City's policy has continued to be directed at strengthening, maintaining and encouraging single family residential uses in the area. At various times, the Cfty Commission has seen fit to revie w circumstances pertaining to specific properties and take action based on unique, block -by -block conditions that characterize the area. 6. Recommend that the request to establish a two-family dwelling be denied based on the City's policy to reestablish single family uses in the Downtown Residential Historic Area and the reemerging single family residential character of the immediate area a t the present time. B A f Noll - Request conditional use approval to permit used automobile sales in a GC -2, General Commercial Zone located at 2801 South Sanford Avenue. 1. Sfte is located at the southeast corner of Sanford Avenue and East 28th Street. Sfte contains a building. 2. Site contains approximately 18,422 square feet. . 4 Site is adjacent to existing GC-2, General Commercial, RC -1, Restricted Commercial and !R -2, Multiple Family Residential Zoning Districts within the Sanford City Limits which contain a small shopping center with indoor retail sales and services, a convenience store and various single family residences. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 2o, 1992 Planning Recommendations, Page 4. Site is adjacent to C -2, Commercial Zoning in the unincorporated area which contains used car sales lot and a vacant commercial building. 5. In June, 1 986 the Planning and Zoning Commission denied a similar request. In April 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a similar request with the condition that no more than 10 automobiles be located for sale on the premises and that the hours of operation be Monday through Saturday between the hours of 9:00 AM and :00 PM with no Sunday business. Recommend that the request be approved Frith the condition that no more than 1 automobiles be located for sale on the premises based on the limited size of the site, previous decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission and existing similar uses already located in the immediate area. K & 14 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGEME NT - Request conditional use approval to permit a welding shop in an SC -3, Special Commercial ial Zoning District located at the southeast corner of East 2nd Street and South Palmetto Avenue. 1. Site includes three 39 foot pride lots in Downtown Sanford. A building is located on the east side of the property. 2. Adjacent uses in SC -3 Zone include automobile repair, a vacant service station, a feed store, offices, appliance sales and the Goodwill Store. 3. Recommend that the request to establish a welding shop be approved based on the similarity of adjacent uses with the condition that all welding and storage and displa of materials be conducted indoors. MARA 1THA NEW LIFE CENTER - Request conditional use approval to permit temporary noncommercial amusement in a GC -2, General Commercial Zone in the 2800 block of J.S. Hi 17 & 92. 1. Site fronts a major arterial roadway and is basically vacant at the present time. 2. Site is adjacent to a junk yard and an automotive repair and service establishment. 3. Recommend approval of the request to conduct a temporary noncommercial amusement based on previous approval of a similar use on this site by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1991 with the condition that the layout of the use be approved by the Building Official and that the use be limited to 14 days. FORM 8 MEMORANDUM VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER L � s LwST NAME —fIN51 NwM!— MIUDLk NAME NAME Oi BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Stairs, Helen 1301 Seminole Pl and Zoning Commission TI AL 00ARD, COUNCIL. MIMI sIO . AUT HOR ITY, OR COMMITTEE ON W H I C H I S ERVL IS A UN IT O F: Blvd. .X A 'r ; COUNTY ' OTHER J.00A[ AGENCY C ITY Sanford DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED February 20 199 NAML OF POUTICAL SUBLAV1 i N: Seminole City o ref or 7 M V POS11'JON IS' 1... ELECTI X]l APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B NA This form is for us by any person serving at the county, city,, or other local level of government on an appointed r elected board, � c ouncil, commission, authority or committee. h applies equally to members of advisory and non bodies who are presented with a otin S conflict f interest under Section 112.3141, Florida Statutes. The requirements o f this law are mandatory; alth u h the use of this particular form is not required by laver, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law w hen faced with a measure in w hich you ha a conflict o f interest - will Vary g reatl g reatly de on whether you hold an elective r appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention t the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WffH SECTION 112,3443 FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: person holding elective county, municipa1, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which y ou are abstaining from voting; card WITHIN 15 OAFS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with t person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOIN OFFICERS. A p erson holdin a ointive c unl , municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in . which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of" the conflict before making an) attempt to influence the de dsion by oral or written corx munication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. I YOU 1 NTEND TGM A E A NY ATTEM TO I N FLUEN CE THE I ECI S 10 N PRICSR TO, THE MEETING AT WHI THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (bet - ore rnak ing any attempt. to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. { • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to constdcration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. IF YO MADE NO ATTEMPT T ' INF"LUENCE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION A''I'' THE MEETING You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure be fore participating. ,... • You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the Grote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minul.. w of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST e , hereby disclose that on 19 a A measure carne o will erne before my agency which (cheep one) . � inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of b The measure before my agency and the nature ure f my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed , by whom 1 am reta ined. �4 L am Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS F R AND MAY E PUNISHED BY ONE R MORE F' THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REM V L OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 5,I00.