PZ 07/10/2013 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency July 10, 2013 Page 2 Fifth Item of Business: LPA 13 -02: Solicitor's Permit Ordinance Continued. Amendments to City Code, Chapter 26, Businesses, Article III, Peddlers, Solicitors, Begging and Panhandling. Mr. Jason Sorensen, Planner I, reviewed the information provided in his memorandum dated July 10, 2013, to the City of Casselberry Planning and Zoning Commission (a copy is on file in the Community Development Department). Mr. Sorensen presented a PowerPoint presentation (a copy is attached and made a part of the minutes). Mr. Sorensen reviewed the following proposed changes to the Solicitor's Permit requirements: 1. Adding definition for "premises" 2. Modifying the hours allowed to solicit from 9 am - 9 pm to 10 am - 7 pm 3. Adding additional exemptions — for schools 4. Change "Occupational License" references to "Business Tax Receipt" 5. Clarification that a County Solicitor's Permit is required per Florida Statute 6. Increasing the application fee from $20 to $100 7. Adding a provision to deny a permit if the applicant did not previously adhere to permit terms 8. Reducing time period that a permit is valid from 60 days to 2 days 9. Limiting the renewal of a permit from 5 times within a one year period to 2 times a year 10. Changing the review board for appeals from the Occupational License Review Board to the Code Enforcement Board 11. Clarifying the age of a juvenile 12. Clarifying supervision of a juvenile while soliciting Mr. Sorensen said Staff requests the Planning and Zoning Commission review, discuss and provide a favorable recommendation to the City Commission for LPA 13 -02 to amend the City of Casselberry Code of Ordinances, Chapter 26. Businesses; Article III. Peddlers, Solicitors, Begging and Panhandling; Division 1. Peddlers and Solicitors of Goods in Residential Areas. A brief discussion ensued regarding the reason for the code change, denial of a permit due to the applicant not previously adhering to terms of the permit, the documentation required for denial of a permit for not adhering to the terms of the permit, and the non - profit exemption for obtaining a permit. Mr. Meadows asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. No one came forward. A brief discussion ensued regarding the type of documentation required to deny a permit if the applicant has not previously adhered to the City Code. It was decided that a police report would be used to deny a permit. Ms. Smith said that the applicant could appeal the denial of a permit to the Code Enforcement Board.