042566MINUTES
213 '"
1.
City Commission,.Sanford, Florida' .. Ap~?it.' 25. at 8 P.M. 19 66
The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in regular session at the
City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 8:00 o'clock P. M. on April 25, 1966.
Present:
Commissioner A. L. Wilson, Mayor " J.B. Baker
" Earl Higginbotham
" M.L. Raborn, Jr.
" W. Vincent Roberts
City Attorney Wm. C. Hutchison, Jr.
City Manager W. E. Knowles
City Clerk H. L. Whelchel
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
The first item of business was a discussion regarding the unauthorized additional
'icocktail sign recently erected on Jim Spencer's property operated as a restaurant-cocktail
lounge on South 17-92, French Avenue and Santa Barbara Drive, action deferred in meeting of
April 11, 1966, to meeting of~April 25, 1966.
After discussion, Commissioner Higginbotham moved to grant a variance for the sign
to remain, which should have been done originally, the sign being safer, higher, less obnox-
ious from the public view, the owner has 600 feet of property which would eliminate it from
being detrimental as far as public welfare; and to then work out a revised sign regulation
ordinance that fits the needs of the City of Sanford; seconded by Commissioner Roberts.
Motion failed to carry over the dissenting votes of Commissioners Baker, Raborn and Wilson.
Next presented were the individual views and opinions stated by the Commissioners
pertaining to the Subject under discussion.
Commissioner Roberts: "Feel that there is a definite inequity here; rights of the
property owners must be maintained; all of us have the best interests of Sanford at heart
and probably look at it in a little different fashion. I think that a law applying to a man
having 50 feet of property should not necessarily apply to a man having 300, 400 or 500-foot
of property on a particular.street. This has been a considerable mix-up. Its been defi-
nitely overplayed by all o£ us. There has been a lack of communication on the part of the
!people, and I think it should have been settled without the contractor going ahead and put-
ting up this sign. However, it was done. I stand in the same position as I did before. I
think a variance should be issued, - clear the book up once and for all."
Commissioner Reborn: "Gentlemen, I think you are missing the whole point. We have
a body appointed by this Commission to handle such requests for change and variance. They
saw fit to deny the request. The company that was erecting the sign has the right to appeal
to the City Commission, which they did. They requested that a variance be given and the
majority of this Board said "No'f~; Going in direct violation of both bodies, they decided to
~go ahead and put it in. Now, its not a question of whether the sign is large, small, whether
the sign should have been put up or the sign should not have been put up. That to me has
nothing to do with it. The fact remains that they were denied on two cases, both by the
Commission that handles such requests, by this Commission, and they were denied again. So,
ithey decided they would go ahead and put the sign up anyway. Now, as far as it being an
obnoxious law, I haven't heard of anybody that in over the three years that I have been on
this Board make any request to change the law. And, I think that when it gets to the point
that you can let somebody tell you that: 'I don't like your laws and I'm not going to obey
them', and if you go ahead and change this and grant this variance now that the work has
already been done, I think you are condoning such action, and I couldn't go along with such
a procedure. I think that it is an insignificant little thing, I agree with that. The law
probably is not proper as far as regulation of size, number of these signs, I'll grant you
that, but the fact remains that the man says: 'I am not going to do what you tell me', and the
sign company decided that, -We'll put the sign up. And that is what they did"
Commissioner Hig~inbotham: "There is a contradiction here regarding any requests
imade to change the sign law. Winn-Dixie has the same type sign they put up all over the
United States. They asked for a sign down there and that didn't meet the ordinance. Good-
year, right down here, had a sign. It didn't meet the ordinance. And, I have asked in each
instance that I have been on here, - let's change this thing so that these people can use
their property. They are the ones paying the taxes. We,.re not. And the fact that five men
here tell 22,000 people that you can't do this or can't do that is wrong. Our people have a
right to tell us what they want done and then us orderly do it. The people have had no say
in this sign business. We set up here in a smoke filled room in Baltimore, or some other
place, with a sign ordinance and pass laws that come back here written out in 260 pages; say
I want the Commission to pass this or pass that. We say: 'How does it affect us?' And they
say: 'It doesn't affect us at all, just changes a little phraseology.' And when the people
iistart coming in we find out that it is more than a phraseology change. All right, I asked
;for that thin~ to be changed when the Goodyear sign came uP. I asked for it to be changed
~when the WinnZDixie came up. I asked for it to be changed when Kentucky Fried Chicken came
up, and I r~diculed it just like I did tonight and I asked for it to be changed the other
night. I know of five times that the sign ordinance has asked to be changed, and you can't
put one up as big as your hat if you own ten acres of land in S.anfgrd; if you already meet
ilthis you can't put another sign on that land as long as ia all zn ~our name. Now, if you
ilthink I'm kidding~ just read the thing."
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida '
April, 25 at 8 P.M. 1~66
Commissioner Baker: "It was mentioned that it was insigni£icant. I think the
sign problem was insignificant until he went ahead and did it against this Board's action.
Whether or not the sign ordinance needs changing or not, I've never heard any motion down
here on how to change the sign ordinance. There have been requests made to ... for variances
have had one problem, two or three problems with it, but we haven't had any request from
anybody, as far as my mind goes, for any tangent - any motion to make any changes in the
sign ordinances, if somebody does something of this nature in direct conflict with what the
City Commission has denied, I don't think that we've got any route to go other than go to
the man and take whatever legal action is necessary to correct it. Any time you want to
bring up a motion to change the sign ordinance, we'll go into and change it." (in further
conversation, Mr. Baker clarified that by a motion to change the sign ordinance, he meant
setting forth specific changes has never been mentioned, as for example: Allowing more than
one sign; more square footage per sign; one sign per 50 feet of property, etc.)
Commissioner Raborn requested that the minute record reflect the following
statement: "In my opinion the size of the sign, or the person who owns the sign has nothing
to do with it. I don't feel that it is right for a person to deliberately disregard the
regulations and the ordinances o£ the City with'out carrying them to the proper channels."
After further discussion, Commissioner Raborn moved that the City Attorney be
directed by the City Commission to notify the Florida Sign Company, K. A. Becket, representa-
tire, that unless the sign is removed, the City will take legal action as directed by the
City Attorney to remove it. Seconded by Commissioner Baker.
Commissioner Hi~ggi:nbo~ham~::Dh~moved to table the motion; Seconded by Commissioner
Roberts. The Chairman calling ~or theT;i, vOte:.~on tabling of the m~tion, and the vote stands~
as follows:
'' :'.dommSsgiOner
" Higginbotham
" Raborn
" Roberts
" Wilson
Naye
Aye
Naye
Aye
Naye
The Chairman announced that the motion to table failed to carry.
On advice from the City Attorney, Commissioner Raborn amended and reiterated,
moving that the City Attorney be directed by the City Commission to notify the owner of the
sign, the property owner, that unless the sign is removed withing a period of ten (10) days,
the City will take legal action as directed by the City Attorney to remove it. The amended
motion was then seconded by Commissioner Baker.
Commissioner Higginbotham moved that the motion be tabled due to the changing of
the wording. Seconded by Commissioner Roberts.
The Chairman calling for the vote on the tabling of the motion, and the vote stands
as follows:
Commissioner Baker Naye
" Higginbotham Aye
" Raborn Naye
" Roberts Aye
" Wilson Naye
The Chairman announced that the motion to table failed to carry.
Thereupon, the Chairman called for the vote on the motion as amended, and the vote
stands as follows:
Commissioner Baker Aye
" Higginbotham Naye
" Raborn Aye
" Roberts Naye
" Wilson Aye
Thereupon, the Chairman announced that the motion was carried and the property
owner would be so notified regarding removal of the sign.
Under further discussion, due to the sign company not having complied with City
requirements for erection of the Spencer sign by obtaining a City occupational license and
a sign permit, Commissioner Baker moved that the company be billed for such license and
permit. Motion died for lack of a second.
MINUTES
215'
:City Commission, Sanford,, Florida .'; .~ K~r, tl' 2_5 ,at 8 P. FI. 1966
Dotherow Offiem .qunnlv Co.. Orlando. ~-qa. :-f ' ' ' ';':' ' ' ~ ' , ' ~ ":" ';-.
On motion of Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Raborn and carried,
the City Employee Salary Schedule Review was tabled for further study until the next
regular meeting.
Under written request, the President of the Sanford Swim Association, C. F. Brooke
Smith, M.D., stated that since the association is a representative of Sanford as the other
athlectic groups which the City supports, and since it is a recreation program for a growing
number of children, consideration be given to granting them a $100.00 allowance. The City
Manager informed the Commission that this was not a Recreation Department of City sponsored
activity, the group is presently allowed free use of the City pool, and no request for this
allowance was made when the City's 1965-66 Budget was being proposed.
After discussion, Commissioner Roberts moved to approve the granting and payment
from Contingency of $100.00 for the Sanford Swim Association to help support their program.
Seconded by Commissioner Baker and carried.
Next under discussion was a written request frOm Mrs. J. A. Cunningham, 1320 Myrtle
Avenue, for the City to consider vacating l~th Street between Myrtle and Elm Avenues, that
portion of 66-foot right-of-way south of Myrtle Avenue dead-ending at the railroad track.
Mrs. Cunningham is the owner of two lots and a triangle abutting both sides of l~th Street.
The letter stated that the street right-or-way of 82 feet of Myrtle Avenue between l~th and
15th Streets, abutting the triangle, south of l~th Street and dead-ending at the railroad
track, needed designated responsibility regarding the mowing of the grass.
After consideration, an informal opinion was rendered that it was not desirable to
abandon these street rights-of-way of 14th or Myrtle abutting these two parcels of property
unless at some future date there would develop a concrete situation necessitating such
abandonment. ThereUpon, Commissioner Higginbotham moved to disapprove the request for aban-
donment; further instructing that the City will maintain the two street rights-of-way by
mowing as required. Seconded by Commissioner Roberts and carried.
H. B. Fennell, 805 West 2~th Street, and Mrs. H. R. Herndon, 2400 Holly Avenue,
next appeared before the Commission to register verbal complaints regarding nuisance problems
in their area relating to traffic, speeding, dust, debris, parking, sprinkler damage, etc.,
on the basis that the City's Pinehurst Park was situated at the end of West 24th Street,
creating a large amount of traffic flow. Robert Kelly, 701 West 24th Place, appeared to
request that if consideration was being given or to be given to a daily watering schedule
for West 2~th Street, he was requesting the same consideration for West 24th Place and Holly
Avenue, due to his property receiving just as much traffic and dust as West 24th Street.
After discussion and due consideration, the Chairman directed the Recreation
Director to draw up a detailed report of general information regarding this particular area
and these problems as presented in relation to usage of the City's park and that -Chis report
be made available for the Commission's consideration at their next regular meeting.
Consideration was next given to a request for annexation of property located at
2201 West 25th Street by Mr. and Mrs. C. Solon Teston, legally described as: Beg. 2962.30'
W of NE Cot. of Sec. 2, Township 20 South, Range 30 East, run West ~,~,9 60' South 400 0'
East 1~9.50' to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad right-of-way, thence Northeasterly along
railraad to beginning; situated on the south side of 25th Street west of municipal cemetery
~ud old railroad bed with City limits directly across on the north side of 25th Street
216
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford,: Florida
Ap,ril 25 at 8 P.M. 1966
Commissioner Baker moved that upon receipt of a properly signed standard petition
for annexation, it would be favorably accepted. Seconded by Commissioner Higginbotham and
carried.
Next under discussion was the recent hazing ordeals and indignities being carried
on by students and teenage groups of varying ages with the Police Chief requesting, if
necessitated and as a temporary measure, consideration be given to amending the curfew law
by lowering of the hours from ll P. M. to 8 P. M. for teenagers to be off the streets, to
place a better control on or alleviate the seriousness of this problem.
Under discussion, the Commission wanted it known to the public through news media
that they were taking nc.action at the present time on the lowering of the curfew hours, as
this would penalize the innocent children along with the guilty, but the City is cognizant
of the seriousness of the situation and the City officials are giving the Police Chief the
authority and ample jurisdiction to handle and correct these incidents.
Thereupon, Commissioner Baker moved that the City take all necessary action to
fUrther the prosecution of those presently apprehended suspected individuals; that the City
co-operate and do everything they can to pursue this to a conclusion for justice; further
that all proper information be turned over to the higher authority of law enforcement bodies
in order to fully prosecute these individuals and expose them individually. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Raborn and carried.
A report was next submitted regarding the present status of licensed taxicab
operators in relation to bringing their vehicles up to qualifications as outlined in the
newly adopted Taxicab Ordinance. The report indicates that at present twenty-four (24)
operators hold licenses with the following three possible licenses subject to revocation for
non-compliance, Jerry Bently, License No. 132; Will Hankerson Estate, License No. 568; and
Robert Young, one Of two licenses held by him.
After discussion and on motion of Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner
Roberts and carried, authorization was given for the City Clerk to proceed with the neces-
sary advertising and notices to all parties of interest of public hearing scheduled for
May 9, 1966, and any other requirements set forth under the terms of Taxicab Ordinance No.
882, regarding intention of revoking these licenses for non-compliance with regulations as
set forth under the allotted time for same.
Johnny A. Lawrence was present regarding a previous request for consideration to
obtain a taxicab license. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Higginbotham,
seconded by Commissioner Baker and carried, to grant him a taxicab license; namely, lic~.nse
of Jerry Bently, when and if suspended, on the basis of Jerry Bently being deceased; further,
that it be issued only after his vehicle passes the required inspection through the Police
Department and the other requirements specified in City Ordinance No. 882 pertaining to
'taxicabs.
On motion of commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Higginbotham and
carried, the minutes of March 28 and April ll, 1966, were next approved.
After discussion and on advice from the City Attorney, Commissioner Higginbotham
moved to approve the acceptance of a separate premium rider to the City's present liability
insurance coverage from Carraway and McKibbon Insurance Company for the City's protection to
cover liability in the required amounts of $100,000 and $500,000, regarding the Lion's Club
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanf0rd~' Florida.'
April 2:5 at 8 P. M.
19 66
217
Doi-harow Offit~o gunnlv Co.. Orlnndn. Fin ..... ", : ..... ' '
fireworks display on July 4th, to be held on City property in Fort Mellon Park. Seconded
by Commissioner Baker and carried.
A discussion followed next on Sgt. William Richard Cosgrave, Sanford Police
Department, released from employment with the City on April 13, 1966, due to his doctor's
statement that Sgt. Cosgrave was totally disabled from carrying out his regular duties; said
employee being off duty for a total of 27 consecutive days.
Under extenuating circumstances that Social Security would not be forthcoming for
a period of six months and through the terms of the Police Retirement Plan he was not
entitled to any pension monies or refunds, Commissioner Higginbotham moved to approve that
the total amount of money Sgt. Cosgrave paid into the Police Retirement Plan through his
payroll contributions be tabulated and this amount be reimbursed to him from General Govern-
ment, Contingency Account 8150~ in lieu of Police pension Fund, as the Police Pension Fund
does not allow reimbursement of employee contributions. Seconded by Commissioner Roberts
and carried.
There being no further business~ the meeting adjourned.
ATTEST:
lm
MAYOR