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 .