Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 9A_7/25/1996 . - . - ( (_„,___. ME A ..„ ,- .; VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive 'l • ,,;' Tequesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200 o Fax: (407)575-6203 3 IN p CM COVN� VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Public Safety Committee held a regularly • scheduled meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, June 6, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 4 : 30 P.M. by Chairman Joseph Capretta. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, the Recording Secretary. In attendance were : Chairman Joseph Capretta, and Committeemembers Carl C. Hansen and Elizabeth A. Schauer. Village Staff present were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Attorney John C. Randolph, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads . II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committeemember Schauer made a motion to approve the Agenda . as submitted. Committeemember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta 7 for Carl C. Hansen - for Elizabeth Schauer - for The. motion was therefore passed and adopted and. the Agenda was approved as submitted. 4 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 2 III . COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, expressed concern that hurricane season was approaching and that tree trimmings left by the roadside could become projectiles during a storm. Mr. Little suggested the possibility of a Hurricane Ordinance be considered, and that people not be allowed to pile up trash right before a storm since it took Nichols Sanitation a few days to pick up. Village Manager Bradford explained that. when a clamshell truck was required that pick up could be delayed approximately three days . IV. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 370 MAPLE AVENUE Chairman Capretta explained that the owner of the property at 370 Maple had provided no upkeep for several years, that fines of over $65, 000 had accumulated, and subsequently that the Court had awarded the property to the Village. A decision was necessary regarding what would be done with the property. Options available were: demolition, renovation, or sale with conditions for renovation. Village Manager Bradford expressed concern that demolition of the house in order to sell the lot so that a new home could be built might result in a market price for the new house which would exceed that of the neighborhood. A proposal for demolition had been received by the Village for $8, 700 . Village Manager Bradford explained that the property appraiser had established the value of the land at $30, 000, and that a new house in that neighborhood would cost between $85, 000- $115, 000. Neil Vander Waal, who was present in the audience, commented that a financial institution might not be willing to loan on a property which would be overpriced for the area. Mr. Vander Waal explained that he was present at the meeting in order to inform the Committee that he had someone interested in buying the property "as is". Another man present in the audience who lived across the street from the property stated that he was also interested in purchasing the property "as is" . Village Manager Bradford commented that he had had 15 - 20 inquiries and had told each that if the Village Council picked the option of sale with conditions for renovation that they would all be given an equal chance at the property. Village Manager Bradford PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 3 suggested that if an auction were held that a minimum bid be set at $12, 000. Chairman Capretta suggested that a real estate appraisal be obtained. Village Manager Bradford explained that the foundation and walls were the only parts of the house that would be salvageable . Committeemember Schauer questioned whether the Village was mowing the property since the grass was over 12" high, to which the Village Manager responded he would contact Public Works . Chairman Capretta expressed his opinion in favor of holding an auction and selling the property with conditions for renovation so that the property would not remain an eyesore. Committeemember Hansen questioned whether bids should be in the form of bid offers to be submitted in two weeks, to which the Village Manager responded he could place an advertisement and then send bid invitations to all who had inquired about the property. Discussion ensued regarding appropriate time frames which should be established for completion of certain items, such as a certain number of days to have the roof completed. Mr. Vander Waal commented that six months would be sufficient time to complete the whole renovation. Village Manager Bradford explained that there would be a general time frame to accomplish Village Council approval of the highest bid, after which the contract would be executed and the times for the conditions would begin. In response to Committeemember Schauer' s question whether the highest bidder would know ahead of Village Council approval that he would get the job so that he could begin to put things in order, Village Attorney Randolph explained that the high bidder would not be informed until the Village Council had approved the bid. Councilmember Michael Meder, who was present in the audience, commented that the time frames for conditions would run from the closing and not from the award date. Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, expressed his opinion that the minimum bid should be at least $20, 000 to recover funds which the Village had spent on this matter. Mr. Little also questioned whether the foundation height would have to be raised to meet the current Building Code requirements, and expressed concern that the time frames would not be sufficient if such a problem must be worked out with the Village. Mr. Little suggested that holding an auction would increase the flow of dollars to the community over a sealed • ._ a PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 4 bid process, and recommended that the Village find out the cost of an auctioneer. Discussion ensued regarding whether the slab would have, to be raised to meet current Code for a renovation project rather than for new construction. Mr. Little commented that he believed if a certain percentage of renovation were made then the new height requirement must be met. Committeemember Hansen commented that he would expect the bidders to be professional people who would ascertain the conditions with which they must comply, and if conditions were unreasonable they would take exception to the bid. Chairman Capretta recommended that Building Official Ladd look at the key questions, such as the level of the foundation, since it had been his impression that as long as an exterior wall was left from the original structure that the new floor height requirement did not apply. Committeemember Schauer commented that the consulting engineer' s report had been very descriptive • regarding what needed to be done for renovation. Village Attorney Randolph advised that the decision whether to have an auction or sealed bids should be made after selection of an option for demolition, renovation, or sale with conditions for renovation. It was stated that staff would research the options and choose the best alternative. Committeemember Schauer made a motion to sell the property at 370 Maple Avenue with conditions for renovation (Option #3) . Committeemember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta . - for Carl C. Hansen - for Elizabeth Schauer - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. • V. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR SPECIFIC MEDICAL HARDSHIP Village Manager Bradford explained that Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, had previously requested a waiver for parking his motor home which had been denied. Subsequently, on October 12, 1995, Mr. Little had approached the Village • PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 5 Council seeking help relative to the hardship facing him regarding access to his motor home for his wife who he had explained had a medical hardship. Village Manager Bradford stated that a copy of that portion of the Village Council meeting minutes had been provided for the Committeemembers to review, and explained that the Village Council had voted 3-2 in favor of having staff look at the existing portion of the Tequesta Zoning Ordinance to see what could be done. Subsequently, Village Attorney Randolph had prepared a draft ordinance for review and consideration, which would provide an amendment for medical hardship waiver under certain conditions enumerated within the ordinance. Committeemember Schauer stated that she had reviewed the draft ordinance and that her position was the same, i .e. , that she would prefer not to approve the ordinance and to leave the Code as is . • Committeemember Hansen commented that he did not think of a motor home or recreational vehicle as the type of transportation normally used to transport handicapped people, and considered an average car which had no steps better suited. Mr. Hansen commented that ADA guidelines mentioned wide doors for access and a lot of other things which did not apply to motor homes . Chairman Capretta commented that this matter had been discussed several times . Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, commented on the last paragraph in Village Manager Bradford' s memo to the Public Safety Committee members, which stated, "Just as a point of information, at your recent Village Council Meetings, Mr. Little has been indicating that Attorney General Opinions indicate that it is illegal for municipalities to adopt regulations for handicapped parking. The Village Attorney advises me that this is not the case. " Mr. Little stated everyone was familiar with 84-1 which he had read at practically every meeting. Mr. Little read aloud from a document which he stated was dated 6/4/96 at 13 . 52 . 51, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Florida, from Tom Baxter Law Library: The Sheriff's Office of each of several counties of this State shall enforce all of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 6 traffic laws of the State on all the streets and highways thereof and elsewhere throughout the County wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicles. Footnote number 3: See E. G. AGO 84-1 (Municipalities are not authorized by law to enact an ordinance regulating parking for physically disabled persons on private property) In AGO 83 and 84 the provisions of 316 Florida Statutes are enforceable on private property only when the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle thereon. Village Attorney Randolph commented those were correct statements, but they were not relevant to what was being done; and that there was a Statute which related to physically handicapped parking which could be enforced on public property and it did not allow someone to go onto property such as the shopping center next door and require them to have physically handicapped spaces, and did not allow the Chief of Police to go onto a property owner' s property without the permission of the property owner to go on to enforce the Statute. Village Attorney Randolph stated he did not see how that related to what was being done here in regard to trying to craft out a provision for it, and stated that he believed that in this ordinance an attempt was made to craft out a provision for physically handicapped parking. The Village Attorney commented that it seemed that the argument being used was saying that could not be done, and if so, the ordinance would have to be left the way it was . Village Attorney Randolph commented that what was attempted by this ordinance was to try to accommodate private people for the need of a physically handicapped person. Chairman Capretta commented that Mr. Little' s arguments and the reading of the code led him to the conclusion that the Village had no business passing such an ordinance, and might not have the right to do it. Village Attorney Randolph stated that was where the argument would lead if the argument was correct, but the argument was not correct as it related to these properties . In response to Chairman Capretta' s question of what this ordinance would do if passed, Village Manager Bradford explained that it would provide for specific medical hardship for the parking of vehicles referenced in certain sections of the Code as being PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 7 illegal on private property. Village Attorney Randolph stated that currently there was no Code provision for medical hardship, and that the hardship Mr. Little would have to show was the same as anyone would have to show for granting of a variance--that there was something unique about his particular property which should allow him to park a motor vehicle of this size when no one else in the Village had the right to do that. The question was raised whether in addition to that the Village should have a provision in the Code which would allow someone to obtain a variance from the Code for a medical hardship, which was why this ordinance was drafted. Attorney Randolph stated that he was not sure whether, under the provisions of this ordinance if it should be passed, Mr. Little would be successful in getting an exemption for parking his motor home; because the Ordinance read that in order to be granted a variance for medical hardship it must be proved that (a) the parking of the vehicle could not reasonably meet the terms of the Ordinance without the granting of a waiver. Attorney Randolph stated that there had been a question of whether or not Mr. Little' s vehicle could legally be parked on the property. Attorney Randolph commented that the Ordinance also required that (b) the vehicle for which the waiver was sought was necessitated for the use of the transportation of a physically handicapped person living on the premises and that another vehicle not regulated under the terms of the Ordinance was insufficient for transportation of said physically handicapped person. And (c) that the vehicle for which the waiver was sought shall be specifically equipped for the transportation of a physically handicapped person; and (d) that a notarized letter attesting to the truth of the information contained therein be provided from a medical doctor verifying that the person on the premises for whom the waiver is requested is physically handicapped and is in need of the vehicle for which the waiver is requested for transportation purposes . Attorney Randolph stated this was a reasonable Ordinance; however, he was not sure it was going to get Mr. Little what he was looking for. Mr . Little commented that, number one, that was the only vehicle he had since in October his car had floated away during the high waters . Mr. Little stated, number 2, how many handicapped vehicles do you find in the community that PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 8 have facilities for restrooms, and stated that his wife when she says, "Tom, bathroom", she didn' t mean ten minutes from now or twenty minutes from now, she means now. Mr. Little stated he found a landing area immediately, that we had all had the goosey gallop trots or G. I . ' s or whatever you wish to call them, diarrhea, and he had had several experiences over the last four years, and when she says "restroom", he landed right now with that motor home. Mr. Little stated, "I need it. I've got to have it for that purposes only. I've got to be there . I' ve got to have it instantaneously, practically. And again, going back to Footnote 3, it' s so specific, whenever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle. They don' t have the right to travel . You cannot legislate, and basically, it' s not the vehicle, the person is who you are legislating. That' s the handicapped person. I can take that blue tag that I have right now in my motor home, if I had a vehicle with restroom facilities in it I would take that tag and go anywhere with her, but I've got to have the restroom. You' re not going to find it in the vans coming from Jupiter Hospital, or any of the ambulance squads that I know of. Here again, we are right back to square one. Ladies and Gentlemen, I asked for your help last time very, very nicely, and so forth. I am still asking for help. And I don' t think this Ordinance is going to do it because basically, you can' t legislate a disabled person' s vehicle on private property, according to Florida State Statutes 316. " Committeemember Hansen suggested that recommendation be made to the Village Council not to pass the proposed Ordinance. Village Manager Bradford commented that another applicant was on the Village Council meeting agenda for next week who was seeking a medical hardship for a motor home, and expressed his personal opinion that waivers should not be allowed. Mr. Little suggested that there should be give and take rather than a dictatorial position, and commented that in almost every chapter in the Village Codes there were provisions for waivers, variances, and hardship. Mr. Little stated that the only section of the Code which mentioned hardship was the section he had been discussing. Chairman Capretta questioned where Mr. Little had been parking his motor homes on his property for the last several years. Mr. Little responded that it was the same approximate location, PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 9 however, since Mr. Vorpagel had erected a fence alongside the property, that fence had prevented Mr. Little from backing the motor home deeper into that side of his lot; however, Mr. Little stated he did not believe that was the problem based upon the opinion he had obtained from the Attorney General' s office which said that a municipality could not legislate a disabled person' s vehicle on private property--that it was not a thoroughfare. In response to Chairman Capretta' s question whether the police had tried to stop Mr. Little from parking approximately where he had parked since 1972, Mr. Little responded that the only episode had been with Code Enforcement Officer Davis who verbally informed Mr. Little he was not in compliance with the Code, and that was when Mr. Little had requested a waiver because of hardship, which was denied. During ensuing discussion, Chairman Capretta questioned why Mr. Little kept bringing this matter up since he had never been cited. Mr. Little explained that he wanted to be in good standing. Chairman Capretta expressed the opinion that the Police and the Village had been compassionate by having left Mr. Little alone, and explained that the Village had not found a way to write an ordinance that was applicable to all the people in the Village and also to solve Mr. Little' s particular problem. Chairman Capretta commented that his advice to Mr. Little was to continue what he was doing, and to see what happened in the next case which would be coming up. Councilmember Meder questioned whether Mr. Little was saying that the Florida Statute said that it was illegal for a municipality to regulate motor vehicles, to which Mr. Little responded that it stated regulation was illegal for physically disabled persons on private property. Mr. Little explained that he used a piece of plywood for a ramp to push his wife' s wheelchair into the motor home. Chairman Capretta questioned whether this Committee should act on this matter or send it to the full Village Council, to which the Village Attorney responded that the full Village Council had requested the Public Safety Committee' s recommendation, therefore, it had to go back to the Village Council . Committeemember Hansen made a motion to bring the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for specific medical hardship PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 10 before the full Village Council with the recorrinendation from the Public Safety Committee that it not be approved. Conmitteemember Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for Elizabeth Schauer - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. Village Manager Bradford requested and received clarification from Chairman Capretta that the decision of the Committee would be made to the Village Council in the report of the Committee' s meeting rather than placed on the agenda of the Village Council meeting. Mr. Little questioned where he stood. Village Manager Bradford stated that Mr. Little was in violation of the Code. Mr. Little stated, go back to the original variance he had requested referring to that section of the Code and grant the variance based upon the hardship that was in the Code. Village Manager Bradford explained that staff had reviewed Mr. Little' s property and had found that he could park his motor home legally under the Code if he parked it on the east side of his property, and he believed that the issue came down to the fact that Mr. Little did not want to make the changes necessary to come into compliance with the Code, and questioned Mr. Little whether he did or did not want to make the necessary changes . Mr. Little responded that he did not, that on April. 18 his wife had fallen and broken her leg and had finally came home from the hospital and nursing care center, and now had to use a walker. Mr. Little again stated he did not see how the Village could legislate this matter since according to Florida Statutes municipalities are not authorized by law to enact an ordinance regulating parking for physically disabled persons on private property. Chairman Capretta pointed out that Mr. Little could park his motor home legally on his lot even though it was not the most convenient spot, and could pull over into the driveway . to pick up his wife when she needed to go somewhere. Committeemember Hansen explained there were many Village residents who had spent $500 to $1, 000 to put up a fence or provide screening for their recreational vehicles in order • • PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 • PAGE 11 • to be in compliance with Village Code, and that Mr. Little could also be in compliance. Mr. Hansen stated that as far as he could see, Mr. Little had a choice to come into compliance and had chosen not to comply. Mr. Little responded that was correct. Mr. Little stated he would not give up. Mr. Little provided Village Attorney Randolph the number of the most recent AGO to which he had referred. VI. DISCUSSION OF NAMAC REPRESENTATIVE Village Manager Bradford reported that the Village was a member of both the NAMAC Police and Fire organizations, whose councils had voted to merge into one council . Also, former Vice Mayor Burckart needed to be replaced as the Village representative for the NAMAC Police organization, and Mayor Mackail was currently the representative for the NAMAC Fire Rescue organization. Committeemember Schauer made a motion to make Mayor Ron Mackail the Village Representative for both the NAMAC Police organization and the NAMAC Fire Rescue organization, with Councilmember Carl C. Hansen as alternate Village • Representative. Comnitteemember Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Joseph N. Capretta - for • Carl C. Hansen - for Elizabeth Schauer - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Chairman Capretta reported that the people in Waterway Village on the west side of the intercoastal were concerned that the Village was planning to cut down the trees which blocked the wind from their homes. Village Manager Bradford explained that the Village was not involved and that Palm Beach County would be handling such a matter since they managed that land for the State. Village Manager Bradford PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 12 explained that the trees were Australian Pines which were an invasive species and should be cut. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5: 26 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: