Loading...
01-09-86 v AGENDA CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH January 9, 1986 Call to Order Pledge to Flag Roll Call 1. Approval of Minutes of November 14, 1985 2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests 3. Unfinished Business a. Continued Hearing on Raymnond L. Dagley, Sr. ,344 Begonia St. Atlantic Beach on Lots 5 and 6, Block 162, Section "H" File #0005 4. New Business 5. Board Members Comments 6. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HELD AT THE CITY HALL ON JANUARY 9, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman, Jerome R. Strayve, followed by the pledge to the Flag. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: George Bull, Jr. , Chairman Marjorie Dunson Alan Potter Allen Salfer Jerome R. Strayve, Vice-Chairman Fred Mills Willie E. Davis, absent and excused AND: Claude L. Mullis, Counsel to the Board Suzanne Bass, Prosecuting Attorney for the City Adelaide R. Tucker, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 14, 1985 There being no corrections, additions, deletions or changes, Mr. Allen Salfer moved that the minutes be accepted as written and Mr. Fred Mills seconded the motion. Recognition of Visitors: Mr. Strayve recognized Mr. Glenn Edwards, City Commissioner and Mr. Richard Fellows, City Manager, both seated in the audience. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Mr. Strayve asked if there was a member of this Board who felt a predjudice that would prevent him from sitting in on any of the three cases before this Board at this time. Receiving no response, he called for the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Frank Kerber, to review the cases of Mr. Allen Glenn of 44 Sixth Street and Mr. Eugene Kawleski of 151 Seminole Road, and give the Board his recommendations on each case. Mr. Kerber began with the case against Mr. Glenn, stating that he has been trying very hard to bring his property into compliance. He has cleaned up the back porch and the tanks are gone. The two recreational vehicles are still on the property only because the fifth wheeler needs a special rig to move it but Mr. Glenn is trying to acquire one. The motor home is in-operable at this time and that makes it difficult for him to clear it away until he can get a tow or such. He is presently looking into a dealer who will buy his cars or sell them for him. He also has removed a great many of the Palmetto and Palm trees. Mr. Kerber recommends that the Board give Mr. Glenn an additional 30 days to fully comply with the City Code. Mr. Bull stated that he too feels that we should give Mr. Glenn an additional 30 days primarily because the property was in such a state of disorder to begin with and it probably needs more time. Mr. Strayve agreed. After discussion, Mr. Mills moved that we give Mr. Glenn 14 (Fourteen) days instead of 30, as he has had more than ample time already, and if the property is not in full compliance at the end of that time, then levy the fine of $50.00 (Fifty Dollars) a day, immediately. The motion was seconded by Mr. Strayve. The vote, by roll call indicated all ayes, one nay, that of Marjorie Dunson. Mr. Kerber was instructed to inspect the premises 2 (two) weeks from tonite and work with Mr. Glenn in the ensuing period of time, then inform City Hall that the fine is to commence if those 2(two) vehicles, in particular, are not removed. Mr. Kerber reported in the case of Mr. Eugene Kawleski, that he too has made an effort to clean up, although not as obvious as the progress made by Mr. Glenn. Mr. Strayve said he thought it was a good idea to allow the City to help him by picking up some of his junk and hauling it away for him. Mr. Kerber said he had informed Mr. Kawleski of this offer and he turned it down because he feels some of his junk is valuable and he can be monetarily compensated for it. He uses his van to haul his junk. Mr. Mills suggests a volunteer corps of neighbors to help him clean up instead of just talking about it. Mr. Mullis concurs that his could be a satisfactory solution. Members of the Board suggested Mr. Kerber go to Mr. Kawleski and his neighbors and see how they feel about helping him clean up. All agree that Mr. Kawleski is obviously in good health and able to do yard work for others, so physically he doesn't need help. Mr. Bull moved that Mr. Kawleski be given 2(two) Code Enffogrrceement Board weeks also and in the meantime, Mr. Kerber can talk to the neighbors and see how they feel about helping him clean up. This motion was seconded by _Mr. Salfer. If the property is not in compliance 14 (Fourteen) days from now, then he will be fined $50.00 (Fifty Dollars) a day. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. The Board specified that the 2 (two) weeks are calculated to be 14 (Fourteen) CALENDAR DAYS beginning in the morning. Mr. Kerber is to inform both of these citizens in the morning and tell them that the letter is forthcoming - so as to give them maximum time to comply. The Chairman called for a 5 (Five) minute recess. RE-convening at 8:05 P.M. the Board called a continuation of the case against Mr. Raymond L. Dagley, Sr. , 344 Begonia St. , Atlantic Beach on Lots 5 and 6, Block 162, Section "H", File #0005, in violation of Section 21-24 (A & B) of the Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. Notification was given that a Court Reporter was taking a record of this hearing by stenographic notes. The City was represented by Suzanne Bass, Prosecuting Attorney and the Respondent by his legal Counsel, Mr. Alan Jensen. The City submitted a Composite Exhibit #1 for which Mr. Jensen requested an explanation of a handwritten document found on page 6 under TAB "A" in the Exhibit. Ms. Bass assured him that she would explain this item later in the hearing. There being no further discussion, all witnesses present were sworn in simultaneously. Neither attorney found it necessary to excuse any witnesses. Exhibit #1 was accepted in evidence after Mr. Mullis described it as TABS A through F and the attachments thereto, subject to the matters being connected and explained. The Prosecu- ting Attorney entered into evidence, to be marked as Exhibit #2, notification to Mr. Dagley dated December 31, 1985 advising him of this hearing and further advising him of the particular code section he is accused of being in violation of. The City of Atlantic Beach, through its Prosectuing Attorney then began to present opening arguments. Ms. Bass explained that this Board was continuing this case because after the last meeting (November 14, 1985) it found in-sufficient evidence upon which to make a decision. She stated that she and Chief Wayne Royal had made an exhaustive search of records in an attempt to find and detail as specific information as exists. Ms. Bass feels that after the statements by the several witnesses and the viewing of the physical pieces of evidence consisting of the following,the Board will be satisfied. 1. a 1940 Zoning Ordinance (TAB F) which seems to be the original zoning ordinance for the City of Atlantic Beach. 2. an accompanying map which identifies the particular property that we are concerned with. More specifically, the 1940 Ordinance designates the particular property that Mr. Dagley owns, as an un-restricted property, with the exception of nuisances. 3. a 1959 Ordinance which designates the property as Residential (TAB E) 4. a map specifically identifying the property we are concerned with and shows that same property, Residential. 5. a 1959 amendment that designates the property as Multi-Family, Residential (TAB D). There is also the map to show that designation. 6. Aerial photographs from 1953, 1958, 1968 and 1977. These photo- graphs are being shown to convince this Board that the property they will consider tonight has not had dismantled, junk, in- operable automobiles except for the last few years. The witnesses are: Stephen Prom, Gary Christian and Pam Cody, all of whom will tell this Board that the cars on this property were not placed there until recently (after 1980) . Mr. Jensen, Attorney for the Respondent, submitted in his opening arguments that the real issue before this Board is when cars were placed on this property. The evidence to be presented by Mr. Jensen's witnesses will be quite different from that of the witnesses presented by Ms. Bass. Witnesses, Mr. Dagley, Mr. Ira Bratcher and Mr. Huey Swazey have lived in that area since the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's and they will attest that there have been junk cars on that property long before Mr. Dagley was deeded that property in 1958. There may be a factual dispute as to whether or not there were cars on the property before the 1940 Zoning Ordinance went into effect. The Board will have to weigh the evidence from both sides with the burden of Code Enforcement Board Page 3 proof on the City with preponderance to the evidence. The question, basically, is whether Mr. Dagley has been "grandfathered" in. In the second section of the Code allegedly violated, it clearly states that these vehicles can be stored on the property as long as they are used in connection with a business enterprise which is lawfully situated and licensed per se. The evicence will show that he has a business enterprise in that area and is using his property in connection with that business. After hearing both opening statements, Mr. Mullis attempts to determine what the main issues are in this case by addressing these thoughts to the respective Attorney's. : 1. When were the cars first stored on the property involved in this particular Code Enforcement alleged violation of the Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. 2. Whether or not this is zoned properly to where it could be used in connection with a related business. Ms. Bass disagrees with Mr. Jensen's interpretation of Section 21-24 (sub-section "A, the last sentence) in that if a business were properly situated anywhere in the confines of the City of Atlantic Beach, that one could use their property in other places to promote that business. If that is the inference to be derived from that statement, Ms. Bass heartily disagrees and would like the opportunity to show otherwise. Mr. Mullis then directs the following question to Mr. Jensen, in an effort to clarify his interpretation: Is it you contention, Mr. Jensen, that even though the property is zoned Residential where the cars are being stored, that it could be used in connection with a business that was located elsewhere? Mr. Jensen replied: under these particualr circimstances where we contend that it was used in this manner prior to being zoned as such, Yes. Mr. Bull inserts, in other words, "Grandfathered in"? Mr. Jensen replys in the affirmative. Mr. Bull questions Mr. Jensen, asking if one of the contingencies is: was the property "grandfathered" in and being used in that fashion, right about the time of the Ordinance change in 1956? Mr. Jensen states that the Ordinance Change was in 1959. Mr. Bull continues to address Mr. Jensen: Mr. Dagley had an Agreement for Deed in 1956 and took title in 1958, and therefore if there were vehicles on that property and he was using that land prior to 1959, then your contention would be that it was "grandfathered in"? Mr. Jensen again answered in the affirmative. Ms. Bass remarked taht the City disputes that ascertion. Mr. Mullis advises that the question of the date when vehicles were stored there, would resolve that question. Both attorneys agreed. Mr. Strayve inquires what effect would result if there was a discontinuance in the' time this property were so used? Mr. Mullis stated that it could affect the situation if that proves to be a fact. Under the Zoning Ordinance, if it were discontinued for a period of 6 (six) months, then after that six months, it would have to be a conforming use. Ms. Bass continued, offering to have the Board view the maps she alluded to earlier. Chief Royal was requested to show and explain to the Board, the maps. He began with a map of the Section of the City highlihting the property particularly Lots 5 and 6 with which we are concerned. This was submitted as Petitioners Exhibit #3. The section in the lower left hand corner which is also highlighted, identified the property located on Begonia Street, which is where Mr. Dagley's business is. Petitioners Exhibit #4 was then introduced and identified as the earliest available map which is the map that accompanies the 1940 Ordinance. Chief Royal was instructed by Ms. Bass to show the Board the property now known as Lots 5 and 6. This map shows that the Zoning in that area at that time, shows the property in question as being Un-restricted. The next item, identified as Petitioners Exhibit #5 is a 1958 map with amendments, which shows the property zoned, Residential -AB. The Boards Secretary, Mrs. Adelaide Tucker, identified the map as going along with the 1959 Ordinance and shows other dates, they being amendments attested to by the then City Clerk, Mrs. Adele Grage. Mr. Potter questions whether there are dates to verify when this map was pencil colored? The answere was negative. Mr. Potter explained why he questioned this : if Ms. Grage had certified this on a certain date and that date is different from 1958, then the 1958 date only represents when the map was drawn, not when it was totally altered, amended or completed. There is no date and no signature designating 1958 as the date this map was prepared. After lengthy debate Code Enforcement Board Page 4 regarding the date this map was actually colored in to designate zoned areas, it was concluded, therefore, the original map had not been blueprinted with color pencils until some later date, which is not documented anywhere on the map. The map accompanies the Ordinance No. 90-60-8 and 90-59-3 but does not show when this map was originally drawn. If we are indeed attempting to show that this map was drawn in 1958, then why is it not documented anywhere on the map, especially if we insist on using it to show the property free of vehicles in that year? Mr. Jensen restated that it is a matter of record that the property was first zoned Residential in 1959 and the Board accepted that as fact. Ms. Bass proceeded with her case by asking Chief Royal to present the map dated 1979 for further accounting that the property was still zoned Residential at that time. The Chief positively shows the map indicates that the property in question is shown thereon as Residential. This map was entered as Exhibit #6. The next presentation was the aerial map, dated 1953 showing the property on February 1, 1953, as best as can be determined, as void of vehicles. This was marked Exhibit #7.Another 1953 map, again showing the same conditions that were on the aerial map previously shown, was entered as Exhibit #8. Both aerial views show no vehicles on the property in question. Entered as Exhibit #9 were the maps dated 1968 and 1977 again showing the property under consideration, as being void of any cars. Ms. Bass instructed Chief Royal to state to the Board whether or not he has been able to see cars on the property herein studied, namely 9th and Main Streets, to the best of his ability. Chief Royal replies in the negative. The maps show an increase in cars in the area, but not on the property in question. Chief Royal states that we have determined where 9th and Main Streets are on these maps, by measurement, not guesses. The video made this day, January 9, 1986, was viewed as Exhibit #10 and showed the following cars on Lots 5 and 6: 1972 Mazda, 1971 Dodge, 1972 Ford, approximately 1969 Oldsmobile, Omega. The years are a little difficult to identify but Chief Royal attests, to the best of his ability, that there is also a Ford, Chrysler, Pinto or a Chevette or Vega. There are 8 (eight) cars in total on this property as of 3:30 P.M. , January 9, 1986, as evidenced by the Video presentation. Ms. Bass asks Chief Royal to capsule the information presented to the Board. She asked the Chief if he ever approached Mr. Dagley, from the time he received the first complaint, in early 1985, requesting him to clean up the property. His answer was in the affirmative. Mr. Dagley responded by stating that he would not agree to do so. Mr. Jensen had no questions of this witness. The next witness was Pamela Cody who now resides at 1562 Main St. , Atlantic Beach and up until a couple of years ago at, 1535 Main Street, Atlantic Beach for approximately 32 years. Ms. Cody stated that between 1968 and up to 1973, she rode her horse up and down Main St. on a daily basis and at no time did she see anything on what is now the corner of 9th and Main, particularly not cars. She further verified that she lived on Main Street continuously all these years and never saw even 1 (one) car on the property in question. Mr. Jensen, in cross-examining asked Ms. Cody if she rode up and down 9th Street every day. She answered in the negative, clarifying that she rode up and down MAIN STREET as there was very little road there (reference to 9th St. ). She was asked to describe the property on the Northwest Corner of 9th Street and Main Street and she answered that it was all brush and wooded area but not so heavily wooded that you couldn't see through the trees and into the brush about 25-30 feet. She could not notice from Main Street if there were cars parked beyond the 30 ft. range, as she did not ride off Main Street. The witness was excused after her testimony, to allow her to return to her place of employment. The Prosecution next called Mr. Stephen Prom as it's witness. Mr. Prom stated that he presently resides at 2820 Second Street, Jacksonville Beach, Florida but had resided at 1020 Main Street, Atlantic Beach from early June 1980 through July 1983. He is an attorney specializing in Corporate Tax and Tax Exempt Law. He is acquainted with the property in question as his home is at the above Main Street address. When asked when he saw cars on the Lots in question, his reply was that he traveled up and down Main St. several times a day, beginning in early 1980 while he was building his home. It was necessary to take that route in order to reach Atlantic Blvd. as egress and ingress, but at no time did he see cars on THAT lot. Then in late January, early February 1980, he alerted the Board of the violation on Lots 5 and 6. Later, in a Code Enforcement Board Page 5 letter to Chief Thompson (Police Chief of the City of Atlantic Beach) dated March 12, 1985, he again described the violations and the fact that his previous letters to appropriate officials of the City have resulted in no action. The next entry (under TAB B in the Composite Exhibit #1) , dated April 12, 1982 is a letter from the City Manager, Mr. Moss advising Mr. Prom of a new Ordinance recently adopted that would facilitate matters in this regard. The next letter, dated April 1, 1982 is Mr. Prom's letter to Mr. Moss (continuing in paragraph #2) relating to the property on 9th and Main to which we address ourselves tonight, again stating the violation and lack of response in regard to his numerous letters. Mr. Prom explains the next entry, a hand-written copy. This states Mr. Prom, is a copy of the original he has in his possession. It represents notes he took as he spoke to Mr. Moss on the telephone in regard to the property in question. The conversation took place Sept. 2, 1981. Mr. Moss recited to Mr. Prom that some action would be taken as, beginning October 1, 1981, a new Ordinance became effective and it related to junk cars. He outlined the procedure to be followed as: the City would issue a citation, the State Attorney would have a sort of hearing. Mr. Prom stated that this is a true and correct copy of the original. The next piece of correspondence is a letter dated July 31, 1981. It is a letter from Mr. Moss to Mr. Prom apologizing for not responding earlier and verifying that he personally inspected the property in question and found it to be in violation. He assured Mr. Prom that he would follow up on this and that he had notified the City Attorney. This letter was followed by one dated July 13, 1981 to Mr. Moss, again describing conditions on the subject property. In reference to the question of who is Mr. Ronnie Vista (to whom a copy of the above letter was sent) Mrs. Tucker, Board Secretary, explained that he was an employee of this City at the time and was in the Building Dept. and therefore was informed of the complaint. The last letter in this composite TAB B, was dated June 30, 1981 and addressed to Mr. Alan Jensen, who at that time was a City Commissioner, urging some action be taken. Ms. Bass then stated that all of the letters in Composite Exhibit #1 under TAB B are a sampling of the letters and notes of telephone calls Mr. Prom has made since 1981 in reference to the property identified as Lots 5 and 6 and the fact that this violation has continued to exist up to and including this day, January 9, 1986. Ms. Bass asked Mr. Prom to state to the Board, as the author of the letters herein submitted as evidence, what action he would like to see the Board take in regard to this property, namely Lots 5 and 6 at the corner of 9th and Main Streets. Mr. Prom stipulated that the lots should be cleaned up and the cars removed. If Mr. Dagley doesn't want to move said cars, then the City should move them and charge him, much like they do if they have to cut weeds on a piece of property. Mr. Prom reinforced his argument by stating that he hrid bought the property and built one of the first new homes in the area and had sucessfully encouraged his law partner and some other of his friends, to do likewise. It was very embarrassing after the surrounding area began to look so badly. Mr. Prom finally moved out of his own home although he still owns property back there. Mr. Strayve asked Mr. Prom when he first saw cars on Lots 5 and 6 and Mr. Prom replied between July and August of 1980. When Mr. Prom first moved in, there were NO cars on that corner (9th and Main) but there were cars on the lots North of Lots 5 and 6. He remembered it well because his friend was building his house and at the same time they were moving these junk cars onto Lots 5 and 6. Mr. Prom states he was very embarrased. Mr. Jensen asked Mr. Prom when he moved into his home and the reply was the very end of June 1980. Mr. Jensen inquired whether or not Mr. Prom was aware of a Citation Mr. Dagley received in regard to having 14 (Fourteen) cars on the property. Mr. Prom answered in the negative. This concluded the testimony of Mr. Stephen Prom. The Prosecution called as it's next witness, Mr. Gary Chiristian residing at 1018 Main St. , Atlantic Beach since September 1980 and is by profession, an Attorney. He first became acquainted with the property in February 1980 and moved onto his property in September 1980 and is certain that there were no cars on the corner lot Lots 5 and 6 - 9th and Main Streets, neither in February 1980 nor in September 1980. Specifically, there were no cars within 75 feet of that intersection until sometime in 1981-82 when they cleared that property and put other carsright up to Mr. Christian's Code Enforcement Board Page 6 property. The cars originally were set back from the road and further north which wasn't as bad as it is now. Mr. Jensen objected to Ms. Bass asking Mr. Christian what action he wanted to see from the Board at this time. His objection was over- ruled by Mr. Mullis, Attorney for the Board. Mr. Chiristian went on to state that he would like to see the property cleaned up, as it certainly affects the surrounding property values and noted that the City should insist on compliance to the City Code. Further, the aerial maps and other materials clearly show that this piece of property has not been used continuously in this manner for the past 20 years, and therefore the City has an obligation to its citizens to adhere to the Residential Zoning status that has been established in this area, since 1958. Mr. Jensen inquired of Mr. Christian whether or not he ever went down 9th St. The answer was in the affirmative. He was then asked if he knew how far Mr. Dagley's property went back into Main St. , to which he answered in the negative. He restated that from 75 feet north, looking from Jth St. , 100 feet. Mr. Christian also stated that he hihd not looked under the brush and under the ground at any time. The Board again recessed for 5 (Five) minutes at the request of a member of the audience. Upon re-convening, the City Rested it's case. The Defense opened it's case by calling as their first witness, Mr. Ira B. Bratcher residing at 60 West Tenth Street, Atlantic Beth since 1951 or 1952. He verified that he was familiar with the property at 9th and Main Street, specifically in 1957 when he did some clearing work for Mr. Dagley and there was no 9th Street. There was no entrance off Main Street, no road, there was a trail that came off 6th Street and came out by Mr. William's place (it was known as Williams Nursery). In fact there were cars scattered all over those back woods in those days. They were back of what is Main Street and no such thing as 9th St. Shortly after he cleared the land for Mr. Dagley, in 1957, after Mr. Walter Lyons lost his house, that's when they established the lot on the corner of 9th and Main. They went back on the lot some 75-100 feet. Ms. Bass cross-examined Mr. Bratcher about the property thusly: "You say you cleared a lot for Mr. Dagley on 9th Street?" Mr. Bratcher clearly replied that it was a corner lot on Main Street and no one knew of any 9th Street at that time. There was no cut off to show any 9th Street at that time. The plat clearly shows that 9th comes out and goes all the way across Hibiscus and into Main Street. . Mr. Bratcher, after much verbalizing with Ms. Bass, reiterated that there were 4 (four) a akes on the property he cleared in 1957. for Mr. Dagley, whether or not this area is the same as that which is referred to as the corner of 9th and Main, Mr. Bratcher could not fittest to as there was no 9th Street, in any form, at that time. In reference to the cars that were on the property at the time of the clearing, Mr. Bratcher, clearly states that there were cars on that staked property at the time of the clearing and that he buried some cars right on that lot while in the process of clearing it. There were 5 or 6 cars on that property on the day Mr. Bratcher left after completing his project- just who they belonged to, he didn't know, but there were cars on that lot irtA.957. __ _ Because he did not run up and down the street checking on other people's property, *** In several attempts, Ms. Bass requested Mr. Bratcher to identify the lots in question on the maps of 1967. Mr. Bratcher stated that he could not identify those lots on these maps due to poor eye-sight. This witness was then excused. The next witness for the Defense was Mr. Huey Swazey who resides at 9904 Frasier Rd. , Jacksonville, Fla. who used to live at 250 West 6th St. , from 1953 until 1958. In and around 1955 and 1956, he used to play in the cars that were on the property. In 1957 they cleared off the lot and had approximately 5-8 cars there, tome operable, some not. He didn't know whose cars they were. Ms. Bass asked if Mr. Swazey moved away in 1962, to which he replied in the affirmative. He stated that he went into the Army in 1957. He also stated that 9th Street was not a street at that time, and junk cars were all over the land back there. There was a "pig trail" back in there then, it came from Mr. Williams' Nursery all the way back to what they eventually made into a street which is probably 9th Street. There being no further questions of this witness, he was excused. The Defense next called Mr. Raymond L. Dagley, Sr. , 344 Begonia St. , Atlantic Beach. *** Mr. Bratcher could not verify if cars were on the property, continuously. Code Enforcement Board Page 7 Mr. Jensen asked the Board to turn to TAB A in the City's Composite Exhibit #1, particular attention directed to the yellow highlighted area, Lot 112. Mr. Dagley was requested to tell the Board where his business is located. His reply was, "Lots 110,111,112,113". "Is your business limited to Lot 112," questioned Mr. Jensen. Mr. Dagley replied in the negative, and was then asked to locate by street, where it was. He replied: "Lot 112 to 9th Street, West of Begonia, East to Jasmine, and South to the ditch. Mr. Jensen attempted to clarify the lots in question, 5 and 6 which lie bordered by 9th and Main Streets, bought in 1956 and deeded in 1958 by Title and Mr. Dagley affirmed that he began to put cars on the lots as soon as he bought them in 1956. Again, in an effort to reaffirm the use of Lots 5 and 6, Mr. Dagley stated that Lots 5 and 6 were bought and Mr. Bratcher was engaged to clear said lots in order that Mr. Dagley could put an office on those lots to be used in conjunction with his junk car business, which continually operated from 1956 to date. They had to move 9th Street in 1978-79 when his daughter moved into the wooded area behind Lots 5 and 6. He engaged Mr. Tucker and Mr. Parsons to clear that parcel of land. That parcel was identified as Lots 5 and 6 of Block 163, right behind the lots in question. Mr. Dagley stated that he has had cars on those lots all along since he bought said lots. People probably could not see them due to the fact that they were behind Palmettos and bushes. He repeated that there have always been cars on those lots and that he moves them back and forth sometimes, between his other lots and the lots on the corner of 9th and Main, since he bought those lots in 1956. Ms. Bass questioned Mr. Dagley on cross-examination asking him if in deed, he has used Lots 111, 112, 113 on 6th and Begonia since he purchased them in 1952, to store junk cars as a business venture, to which Mr. Dagley answered in the affirmative. He again verified that he asked Mr. Bratcher to clear off the land that is referred to as Lots 5 and 6 and get rid of the trash, which meant, bury the cars. Ms. Bass asked him to clarify if at any time (perhaps for a period of 1, 2, or 3 months) there were no cars on the lots in question. His reply was in the negative, stating that he made sure there were always cars on those lots. Not all the cars all over the area were his, some belonged to neighbors and they had scattered them way back in the woods. Ms. Bass clarified that Mr. Dagley owned many lots in the area, particularly at Begonia and 6th. Mr. Dagley stated that he and 80 lots in total. Mr. Dagley confirmed that as of this day, he and 9 cars on Lots 5 and 6 at 9th and Main. Ms. Bass then asked Mr. Dagley if he is attempting to tell this Board that he absolutely, needs and requires the land at 9th and Main for storing the cars for his business. Mr. Dagley answers in the affirmative Ms. Bass continues to ask Mr. Dagley if the Board (City) requested he take the cars off of Lots 5 and 6 and move them to the property within the 80 lots area he presently operates his business from, would it handicapp, get in the way of, or hurt his ability to make a living in the junk trade? He answered, yes ! Ms. Bass then asked how, to which Mr. Dagley replied that if allows that, then the City would probably make him move back, continually and he therefore, will not move the cars but take a firm stand on this action. Mr. Bull questioned Mr. Dagley in regard to whether or not he ever had an Occupational License form the City when he first opened his junk car business. Mr. Dagley said he had been down here to City Hall --equesting the same from then City Clerk, Mrs. Adede Grage and she told him he didA:it need one. He claimed to have come before her about 10-15 times through the years. He remembered it w.11 because he could not get a discount on auto parts from the local suppliers, because he didn't have a City License, then he would come to City Hall to obtain a license, and Mr. Grage said he did not need one. He has been in possession of a County Occupational License since 1967-68 but has never been given an Occupational License from the City of Atlantic Beach. Ms. Bass presented a Notice to Appear Citation that went to the home of Mr. Dagley's son, a Jr. , residing at 940 Main St. , this address not being Lots 5 and 6 but rather Lots 2 and 3 at 9th and Main Streets. This citation was issued to Mr. Dagley Jr. , with the order to move the cars on Lots 5 and 6 in 1980. Through Mr. Mullis, the Code Enforcement Board was ordered to disregard any testimony relating to any citation served to Mr. Raymond Dagley, Jr. There beingno further questions from either attorney or any member of the Board, Mr. Code Enforcement Board Page 8 Mullis requested the Attorney's begin their closing statements. Ms. Bass, Attorney for the City begins, stating to the members of the Board that the evidence speaks for itself. They have seen 5 (five) aerial photographs from the years 1953 through 1977 which show the property in question and that property does NOT show the presence of any automobiles in the area that we can approximate as 9th and Main Sts. Also, if the questioned property were cleared, it should have shown up on our maps, and it does not. She reviewed the testimony of each of the witnesses in a nutshell. The City contends that you cannot see any cars on the subject lots until after 1980, consistent with photographs. Also the Code of the City stipulates that if you cease using a piece of property for the purpose you initially intended to, then you lose your "grandfathered" privilege. The City contends that Mr. Dagley did not use Lots 5 and 6 for his junk car business until 1980. In that he owns some 80 lots in that area, primarily for his business, then he wouldn't lose much if he removed the 8-9 cars on Lots 5 and 6 and put them on any of his other lots. The City completes its presentation. Mr. Jensen, Attorney for the Defendant, begins his closing remarks by stating to the Board that all witnessess heard at this meeting can be believed and that he can see no conflict in any of their testimony. The witnesses for the City testified that they did not see any cars on the property NOT that there were no cars on the property - just that they could not SEE any cars ! There has been no presentation to rebut Mr. Dagley's testimony that he has kept cars on the property since 1956 continuously and that there has NEVER been a time when he did not have cars on the property. Mr. Jensen states that there is no question that there were junk cars on these lots (Lots 5 and 6) from the time Mr. Dagley bought the property in 1956, took title in 1958 up to the present day. Mr. Dagley testified that he uses Lots 5 and 6 in conjunction with this junk business and that is a FACT. As long as he has owned the lots, before they were zoned Residential and has had cars on them continuously. Mr. Jensen would say yes, he could use any of his lots in this manner. The issue before this Board is clear and simple: whether or not Mr. Dagley had cars there before it was zoned Residential in 1959. The problem seems to be that people in the last 5 or 6 years, moving into the area and building homes are wanting people who have been living there for some 30 or more years to move what they have been doing for all that time. Mr. Jensen states, "it's not right, it's not equitable, it's not justice! That is what this Board is here to do and Mr. Dagley is within his rights and within the law and within the Ordinances of the City to keep cars on that property as he's been doing since at least 1956 . To reiterate, Mr. Dagley has to take a stand somewhere. He's had this property for that many years and he will have his property moved back on him everytime someone comes up here to complain and he must take a stand.He has the right to do what he's doing with the property and to require him to do anything else would not be fair, just or equitable". The Attorney for the Respondent closes his remarks here. Ms. Bass, in rebuttal states that the aerial photographs clearly do not show cars on the Dagley property and surely, if there were 5,6,7 or 8 cars on that property, they would be visible on those aerial photographs. Ms. Bass feels that if the Board does not ask Mr. Dagley to conform his property to the Codes of Atlantic Beach, a dangerous precedence would be set for other illegal usage of property in Atlantic Beach. The evidence presented by the City is clear, convincing and shows that Mr. Dagley has not used that property for storing cars since 1956. This condludes the closing presentations. The Board will now go into discussion, off the record, to consider the evidence presented. After off the record discussion, Mr. Mullis, Attorney for the Board, advises the Chairman and members of the Board that "their decision relates to whether or not there is a violation occuring on Lots 5 and 6, Block 162, Section "H", in Atlantic Beach, of Section 21-24, sub-sections A and B, of the Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach". In an attempt to help the Board clarify their understanding of the alleged violation and the rules governing the Zoning Ordinances herein referred to, Mr. Mullis offered the following statements. The section of the Code which Mr. Dagley is charged with violating is "activities declared to be unlawful." The contention of the defendant is that they are using this in connection with a business enterprise and if that be true, it must be ascertained by the Board, that this Code Enforcement Board Page 9 business enterprise if such is found to be there, was lawfully situated and licensed for Lots 5 and 6 to carry on the activities that are being carried on as far as Zoning is concerned. For something to be "grandfathered" in it must be an activity or business that was being carried on at the time the Zoning law was passed or changed. And the only time a non-conforming use under the Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach, it's further provided that if that business use is discontinued for a period of 6 months, then that use must be conformed. You must determine first if something was lawfully authorized. It doesn't mean that some activity may be going on there, it's a question of whether the activity or business function that was being carried on there was legally and lawfully authorized at the time it was being carried on. Not the fact that they were doing, but, if they were doing it at that time it was not permissable or authorized." Mr. Strayve addressed the Board and the Attorneys, voicing a concern he has with case, stating that Ms. Van Ness, sponsored, when she was a Commissioner of this City, the re-zoning on Mayport Road where it was determined that a bar or restaurant-bar was illegally there for the new zoning. As Mr. Strayve recalls, Mr. Dagley had a business going on and apparently this City re-zoned it to Residential. Mr. Strayve sees a real parallel of the two circumstances here and he doesn't know if Mr. Dagley, at that time, requested an exception or opposed that re-zoning. Mr. Strayve states that there is something here that bothers him and he thinks it's even bigger than Lots 5 and 6. All parties could be, he believes, satisfied if the fallowing could take place: Those who oppose Lots 5 and 6 would be satisfied if those cars would be removed from Lots 5 and 6, Mr. Dagley probably could be satisfied if his "industrial" area would not be pushed back further and further finally he ended up in the marsh. Mr. Strayve addressed Mr. Jensen, feeling that Mr. Dagley's fear is that he can see this erroding away on his property and he is finally on the last lot. It seems that this case is bigger than this Board and that this shold be taken to the City Commission. His "grandfathered" in from his main industrial area should be protected and this should have happened previously. As Mr. Dagley stated, "8 cars are not going to make or break me but you guys are going to keep pushing me. " Mr. Strayve feels if all parties could agree to that and the Board sees it that way, then the first thing to do is to protect Mr. Dagley from being pushed into the swamp; and=thep,_these people who build have to be protected from having to drive past a junk yard or having it next to their lot. Mr. Bull then stated that there is more to it than that. Mr. Bull feels, Mr. Dagley doesn't want to give up the rights to his property and he thinks he has the right to a non-restricted use just as he bought it. As his busines got bigger and he needed more land, he purchased more land. So finally the lots in question (5 and 6) came up to be purchased. He purchased them in 1957, he was in the junk business in 1957 so, logically, Mr. Bull would say, he purchased the lots for his junk business. They were un-restricted use in 1957 and he then wanted to clear the land and put an office there to deal with his junk business or store more junk cars. Mr. Bull would say that that's a very logical progression of purchasing land to expand his business and he purchased the land in 1957 to expand his business. Mr. Strayve contends that perhaps Mr. Dagley would possibly move those few cars off Lots 5 and 6 to his other industrial lots, but that he stated that he had to take a stand someplace so that the City would not push him further and further back. Mr. Strayve then asked Mr. Dagley that if it were presented to him that he move the cars off Lots 5 and 6 with a guaranty not to be moved further back, would he consent. Mr. Dagley answered in the negative. Mr. Mullis again encouraged the Board to consider what is before them: is he in violation or not !. Mr. Potter declares that he can see that the man was there before the Ordinance was there and the man was there before the zoning was changed and this government knew he was there and without any intent on the part of this government to do him harm, they passed an Ordinance with utter disregard They re-zoned the land in Atlantic Beach, on each of the ocassions, ignored present uses, which they did in many cases. Mr. Mullis interjected that this was perfectly legal under the laws of Florida when it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Potter stated that the character of the neighborhood was open rural and junk yard It was not Residential when it was re-zoned. Mr. Potter offers: "We are ignoring an economic reality that is going to solve the problem at some point in time, because we can't deny a man his "grandfathered" use of the property Code Enforcement Board Page 10 and ask him to continue to pay taxes and force him to have a useless land, to him, which has been useful for more than 30 years. This is the problem of frontier people. You know, the Indians said this too, and they lost their's too. That is what we have to determine. Prior to 1959, any activity could go on an un-restricted zoned area, as long as it was not illegal. " Mr. Bull asks if junk yards were illegal at that time. There does not seem to be any information on the book to answer his question so the Board goes on in it's discussion to make a determination in this case. Mr. Potter determines that when the City, someday, goes ahead and completes it's municipal responsibilities, economics is going to make a determination in this case. Ms. Dunson inquires if Mr. Dagley has a license to operate a junk yard at the property in question. The answer is again, not from the City of Atlantic Beach, The Board recesses for 5 minutes, once again. The Board reconvenes and entertains a motion by member George Bull, Jr. Mr. Bull moves that it is the opinion of the Board that Mr. Dagley's property was in fact used in conjunction with his business and is therefore "grandfathered" in prior to the change in the Ordinance of 1959, and there is no violation of the Ordinance of which he is charged, being Section 21-24, sub-sections A & B of the Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. Mr. Potter seconded the motion. There being no discussion the vote, by roll call stands : Mr. Salfer aye Mr. Potter aye Ms. Dunson nay Mr. Mills aye Mr. Bull aye Mr. Strayve nay The motion was carried with a 4 (four) to 2 (two) vote in favor of Mr. Dagley. Ms. Dunson then moved that the City of Atlantic Beach be requested to take an appeal to the Circuit Court of Duval County in this matter. The motion died for lack of a second. There being no further business before this Board, the Chairman called the meeting adjourned at 11: 10 P.M. .Pi 44-rn.e 0 JEROME R. STRAY'E VICE CHAIRMAN, PRESIDING ATTEST: Dt-Q1_. /. .112,«-e-L.A.1- Ad laide R. Tucker, Secretary b Rose Blanchard CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH Continued Hearing on Raymond L. Dagley, Sr. , 344 Begonia Street, Atlantic Beach, on Lots 5 and 6, Block 162, Section "H" File #0005 . City Hall 716 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Beach, Florida Thursday, January 9, 1986 • The above-entitled matter came on to be heard at 7:30 o' clock p.m. , before the Code Enforcement Board, Atlantic Beach, Florida. CERTIFIED COPY STATEWIDE REPORTING SERVICE 805 BLACKSTONE BUILDING JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202 (904) 353.7706 249-9952 355-7004 EXPERTS IN MEDICAL, TECHNICAL & EXPEDITED TRANSCRIPTS 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 lod 3 Suzanne M. Bass, Esquiress 4 503 E. Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 5 Prosecuting Attorney for the City of Atlantic Beach. 6 7 Claude L. Mullis, Esquire 8 701 Fisk Street 9 Jacksonville, Florida 10 Counsel to the Code Enforcement Board. 11 12 Alan C. Jensen, Esquire 13 389 - 12th Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 14 Attorney for Raymond L. Dagley, Sr. 15 16 MEMBERS PRESENT: 17 Jerome R. Strayve, Chairman 18 Fred Mills 8 Marjorie Dunson 19 George Bull, Jr. Alan Potter 20 Allen R. Salfer 21 22 ALSO PRESENT: 23 Adelaide Tucker, Secretary 24 25 r ' 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 10 :25 o' clock p.m. January 9, 1986 3 - - - 4 5 MR. MULLIS : That concludes the presentation and 6 at this time the Board will go off the record and go 7 into deliberations. 8 Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you. 9 (Off-the-record discussion. ) 10 (11:00 o'clock p.m. ) 11 MR. BULL: I would like to move that it is the 12 opinion of the Board that Mr. Dagley' s property was 13 in fact used in conjunction with his business and, 14 therefore, grandfathered in -- was used in conjunction 15 with his business prior to the changing of the 16 ordinance in 1959 and is, therefore, grandfathered in. O 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? 18 MR. POTTER: I' ll second it. 19 MR. MULLIS : Don' t you want to state the charges? 20 MR. BULL: And that there' s no violation of the ordinance as it existed then or now. 21 u 22 MR. MULLIS: No violation of the ordinance of which 23 he is charged with, being Section 21-24A and B of the 24 Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. 25 MR. BULL: Right. 4 1 MR. POTTER: I second that. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Discussion? 3 (No response. ) 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Does everybody understand the motion? 5 (No response. ) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: No discussion. We will now vote. 7 All those in favor of the motion, hold their right 8 hand up. 9 MR. MULLIS : You should have a roll call vote. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right . 11 Mr. Salfer? 12 MR. SALFER: Aye. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Potter? 14 MR. POTTER: Aye. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bull? 16 MR. BULL: Aye. O 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Dunson? 0 1 18 MS. DUNSON: Nay. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mills? 20 MR. MILLS : I 'm not going to vote at all. 21 MR. MULLIS: You can' t do that. 0 u 22 MR. MILLS: I can' t sit on the fence? 23 MR. BULL: No, you can't. 24 MR. POTTER: Not unless you've got a conflict. 25 MR. MILLS : Well, I ' ll go back now -- clarify what 5 1 you're really saying, what it really amounts to, what 2 we're voting yes or no on. 3 MR. MULLIS: You' re voting that -- if you vote yes, 4 you're voting that there is no violation on this 5 particular property as charged. If you vote no, you 6 would be voting that the evidence does show that there 7 may be, whatever. 8 MR. SALFER: It' s due to the grandfathering in. 9 MR. BULL: My motion stated that he was not in 10 violation of the original -- he is not in violation of 11 the ordinance that was passed in 1959 because he waa 12 using the property for the usage of which he is using 13 it now prior to the changing of the ordinance; therefore, 14 he is grandfathered in. Therefore, he is not in viola- 15 tion. 16 MR. MULLIS : Of Section 21-24A and B. 17 MS. DUNSON: Which states that you can' t have a 0 18 junkyard. 19 MR. MILLS: I' ll vote yes. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: And I vote no. w 21 There are four yeses and two noes. He may keep the u 22 junkyard. 23 MS. DUNSON: I would move that we request the -- 24 I would move -- 25 MR. MULLIS: Ms. Dunson moves that the City of 6 1 Atlantic Beach be requested to take an appeal from the 2 decision of the Board to the Circuit Court in and for 3 Duval County. 4 MR. BULL: Can she do that as a member of the 5 Board? 6 MR. MULLIS : She can recommend it. 7 MR. BULL: Since the Board approved the motion 8 which was contrary to her vote -- g MR. MULLIS: You can vote yes or nay, either way. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion? 11 MR. MULLIS : Yes . 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? 13 (No response. ) 14 THE CHAIRMAN: The motion dies for lack of a 15 second. We ' re adjourned. 16 (Thereupon, the proceedings adjourned at 11: 05 17 o' clock p.m. ) 18 - - 19 ■ 20 0 21 V 2 22 23 24 25 7 1 CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF DUVAL ) 4 I , Deborah J. B. Vansandt, Court Reporter and 5 Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify 6 that I was authorized to and did report the foregoing pro- 7 ceedings, and that thereafter an excerpted portion of my 8 notes were transcribed and reduced to typewriting under my 9 supervision, and that the foregoing pages contain a full, 10 true and correct transcription of the excerpted portion of 1t my notes taken herein. 12 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, 13 attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor relative or 14 employee of such attorney or counsel, nor financially 15 interested in the foregoing action. 16 WITNESS my hand and official seal this, the p2 17 day of February, A.D. 1986 , in the City of Jacksonville, 0 18 County of Duval, State of Florida. 19 Y Z 20 • O 21 V i 22 23 iel2e. .(A/4 V6i41"6eY)1 Deborah J. :1 Vansandt, Notary Public, State of Florida at 24 Large. My commission expires 25 August 29, 1987 . . y CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH vs. RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE PROSECUTING Attorney for the City of Atlantic Beach Code Enforcement Board, SUZANNE BASS, herein moves the Code Enforcement Board to reconsider the actions of said body of Thursday, January 9, 1986 , concerning the subject premises belonging to RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , located on Lots 5 and 6 , Block 162, Section H, City of Atlantic Beach, Florida. The reasons that support this Motion are as follows: 1 . RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , is the title owner of Lots 5 and 6, Block 162, Section H, Atlantic Beach, Florida. 2. On January 9, 1986 , RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , was before the Code Enforcement Board inasmuch as the Code Enforcement Officer, WAYNE ROYAL, had previously cited RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , to be in violation of the Code of the City of Altantic Beach, Atlantic Beach, Florida. More specifically, RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , was charged with being in violation of Section 21-24 of the City Code. The pertinent Section of the City Code reads as follows: a. Declared unlawful; Exception. It shall be unlawful to park , store or leave or permit parking or storing of any licensed or unlicensed motor vehicle of any kind for a period of time in excess of seventy two (72) hours which is rusted , wrecked , junked, or partially dismantled, or inoperative, or in an abandoned condition, whether attended or not, upon any public or private property within the City limits, unless the same is completely enclosed with- in a building or unless it is in connection with a business enterprise lawfully situated and licensed for same. b . Nuisance declared . To accumulate or store one or more of such vehicles on public or private property shall constitute a nuisance detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of inhabitants of the City, and it shall be the duty of the registered owner of the vehicle and the duty of the owner of the private property, or lessee, or other person in pos- session of private property upon which the vehicle is located to remove the vehicle from the City limits, or to have the vehicle housed in a building where it will not be visible from the street. 3 . The Code Enforcement Board on January 9 , 1986 , entertained witnesses offered by the City of Atlantic Beach in support of the aforementioned alleged violation. In addition to the verbal testimony entertained by the Code Enforcement Board, certain physical displays and exhibits were submitted to aid in consideration thereof . 4 . At the conclusion of the City ' s case, RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , through his representative , ALAN JENSEN, put forward RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. ' S defense, consisting of the testimony of RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. and certain witnesses . -2- 5. At the conclusion of the City's case, RAYMOND L. DAGLEY SR. 'S defense, and the City's rebuttal , the Code Enforcement Board, through GEORGE BULL, JR. , moved the Board to vote consistent with their dictates. More specifically, MR. BULL moved: "I would like to move that it is the opinion of the Board that MR. DAGLEY'S property was in fact used in conjunction with his business and, therefore, grandfathered in -- was used in conjunction with his business prior to the changing of the ordinance in 1959 and is, therefore, grandfathered in. " In response to said Motion, ALAN POTTER seconded same. After which a vote occurred. 6. The members present voted accordingly: ALLEN R. SALFER: yes; ALAN POTTER: yes; GEORGE BULL: yes; MARJORIE DUNSON: no; FRED MILLS: yes; JEROME R. STRAYVE: no. The conclusion of the vote by the Code Enforcement Board resulted in RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. not being in violation of the Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. 7 . It was subsequently learned by the prosecuting Attorney for the City of Atlantic Beach Code Enforcement Board that in truth and in fact one of the Board members, to-wit: FRED MILLS, had voted in error and, in fact, intended to vote to find RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. in violation of the Code of the City of Atlantic Beach, Section 21-24. -3- 8 . Due to the late hour and the obvious confusion on the part of FRED MILLS, he in fact voted in a manner contrary to his intentions as verified by representations by FRED MILLS to the prosecuting Attorney for the City of Atlantic Beach. The pertinent portions of the record from the meeting of January 9 , 1986 , as transcribed by the Court Reporter , is attached hereto and made a part hereof and designated as Exhibit "1" . 9 . Inasmuch as the procedures of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Atlantic Beach are informal and inasmuch as one of the Code Enforcement Board members , to-wit: FRED MILLS, voted in error , the prosecuting Attorney of the City of Atlantic Beach would sincerely request that the Code Enforcement Board re-entertain the matter pertaining to RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. , more specifically that being the considerations concerning whether or not RAYMOND L. DAGLEY, SR. is in violation of Section 21-24 of the Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. WHEREFORE, SUZANNE BASS, prosecuting Attorney for the City of Atlantic Beach, requests that this Motion be granted . Respectfully submitted, S\/LAAJ SUZABASS Attofor City of Atlantic Beach 503 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (904) 356-9740 -4- CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH Continued Hearing on Raymond L. Dagley, Sr. , 344 Begonia Street, Atlantic Beach, on Lots 5 and 6 , Block 162 , Section "H" File #0005 . City Hall 716 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Beach, Florida Thursday, January 9 , 1986 • The above-entitled matter came on to be heard at 7 : 30 o' clock p.m. , before the Code Enforcement Board, Atlantic Beach, Florida.. II • Exhibit "1" STATEWIDE REPORTING SERVICE 805 BLACKSTONE BUILDING • JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202 (904) 353-7706 249-9952 355-7004 EXPERTS IN MEDICAL, TECHNICAL & EXPEDITED TRANSCRIPTS 2 1 APPEARANCES Of 2 3 Suzanne M. Bass , Esquiress 4 503 E. Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 5 Prosecuting Attorney for the City of Atlantic Beac , 6 7 Claude L. Mullis, Esquire 8 701 Fisk Street 9 Jacksonville, Florida 10 Counsel to the Code Enforcement Board. 11 12 Alan C. Jensen, Esquire 13 389 - 12th Street Atlantic Beach, Florida 14 Attorney for Raymond L. Dagley, Sr. 15 16 MEMBERS PRESENT: 17 ° Jerome R. Strayve, Chairman 18 Fred Mills Marjorie Dunson 19 George Bull, Jr. Alan Potter 20 Allen R. Salfer 21 u 22 ALSO PRESENT: 23 Adelaide Tucker, Secretary 24 - - - 25 3 1 PROCEEDINGS lr 2 10 :25 o' clock p.m. January 9, 1986 3 - 4 5 MR. MULLIS: That concludes the presentation and 6 at this time the Board will go off the record and go 7 into deliberations. 8 Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you. 9 (Off-the-record discussion. ) 10 (11 : 00 o' clock p.m. ) 11 MR. BULL: I would like to move that it is the 12 opinion of the Board that Mr. Dagley' s property was 13 in fact used in conjunction with his business and, 14 therefore, grandfathered in -- was used in conjunction • 15 with his business prior to the changing of the 16 ordinance in 1959 and is , therefore, grandfathered in. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? 18 MR. POTTER: I' ll second it. 1 19 MR. MULLIS : Don't you want to state the charges' 20 MR. BULL: And that there' s no violation of the 21 ordinance as it existed then or now. 22 MR. MULLIS: No violation of the ordinance of which 23 he is charged with, being Section 21-24A and B of the 24 Ordinance Code of the City of Atlantic Beach. 25 MR. BULL: Right . 1 4 1 MR. POTTER: I second that. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Discussion? 3 (No response. ) 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Does everybody understand the motion2 5 (No response . ) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: No discussion. We will now vote. 7 All those in favor of the motion, hold their right 8 hand up . 9 MR. MULLIS : You should have a roll call vote. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: All right . 11 Mr. Salfer? 12 MR. SALFER: Aye . 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Potter? 14 MR. POTTER: Aye . 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bull? 16 MR. BULL: Aye . 17 THE CHAIRMAN : Ms . Dunson? 18 MS . DUNSON: Nay. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mills? 20 MR. MILLS : I 'm not going to vote at all . ° 21 MR. MULLIS : You can' t do that. 22 MR. MILLS : I can' t sit on the fence? 23 MR. BULL: No, you can' t. 24 MR. POTTER: Not unless you've got a conflict . 25 MR. MILLS : Well , I ' ll go back now -- clarify wh : 5 1 you' re really saying, what it really amounts to, what O' 2 we 're voting yes or no on. 3 MR. MULLIS : You' re voting that -- if you vote yes , 4 you' re voting that there is no violation on this 5 particular property as charged. If you vote no, you 6 would be voting that the evidence does show that there 7 may be, whatever. 8 MR. SALFER: It ' s due to the grandfathering in. 9 MR. BULL: My motion stated that he was not in 10 violation of the original -- he is not in violation of 11 the ordinance that was passed in 1959 because he wa8 12 using the property for the usage of which he is using 13 it now prior to the changing of the ordinance; therefore, IT 14 he is grandfathered in. Therefore, he is not in viola- 15 tion. 16 MR. MULLIS : Of Section 21-24A and B. = 17 MS. DUNSON: Which states that you can' t have a 0 18 junkyard. 19 MR. MILLS : I ' ll vote yes. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: And I vote no. 21 There are four yeses and two noes. He may keep the 22 junkyard. 23 MS . DUNSON: I would move that we request the -- 24 I would move -- 25 MR. MULLIS : Ms. Dunson moves that the City of . • • • 6 1 Atlantic Beach be requested to take an appeal from th--? 1r2 decision of the Board to the Circuit Court in and for 3 Duval County. 4 MR. BULL: Can she do that as a member of the 5 Board? 6 MR. MULLIS : She can recommend it. 7 MR. BULL: Since the Board approved the motion 8 which was contrary to her vote -- 9 MR. MULLIS : You can vote yes or nay, either way. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion? 11 MR. MULLIS : Yes . 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second? 13 (No response. ) 14 THE CHAIRMAN: The motion dies for lack of a 15 second. We ' re adjourned. 16 (Thereupon, the proceedings adjourned at 11 : 05 17 o' clock p.m. ) 18 - - - 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 25 7 1 CERTIFICATE 41 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF DUVAL ) 4 I , Deborah J. B. Vansandt, Court Reporter and 5 Notary Public, State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify 6 that I was authorized to and did report the foregoing pro- 7 ceedings , and that thereafter an excerpted portion of my 8 notes were transcribed and reduced to typewriting under my 9 supervision, and that the foregoing pages contain a full , 10 true and correct transcription of the excerpted portion of 11 my notes taken herein. 12 I further certify that I am not a relative, empl 13 attorney or counsel of any of the parties , nor relative or 14 employee of such attorney or counsel , nor financially 15 interested in the foregoing action. 16 WITNESS my hand and official seal this, the = 17 day of February, A.D. 1986 , in the City of Jacksonville, 18 County of Duval , State of Florida. s 19 20 21 22 23 62-- 1` I,�1 of Deborah J. Vansandt, otary 24 Public, State of Florida at Large. My commission expires 25 August 29 , 1987 .