Loading...
08-07-1985 , . ; ~ u CITY OF EDGEWATER PLANNING AND. ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 7, 1985 Minutes Chairman Bennington called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., in the Community Center building. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Don Bennington, Jake Wheeler, Fred Finn, George Quaggin, James Poland, Jim Mackie and Paul Loeffler. Also present: Susan Wadsworth, secretary and various other people in the audience. PUBLIC HEARING - Raymond Richards - Request to add gas pumps as a permitted use in B-2. Due to malfunction of recording equipment, the Public Hearing was unable to be transcribed. Board members discussed in depth the sketch plan. Topics of discussion were set back and lot size, design of the pumps, future expansion and the distance between pumps. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Richards what method he intended to use to service the pumps. Mr. Richards answered that he was going to get a permit to cut a hole in the wall and put a window in so that they could see and service the pumps from the inside of the store. One of the principle concerns discussed was the permitted location of the pumps. Chairman Bennington pointed out that the pumps could not be within twenty-five feet of any land zoned residential. He also stated that the pumps had to be twelve feet from any right-of-way line. The Board determined, from examination of the location of the proposed pump site on the sketch plan, that the pumps would have to be moved. Mr. Mackie called attention to the fact that Mr. Richards had only twenty-five feet from the center of the island to the alley way and then from the center of the alley thirty-five feet, which would not allow much room for heavy traffic coming in and out when servicing trucks for gas. An extensive discussion followed among Board members as to whether it was legally an easement for utilities or an alley. A discussion followed as to the types of businesses allowed in B-2 zoned areas and how this change would effect present and future businesses in that specific area. Mr. Bennington explained the Council has to advertise this, hold Public Hearings and Mr. Richards would have to come back with a site plan and comply with all the requirements. The Board then discussed the property description of the proposed rezoned area and the benefits of rezoning. There was also discussion about possible paving between the Shop E-Z and the empty lot on Indian River Boulevard. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to refer this request to permit gas stations from the railroad track to India Palm Drive, Service Station, Type A, to the City Council. Mr. Poland seconded the motion. Chairman Bennington added that he thought that they should include pending legal approval, adding that it was almost bordering spot zoning by permitting only a certain business to operate in a very, very minute area. Mr. Poland made a motion to amend the motion to permit the sale of petroleum fuel as a Special Exception in B-2. Mr. Quaggin seconded. u u There was a discussion concerning whether or not the rezoning would be con- sidered spot zoning. Chairman Bennington spoke to the Board about this request; it is his feeling a legal opinion is necessary. The amendment to the motion was voted on first. The amendment CARRIED 7-0. The original motion was read back, upon voting the motion CARRIED 7-0. Chairman Bennington explained this goes before the Council and they have a whole process they have to go through for amending the zoning uses and then they vote. He thanked Mr. Richards. The Board now went into their regular meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Wheeler made a motion to approve the minutes of July 2, 1985, Regular Meeting, seconded by Mr. Quaggin. Motion CARRIED 7-0. SITE PLAN REVIEW SP-8510 - Ogil Reed - Auto Repair Shop - 24th and Guava Ogil Reed was present to discuss this site plan. Chairman Bennington questioned Mr. Reed as to the specific type of auto repair shop this is. Mr. Reed replied that it is not a body shop, but an auto repair shop. The Board further asked if he was operating the business himself, to which Mr. Reed answered yes. Chairman Bennington confirmed with Mr. Reed the fact that the engineering calculations were based on the prior site plan, not the newly submitted site plan. Chairman Bennington pointed out that he did not see anything to control the drainage in the front. Mr. Reed said the paving in the front meets the requirements of a new Ordinance. He continued by saying there is a buffer zone in the front, on each side and there is a turn-around there. Mr. Reed and Chairman Bennington had a discussion on the City paving the streets in the future and water detention in front, for front drainage. Mr. Mackie asked Mr. Reed how many people would be working there and he answered one person, himself. Mr. Mackie asked Mr. Reed if he had any intentions of using the building for storage, now or in the future, to which Mr. Reed replied no. There was a discussion about the engineer approving water retention and the inspection having nothing to do with the approval of same. Included in the discussion was the Boards agreement that Mr. Reed had the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to approve, pending engineer's approval of drainage plans, seconded by Mr. Quaggin. Motion CARRIED 7-0. Chairman Bennington expressed that after the project is completed, it should be required of the engineer to submit a letter to the Board stating that he has complied with all Code requirements. He also suggested that a form letter be drawn up administratively requlrlng signatures by the owner and builder stating that all site plan requirements had been complied with before Dennis Fischer ever has the final inspection. Mr. Poland made the motion to approve, Mr. Wheeler seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. -2- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 ~ u SP-8455 - VOLUSIA TRUSS - Anderson Mr. Anderson was present to discuss this site plan. Chairman Bennington reported that the original site plan; Mr. Anderson sub- mitted, showed a 288 square foot building and the new site plan showed a 500 square foot building. The engineering calculations were based on the 288 square foot building. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought it was going to be a 500 square foot building because there are more people than himself involved. There was a discussion regarding parking. Mr. Mackie related that Volusia Truss was brought 'up once before on November 16, 1984. It was agreed the Board should be supplied with a copy of the Lease and approval from the engineer on the drainage. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to approve, pending approval of the engineer on the drainage and copy of the Lease. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 7-0. Mr. Anderson thanked the Chairman and the Board. SP-8517 - David Mitchem Mr. Mitchem stated he did not have all the information for the Board to act on this request; he asked to have SP-8517 Tabled. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to Table, Mr. Quaggin seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. SP-8516 and COZ-85-14 - Dr. L. J. Liddle - 103 Connecticut - Professional - Chiropractic Dr. L. J. Liddle was present to discuss this site plan and his request. Chairman Bennington explained that this property is located at the corner of Connecticut and US-I. Mr. Mackie remarked that the Board had a letter relating to storm water from the engineer. Board members viewed the site plans and all accepted. Chairman Bennington asked if there were any comments. Mr. Mackie made the motion to accept, Mr. Wheeler seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. Chairman Bennington said that Dr. Liddle needed zoning and, as a matter of fact, he is improving the property by bringing it up to Code. There being no problems with Dr. Liddle's request to operate his business in this location, Mr. Wheeler made a motion to accept this zoning request, Mr. Finn seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. CERTIFICATE OF ZONING REQUESTS COZ-85-02 - Homer R. Spencer - 2518 Hibiscus - Repair Service - Wheelchairs a medical equipment Mr. Spencer was present to discuss this request with the Board. Secretary, Susan Wadsworth, informed the Chairman that the address was changed to 1852 Hibiscus. Mr. Spencer informed the Board that parking was a problem at 2518 Hibiscus. Board members examined the new site plan and had a discussion about the location being the U-Lock-It and it being a combination of Mini-warehouses and regular business establishments that had been there for a while, also that it had adequate parking. -3- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 u u The Board concluded that Mr. Spencer had moved location to meet Code require- ments for parking and that his intent was a repair shop not a storage business. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to accept, Mr. Poland seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. caz 85-10 - Clay A. Lyles - 1947 W. Park Avenue - Manufacturing surfboards. Mr. Lyles was not present and Mr. Bennington pointed out that his papers were not filled out correctly and the sketch plan was unacceptable. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to Table because a new sketch plan and acceptable forms needed to be submitted. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 7-0. The Board also discussed the Fire Code. They were concerned because of the chemicals used in manufacturing. caZ-85-11 - Patricia Bradshaw - 1863 Guava - Repair service - Lawn mowers - Retail sales. No one was present to represent this request. Mr. Poland asked secretary, Susan Wadsworth, for two Conflict of Interest forms, one for this business and one for Personal Touch. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to Table, Mr. Quaggin seconded. Mr. Poland abstained due to conflict of interest. Motion CARRIED 6-0. caz-85-12 - Eugene Harden - Tommy Bundy - 706 C. W. Park Avenue - Manufacturing Cabinets. No one was present to discuss this request. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to Table pending better drawings, Mr. Poland seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. caZ-85-13 - John R. Swain - 203 W. Marion - Auto body shop. ~o one was present to discuss this request. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to Table pending better drawings. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 7-0. caZ-85-15 - Raymond Gallagher - 2104 Hibiscus - Assemblage - Screen printing - Retail sale. ML Gallagher was present to discuss this request. Board members discussed the location and the fact that the building has an office in the front and storage in the back. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Gallagher the number of employees he intended to employ. Mr. Gallagher answered three employees and himself. Mr. Mackie advised Mr. Gallagher that was the maximum number of employees he could have without a Special Exception. Mr. Bennington asked about the screen printing equipment. Mr. Gallagher answered, silk screens that they put together and ship out. Chairman Bennington asked him if he intended printing T-shirts. Mr. Gallagher answered no. Mr. Poland asked if customers would be entering his establishment, to which he answered nobody comes there. -4- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 ~ u Mr. Mackie asked him if he was working as a jobber. Mr. Gallagher replied no; they manufacture and his son sells and then they ship them out together. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to accept, Mr. Finn seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. COZ-8S-16 - Greg C. Stewart - 706 F. W. Park Avenue - Manufacturing building components. No one was present to discuss this request. Mr. Finn made the motion to Table, Mr. Mackie seconded. Motion CARRIED 7-0. COZ-8S-17 - Sam Comerate 106 S. Old County Road - Lawn care; repair service - Lawn mowers. Retail sales. Sam Comerate was present to discuss this request. Chairman Bennington asked Mr. Comerate how many employees did he intend to employ? Mr. Comerate answered eight. Chairman Bennington informed Mr. Comerate that he had driven by his business two days in a row and had noticed quite a few vehicles parked on the lot across the street. He asked Mr. Comerate if all the vehicles were his employees. Mr. Comerate answered that he didn't know. A discussion ensued about there being adequate parking in the back. Mr. Mackie remarked that the site plan did not indicate parking in that area and that a better sketch, indicating parking, was needed. Mr. Mackie also advised, since Mr. Comerate's business was a customer service business with people coming and going, that his sketch should have some shape or formula in regards to customer parking. Chairman Bennington recounted that Mr. Comerate was in a situation in which he was in business, moved, and in the process of transferring his license. Also, Mr. Comerate says he is cleaning up the area to have room for his employees to park. Chairman Bennington advised Mr. Comerate that he should come back next month with a drawing that showed the property perimeters and where the building is located and where the parking spaces are. Mr. Comerate said he could come back and . as~ the Board's advise on acceptable proposed areas of parking. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to Table, pending a new set of plans. Mr. Quaggin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 7-0. COZ-8S-18 - Debra Ann Dorcy - 102 Merrimac - Day Care Center Debra Ann Dorcy was present to discuss this request. Mrs. Dorcy informed the Board that she was in the process of acquiring owner- ship of the property. Chairman Bennington stated that after viewing the property and sketch plan; he noticed the turn-around driveway in front was close to the street and the sketch plan did not have a definition of how far it is from the street. He also said the sketch showed four parking spaces and he could not see any way there could be four parking spaces without being right in the middle of the road. Mrs. Dorcy explained that she was going to put up a six foot property fence. The parking would start at the beginning of the fence and was half way into -S- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 u (j the grass part and there would be no parking where there is shell. She also stated that it would not look anything like it does now, because they don't own the property yet. Chairman Bennington asked how far is it from the front of the building to the street. Mrs. Dorey answered thirty-three feet from the road to the beginning of the house where the fence is going to be. Mrs. Dorey answered various questions regarding the present structure. The Board informed her that this is a non-conforming structure and, being titled pre-school, she would have to adhere to State Law Chapter 481. Chapter 481 states "Any commercial building, valued in excess of $25,000.00, must have it registered or certified in general for the building contractor to build it."; it also says "anything over $25,000.00 must have an architect seal". After a general discussion among Board members, they concluded that she would need a general contractor for plumbing, electrical and A.C. & Heat, due to State law, but all other work could be done by herself. Discussed at length was the subject of parking. Mr& Dorey stated that she would have to have one parking space per twenty-five children and one per employee and she would like to be zoned for forty-five children, which would mean she would need five parking spaces. She continued by saying the turn- around also allows for parking and enables the parents to drop the children off without having to actually park, then continue around. She informed the Board that there would be an overhang built so that if it was raining, they wouldn't get wet. Chairman Bennington stated the biggest problem is that you have to have 10' x 20' behind it for backing up and then you can't arrange the parking where you back directly onto the highway and you are five feet short. Mrs. Dorey pointed out the reason for the turn-around was so that the parents could stop then continue around so as not to cause a traffic jam by having to back out. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to accept, providing Mrs. Dorey meets all requirements for State approval. .Mr. Finn seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED 7-0. OLD BUSINESS ANNEXATION REQUEST - John and Doris Massey, North side of 12th Street, 16 lots. Chairman Don Bennington stated that the Board has received a letter from the engineer saying that it is not feasible to connect to the City Sanitary Sewer System. Chairman Bennington also read from a letter from Terry Wadsworth, which pointed out that if he was going to build right now, the City could give him the water, or if he was going to build sometime in the future, the City could give him the water, but somewhere in between, there might be a time when he can't have the water. His letter also states that he feels the small number of building lots can be serviced with water, if the Planning and Zoning Board feels this annexation to be advantageous to the City as a whole. Mr. Wadsworth ppinted out that the owners of vacant lots in Florida Shores have made no contribution to the water and sewer impact fund, paid no front foot assessment, no utility taxes and no monthly service charges and the taxes do not subsidize the operation of the water and waste management system. Chairman Bennington brought up the question of why is it advantageous to the City to annex just these sixteen (16) lots, as he felt it would be advantageous to annex all the land. A discussion followed about the land being a forestry operation. Mr. John Massey said the reason they decided to annex these sixteen (16) lots is because they abut a City street and it is not that -6- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 ~ u important for a forestry operation to have street frontage. He continued to say that they felt it would be a way for them to recapture a little liquid capital without interfering with the rest of their forestry operation. Chair- man Bennington and Mr. Massey then had a discussion about the planting strip between the sixteen (16) lots and the City street and the location of the property, which is located at 12th where 13th, which is that triangle street, that comes into 12th and goes west to just east of Sabal Palm down to Willow Oak. Chairman Bennington asked if it would benefit the City in its annexation to the west and a discussion followed about future projected use of the property to the west. Mr. Massey said that according to the City they're not supposed to drive out on that street anyway, so what good did it do us, so why not annex it in and let it be part of the City so that the land could have access to the City street, which was the theory behind it. Chairman Bennington questioned if they annexed and lost the buffer, then what would be the situation. A reply was made that if it is annexed in, the problem is that it would become a subdivision unto itself. A discussion about subdivision requirements followed and about the planting strip: no one knows why it is there and who owns it. Mr. Massey said that they didn't want to get into any big development; all they wanted to do was utilize the property along the street to what would be consistent with good planning. He added that in his opinion it would also provide a residential lot buffer between the residents on the south side of 12th Street, and right now legally they could go 20 feet off 12th Street and could put in a hog farm and there wouldn't be anything the City could do about it. He said it seems to him if the City had a lot buffer there 125 feet deep, it would provide a little buffer from the existing City Residents, which would be another advantage to the City. Mr. Massey noted he wants to rededicate the buffer for street purposes. A question was asked that if it was owned by the City, the City would have to vacate it and discussion followed about the advantages of a six (6) foot buffer. Chairman Bennington said they are able to put in a. subdivision, have use of the petitioned street; the City is supplying the water, allowing them to put in a septic tank in an area that they already know they shouldn't put septic tanks in, and sewer systems are needed there, so all the advantages look like they are on Mr. Massey's side not the City's. Mr. Massey said he didn't know. A Board member asked if it is Mr. Massey's intention to put in septic tanks. Chairman Bennington said the Code says that he has to either build a sewage treatment plant or tie into our system unless the engineer determines that it is infeasible, which he has. A discussion followed about septic tanks not being allowed in Florida Shores, and the County septic tank requirements. Mr. Massey then said the people on the south side of 12th Street would probably be happy to split the cost with the people who lived on the north side when it came time to make assessment for paving 13th Street, otherwise, the people on the south side of the street are going to have to pay the whole thing. Mr. Massey again stated the the sixteen (16) lots were not very much use to them from an agricultural standpoint because if the planting strip prohibits crossing it, which they don't know about yet, then they don't have access to 12th Street, so it's not much use to them so they might as well sell it off for lots. A discussion then followed about selling the lots and the owners not being able to get City water for an undefinite time. Mr. Massey was asked if that's -7- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 ~ u his intentions. Mr. Mackie then discussed the problems that would arise with the County as to requirements for sewage and water and questioned what was in the best interest for the City as a whole and not what Mr. Massey's desired intentions are for the use of the land. Chairman Bennington asked the size of the lots and Mr. Massey said most of them are 100' x 125', a couple are 80' x 125', and some pie shaped because of the way the lot lines worked out. Mr. Poland brought up the statement that Mr. Bennington made, that most of the benefits to this project lies on Mr. Massey's side. He asked Mr. Massey if there were any facts that might be considered; such as, the City is always looking for land for parks. Mr. Massey's reply to land for parks was that he couldn't anticipate what the City would want and they would have to consider what the City presented to them. A discussion then followed about the land being low and not good for anything but growing timber. Mr. Massey said that he didn't mean that it was low but there was some grass ponds and it is part of an agricultural operation. Chairman Bennington's reply was to annex or do zoning changes the City would have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan is very clear on the issue of eliminating existing sources or future sources of waste water pollution by requiring the developer to bear the cost of extending lines to new developments, installing necessary collection systems and to review these development plans before issuing permits. Chairman Bennington commented on a letter from HUD regarding a potential health hazard which could exist if past practices are continued without con- sidering the alternative presented earlier and the situation has not gone unnoticed. City officials are attempting to provide public water supplies to much of Florida Shores, which the City has done. HUD's letter continued to say that they have had a reinvestigation of the soil condition of Florida Shores and they are continuing to reject process applications in Florida Shores until an acceptable sanitary system is installed. In addition, the municipality owes it to the respective buyers and future residents of the community to make application for assistance to install public sewer and sewer systems throughout the area, either by assistance of HU~ on a grant basis or through bond assistance by the municipality. Chairman Bennington said that from everything he has read that he concludes that the City should stay away from septic tanks as much as possible. Mr. Massey then stated that it was not fair for the project to bear the cost for two hundred people to obtain the benefit of the line. The Board members then participated in a discussion related to impact fees and the City bearing most of the cost for a sewer system. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to Table this request until they hear from Mr. Massey. Mr. Poland seconded the motion and it CARRIED 7-0. Mr. Massey asked for clarification of the motion. The Board members reviewed the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mackie made a motion to do a study by the City Engineer and refer it to the City Council for them to consider. Advantages to the City in squaring off the boundaries to give more contiguous land for future annexation was discussed. Mr. Massey said that by annexation of these lots the City could avoid future problems. -8- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 ~ v In conclusion, Mr. Mackie summarized that Mr. Massey is not interested in the cost, only in the fact that he, Mr. Massey, did not burden himself with any cost as long as he gets the property annexed. The rest is up to the City to keep running the lines all the way through and in time, if there are no houses there, we will get impact fees from the sewer line. Mr. Mackie concluded that the City would be laying a lot of pipe that would sit there for an eternity before the City would get its money back, just to get a line to him so that he could build houses. Mr. Mackie said he didn't see the value to it. Mr. Wheeler made the motion to deny and Mr. Poland seconded it. The motion CARRIED 7-0. NEW BUSINESS Letter from City Clerk/Admin. Connie Martinez on contradictions in B-3 Permitted uses. Chairman Bennington reviewed Mrs. Martinez's correspondence with the Board. Memo from City Clerk/Admin. Connie Martinez on correction to City code. Chairman Bennington reviewed the memo from Mrs. Martinez regarding researching the Occupational Licenses of the Code to determine if the recommended changes effect any other zoning classifications. When contradictions are found, the Board is advised to contact Mrs. Martinez so that she can instruct the Municipal Code Corporation to make corrections in the next supplement. Memo from secretary regarding amending Ordinance 84-0-36. The Board was advised of a typographical error which stated "We don't review single family or duplexes". The Chairman directed a letter be sent to the City Council advising them of the error. Coleman Construction Company - request a replat of six lots to four lots in Shangri-La Village Subdivision. The Board discussed Coleman Construction's request to use two lots instead of one to build a duplex. MISCELLANEOUS Chairman Bennington read a memo to the Board from David Jones, Code Enforcement Officer, Fire Safety Inspector on landscaping and parking requirements on site plan 8443. Chairman Bennington read a memo from the City Clerk suggesting that the Board amend the subdivision Ordinance to also include bike paths. The Board discussed future bike paths in the area and the cost. Mr. Poland made the motion to adjourn, Mr. Loeffler seconded. -9- Planning and Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 1985 , . . -, FORM 4 M~ORANDUM OF VOTI~G CONFLICT LA IT! €~ 1./00 &r+~ II I./CC rVI THE BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SER VE IS A UNIT OF: ~ 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 STATE . yOYNTY I Vol _ ("t::1' NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY /96'5 C ,'+; tJr E.J'j ~'v0..t"v NAM WHO'MUST FILE FORM 4 This form is for use by any person serving on either an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee, whether state or local, and it applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are faced with a voting conflict of interest. As the voting conflict requirements for public officers at the local level differ from the requirements for state officers, this form is divided into two parts: PART A is for use by persons serving on local boards (municipal, county, special tax districts, etc.), while PART B is prescribed for all other boards, i.e., those at the state level. PART C of the form contains instructions as to when and where this form must be filed. PART A VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees PROHIBITS each municipal. county. and other local public officer FROM VOTING in an official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to the special gain of any principal (other than a government agency as defined in Section 112.312(2), Florida Statutes) by whom he is retained. In any such case a local public officer must disclose the conflict: (a) PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of his interest in the matter on which he is abstaining from voting; and (b) WITHIN 15 DA YS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by describing the nature of his interest as a public record in this part below. NOTE: Commissioners of a Community Redevelopment Agency created or designated pursuant to Section 163.356 or Section 163.357, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), or officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting. In such cases, however, the oral and written disclosure of this part must be made. I, the undersigned local public officer, hereby disclose that on 4{~ 5/~ ~T- ) ,19k.C: (a) I abstained from voting on a matter which (check one): ~ to my special private gain; or _ inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained. CE FORM 4 - REV. J(}'84 PAGE I , J '(b) The. measure on which i abstained Q the nature of my i~terest in the measure is QIIOWS: C02-- ? 4rS?J'l 4. ( /0 CA c. ~ C&v-I-;~'CCf+L crf2-on }n1 Ket/A~s +- v~ !I J " ;/ J :I :I Date Filed Please see PART C for instructions on when and where to file PART B VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR STATE OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] Each state public officer is permitted to vote in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state officer who votes in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or the special gain of any principal by whom he is retained is required to disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in Part B below within IS days after the vote occurs. I, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on , 19 _: (a) I voted on a matter which (check one): _ inured to my special private gain; or _ inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained. (b) The measure on which I voted and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed Signature Please see PART C below for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART C FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (IS) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict. NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 0 I 12.317(1983). A FAILURETO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MA Y BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALAR Y. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED 55.000. CE FORM 4 - REV. 10-84 PAGE 2 FORM 4 . f ... 110 MElwioRANDUM OF VOTII.<i CONFLICT LAST ~ME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME r~ L.. AJ 1) ~ ~/Y16S V I /lJ celJ-r MAILI~ ADDRESS 130' '-100 CITY €d 'eW~f,-+~ DATE ON W ICH VOTE OCCURRED THE BOARD. COUNCIL,COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ififlTY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY 0 STATE j '''i NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR STATE AGENCY NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE , Ct . & vd C-,'-fy tfr.(' Ec/~R~-I~ WHO'MUST FILE FORM 4 This form is for use by any person 'serving on either an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee, whether state or local, and it applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are faced with a voting conflict of interest. As the voting conflict requirements for public officers at the local level differ from the requirements for state officers, this form is divided into two parts: PART A is for use by persons serving on local boards (municipal, county, special tax districts, etc.), while PART B is prescribed for all other boards, i.e., those at the state level. PART C of the form contains instructions as to when and where this form must be filed. PART A VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] (a) PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of his interest in the matter on which he is abstaining from voting; and I I I I , .1 I The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees PROHIBITS each municipal. county. and other local public officer FROM VOTING in an official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to the special gain of any principal (other than a government agency as defined in Section 112.312(2), Florida Statutes) by whom he is retained. In any such case a local public officer must disclose the conflict: (b) WITHIN 15 DA YS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by describing the nature of his interest as a public record in this part below. NOTE: Commissioners of a Community Redevelopment Agency created or designated pursuant to Section 163.356 or Section 163.357, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), or officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting. In such cases, however, the oral and written disclosure of this part must be made. I, the undersigned local public officer, hereby disclose that on SQ 1)+ , L/ ,19~: (a) I abstained from voting on a matter which (check one): ~ed to my special private gain; or _ inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained. CE FOR M 4. REV, IO-R4 PAGE I (tffThe measure on which i abstained Q the nature of my i~terest in the measure is QOIIOWS: 1 I C- 0 z.. - frS- - } { ~4*,\c..;G- 75rc-,ds~CvI.tJ G-r. --J.,',,(;- ~G\. k o-r- ~ h. ; "?) K ~ 'i l-f €' ~+ Ler. WI') Ao LV~ fa ,'n .5' J, ~y t::L I I ] . I Date Filed Please see PART C for instructions on when and where to file this PART B VOTING CONFLICT DISCLOSURE FOR aT ATE OFFICERS [Required by Section 112.3143(2), Aorida Statutes (Supp. 1984).] Each state public officer is permitted to vote in his official capacity on any matter. However, any state officer who votes in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or the special gain of any principal by whom he is retained is required to disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in Part B below within 15 days after the vote occurs. I, the undersigned officer of a state agency, hereby disclose that on ,19_: (a) I voted on a matter which (check one): _ inured to my special private gain; or _ inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained. (b) The measure on which I voted and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed Signature Please see PART C below for instructions on when and where to file this form. PART C FILING INSTRUCTIONS This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (15) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict. NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA ST ATUTESO 112.317( 1983). A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MA Y BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED SS.OOO. CE FORM 4 - REV. 10-84 PAGE 2