CE 05/11/2017 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Special Magistrate looked over the fence permit and six photographs. Ms. Hanna advised that even if he is not charging for spaces for the vehicles, it is still considered outside storage. The Special Magistrate stated that some of the photographs the City provided over a period of months showing signs for storage were Mr. Vandestreek testimony that he never charged for storage. Mr. Vandestreek stated the signs were put out when he was applying for the Business Tax Receipt. It was then asked if he could park his personal vehicles on the property. The Special Magistrate asked if he had that conversation with planning. Finding of Fact: The Special Magistrate made a finding in case 16-001161, the property designation is 2118 Lakeview Dr., parcel number 17-21-30-508-01300-0110. Based on testimony and photographs it was found that the property was in violation of Illegal land use; ULDR Section 2-4.5 & 2-5.3 and Operating without a BTR; City Code Section 26.33. The zoning plus the fact that it's in CRD; there are two levels of the use of the land. The State cannot tell the City of Casselberry how to make its rules about zoning, sign permits and such. Otherwise the State would take over everything. The property was found in violation, it was ordered that the property come into compliance by 1pm May 11, 2017 or a $100 per day, per violation will be imposed. Prohibited sign(s); ULDR Section 3-16.8 CE -17-000532 3920 S Highway 17/92 Mark Campbell, Code Compliance Supervisor advised that Case Number CE -17-000532 for violation address: 3920 S Highway 17/92, in zoning district: PMX-MID for the violation of prohibited sign(s); ULDR Section 3- 16.8. The notification date was April 18, 2017, correction date requested was April 20, 2017 found non- compliant, hearing notice date was April 20, 2017, correction date requested was May 10, 2017 found non- compliant. The property was found to be non-compliant on May 11, 2017. The City requests a correction date of November 1, 2017. If no compliance by November 1, 2017 then a fine of $250.00 per day, should be imposed for each day of non-compliance thereafter. Vivian Cocotas, Assistant City Attorney advised that leading up to this Code Enforcement case, prompted the City to reach out to the property owner and the permit holder. The parties reach what they think is a fair resolution, given the facts of this case. What is being requested is that the court adopts the stipulation agreement, which provides for compliance by November 1, 2017. The issue is not the complete signage but the electronic portion of the monument, which violates the code. During the time period between now and November 1, 2017, there are limitations on the brightness of the sign and the flashing of the sign. Ms. Cocotas advised that because of the agreement between the parties that no fine be imposed, unless the property is deemed to not be in compliance. If there is no compliance then we would return on November 18, 2017 to address the merits of the case. The Special Magistrate asked if this is essentially a continuance, until the November hearing. Ms. Cocotas stated it would only be a violation if they do not comply by November 1, 2017. If they are in compliance by November 1, 2017 then the case would go away. The case is being continued to November. 4 1 P a g e