Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Special Meeting_04/04/2005VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SPECIAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 4, 2005 I. Call to Order and Roll Call The Tequesta Village Council held a Village Council Special Meeting at the Tequesta Recreation Center, 399 Seabrook Road, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, April 4, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 8:07 A.M. A roll call was taken by Gwen Cazlisle, Village Clerk. Council Members present were: Mayor Jim Humpage, Vice Mayor Pat Watkins, Council Member Geraldine A. Genco, Council Member Edward D. Resnik, and Council Member Tom Paterno. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., and Village Clerk Gwen Cazlisle. Village Attorney Scott Hawkins was available to answer questions by telephone. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEIGANCE Mayor Humpage indicated there was no flag, so Council would move ahead with the agenda. • III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Council Member Resnik moved for approval of agenda, as submitted; seconded by Vice Mayor Watkins; motion passed S-0. 1) Discussion of settlement offer in the case of Johnson vs. Rynard and the Village of Tequesta Council Member Genco asked for a brief review of the case. Village Manager Couzzo indicated before he began review of the case, if Council so desired to discuss this in private Attorney/Client session it could be scheduled. Consensus of Council asked to continue the discussion. Village Manager Couzzo mentioned the case has been to court and the Village prevailed in the matter. He summarized the case: Involves neighboring residents in the Country Club, Johnson vs Rynard, and the Village of Tequesta. He commented Mr. Johnson filed a lawsuit against his neighbor Mr. Rynard regarding a dock and boathouse structure that goes into the water. He explained Mr. Rynazd had come in for a permit from the Village about five yeazs ago regazding renovating the existing dock and boathouse. He indicated there was a provision that if someone improved more than 50% of a structure it was considered a replacement. He pointed out the boathouse structure was grandfathered in before the rule changed that no new permits were allowed for boathouses on the River. He explained the Johnson's took issue and felt that it exceeded 50% therefore, they wanted the boathouse structure torn down, because they believed it no longer had the grandfather provision. The Village got involved because they issued the permit. Minutes - Apri14, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 2 Council Member Genco asked if this was the case involving the disabled boy, and a wheelchair. Village Manager Couzzo noted Mr. Rynard was renovating the dock so that his son who was in a wheelchair could use the dock and the platoon boat to go out on the River. He mentioned the Village went to mediation approximately two years ago, and just recently the Village prevailed and was awarded $4,702.60. He stated the Johnson's have offered to settle the matter for $1,175.65. He explained in talking with Attorney Hawkins this morning a notice of appeal had been filed by the Johnson's this past week. He noted the Johnson's settlement offer would be good through this week. He asked Council for direction in how they would like to proceed with the matter. Council Member Genco indicated the Village could only file their costs. Village Manager Couzzo noted apparently there were no statutory provisions to seek Attorney fees in this type of case. Vice Mayor Watkins felt there will be more legal fees involved if the Village kept going forward with this case. Village Manager Couzzo indicated Council could accept this offer; or go back and renegotiate. He felt if it goes to appeal, the Village would incur more legal expenses then the original $4,000.00 awarded. Council Member Genco questioned if the Village could recover the fees in the appeal. Village Manager Couzzo indicated Attorney Hawkins was available by phone, but noted if the Village could not collect fees on the first go around, they probably would not be able to get them on appeal. Council Member Paterno pointed out the high attorney bills, and questioned why the Village could not recover some of the legal fees. He questioned the difference in this case and others cases that the fees could be recovered on. Village Manager Couzzo indicated there were no statutory provisions for seeking legal fees in this type of matter. Council • Member Paterno felt the Village Attorney should have make the Village aware upfront that some of his charges could not be recovered. He indicated he would like to address the Attorney bills at some point in the discussion. Village Manager Couzzo suggested calling Attorney Hawkins. Council Member Genco agreed and felt it was important to know the issues. She noted on zoning issues she understood that the statutes prohibit from recovering fees, but suggested an appeal issue may be a totally different issue. She mentioned what bothers her was that word circulates fast through the Village and what could happen was people would hire an attorney and feel they could attack the Village at will without any downfall. Council Member Paterno agreed, and noted as people move from the south, they seem to be more aggressive, and the Village would see this happen more often. Vice Mayor Watkins mentioned one of her concerns was that the Village could have very well lost this case, based on the permit that was issued, etc. She noted her only concern would be opening the issue up again, and that the Village could lose in the appeal. Council Member Genco indicated she had asked for a copy of the case and the award, and had not received it to date. Village Manager Couzzo called Attorney Hawkins at 8:1 S A.M. Mayor Humpage noted Council had questions and concerns, and asked Attorney Hawkins what was the basis of the lawsuit that the Village had to defend? Attorney Hawkins stated the dispute was between the Johnson's and the Rynard's of whether or not a permit had been properly issued. He felt it was either a dock or boathouse permit, and that the Village of Tequesta had issued the permit. He noted this litigation began before he started handling the Village account on a daily basis. He noted Attorney Randolph was handling the case, and won the case. 2 Minutes -April 4, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 3 Attorney Hawkins stated the judge had stated the Village had done nothing wrong. He • noted the Johnson's claimed the dock boathouse interfered somehow with their rights. Mayor Humpage summarized basically the Village was involved because it had issued the permit, and the outcome was the Village was found in order. Attorney Hawkins agreed. Council Member Genco noted if she remembered correctly, both parties, the Johnson's and the Rynard's had appeared at a Council Meeting, and the Johnson's did not say a word. She indicated the Johnson's at that time raised no objections to the plans, and understood it was regarding accommodating the handicapped child. She noted later the Johnson's felt it would come to close to their property line that extended into the water. Mayor Humpage noted it encroached on their riparian rights. Council Member Genco noted that was why this lawsuit came about, because it was the turning angle, and the Johnson's access would be a little tighter. Village Manager Couzzo noted the plans did not actually change the angle, but what happened the repairs exceeded the 50% threshold. He commented from being at the mediation the Johnson's did not want the boathouse, because it obstructed their view. Council Member Genco indicated they widen the dock for wheelchair access. Council Member Resnik agreed and remembered they modified the dock in some way. He noted the Rynard's were asked to move the boathouse to the other side of the property, and the Rynard's did not agree. Mayor Humpage asked Attorney Hawkins, if the Village costs were recoverable on an appeal? Attorney Hawkins stated the Village could recover some costs, but they would be quite limited, but could not recover any legal fees. Council Member Genco questioned whether legal fees could be recovered an appeal for an existing Award of Judgment? Attorney Hawkins indicated there was no statute or basis for recovering legal fees. Council • Member Genco asked whether this was different than other litigation, where the prevailing party could go back and get their fees. Attorney Hawkins stated if there was a statutory basis, such as in the Siegel case where there was a statute passed by the Florida Legislature that created a basis for recovery of attorney fees such as in context of a foreclosure matter. He noted fees were also recovered in the Zuccarelli case, because they were based on a developer's agreement. He commented in this case there was no contract that provided for recovery of attorney fees. Vice Mayor Watkins questioned in the case of a frivolous case, could the Village collect legal fees. Attorney Hawkins noted the odds of recovering fees in a frivolous case were minimal or less than 5%. Council Member Paterno questioned if the Village prevailed and a lien was placed on the property for $4,500.00, could the Village go back and capture the attorney fees at that point. Attorney Hawkins stated the Village would not be able to cover their attorney fees. Vice Mayor Watkins asked Attorney Hawkins, if the Village decided to refuse the offer and go ahead with the appeal, even if we won would the collection be minimal. Attorney Hawkins felt it would a very minimal recovery. Vice Mayor Watkins felt it would not be worth it to go forward with the appeal. Council Member Paterno asked in reference to zoning matters, if there was a way the Village could structure this so that now or in the future, it does not look like the Village was caving in, and at everyone's mercy that wanted a change because the Village did not want to incur any legal fees. Council Member Genco questioned whether there was something that could be added into the code. Attorney Hawkins indicated there could be something • done in respect to the code in the future. He stated he could not see a way to structure it in this case. He cautioned Council, and felt there were not a lot of cases like this one. 3 Minutes -April 4, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 4 Council Member Genco noted the issue with Bayview Terrace on the entryway, the • Village was able to collect attorney fees for that by enforcing the code. She noted she did not understand how this was different. She explained she would like more confirmation, that an appeal would not be something that the Village could collect their legal fees. She asked one way or another whether an amendment to the code would resolve this issue in the future. Attorney Hawkins indicated he would be glad to look at whether an amendment to the code could resolve this issue in the future. He stated he did not have an opinion today on whether an amendment to the code would resolve this type of issue in the future, but stated he did know it would not resolve it retrospectively. He stated the Village could not recover their legal fees in the lower court in this matter. Mayor Humpage noted the Village Charter or the Village Code could never supercede the State Statutes. Attorney Hawkins agreed. Mayor Humpage commented unless there was a statutory obligation that the Village could pull together, amending the Code or Charter would not do the Village any good. Council Member Paterno commented as long as the State specifically does not allow something, the Village could make laws, and add fees. Attorney Hawkins noted he did not know as part of the zoning procedures whether some sort of liability for an applicant who was unsuccessful or for a grieved party claiming that they have been aggrieved by a zoning decision that was unsuccessful. He stated he did not know whether the Village could create an ordinance that would create a sustainable basis for fee recovery in the future. He commented it might be possible, because the local legislative body being Council would be entitled to pass laws affecting its jurisdiction, unique to this jurisdiction. • Mayor Humpage questioned whether this property was homesteaded. He noted if the Village was successful, and put a lien on the property, it still could another 20 years waiting to collect. Attorney Hawkins indicated if the Village gets a judgment, the judgment would be recorded, and lien placed on the debtor's property. Council Member Resnik questioned the Johnson's ultimatum, that they would file an appeal today if Council does not accept their offer. Attorney Hawkins indicated he spoke with the Johnson's attorney, who is also Judge Johnson's son, and they will agree to settle this week if the Village accepts the offer they have proposed. Attorney Hawkins commented what they have filed is a Notice of Appeal, which is a procedural document to institute an appeal to transfer jurisdiction of this matter from the trial court to an appellant court. He indicated they have not actually filed a brief, which is a lot more expensive. Council Member Resnik questioned whether Attorney Hawkins felt if the Village did not accept their offer, whether or not they would file the appeal. Attorney Hawkins indicated he felt they would file an appeal if the Village did not accept their offer. Council Member Genco asked what would be the basis of the appeal. Attorney Hawkins indicated the basis of the appeal was that they were claiming the lower court erred in granting the costs in the application of the case. Council Member Genco summarized it only had to do with the costs. Attorney Hawkins indicated the appeal would be solely on the costs, the $4,000AO figure. Council Member Genco noted it seemed they were contesting the costs of disposing their witnesses. She indicated everything on the list is what could have been awarded to the Village. She reviewed the charges associated with the claim for award. Vice Mayor Watkins indicated when she was running for Council, Mr. Johnson called • her, and she visited the site. She felt at the time it was permitted that he did not understand the visual impact it would have, and when it was finished it apparently was larger than he anticipated. She felt it did somewhat block his view, and that he was angry. 4 Minutes - Apri14, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 5 Vice Mayor Watkins explained the Village would probably spend more in attorney fees • fighting to get the additional $3,300.00. She questioned whether it was worth going to an appeal. Council Member Paterno asked Attorney Hawkins if in the settlement agreement it would state that the Village was the prevailing party, and that the Village's position was correct. Attorney Hawkins noted the Judge in the case, stated the Village was the prevailing party, and that the Johnson's position was without merit. Council Member Genco noted Council Member Paterno was requesting that if the Village settles with the Johnson's, inclusive of the settlement agreement, that they would be a statement from the Johnson's that they were wrong. Council Member Paterno indicated so the Johnson's could not come back on the Village, and it would place the Village in a better position. Mayor Humpage noted if the Village accepts the $1,100.00, he felt they understood they were wrong. He felt the Village was being bullied, but that it may be advisable to accept the money, and be off the hook. He explained he understood the Rynards were not going to accept their offer. Attorney Hawkins indicated that was correct. Council Member Resnik asked whether it was a certainty that if the Village accepted the offer, that the Village would not be back in court, or have to spend any additional monies. Attorney Hawkins commented he felt it would be over. Council Member Paterno questioned whether the Rynazd's could call the Village back into court. Attorney Hawkins felt they could not bring the Village back into court. Council discussion ensued regazding the Rynazd's situation. Council Member Genco explained Council could only recover $4,500.00 regazding the Johnson case. She stated the question was if there was an appeal, and the Village wins, typically at that point the prevailing party could ask for legal fees. Attorney Hawkins indicated he did not believe that was correct. He indicated it would be • accurate where there is a Statute that grants fees in the lower court. He stated if there was a contract that would give the prevailing party the basis for recovering the fees in the upper court, then they generally could also recover in the lower court. Council Member Genco questioned whether Council wanted to direct the Attorney to do an amendment to the code to be able to collect legal fees in the future. Mayor Humpage agreed that was a good idea. He indicated the consensus of Council was to pursue some type of ordinance required on behalf of the Village, in case they were in this position again, to be able to recover the costs. Attorney Hawkins clarified to look at a way to create an ordinance that would give raise that the Village would be entitled to recover Attorney fees in these type of situations as presented here in the Johnson's claim. Council Member Genco suggested maybe it should be more encompassing to include enforcement of zoning issues. Council Member Resnik noted if the Village was going to spend the monies to implement something like this, he would like to make sure it included every kind of case, a total blanket umbrella for getting the full cost recovered. Mayor Humpage asked the Attorney to take a brief look at the amount of hours to accomplish the task, and report back on before proceeding with the work. Vice Mayor Watkins suggested the Attorney report back if Council had any options at all. Attorney Hawkins indicated he would take a look and report back to Council. Council Member Genco commented Council Member Paterno had requested a release of some type affirming the previous decision, costs and the judgment, so that the Village • could not be brought back into this case. Mayor Humpage agreed especially as a third party on the issue. 5 Minutes -April 4, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 6 Vice Mayor Watkins asked Attorney Hawkins if there could be language drafted • accepting the money that they could not come after Tequesta again on the same issue. Council Member Genco suggested that they affirm the final judgment, including awarding costs. Mayor Humpage felt if they were paying the Village it said they were in the wrong. Attorney Hawkins stated he would try and get these items into a document. He questioned if the other party does not approve a document as such, how does Council want him to proceed. He felt this type of document may not be necessary. Council Member Paterno felt Council was saying they wanted the Attorney to negotiate for more money in this case. Attorney Hawkins indicated he would get as much protective language as they would agree to. Council Member Genco commented there would be other issues, such as the Johnson's and the Rynard's going back to court, and they could call the Village back in as a witness or dispose the Village on this issue. Attorney Hawkins reiterated it was an appeal, and that witnesses do not appear at an appeal. Council Member Genco stated they may want to go back to ground zero again. Attorney Hawkins noted a judgment was the end of the line in the trial court, and if they go to appeal there are no witnesses. He noted if they win the appeal, it would be possible for a retrial, and if Tequesta's judgment has been accepted, Tequesta would not be a party, but could be a witness. He felt the odds for retrial were less than 20%. Council Member Paterno noted he was not worried about them calling Council in as witness, but mentioned concerns that the Village Attorney would be involved again, and run up the legal fees. Attorney Hawkins asked Council to hold the line while he retrieved the case file. • Council Member Resnik felt the Village would never receive 100% reimbursement, risk free, and questioned how Council could expect that. Council Member Genco distributed Section 78-612 of the Village Code of Ordinances, for discussion later in the meeting. She indicated Section 78-612 prohibited trailers. Attorney Hawkins verified the court proceedings. He stated the only issue in dispute was whether or not the appellate court was going to affirm the trial courts holding that Tequesta was entitled to $4,700.00 in costs. He stated if Tequesta was settling its claim for costs, there would no longer be an issue, since the dispute was over the permit, and the Johnson's could not sue Tequesta over anything else. He indicated the Rynard's could go back for retrial, but the Village could not be a party by the Johnson's. He stated it was possible the Rynard's would sue Tequesta, but he felt they would not have a basis for a claim. Council Member Genco asked Attorney Hawkins if he typically tested the waters to negotiate for more money, after they had offered to settle for less. Attorney Hawkins answered yes with the client's consent he would try and raise the numbers. Council Member Genco noted 50/50 was always a good median, because both parties win and lose equally. Attorney Hawkins asked for direction from Council. He suggested Council give a range, such as 25% - 60%. Mayor Humpage noted the suggested range would be a good starting place. He thanked Attorney Hawkins for his time. Mayor Humpage terminated the conference call with Attorney Hawkins at 8: SO A.M. • 6 Minutes - Apri14, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 7 • Council Member Genco noted most of the attorney's she deals with automatically start to negotiate, test the waters to see if there was any movement. She mentioned the Village has been having all these closed door sessions, when the waters have not been tested, and felt it should be his goal all the time to test the waters before these type of sessions. Council Member Paterno felt the Attorney was not looking out for the Village at the time he addressed these matters, and that he should be considering that was coming ahead instead of billing twice to come to a conclusion. He felt that was not the way it should be done. Mayor Humpage noted the Attorney can not randomly get into a conversation, and let the meter run without Council approval. Council Member Genco indicated he already was in conversation at the time, that they had requested an appeal, and that was the time he should have tested the waters to see what they would give before going to litigation. Vice Mayor Watkins explained he has to act on the direction of Council, and that he may not have been directed to act in that capacity. Council Member Resnik noted if Council wanted the Attorney to be more aggressive, he would need to be told. Council Member Genco noted she expected the Attorney to be more aggressive, for the benefit of the Village. Village Manager Couzzo commented he understood Council's desire, and that everyone has a collective understanding of this issue. Vice Mayor Watkins asked Village Manager Couzzo to relay to Attorney Hawkins that Council wanted him to take a more aggressive approach. Village Manager Couzzo indicated he would convey the direction of Council. Consensus of Council agreed. Council Member Paterno felt in his opinion the amount the Village would collect in costs on this matter was nothing in comparison to the legal fees. He felt the Village Attorney should know the answers, and if he did not, he did not want to pay him for answers that Council already knew. Mayor Humpage asked if it was Council's desire to accept or decline the offer. MOTION: Council Member Resnik moved to accept the offer; seconded by Council Member Paterno. Council Member Genco moved to accept the offer, contingent on the Attorney testing the waters to get at least 25% or more, if possible. Motion passes S-0. Council Member Genco asked to add an item to the agenda to discuss Code Section 78- 612, Other uses.Mayor Humpage mentioned concerns on adding an item to the agenda without the public being notified. Council Member Genco commented an item could be added as long as no action was taken. Village Manager Couzzo noted items can be discussed, but no definite decision or action should be taken. He noted it was an open public meeting, and that procedurally an item can be added to the agenda. MOTION: Council Member Genco asked that Council Comments be added to the agenda; seconded by Council Member Paterno; motion passed S-0. COUNCIL COMMENTS 2) Discussion of Code Section 78-612.Other Uses 7 Minutes -April 4, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 8 • Council Member Genco indicated that Section 78-612 stood on it's own, and that it did not need any other regulations. She read for the record Section 78-612, Other uses. She noted the Village has two trailers that have been stored on lot near the Village Administration Office. Village Manager Couzzo indicated there were four trailers there this morning. Council Member Genco indicated they were not allowed. She commented the only way they would be allowed was: 1) the building official and the Council gave permission or a permit; and 2) if they have an existing permit and it was an accessory use in MXD. Council Member Paterno noted they would have to have a Unity of Title to connect the property opposite the business to store the trailers at that location. Council Member Resnik felt this code was sufficient to serve notice that the trailers were in violation of the code. Council Member Paterno indicated he did not want to be put into litigation and suggested something may need to be placed in the code first. Council Member Genco stated it was like illegal parking, and that would be a fine by Code. Council Member Resnik questioned whether it would have to go to Special Master first. Council Member Genco suggested by the time it went through the Special Master process, that a code could be placed on the books. Council Member Paterno indicated the violation process would start the day they were cited. Village Manager Couzzo felt it was similar to the situation the Village just went through, and suggested amending the code to put in provisions that something was not allowed. He suggested they be ticketed if they stored an item, and that they would be towed at the owner's expense. He felt adding that language would be enough to prohibit them from doing it in the future. Council Member Genco commented the Code already does not allow overnight parking • of trailers, or vehicles, unless it was an accessory use. She explained if there was a florist, and they had a delivery van, they would be allowed to park the van there, because it was an accessory use. She noted when they filed for a permit, it was understood that the business would have some type of delivery van. She indicated the same thing would happen if it were a construction site, or a temporary office and had aone-ton truck. She noted it would be expected to have that type of truck as an accessory use. She mentioned that was already in the Code, and that the code did address the overnight parking issue. Council Member Genco felt Section 78-612 addressed other uses, such as anon- motorized vehicles, that cannot be kept anywhere within the Village. Vice Mayor Watkins questioned whether another ordinance was needed. Village Manager Couzzo felt another ordinance would have additional language, as far as the ability to immediately enforce it, and it would be punitive enough, that the offender would probably not want to violate the code. He suggested the title "Code Enforcement" should be changed to "Code Compliance", because the issue was to get compliance. He mentioned the intent was to try and get the offender to comply, but if that did not work then they would cited. He commented the idea was to tighten up the code. He mentioned he had received a copy of an ordinance from the City of Plantation, since their codes were really restrictive. He indicated the parking section in the Plantation code was very complete. He felt the ordinance did speak to the public entity having the right to maintain their codes, and maintain their parking ordinances on private property. He mentioned they were very strict in how they did it. Council Member Resnik questioned how long would it take to adoption of the proposed new code. Village Manager Couzzo felt it could take 90 days or • more. Council Member Resnik questioned why the Village does not cite them at this time. 8 Minutes - Apri14, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 9 Village Manager Couzzo indicated Section 78-612 gives the Village the authority to cite them. Council Member Paterno suggested going ahead and start citing the individuals now. He felt the Village needed to be more aggressive on these codes that were in place, and enforce them. He felt if Staff finds there was a better way of handling these things that they should be brought to Council's attention, and they could be processed. He noted at this point there were things that were not getting done. He commented Staff needed to find a way to do compliance to get things done. Mayor Humpage stressed this was a great idea and suggested moving forward to create the code. Council Member Paterno felt it should not have to get to the Council level, and that Staff should take care of the issue as far as Code Enforcement and being proactive. Council Member Genco mentioned she brought this up a year ago, and now it was finally getting some attention. Village Manager Couzzo indicated there has been dialogue over the past yeaz with Mr. Zuccarelli; and at first Mr. Zucazelli moved the trailers, but now has changed his mind. Council Member Genco commented Staff knew over a yeaz ago that the Code was not specific enough, and that was when something should have been initiated on the pazking rules. Council Member Paterno felt the Code Enforcement guy needed to be out there enforcing the code, otherwise people would slowly start violating the code, then the next one, and so on. He explained the two boats sitting out on Tequesta Drive, with all kinds of junk around them, was a disgrace and needed to be cleaned up. Mayor Humpage questioned whether the Village needed to consider, in the Police budget • next year, a full time Code Enforcement Officer. Village Manager Couzzo suggested Staff would be presenting something to Council in the neaz future. He reviewed the development of the Village Code Enforcement personnel: • Four years ago Sgt. Arando was doing Code Enforcement on a very limited basis. • Then a civilian was hired, and that worked to a degree. • After that a Code Enforcement Officer/Police Officer was brought on part time basis, 20 hours per week, and now was doing it full time. Mayor Humpage suggested reviewing the budget, and giving the Chief the latitude in his budget, for another 20 hours. Council Member Genco suggested someone from the building department could do it part time. Village Manager Couzzo noted there were a lot of different options to consider. Council Member Genco indicated the Village has a planner, but asked how much longer would the Village have planning needs. She suggested maybe someone could fill in at that time. Mayor Humpage noted years ago he was on the Code Enforcement Board, when there were municipal judges, and the only time the Code Enforcement Board was able to do anything, was when there was a police officer involved. He felt the civilians and part timers were not as efficient. Council Member Genco suggested someone do the paperwork, and then have a police officer serve. Village Manager Couzzo noted that was a great suggestion. Vice Mayor Watkins pointed out that new homes being constructed allowed trees to be planted under the power lines. She felt that should not be allowed, and that the code • needed to be updated. Mayor Humpage noted he was at a County Commission meeting and the County was not allowing trees under the power lines. 9 Minutes - Apri14, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 10 Council Member Paterno noted only certain types of trees should be allowed, because • some do not grow so high. Village Manager Couzzo felt Staff was heading in the right direction, and commented on the discussions a couple of years ago about taking the Code and going through it chapter by chapter. He indicated Staff was now spending more time, and drafting ordinances to address these issues. Council Member Paterno noted in the case of the pazking on the Zuccarelli property there were codes in place to bring them into compliance. Village Manager Couzzo indicated Staff would review 78-612, and see if they apply to this situation. Council Member Genco questioned the progress on the overlap of the code for the Local Planning Agency (LPA). She noted the code had both the Council and the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board as the LPA. Village Manager Couzzo indicated the Village Attorney was in the process of making the revisions. Council Member Genco noted the Village has now received a petition for a hearing, and it may need to be heard by P&Z Board and Council. She felt that could not be done under the Florida Statutes. She stated the Village code has Council taking the final action. Council Member Resnik clarified that what was now being proposed was that Council would be acting in the capacity of the LPA. Council Member Genco reiterated by code Council has the final say on all building development and permitting. She felt the hearing and review process should not be taken away from Council. She noted what would happen would be a hearing at the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board, and then only a stamp by Council. She felt Council was giving away the public hearing process. Council Member Resnik commented any decision that Planning and Zoning Advisory Board made still had to come to Council for • approval. Council Member Genco pointed out, there could only be one hearing in the process, and once Planning and Zoning Advisory Board heazd it and approved it, that would be it, and Council could not heaz it again. Council Member Genco pointed out the Planning and Zoning Advisory Boazd does not have quasi judicial powers. Council Member Paterno asked if it was operating differently then the original intent. Council Member Genco stated the way the current code reads the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board has the final right for approval. Mayor Humpage asked if Council wanted to be the Local Planning Agency. Council Member Genco answered in the affirmative. Village Clerk Gwen Cazlisle mentioned she had spoke with Municipal Code Corporation, the vendor that codified the Village code, and when Municipal Code codified the new Planning and Zoning ordinance, they did not go back and remove Council being the LPA, that was the current discrepancy. Council Member Genco noted it was a scrivener's error and in the minutes it reflected that Council was to be the LPA. She suggested placing the word "advisory" in the code, noting they would only be advisory to the Local Planning Agency. She commented Section 66 designates Council as the LPA. Mayor Humpage agreed the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board ordinance needed to be changed to clarify their role. Vice Mayor Watkins asked if the Village Manager could do the revisions. Village Manager Couzzo agreed to make the revisions, and bring it back to Council. Consensus of Council agreed to revise the Planning and Zoning Advisory Boazd ordinance to keep them as an advisory boazd to the LPA, and to keep Council as the • Local Planning Agency as stated in Section 66 of the Village Code of Ordinances. 10 Minutes - Apri14, 2005 Village Council Special Meeting Page 11 IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Mayor Watkins moved to adjourn the Meeting; seconded by Council Member Paterno; motion passed S-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 a.m. '~-tip.. ~~~~ wen Carlisle Village Clerk • • 11