102185-Special Session MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
213
October 2 l~
19 85
The City Commission of the City of Sanford, Florida, met in Special Session in
the City Hall in the City of Sanford, Florida, at 4:30 o'clock P. M. on October 21, 1985.
Present:
Mayor-Commissioner Bettye D. Smith
Commissioner Milton E. Smith
Commissioner David T. Farr
Commissioner Bob Thomas
City Attorney William L. Colbert
City Manager Frank A. Faison
City Clerk H. N. Tamm, Jr.
Absent: Commissioner John Y. Mercer
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman.
The City Manager reported receipt of five requests for extensions or waivers from
the requirements of Resolution No. 1364A to comply by October 24, 1985 with Building and
Technical Codes for multi-family structures located North of 13th Street in the downtown
area.
Letter dated October 21, 1985, submitted from the City Attorney as follows:
Stenstrom, Mclntosh, Julian, Colbert S Whigham, r
~ttorneys and Counsellors at Law
Douglas StenslTom Kenneth ~. McIntosh Ned N. Julian, Jr.
William L. Colbert frank C.~rhigham Clay'ton D. Simmons
Thomas E.Whigham Robert K. Mclntosh
Suite 22 Sun Bank
¥ost Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 52772-1330 (:505) 322-2171
October 21, 1985
Frank Faison, City Manager
City of Sanford, Florida Sanford City Hall
Post Office Box 1778
Sanford, Florida 32772-1778
Dear Frank:
This will confirm our conversation last week concerning the
enforcement of the downtown zoning ordinance and the technical
codes of the City. I am also attaching a research memorandum
generated by our office.
We believe the rezoni.ng was a lawful exercise of the City's
legislative authority and that it is valid. Any uses
inconsistent with current zoning are "non-conforming uses"
pursuant to Article VII of the City's Zoning Ordinance if those
uses were in effect on the date the rezoning ordinance was
adopted.
We believe the City can require compliance with its technical
codes as they relate to the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens. For example, firewalls, fire extinguishers, fire
escapes, properly marked exits, and rewiring of overloaded
electrical circuits of areas which serve the public such as
commercial or multifamily structures seems to us to be a
legitimate exercise of authority. The use of the codes to
require the demolition of buildings and construction of new ones
would, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, constitute
an abuse of discretion and be deemed by the Courts to be broad
and overreaching.
In a similar manner, we believe off-street parking requirements
are enforceable in the name of health, safety, and welfare to the
extent that a property owner has a site sufficient for off-street
parking. The City would not be able to put an apartment building
out of business for lack of parking if it was fully utilizing all
off-street parktng space~ available unless it was a "self imposed
narcsnip" (£.e. se[Ling off available parking space or some other
wi[l£ul act). All new construction must fully meet the
ro~!~l[v,.m,.,nt ~ ()f zonin% and [,~chnica[ codes.
214
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida October 2 10
19 85_
Frank Faison
()ctober 21 ,
}>age 2
1985
In summary, the rezoning ordinance and technical co'des are
enforceable as long as the City proceeds in a reasonable manner.
Sincerely,
STENSTROM, MclNTOSH, JULIAN,
COLBERT~'&~HIGHAM, P. A.
WLC/lss
Enclosure
FROM:
DATE:
FILE:
RE:
MR. BILL COLBERT
CHRISTINE HOWARD
AUGUST 2, 1985
CITY OF SANFORD
DOWNTOWN REZONED AREA
QUERY 1:
Are Resolution No. 1364-A and Ordinance No. 1664
enforceable?
ANSWER:
Yes.
DISCUSSION:
Property owners do not have a vested right to require
that a zoning classification remain constant, especially
in an area of growth and changed conditions. Sarasota
County v. Walker, 144 So.2d 345
The municipalities power to amend existing zoning
includes the power to make a piecemeal change which affects
part but not all of the land in the municipality.
Zoning regulations may be invalid only if in that such
operation or application it is considered to be unreasonable,
arbitrary, discriminatory, confiscatory, vague, indefinite,
or uncertain, or violative of certain legislative restrictions.
A zoning ordinance is arbitary and therefore invalid if
it permits designated uses of the property in a given area
while excluding uses that were not significantly different.
Trachsel v. City of Tamarac, 311 So.2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Each case concerning a zoning ordinance is to be considered
on its own particular facts and validity, not by an abstract
consideration of the building or of the land apart, but by
considering it in connection with circumstances and locality.
As an overall consideration the 6curts will balance the public
and private interests-- that is, the benefit of the public
as compared to the hardship or loss imposed upon the in-
dividual property owners and will determine whether the zoning
ordinance bears some real substantial relation to the public
health, welfare or safety.
Other considerations the court has held valid in amending
existing zoning are as follows:
a. Trend of development in area or community
b. Substantial study of zoning change
c. Traffic conditions
d. Land use
e. Change of conditions
Hardship to an individual property owner does not
MINUTES 21 5
City CommisSion, Sanford, Florida October 21,
19 85
DOWNTOWN REZONED AREA
The Courts have ruled that as long as a zoning
amendment concerning the preservation of character of
neighborhoods or of a historic site is related to the
general welfare of the community, it is valid. However,
a zoning ordinance based solely on aesthetic considerations
was invalid. Some recent decisions have staked out the
position that a zoning ordinance does not become invalid
merely because it is based solely or predominantly on
aesthetic considerations. Ordinances based on aesthetics
may still be scrutinized by courts to determine their
reasonableness in achieving their goals. Aesthetic con-
siderations may be valid as long as that is not the sole
purpose.
QUERY 2:
What procedure does the City of Sanford use in
order to enforce Ordinance No. 16647
DISCUSSION:
Fla. Stat. 8163.305 (1983)--ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCES
AND REGULATIONS:
The governing body shall provide by ordinance
for the enforcement of any ordinance or regulation
enacted under the provisions of this act. When
appropriate, violation of any ordinance or regulation
passed under this act may be deemed a misdemeanor,
punishable as provided by law. The governing body
may have recourse to such legal remedies as may be
necessary to insure compliance with the provision
of any ordinance or regulation enacted pursuant to
this act.
Fla. Stat. s 162.02 pertaining to Code Enforoanent Board~., states
as follows:
It is the intent of this act to promote, protect, and improve
the health, safety, and welfare of th~ citizens of the counties and
municipalities of this state by authorizing the creation of administrative
boards to provide an equitable, expeditious, effective, and inexpensive
method of enforcing the technical codes in force in counties and munici-
palities, including, but not limited to, ~tional license, fire,
building, zoning, and si~n codes.
The primary enforc~raent tool w~uld be the City's Code Enforc~nent
Board. The secoDd__ary enforcement tool would be th~ Court System.
216
MINUTES
City Commission, Sanford, Florida
October 21,
19 85
The City Manager stated that instances of an apparent non-compliance would be
handled by the staff administration on a case by case basis prior to sending to the Code
Enforcement Board for their consideration.
The requests were authorized to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager reported that Elliott Smith, Executive Director of the Sanford
Housing Authority, had withdrawn their request for the City's participation with them in
seeking CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Funds and acknowledged that the City had
adopted Resolution No. 1382, dated September 24, 1984, cooperating with Seminole County to
seek CDBG Funds.
The Director of Administrative Services submitted a chart of comparsion of health
plans and recommended authorizing insurance coverages by companys as follows:
CARRIER
HMO of Florida
Health Option Inc.
FLA Municipal Health Trust
EMPLOYEE PREMIUM
DEPENDENT PREMIUM
$73.90 $127.50
$71.35 $120.57
$72.90 $107.78
The Commission authorized same to be considered at the next regular meeting.
The City Manager and the Director of Engineering and Planning submitted a report
from Conklin, Porter and Holmes, Inc., Consultant Engineers, for utility rates and
development charges to support the proposed bond issue for Water and Sewer Improvements and
recommended its adoption.
The Commission authorized the City Attorney to prepare the proper ordinance for
same.
John Smith, next, appeared to request time to submit refined conceptual plans for
utilization of a portion of Lot 1, at the Marina. The Commission authorized Mr. Smith to
appear at the Workshop Session of November 4, 1985.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
FORM 4 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT
LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME
Smith, Milton E.
MAILING ADDRE~
885 East 20th Street
COUNTY
Sanford Seminole
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
October 28, 1985
N~MEOF~ARD. COUNCiUCOMMISSION, AUTHORITY, ORCOMMITTEE
City Commission
THE BOARD. COUNCIL,COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH i SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY rt COUNTY [~ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 13 STATE
NAME OF I~OLITiCAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY
City Commission.
* ' WHO MUST FILE FORM 4
This form is for use by any persOn'servi~g on either an aPpoimcd or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee,
whether state or local, and it applies equally to members of adviSory ~nd non-advisory bodies who are faced with a voting conflict of
interest.
As the voting conflict requirements for public officers at the local level differ from the requirements for state officers, this form is divided
into two parts: PART A is for use by persons serving on local boards (municipal, county, special tax districts, etc.), while PART B is
prescribed for all other boards, i.e., those at the state level.
PART C of the form contains instructions as to when and where this form must be fried.
PART A
VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
[Required by Section ! 12.3143(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).]
The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees PROHIBITS each municipal, county, and other iocalpublic officer FROM
VOTING in an official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from
knowingly voting in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to the special gain of any principal (other than a government
agency as defined in Section ! 12.312(2), Florida Statutes) by whom he is retained.
In any such case a local public officer must disclose thc conflict:
(a)
(bi
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly thc nature of his interest in the matter on which he is
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by describing the nature of his interest as a public record in this part below.
NOTE: Commissioners of a Community Redevelopment Agency created Or designated pursuant to Section 163.356 °r Section 163.357,
Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), or officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one=vote basis are not prohibited from
voting. In such cases, however, the oral and written disclosure of thi*s part must be made.
!, the undersigned local public officer, hereby disclose that on. Oct ober 2 8, ,19 8 5 :
(a) I abstained from voting on a matter which (check one):
X
inured to my special private gain; or ,o /) , .//
inured to the special gain of . / / / ~~ ~ t ~ ~F~/// , by whom 1 am retained.
CE FORM 4 - REV. !0-8~ PAGE
(b) Thc measure on which ! abstained and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
I own property in the Multi- Family residential area.
Date Filed
Si~'~ature
Please see PART C for instructions on when and where to file this form.
J
PART B
VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR STATE OFFICER$
[Required by Section ! 12.3143(2), Florida Statutes (Sump. ~1984).]
Each state public officer is permitted to vote in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state officer who votes in his official
capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or the special gain of any principal by whom he is retained is required
to disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in Part B below within 15 days after the vote occurs.
I, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on ,19 .
(a) I voted on a matter which (check one):
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
· by whom l am retained.
(b) The measure on which ! voted 'and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
Date Filed Signature
Please see PART C below for instructions on when and where'to f'dc this form.
PART C
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (I 5) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person
responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not
be filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict.
NOTICE: uNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES § 112.31 ? (! ~3), A FAI LURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY
aE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT,
DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED
CE FORM 4 - REV. 10-84 PAGE 2