09-03-91 v Amended Agenda to delete Case No. 0020 - 8/27/91
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
AGENDA
7:30 PM, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
Call to order
Pledge to the Flag
1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1991.
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests
O3. New Business:
A. Case No. 0021 - Mr. Harry T. Gross, owner of Bud' s Auto
located at 980 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, in violation
of the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Section 12-1(4) .
B. Case No. 0022 - Mr. Charles Watson, owner of property
located at 270 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, in violation
of the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Section 12-1.
5. Board Members Comments
Adjournment
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
AGENDA
7:30 PM, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
Call to order
Pledge to the Flag
1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1991 .
2. Recognition of Visitors and Guests
3 . New Business:
A. Case No. 0020 - Mr. Forest Thomas, owner of property
located at 483 Whiting Lane, Atlantic Beach, in violation
of the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Section 12-1 .
B. Case No. 0021 - Mr. Harry T. Gross, owner of Bud' s Auto
located at 980 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, in violation
of the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Section 12-1( 4 ) .
C. Case No. 0022 - Mr. Charles Watson, owner of property
located at 270 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, in violation
of the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Section 12-1 .
5. Board Members Comments
Adjournment
A
MINUTES OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
HELD AT CITY HALL ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
CALL TO ORDER Present: George Bull, Jr. , Chairman
Mattie Freeman, Vice Chairman
Heywood Dowling, Jr.
Edward Martin
Herbert Moller
John Venn
And: Suzanne Bass, Prosecuting Attorney
Alan Jensen, Legal Council to Board
Don Ford, Code Enforcement Officer
Dorothy M. Strain, Secretary
Absent: Willie Miley, unexcused
1. Approval of Minutes of June 11, 1991.
Mr. Dowling moved for approval of the minutes of June 11, 1991 as
written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moller and carried unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. Recognition of visitors and guests - None.
2. New Business:
A. Case No. 0021 - The Board agreed to hear Case No. 0022 prior to
this case due to the absence of Mr. Harry T. Gross at this time.
B. Case No. 0022 - Mr. Charles Watson, owner of property located at
270 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, in violation of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Atlantic Beach, Section 12-1. Mr. Ford stated he spoke
to Mr. Watson on August 28, 1991 and had also received a letter on
August 29, 1991 in response to the Notice of Hearing which Mr. Watson
had received. Mr. Watson responded that he would be out of town until
September 12, 1991 and would be available at a later date.
Mr. Bull asked Mr. Ford for the history of the case so that the board
could determine whether to hear the case or extend it to the next board
meeting.
Ms. Bass explained that the property had debris and discarded items
lying around. She also advised that this building was a thrift store
operated by a church.
Mr. Ford expressed further concern of another building on the property,
behind which old refrigerators and other appliances were being stored.
For the last several years, Mr. Ford had been in contact with Mr. Watson
about this violation but the conditions have remained the same. Mr.
Ford believes the nature of the business is to buy used appliances and
Page 2
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
rebuild them for resale. He also clarified that Mr. Watson was the
property owner and he leased the building, in which the Thrift Store is
located, to the church. Mr. Ford, at this time, had only a P. 0. Box #
for the church' s address and would attempt to subpoena the church at the
next board meeting, when this case would be heard.
Mr. Bull moved to continue Case No. 0021 until the next board meeting
since Mr. Watson responded promptly to the Notice of Hearing and advised
Mr. Ford that he had a previous engagement.
Mr. Dowling suggested that all of the Board members visit 270 Mayport
Road and inspect the buildings in question. He feels that the buildings
have been unsafe for a long time and were "bad news" .
The Board discussed briefly with Mr. Ford the time period that this
problem originated and if Mr. Watson had made any attempts to bring the
property into compliance with the Code. Mr. Ford stated that some
effort had been made in the past but the property was currently still in
violation.
Mr. Bull stated this being a major case, Mr. Watson should be afforded
due counsel and participation.
With no objections from the Board, the case would be heard at the next
Code Enforcement Board meeting.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
A. Case No. 0021 - Mr. Harry T. Gross, owner of Bud' s Auto located at
980 Mayport Road, Atlantic Beach, in violation of the Code of Ordinance
of the City of Atlantic Beach, Section 12-1 (4) . Mr. Venn read the case
hearing procedure and all witnesses were sworn in.
For the record, Mr. Ford stated that Mr. Gross was in violation of
Section 12-1( 6 ) instead of Section 12-1(4) , as written on the agenda of
this meeting.
Ms. Bass announced Mr. Ira Bratcher and his attorney, Paul Eakin were
present to give testimony regarding the property in question. She
stated they would prove their case by Mr. Bratcher and Mr. Ford' s
testimony and photographic evidence showing the property was being used
to store junk cars, abandoned cars and wrecked cars.
Ms. Bass called on Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford explained that he had received a
phone call from Mr. Bratcher' s attorney the first week of June, 1991,
who asked him to investigate the junk vehicles stored at 980 Mayport
Road. After Mr. Ford' s investigation, he determined there were 8 junk
Page 3
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
vehicles and Mr. Gross ' s occupational license was for auto repairs,
sales & storage.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Ford if there were any other vehicles on the premises
that looked to be consistent with the business. Mr. Ford stated Mr.
Gross was running a used car lot, and cars which appeared operable were
located in the front lot which faced Mayport Road. In Mr. Ford' s
opinion, the vehicles located on the west side facing 10th Street were
inoperable.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Ford if he had notified Bud' s Auto of the violations
and he replied that he had sent a letter to Mr. Gross. Upon receipt of
this letter, Mr. Gross replied that the cars were being legally stored
and he did not consider them as junk vehicles. At that time, Ms. Bass
presented to the Board photographs taken on July 22, 1991 .
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Ford if any changes had been made since the photo was
taken and he replied there had been none. Also, to his knowledge the
vehicles in question were not functional. In his observation, the
vehicles did not have tires and/or engines. Mr. Ford stated he had not
inspected each individual vehicle thoroughly but his feeling was none of
them were operable.
Ms. Bass then questioned Mr. Ford on the type of occupational license
Bud' s Auto had and what exactly it covered. Mr. Ford stated it was
mainly for used cars, repairs and storage. In Mr. Ford' s opinion Mr.
Gross could store operable vehicles but not junks, as defined in the
City code.
With no other questions from the Board to Mr. Ford, Ms. Bass called on
Mr. Bratcher who resides at 60 West 10th Street. Ms. Bass asked Mr.
Bratcher to explain his complaints with the storage of junk vehicles.
Mr. Bratcher stated there were a number of unusable cars which were
raising rats and roaches, children were playing on the vehicles, and
activity would occur during all hours of the night. He also claimed the
business was operating during the late evening hours and he thought the
City of Atlantic Beach should have a restriction regarding the opening
and closing hours of a business.
Ms. Bass then asked Mr. Bratcher if the vehicles causing the nuisance
were sitting there day after day, and in his opinion, were they
operable? To his knowledge, they were not operable and Ms. Bass then
presented photographs of the junk vehicles taken by Mr. Bratcher this
day. Mr. Bratcher then pointed out a spot light in one of the photos,
which had also created an annoyance to him. Apparently the light shines
directly in Mr. Bratcher' s bedroom window. He stated that he had asked
Mr. Gross to move the direction of the light and Mr. Gross said it would
be too costly to pay an electrician to do this.
Page 4
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Bratcher what he would like the Board to do about the
fact that Mr. Gross is storing junk cars at 980 Mayport Road. Mr.
Bratcher responded that he would like the vehicles moved out.
Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Bratcher how long the vehicles in question had
been there. Mr. Bratcher said that the junk vehicles had been there for
longer than four months and since Mr. Gross had been in operation there
had been junk vehicles stored on the property.
Ms. Bass stated that this concluded the City' s case of Mr. Gross being
in violation of Section 12. She felt the evidence was clear that he was
storing junk vehicles.
Mr. Martin asked if an ordinance existed that specified the opening and
closing hours of a business and if Mr. Gross' s business license
specified a time to open and close. Mr. Ford stated there was only an
ordinance on noise control and nusinances.
Mr. Bull called on Mr. Gross.
Mr. Gross stated his occupational license covered the storage of
vehicles. Mr. Bull continued by stating since issuance of the license
in 1979 and the license had been enforce and he is grandfathered in
under that license.
Mr. Gross stated that a few of these vehicles were titled to him and
were in storage. As room in the garage permits, he then brings the
vehicle to the garage and refurbishes them and places them in the car
lot for sale. He claimed that they are not abandoned vehicles nor junk
vehicles. He also stated that there were other vehicles in storage,
that belong to navy personal who are deployed for 6 to 8 months at a
time. These people do pay for the storage.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Gross to verify that the vehicles in the photos were
in fact on his property. Mr. Gross said the cars that he owned and
needed repair were stored in the back of his property ( the cars in the
photos) and the cars for sale were located in the front (Mayport Road) .
He also stated his U-haul vehicles were parked along the back edge of
the property, which adjoins Mr. Bratcher' s property in an effort to try
to create a buffer so to not offend Mr. Bratcher in anyway.
Ms. Bass referred to the photo dated 7/22/91 and asked Mr. Gross if
these seven cars were titled in his name. Mr. Gross said being a
licensed dealer he is not obligated to have each and every title in his
name. He is allowed to have a vehicle signed over to him and then
reassign it to another individual and that was the purpose of dealer' s
license. Ms. Bass then asked him to point out the vehicles that
Page 5
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
belonged to navy personal. Mr. Gross then pointed to each vehicle in
the photo and indicated the ownership. He also said the truck in the
photo was no longer on the premises but was stored there for
approximately 2 months before removal.
Ms. Bass stated that Mr. Bratcher' s photos showed about 10 cars and she
questioned if they were all operable and owned by Mr. Gross. Mr. Gross
said a person may trade in a vehicle with a mechanical problem and
purchase another vehicle from the used car lot. He would then keep the
trade in car in the back of his property until there was room in the
garage to make the repairs.
Ms. Bass then asked if Mr. Gross was licensed for a junk yard and he
responded that he did not have a junk yard and did not want one.
Mr. Bull gave Mr. Gross a chance to cross examine the City' s witnesses
but he choose not to.
Ms. Bass asked Mr. Gross if he ever sold his cars for junk. He said if
the vehicle was not worth repairing then he would sell it for junk. Mr.
Bull said it was normal for a used car business.
Closing Statement
Ms. Bass summarized that the City of Atlantic Beach does not license
junk yards and she felt that behind Mr. Gross ' s main place of business
was a junk yard. She said it was up to the Board to determine the
definition of a junk car. She continued to say essentially the cars
located behind the business were not subject to being driven away. She
stated Mr. Ford and Mr. Bratcher had given testimony to this fact and
she would ask the Board to order Mr. Gross to store only vehicles that
were subject to being driven and to remove the junk cars.
Mr. Gross then questioned the term "junk car" . In his opinion, if the
cost of repairing a vehicle exceeds the vehicle value he would then
assume it to be a junk car and disposed of as such. If the cost of
repair does not exceed the value then it would not be consider a junk
car. He stated the operation of a junk yard involved dismantling the
cars and selling used auto parts, which he does not do. Storage is
essential to his business and he needs a place to do so.
Mr. Bull closed the hearing.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Gross what he would consider the dark blue truck to
be, which was in the photo. Mr. Gross stated it was a junk vehicle and
it had been there for about 2 months. Mr. Martin then asked what time
period did Mr. Gross use to decide when to get rid of a junk car. Mr.
Page 6
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
Gross replied that it would depend on the availability of a company who
handles this type of procedure. Mr. Martin clarified his question by
asking what was the average time of being able to dispose of a junk car.
Mr. Gross said it had varied because he had to work with the company' s
schedule.
Mr. Bull asked Mr. Gross how many cars he took in that were not operable
and not worth repairing. Mr. Gross said that he tries to avoid this
situation because of the difficulty of disposing of the vehicles. He
stated that in some cases, customers felt that their cars had some value
and want to trade them in. In order to make a deal with selling one of
the used car on his lot, he felt obligated to take the cars into his
possession.
Ms. Freeman asked what he would do if the vehicles in storage were
abandoned by their owners. Also, was he licensed to keep the car and
then resell it. Mr. Gross said he believed there was a law in existence
that allowed him to apply for a storage title but he had never pursued
this procedure and therefore was not licensed. Ms. Freeman then asked
what the procedure was to dispose of a vehicle that had been abandoned
on his property. Mr. Gross stated he would have to send a certified
letter to the last known previous owner and he was not clear on what
other steps were involved.
Mr. Bull stated that the photographs did not show any evidence of a junk
yard even though there may have been a few vehicles that were
questionable. Mr. Bull thought a compromise could be reached with Mr.
Gross. He suggested that if Mr. Gross acquired an inoperable vehicle,
he would then dispose of it within 30 days.
Mr. Dowling then brought up a reoccurring problem with the definition of
a junk car within the City Code and suggested in the near future the
Board should define a junk car.
Mr. Moller asked Ms. Bass her opinion of the problem of the street light
which was disturbing Mr. Bratcher in the evening hours. Ms. Bass
advised Mr. Moller that Mr. Gross was sited for the junk cars only and
in all fairness to Mr. Gross any other complaints by Mr. Bratcher might
have to be brought up at another time. He then asked if there was a
City statute that spelled out the definition of a junk car and Ms. Bass
said in her opinion, the Code does not specifically state the definition
of when a motor vehicle becomes an abandoned nor junk car.
Mr. Bull stated it was up to the City Commission to define the
Ordinances and the Board was responsible to uphold the law.
Mr. Bull called on Mr. Paul Eakin. Mr. Eakin suggested instead of
trying to define a "junk car" , try to focus on the complaints which were
Page 7
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
brought to the Board. He reminded the Board that Mr. Gross was sited
for the storage of junk cars and the problems that have occurred from
the storage involved. Mr. Eakin said Mr. Bratcher' s complaints were
that people were sleeping in the junk cars, which are adjacent to his
property and that junk cars were being unloaded after 11:00 PM, along
with the bright light. He agreed the City Ordinances did not cover a
specific closing hour for businesses but thought Mr. Bratcher should be
shown some courtesy as a neighbor.
Mr. Bull felt Mr. Bratcher' s complaints were not of junk cars but the
activity occurring in the evening hours which was causing a nuisance.
He suggested that Mr. Gross work with Mr. Bratcher on these issues
because the police could enforce the nuisance law. He thought it would
be in Mr. Bratcher' s and the neighborhood' s best interest if he would
cease and desist with the night time activity. Mr. Bull also suggested
that Mr. Gross monitor his own property to keep the vagrants and vandals
off it because it could put the storage cars into a junk situation and
maybe in the future there would be a problem. He also recommended
something be worked out with the light that shines into Mr. Bratcher' s
window.
Mr. Eakin asked Mr. Gross for his comments on the vagrant situation.
Mr. Gross replied that he was sited for Section 12-1 ( 6 ) , which was
abandoned vehicles and there was no mention of junk vehicles in the
statute or the nuisance code. He did not realize that junk vehicles
were going to be a question. In his opinion, an abandoned vehicle was
one that was just abandoned in the parking lot. He stated the vehicles
on his property were not abandoned. He also responded to the light
situation and said he had paid Mr. Bratcher a large sum of money to
clear the property shown in the photographs. Prior to the photo, there
were trees and other material which Mr. Bratcher claimed was a fire
hazard. Now that the trees had been leveled the light shines in his
window. He also stated he had placed all his U-haul trailers across the
back property line to give a buffer there. He feels that he will be
unable to please Mr. Bratcher no matter what is done.
Mr. Bull stated since this effort had failed in trying to resolve the
dispute between Mr. Bratcher and Mr. Gross, they would go back to the
original complaint.
Mr. Martin questioned the testimony regarding the vehicles with no tires
or engines and asked Mr. Gross if this occurred. Mr. Gross replied that
this was possible due to the nature of his business.
Mr. Martin moved that Mr. Gross not keep a car that could not be sold
for anything other than junk for more than 30 days and this case be
closed with this stipulation. Also, with the understanding that the
case may be opened again under a different category.
Page 8
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
Mr. Bull asked Mr. Martin if he objected if he substituted his motion.
With no objections, Mr. Bull moved that Mr. Gross be found in compliance
with the ordinance with the exception that he will remove any vehicle
that could be considered as junk within a thirty (30) day period.
Before the Board voted, Mr. Venn asked who determined whether or not a
vehicle is junk. Mr. Bull said the Code Enforcement Officer of the City
would ascertain if a vehicle was junk, and Mr. Dowling said they needed
to have a clear definition. Mr. Bull also stated that since Mr. Gross'
business was grandfathered in where he is located, by law it could not
be changed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Moller and carried with a five to one
vote. Mr. Dowling voted nay.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
4. Board Members Comments:
Mr. Dowling suggested the Board give individual opinions on what a junk
car should be so that the comments could be incorporated into a revised
definition. Mr. Bull said the City Commission only could make that
determination.
Mr. Bull called on Mr. Gross for his opinion of what the definition was
for a junk car. Mr. Gross replied that if the cost of a vehicle' s
repair to make it safe and operable exceeded the value of the car it
would then be considered a junk car. Mr. Bull asked if his definition
pertained to antique cars and Mr. Gross replied it did not. Mr. Bull
pointed out that this is where they run into problems with determining
what is junk and what is valuable.
Mr. Bull stated if a car is not operable and its value exceeds the
repair costs and its stored for more than thirty (30) days then they
could almost define it on a time period.
Ms. Freeman was concerned if a vehicle in storage did not have a tag and
it appeared to be a junk what the determination would be. Mr. Gross
said there are times when the owners would remove the tags in fear of
the vehicle being stolen.
Ms. Bass said she would draft a definition of what other Code
Enforcement Boards call a junk car and have that definition available at
the next meeting. The Board agreed with the proposal.
Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Gross if he was obligated to start the vehicles
being stored for the navy personal or did he just leave them there until
Page 9
Code Enforcement Board
September 3, 1991
they returned. Mr. Gross said he is not required to do this and some of
them remove their batteries and/or have a storage lock. Also, he stated
that when they return for their vehicles, he would assist in getting the
vehicle started. Mr. Dowling suggested that starting the vehicles
once a month should be incorporated within the agreement.
Mr. Bull suggested to end the meeting at this time because the City
Commission requested to use the chambers for their budget workshop.
Ms. Strain asked if a roll call should be taken because of the second
absence of Willie Miley. Mr. Bull said Mr. Miley would have to be
replaced since he had missed two meetings, unexcused.
*Mr. Martin announced his resignation on the Code Enforcement Board
because of he will running for a City Commission seat on the October 1,
1991 elections.
Adjournment
There being no other business to come b= •• e the board, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
4411
eorge
ATTEST:
1111:14CD
Dorothy . Str n
* In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 99.012( 5) , Mr. Martin is
not required to resign his seat on the Board until such time he is
elected a City Commissioner, per the City Clerk. Mr. Martin' s
resignation will be held until the October 1, 1991 elections and at that
time a determination will be made of whether or not we need to replace
him.