08-01-1978
.
(.)
o
CITY OF EDGEWATER ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
August 1, 1978
Chairman Wolfe called the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board
to order at 7:35 P.M. in City Hall.
ROLL CALL
James Engle
David Wiggins
Richard Bartholomew
James Mackie
Robert Wolfe
Will iam Nichol s
Sebastian Siciliano
Absent
Present
Excused
Present
Present
Present (late)
.Present
Also Present:
Mayor Christy
Councilman Sikes
Councilman Shell
Councilman Dietz
City Attorney Judson Woods
City Planner Richard Diamond
Mrs. Murphy
Mr. Ledbetter
Mr. Kane
Mr. Leoffler
Chairman Wolfe asked for approval of minutes of June 6, 1978;
July 18, 1978 and July 25, 1978.
Mr. Siciliano made a motion to approve the minutes of June 6th.
Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Mackie made a motion to approve the minutes of July 18th.
Mr. Siciliano seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Mackie made a motion to approve the minutes of July 25th.
Mr. Wiggins seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Wiggins asked about the minutes of July 11, 1978. The other
Board members did not have their copies and the secretary was
not able to find a copy at this time. Chairman Wolfe said these
minutes would be approved at the next meeting.
The only business before the Board was the rezoning of mobile
home properties.
Mr. Nichols filed a memorandum of voting conflict.
Chairman Wolfe asked for opinions from those present on the problem
of rezoning mobile home properties.
Mr. Mackie said he had a question on some of the parks that are
partially in a B-3 zone, which is acceptable, and the rest is inR-2
or R-3. Do we have to rezone these parks back or can we accept
them as they are in business and in residential? Do we have to have
another public hearing to rezone them back?
The City Attorney said that it might be the logical thing to set up
some kind of special zoning classification to bring existing mobile
home parks into it and state in the ordinance that they would be
non-conforming in 880.
u
o
Chairman Wolfe asked if we could make them MH-1.
Mr. Woods said that the City has an existing MH-1 and he
doubted that any of the other parks could meet the requirements
for this zoning.
Mr. Wolfe said that possibly when the parks renovated they
might be able to conform with MH-1 requirements. He believes
the land value will increase to the point where many of the
parks will have to upgrade.
Mr. Woods, said when you have the special situation that
presently exists in Edgewater you have the nonconforming use,
The law does not state however that you are restricted from making
certain applications in your zoning regulations to take care of
this matter.
Councilman Dietz said that we have a way to make special exceptions
in 880. Why can't we make a special exemption instead of exception
for the existing mobile home parks built and operating prior to
1974 when 880 was incorporated? That would exempt them from all
rules under 880 but anything added to or built on after 1974 would
come under 880. The rules covering those parks would be regulated
by the Board of Health and State of Florida. We do have a law
in the City would states that all mobile homes installed in a park
have to go through the Building Department. We could make another
ordinance fortifying the Building Inspector to upgrade the trailer
parks which would have nothing to do with 880.
Mr. Wolfe said that in MH-1A, a mobile park district, minimum lot
sizes are none. The only restriction is the minimum distance of 20'
between mobile home stand and abutting mobile park street.
Councilman Dietz said that the existing parks could not meet this
requirement without losing some of their trailer spaces.
Councilman Sikes said that these parks have probably expanded now
as far as they can go. . If they have to go into bigger units
they will lose some spaces. They would have to meet present requirements
and this could be controlled by the Building Official.
Mr. Nichols said that an amendment to 880 declared that lots of record
were acceptable to take care of the problem of lots too small to
build homes on according to 880. Why couldn't we make trailer
spaces of record) as of this date; acceptable.
Mr. Wolfe said that he would like to make them MH-1 or MH-1A and
put specifications and requirements right in the title. It would
be a state of intentment.
The deletion of the amortization schedule was discussed. The Attorney
said that ,in many court cases, this has been found to be an unreasonable
ordinance.
Councilman Dietz said that it has been predicted that by 1985 eighty-
five percent of single family dwellings will be pre-manufactured homes.
We must keep these type of homes in mind if we make up an ordinance
on mobile homes because parks or mobile home districts may become
more popular.
Mr. Wolfe suggested that maybe the best way to solve this would be
to just take the time schedule out and leave the zoning as it is.
The properties would remain non-conforming and as such would not be
able to expand.
Mr. Woods agreed that this could be done. We could leave them as
they are presently zoned, prepare an ordjnance so that they cannot
expand the existing uses.
2
o
o
I
o
u
\
~
I
\
Councilman Dietz asked how this would affect the possible purchase
of additional land by some of the existing parks.
Mr. Mackie said that they should consider the problem now and
not be concerned about what they might do later.
The City Attorney will draw up a draft ordinance for the Zoning
Board to study before presentation to the Council. The zoning
will be left as it is and the amortization schedule will be
removed.
Mr. Wolfe said we should have legal descriptions of the boundaries
of the existing parks.
Mr. Nichols said that a lot of people have talked about how bad
Ordinance 880 is but before 880 just about anything could be
built in the City on any piece of property. At least with the
zoning ordinance we talk about what should be built in a specific
zone and that is the best part of 880.
Mr. Mackie made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Mr.
Nichols seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned.
MINUTES SUBMITTED BY:
Nancy Blazi
u
3
o
It-..
.. . FOM 4
~ . MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT
Q DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED:
, I
7 - 3/ ,19 7&'
PART~ } L
Name: I (>A () s
(LAST)
Address:A
Telephone!-YP ~ - /./....l.J. f/ 1/1'>
(A~ (NUMBER)
L/CI /.I S' / '4
(COUNTY)
PART B
Position held in Agency:
) State of Florida; (X county~r ot r Political Subdivision
:?tJ,rl/'I!rYe? g CJ,~
tJ/V" /1//,/1 Y/
PART C
MEMORANDUM OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A VOTING SITUATION [Required by Florida Statutes S 112.3143 (1975)]
If you have voted in your official capacity upon any measure in which you had a personal, private, or professional interest which inures to
your special private gain or the special private gain of any principal by whom you are retained, please disclose the nature of your interest
below.
1. Description of the matter upon which you voted in your official capacity:
/t
JI,;/>1e i? d- 1:1(5 ·
2. Description of the personal, private, or professional interest you have in the above matter which inures to your special private gain or
the special private gain of any principal by whom you are retained:
,4t .--.!t,,-.j;' ) ~ r/ 'e tf, d ('j, · /s,) /"I I r " v'#/i. GdC.luci.. 'V
lJl/'-/-}, 7v/Y!/'~1/ 5P4! E-sir-J-e r~,) b(9), /J (?eJ~fY/1Cf u/tl4
J: cJI/1- vi 8-4rft41Q,,-y/ 0'/ I. S e / / h /5 I'r1J?p yo I y · 71 <"Y "
I S ,4 C,y f//V' ~ ~-'c V I /t/ Ii ~ CON "1("11 c-f- ,/+1 Ij ~
f /
!Y"j{J"J-y /I1us'l J;-e k&'-ve./ 4.J.k 4~c"f',
P"'on 0' p,in,ip.' to whom th, ,p,d., g.in d,,,,ib,d .bo" will in~_~ /' (/1 U
., y' Yo",,," b, I ) P,indp.' by whom you '" ""in'd'~ Ce:t,~l.l:'" f
PART D
3.
FI LING 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. Florida law permits but does not require you to abstain from voting when a conflict
of interest arises; if you vote, however, the conflict must be disclosed pursuant to the requirements described above.
7-.3/- 70
DATE SIGNED
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317 (1975), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES
GROUNDS FOR AND MAY 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 $5,000.
CE FORM 4- EFF. 1/1/77