Loading...
09-07-2000CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZENS LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CON REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Card called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Pat Card, Ray Jarrett, Dan Holland, Elizabeth Donahue, J. Michael McKay, Richard Jones, Burt Madewell, Dan Loeffler, Robert Blum, Ferd Heeb, Paul Jenkins, Mike Aloise, Dave Ross, Andy Anderson. Mr. Sylvester and Mr. Bailot were excused. Also present was Lynne Plaskett and Deputy City Clerk Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of August 24 2000 Regular Meeting of August 10 2000 Mr. Heeb moved to accept both sets, second by Mr. Jones. Ms. Donahue had a correction on Page 9 of the August 24 minutes. She stated she was in City Hall to check the codes before she moved here, not after. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Card stated during public comment they have agreed they will not ask questions unless they are invited to from anyone who speaks in the public. They would also make no rebuttal of any information they provide. A gentleman in the audience stated they would like to hear what is going on with certain issues further before they speak. There was no objection from the Committee. Mr. Holland made a motion that public opinion be heard at some point during or concluding the meeting tonight, second by Mr. Loeffler. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. STAFF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Ms. Plaskett stated she didn't have any new information for the Committee and informed them she is just here for support. Chairman Card stated last week City Manager Hooper had a note that detailed a number of registrations and he never got the opportunity to read that. He asked if they have that any place. Ms. Plaskett stated when she read the minutes she thought he spoke about how hard it was to get the information. Chairman Card stated he had a letter with him that he showed him. In the heat of things, he forgot to say anything about it. Ms. Plaskett stated she is not aware of it. Chairman Card stated Mr. Jones has gone through some pretty significant work this week in an attempt to get a handle on how many of what we have around. Mr. Jones explained his chart covers between the Railroad and Willow Oak Drive. He went from 12 Street to 36 Street and back and forth. He counted vehicles and drove and looked. What he saw in Florida Shores is nothing really of big major concern. There are maybe 12 -15 that will generate concern that may or may not cause the Code Enforcement Board to have to go out and review it themselves. He included jet skis. There were only 9 total in the area he covered. A majority of the people have boats in the 12 -14 foot class. There were a few very large boats, most of them were parked on the side of their homes. A couple had where they couldn't get them back along side their homes because of the vegetation growing around it. Some people poured concrete pads for these boats. He would consider them as not a violation of anything they are trying to do. There will be neighbors that will complain. He feels the number of problems that will come up as a result of what they are doing here will be small. Most people have made an effort to keep their boats in line with what the original ordinances are that we have now. Chairman Card thanked Mr. Jones for the work he did. He did this in April and his estimated numbers were higher than this. Many people are in North Carolina with R.V.'s, campers & trailers. Mr. Jones explained the distinction between the R.V. and camper column. Mr. Holland asked Mr. Jones if he went down Victory heading south from the boulevard. He asked if it included the brown one. The R.V. numbers are low because people have them with them now. He feels Mr. Jones did a great job. Chairman Card wanted to make sure everyone was aware there will be a large number of things coming back in here in October, not just R.V.'s. You have R.V.'s towing trailers with motorcycles or boats. These are big numbers for what appears to be about a fifteen block by thirty block area. This is a significant part of the City. Page -2- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Aloise asked if these numbers were done during the week or weekend. Mr. Jones informed him during the week in the afternoon. Mr. Aloise feels there could be more utility trailers due to people being at work with them. Ms. Donahue asked to put an addition on Umbrella. There is a semi - tractor that pulls big eighteen wheelers. It has been parked there for two weeks. Mr. Aloise stated Florida Shores has several of them. Needle Palm also has one. Mr. Jones stated he saw one truck and trailer which was like a flatbed totally enclosed with a bed and trailer. Mr. Jarrett stated the only time you are allowed to drive a commercial vehicle in a residential area is when you make a delivery. You can call Code Enforcement and they will come out and leave the people a note. He has done it numerous times. Ms. Donahue stated aren't the Police supposed to be watching this. Mr. Jenkins stated the new code that was just passed has a section that allows either 24 or 48 hours for just the tractor to be at the house, unless someone complains. The cops don't make an issue of dealing with the Code Enforcement side of it. Mr. Ross informed Mr. Holland he is not familiar with the unit he finds objectionable on Victory. He asked if it is a boat or R.V. Mr. Holland stated it is a boat that sat in the public right -of- way for several months on a rusty trailer at a downward angle to where it could not drain. It accumulated so much water the rusty trailer could not hold water and the trailer collapsed. The boat is sitting bow down in the ditch in the right -of -way with 24 inch weeds, if not exceeding that, around it. This is right off a main road and it has not been enforced for months. That is his objection. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Holland is the code that they agreed to and the existing code regarding prohibition of parking on public right -of -way, that already exists. Would you find that this boat if it were parked under the conditions they agreed to last week, then you would have no objection to it. Mr. Holland stated it is not parallel to driveway, so he would say no, he would not agree with what they passed. Mr. Ross stated if it were parked and maintained in accordance with the code regarding prohibition on public right of way. Mr. Holland stated the issue would be health. He feels it is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and disease. Mr. Ross stated last week they agreed on a final proposed version of the code regarding boats and boat trailers. If that boat today conformed to that code would you find it objectionable. Mr. Holland stated it is a safety hazard. That is his objection. Mr. Holland stated if it was pushed up next to the house parallel to the driveway. Mr. Ross stated they said it could be parked out front. Mr. Holland stated if they can't get to back yard. Mr. Ross stated that is not what they said. They said they can park it anywhere on their property that they want to. Page -3- 4W Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Holland stated no he would not have objection to it. Presently it is a safety hazard. He feels Council is trying to push curb appeal down their throats. It is not just about the boats. That is a health hazard that goes beyond what they are doing here. Code Enforcement is not doing their job on other issues let alone boats, R.V.'s or trailers. The issue is the safety of the citizens. That particular situation is not safe for the citizens of Edgewater. It goes beyond what they are here for. Mr. Heeb stated to answer Mr. Ross's issue. The one thing they haven't discussed would probably make that no matter where it is parked on the property objectionable which is, it must be maintained and in operable condition. If the trailer collapsed and you can't move the trailer or the boat, then it would be in violation of the code. That is one thing they have to wrap up tonight. Mr. Jones stated he also saw one school bus. He didn't mark down the truck he also saw. Chairman Card asked if there was any other discussion. There was none. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of proposals on boats and boat trailer storage in residential areas Chairman Card asked if everyone received their copy of the synopsis that Deputy City Clerk Bloomer prepared at the direction of City Manager Hooper at the end of the last meeting. That is what they had agreed to at this point with the open remarks. It included the language from the proposed code as well as the approved changes from Mr. Heeb's proposal. There are two items they have to discuss, Items B & D. Chairman Card entertained a motion or comments from the floor. Mr. Ross regarding D, to him this appears to be a non issue. He has lived in the Shores for 11 years and does not recall having seen any repair on boats that was unsightly or in anyway a health or safety problem. They need to avoid the arbitrary regulation of citizens activities and use of their property. In order for codes to be enforceable they must be specific. This particular issue if written in a regulation will be subject to a great degree of interpretation and subjectivity. He sees no problem with maintenance and repairs of boats. Page -4- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Heeb made a motion to adopt Paragraph D, second by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Aloise asked for the definition of the word routine. What is routine to someone may not be to someone else. Mr. Heeb stated they dropped this because they had a problem coming up with a solution to that problem. What is routine? To him routine is anything other than taking the engine apart in pieces and leaving it laying around on the ground and leaving it there until you get the repair parts to put it back together. He spoke about major fiberglass repairs to boats. Mr. Madewell asked if Item D would fall right into Item B in the last sentence. Residential repairs shall not exceed three months. To him, you could cover both of these. Mr. Heeb informed him he was right. Ms. Donahue agrees with Item B but it also has to eliminate business. A few months back that was the case. Someone came before the Code Board and a gentleman was doing business out of his property repairing boats. She didn't know how it was resolved. Chairman Card asked Ms. Plaskett if that is covered under the current revised code. Ms. Plaskett stated they can not operate a business out of a home without an occupational license and what Ms. Donahue is talking about is not a permitted use. Mr. Jenkins agrees with Mr. Ross on some instances. When they get into the restoration side of cars, this is going to have to be similar because of equity reasons. He has a problem with defining front yards and side yards and automatically restricting what a man does on his side yard, when his side yard may be bigger than his back yard and further away from his neighbor. You can have a large side yard and one small on the other side or equal. He has a problem on that issue. Mr. Jones would like to take out the word routine. Having come out of the repair business industry for 25 years the word routine does generate problems. He suggested taking the word repairs out completely or put in minor repairs and then put in the definition of minor. He thinks they have to eliminate side yard. Mr. Ross informed Ms. Donahue Item H states the owner of the watercraft or trailer must reside on the premises. That prohibits a commercial operation. Ms. Donahue stated the gentleman lives there. Mr. Ross stated the Code says he must own a boat. He requested a straw vote for the number of people who feel they have a problem and need to address this. Chairman Card stated at the present time there is a motion on the table. He entertained a call for the question. Mr. Jenkins thinks this is covered under the nuisance part of the existing code. Ms. Plaskett read the definition of nuisance to be an offensive annoying unpleasant or obnoxious object, odor, noise or practice. A cause or source of annoyance especially a continuing or repeated invasion or disturbance of another's right including the actual or potential emanation of any physical characteristics of activity or use across a property line which emanation can be perceived by or affects a human being. Page -5- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Jenkins stated his covers everything. There is an ordinance stating nuisance is prohibited. Ms. Plaskett stated this is basically the same thing they have already said about odors and things of that nature. Mr. Aloise suggested changing the wording to read only emergency repairs and normal maintenance may be performed on watercraft or watercraft trailers and stored in the front yard. He would eliminate the decision as to what is and what is not routine. Anyone that owns a personal watercraft knows what normal maintenance is. He made a motion to amend the existing motion to that language. The amendment died due to the lack of a second. Mr. Holland made an amendment to the motion. The motion would read: only routine repairs and maintenance may be performed on watercraft or watercraft trailers stored in front or side yards that do not go against the nuisance ordinance in effect. Let's use the nuisance ordinance to their benefit. Mr. Jenkins suggested referring to it. Mr. Holland stated if people are working on their watercraft and it doesn't have an obnoxious odor or noise, etc., you could claim it as routine or normal, second by Mr. McKay. Mr. Heeb stated one of the reasons he put this in is most people that check the code relative to boat storage or R.V. storage are going to go to this section. Even though they have a section that deals with nuisance, noise, and smells, most people will come to this section and look to this as their guide on how to abide by the city laws. If we don't put this in, he has no problem with amending his recommendation to reference some statement such as that a watercraft and trailer stored on residential use property shall also conform to Article III, Section 10 -40 - Health & Sanitation of the Code of Ordinances. If that is what the Committee is looking for they have it. Mr. Jarrett feels they need to keep in mind the Code Enforcement people. They have to have a definitive answer and be able to define what they are putting in there. They have to come up with the correct terminology. Mr. Jenkins stated that is why there is a problem with the word routine repairs. If it were to say that anyone repairing a boat or motor home needs to abide by the nuisance ordinance and site it right there so they know to go to that section. Mr. Heeb suggested Mr. Holland change his amendment. Mr. Holland amended his amended motion to read: only repairs & maintenance may be performed on watercraft or watercraft trailers stored in front or side yards in accordance with the City nuisance ordinance already in place. Mr. Heeb suggested they take out any reference to maintenance and use this section to say that watercraft or watercraft trailers stored on residential use property shall conform to the nuisance requirements set forth in Section whatever. Mr. Heeb offered to amend his proposal. Chairman Card stated so amended, and at this point, since it was his own motion he can do this. Mr. Jenkins stated he would second the change to the motion. Chairman Card stated there is no second required. Page -6- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Anderson thinks it should be amended to read: maintenance may be performed in the side or rear of the property. Mr. Holland stated they are dropping the word maintenance from the author's amendment. Mr. Heeb stated when he wrote this his thought was he was trying to eliminate the nuisance factor, someone working on their boat in the front or side relative to their neighbor. He tried to approach this from the point of view of the people who don't own boats or trailers. Let them do moderate type work on their boat or trailer. Since we have ordinances that deal with the nuisance factor, then he would take all the repairs and maintenance and just say if you have a boat or a trailer on your property you must conform with the nuisance factors set forth in Section ? of the Land Development Code. Mr. Jones asked Ms. Plaskett to reread the nuisance section. Ms. Plaskett again read the definition of nuisance. Mr. Ross asked Ms. Plaskett if there is anywhere in the code, any section which prohibits nuisance. Ms. Plaskett stated its in the other code of ordinances. She will find the appropriate article or section number and tell Deputy City Clerk Bloomer to put it in there. Chairman Card suggested they review where they are. Mr. Holland has withdrawn the amendment. Mr. Heeb has revised his proposal. Is there further discussion in regard to Heeb's proposal? Mr. Anderson stated the reason he mentioned that was because he feels that if you are doing this maintenance out in your driveway, there is going to be a lot of disagreement as to what maintenance is. He thinks they will wind up with carburetors and pistons out in front of the house. Mr. Jenkins stated that is already covered under the existing code. Mr. Jarrett asked if they are going to put a time frame on this. Mr. Heeb stated that would be Section B. Chairman Card stated they are coming to that next. The motion CARRIED 12 -4. Mr. Ross, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Jarrett and Mr. Jones voted NO. Chairman Card entertained anything with regard to Item B. Mr. Jones had a discussion point. He feels residential repairs shall not exceed three months invites problems. He thinks it should be if you can't fix it in one day, you clean up and reopen up again. Ms. Donahue stated you need more than one day. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a code now that will now allow you to take parts off and let them lay around. Mr. Jones stated he keeps hearing people say there are codes but he doesn't know where they are. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a litter code that deals with it and also getting into the restoration code. There is an existing restoration code on cars that deals with it. Some of that hasn't been enforced. He has a problem with the operational aspect. If a guy takes an engine out of his boat and takes it in the garage to work on it, nothing has changed from the appearance or safety. Why should it be illegal just because the engine's not in it. He feels they should cover it from the angle of the other factors. It shouldn't be automatically illegal because it is not operational at that time. Page -7- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Ross stated maybe they could cover that by rewording this. Instead of talking about residential repairs, they could say watercraft or watercraft trailers shall be maintained in operable condition except that in the event of a breakdown or repair, the unit may be considered to be in an inoperable condition for any one given time not to exceed three months. If you have a boat and you can't work on it in excess of 90 days, why have you got it. He feels this needs to be addressed. Mr. Loeffler feels if they are going to put in a time limit they should put in an extension. Mr. Aloise has a problem with operable. He just bought a used boat with no motor and he doesn't know when he can afford to buy the motor. It might be three months or six months before he buys motor. Technically it is not inoperable but it floats. Mr. McKay stated they are going to cover this at great length when they get into automobile restoration and junked and abandoned vehicles. The language they use in that regard will probably pertain to this particular situation. They are talking about restoration, restoring engines, and things being worked on for a period of time. If it becomes an issue in the nuisance category, it would seem to him a person would need to apply for a restoration permit available here in Edgewater. Chairman Card stated there is no motion currently on table. Mr. Heeb so moved to bring the wording of Section B to the table, second by Mr. Aloise. Mr. Jenkins referred to Mr. Ross' comment regarding if you are not going to be able to repair it in 90 days, what do you need it for. If someone blows a motor and has just strapped himself to make payments, it is $4,000 or $5,000 for a motor and may take a year to put it into their budget. He isn't bothering anybody by it and has as much right to keep it whether he uses the boat every day or not. Mr. Holland stated the word operable is not a definition for beautiful. You can have a brand new boat or R.V. and you have a malfunction with mechanicals. That vehicle will be down for a month, three months or six months. Ninety -nine point nine percent of the people don't realize it is inoperable. Operable doesn't mean it is a derelict. He feels they need to eliminate operable right from the start because later on down the road is where they will really start nitpicking the words. Mr. Ross agreed with what everyone said. It seems to him the solution is not to even address Item B because Item D has covered it. If it is a nuisance, it is not allowed. Chairman Card entertained a call for the question. Mr. Jenkins called for the question. The motion DIED 5 -11. Mr. Loeffler, Mr. Ross, Chairman Card, Mr. Jones, Mr. Jarrett, Mr. Madewell, Mr. Blum, Mr. McKay, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Holland voted NO. Chairman Card asked if there was further discussion on watercraft and watercraft trailers, recreational vehicles, and campers. Mr. _. Ross stated he has no motion and no wording to put on the floor. Page -8- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Ross still proposed to the Committee that there needs to be some consideration or at least discussion to be sure they don't want to put some limit on the number of boats. There is nothing there from prohibiting his neighbor from putting twenty boats in his front yard. If they keep them in good condition neither he or the Code Enforcement Officer can describe them as a nuisance. He thinks these things need to be addressed. Mr. Jenkins made a motion to leave the number until the end of discussion and deal with numbers on all issues, second by Mr. Ross. Mr. Madewell stated this isn't final. They can go back and amend anything. Chairman Card stated they are trying to find things they can agree on. They need to get the ball rolling. There was no further discussion. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Chairman Card stated this will be a part of old business following the last meeting of general agreements. There was a ten minute recess at this time. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of the storage of R.V.s, motor homes and campers in residential areas Chairman Card stated a number of proposals were provided prior to the last meeting. He entertained a motion for anything. Mr. Heeb stated he doesn't own an R.V. and never will. He made a motion to use Chairman Card's proposal as a guide to start the discussion of how to deal with R.V.'s, second by Mr. Jenkins. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Chairman Card stated he attempted to modify this. What they have just fought their way through to fit R.V.'s. What in effect he did was added generators in one paragraph. That being no boat motors or R.V. generators stored on residential use property shall be operated before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. The rest of it he added R.V.'s to what they just went through. Mr. Ross stated that being the case why don't they take the boat code they have just proposed and use it as a guide and substitute the word R.V.'s and campers in lieu of boats and trailers. Chairman Card stated that is what he attempted to do. He took the language from the previous approvals and added to it the following: motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers and campers and he added that where it needed to be added. Mr. Jenkins stated after this motion he was going to propose they basically realign what they have already agreed to on boats into Chairman Card's. Chairman Card stated he attempted to take the boat and add to it the R.V.'s and trailers. Items B & D will have to be modified to fit this evening's language. He doesn't think it will be a problem. Mr. Madewell stated they just passed the motion to use this as a guide. He feels they need to get started on this. Mr. Jenkins asked if they voted on the motion. Chairman Card stated yes they did. Page -9- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Madewell stated everyone made a proposal. If anyone else has anything, they can try to fit it in. Mr. Ross asked if they are going to go through a, b, c, d, e, and f or talk about other items not incorporated here yet and save those unincorporated items for the tail end. Mr. Holland made a motion to start at the top, with Chairman Card reading it and they proceed from the opening paragraph, Item A, through Item H, second by Mr. Ross. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Chairman Card read the first paragraph as being: the purpose of this section is to establish criteria for parking and storage of watercraft, motor homes, watercraft trailers, recreational vehicle trailers and campers in residential areas. He proposed this language be adopted, second by Mr. Holland. Mr. Ross feels they need to eliminate watercraft and watercraft trailers. Mr. Heeb stated that is a question that needs to be resolved at this point. He had envisioned when they developed the ordinance that it would have a separate section for boats and boat trailers, R.V.'s, campers, and utility trailers, the five items they previously stated. That was his thought. The Committee feels they should all be lumped in one section. Mr. Ross is saying they will be separated the boats and trailers will be out of there and that they would eliminate boats and trailers out of this. Mr. Ross stated they have just finished deciding on watercraft and watercraft trailers. They may bring up some discrepancies which means they will void or go back into discussion about what they have already agreed on. He asked Ms. Plaskett if the City is willing to accept a totally revised sectionalization of the code that they gave them to work with or do they want them to incorporate the verbiage of a new code within the definitions of the sections they had in the existing code. Ms. Plaskett stated it is her understanding and it would be much simpler if the section numbers stay the same with the rules and regulations for that particular section. She informed the Committee they can eliminate sections. The only technical problem they would have is they would have to go back and renumber the pages. If the Committee wants to incorporate all of these into one section they would continue that section on and eliminate those sections that were pulled out and they would have to renumber sections throughout the rest of the code as well. Chairman Card stated this was the original combination, the watercraft and trailers. The other three sections they have to discuss are separate already in the code. He read his proposal: the purpose of this section is to protect property values by establishing criteria for the parking and storage of watercraft, R.V.'s, campers and all trailers in residential areas. That is the way they proposed it in the new code. He tried to simplify this as much as possible for all of them. If it is good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander. Page -10- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Chairman Card feels motor homes and R.V.'s and trailers and watercraft on trailers are not that different. Both have toilets, kitchens, and wheels. If they are going to do it, let's do it and get it done. If they agree to this on boats, he won't fight them on R.V.'s. If they didn't agree to it on boats and now want to do something different, they are going to go through this again and it would be inequitable. Mr. Holland stated in the beginning of Section 21- 34.06, they can leave out the trailers. That is an issue they are going to deal with later. If they look at what is here it is nothing more than what they have already passed for boats. The main issues they have with boats are they unsightly, in the public right -of -way or are they blocking views. Anything that will apply to what they have just hashed out over boats is going to apply to R.V.'s. He has no problem with putting motor homes and campers with boats. He feels if everyone would read the proposal and look at what they have already passed, they should be able to get through this quick. Mr. Ross made a motion to incorporate in the codes regarding boats and boat trailers that they have just agreed upon, to incorporate the words, R.V.'s, campers and motor homes and be done with this, second by Mr. Loeffler. Mr. Jenkins stated that is great except for they have the extra issues like generators and those type things. He feels they should run through the items one by one and say is it different or not. Mr. Loeffler suggested putting generators under Item D. The motion CARRIED 15 -1. Mr. Jenkins voted NO. Chairman Card stated what he has done is taken the language they provided last time and added two things to it, campers and recreational vehicle trailers and motor homes. He added that every place he knew to add it to what they had passed before this week. The amended language for Item D and the eliminated language for Item B will be incorporated since they didn't have that language before hand. He will just add boats and trailers to it. Chairman Card stated the language for the first paragraph of Mr. Heeb's proposal and our accepted language is as follows: The purpose of this section is to establish criteria for the parking and storage of watercraft and watercraft trailers in residential areas. The language he proposed is as follows: The purpose of this section is to establish criteria for the parking and storage of watercraft motor homes watercraft trailers, recreational vehicle trailers and campers in residential areas. Mr. Ross stated his motion that carried the vote was that they have now passed a new code that covers watercraft, watercraft trailers, motor homes, boats and R.V.'s. The only thing it doesn't cover that needs to be discussed are generators. This code they passed before the break now incorporates the words campers, R.V.'s and motor homes. They are through with the discussion about R.V.'s and campers. Page -11- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Ross stated his motion was to go back and incorporate and take the code they just passed and incorporate the words motor homes and pass it as a code. Mr. Loeffler feels they need to discuss generators and how many are allowed on the property. Mr. Madewell stated Item B they are going to look at it at the end. Mr. Ross made a motion that they now entertain other items that they may want to incorporate within the watercraft and R.V. code, second by Mr. Loeffler. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Mr. Holland feels the talk of generators is useless. They have already gone there with the noise ordinance. If it sticks, don't mess with it. Mr. McKay stated in discussing generators there are going to be times, such as emergency situations that will override in a case of a power outage. People using motor homes to provide power after hours. Ms. Plaskett stated they have always in a disaster or preparedness allowed people to do that. Mr. Jarrett asked at what point will they talk about quantities of different combined vehicles in a front yard. Chairman Card said after they have completed the discussion of what they said earlier. After they have gone through all of this one time, they will go back and talk about it. Ms. Donahue asked if they are also going to take the sizes into consideration. Chairman Card stated they can take sizes into consideration whenever. Ms. Donahue feels it would be wise to bring in the size. Chairman Card entertained a motion. Mr. Heeb stated when they were discussing sizes of boats it was the consensus that there was very limited odds that anyone would have a boat over 31 feet on a trailer. That is a distinguishing mark between boats and boat trailers because there are Bluebirds that are 50 or 60 feet long. That is a distinguishing component and they should discuss it. Ms. Donahue feels they should not be parked to the property line. The property line can bring you to the street again. Mr. Loeffler stated you always have at least 10 feet. Chairman Card stated there are some places on Riverside Drive that have 0. His question to City Manager Hooper was were there a lot of these. City Manager Hooper informed them there is a very small number so there are very few that would be right at the street. Mr. Jones spoke about the property line. It seems like everyone wants to make reference to the road. When you buy property you are responsible to know where your lines are. There is no excuse. They would have to make an exception for areas such as Riverside Drive. Property lines are the responsibility of the owner. Mr. Ross stated if there is a visibility problem caused by an object parked on private property is that still not subject to police enforcement or code enforcement? Mr. Jenkins stated it is a safety issue. Mr. Ross stated if he lived on Riverside and his neighbor had an R.V. to the street, he would call the police. Mr. Jones stated don't forget Florida Shores is not representative of everyone in this City. Page -12- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Madewell stated they didn't set limits because of different size lots and it was covered up to the property line or the city's right -of -way. Mr. Loeffler stated he thought they agreed not to limit the size. Chairman Card stated Ms. Donahue has raised the issue. Mr. Jenkins thinks Ms. Donahue has the perception that a bigger unit will go towards the road instead of towards the other side of the yard. Mr. Aloise asked if this is the time for discussion as to visiting people. Mr. Aloise made a motion to allow visitors to reside in their motor homes on our property for a maximum of a two week period, second by Mr. Ross. Mr. Heeb commented on the permitting process and being allowed for 72 hours but not two weeks. Ms. Plaskett stated it is 72 hours with a permit. Most people don't realize that it exists and you can only do it so many times a year. Ms. Plaskett feels two weeks is reasonable because people are usually coming from out of state. Mr. Aloise amended his motion to limit it to a two week period verses 72 hours. Ms. Plaskett asked if they want to continue with the permit portion of that. Mr. Aloise stated that is fine with him. It is a good way of controlling it. He amended his motion to include with a permit. Mr. Jenkins suggested some language for the same thing. In his proposal he had: visitors /temporary guests of the resident may temporarily park their vehicle, trailer, camper, motor home only under the above conditions. The visitors /temporary guest may use the vehicle as temporary overnight sleeping facilities only for a period of two weeks maximum. They can only sleep in it at night. The City has an objection to using the stove and facilities. They would be using it for bunk beds. Mr. Aloise stated sleeping quarters. You aren't going to control somebody from using their facilities. Mr. Jenkins stated if they have a holding tank. Mr. Aloise stated they all have a holding tank. Mr. Ross feels they need to bring this to a conclusion. There are two or three things to concern themselves with. In the code just passed there is a statement that the vehicle, boat or motor home must belong to the property owner. He read his proposal to read: R.V.'s parked on residential properties shall be owned by occupant of said property and no more than one R.V. may be parked on property except that one additional R.V. owned or operated by the visitor to the property may be parked on said property for two weeks. Said visitor may live in R.V. for duration of visit. Regarding generators they also say they can't as an owner park it on their property when in fact they should say they can't live in it. They haven't said that. They need to add the statement you can park it but you can't live it except during utility outages as a result of storm damage. The same would apply to generator use. He feels they can write these things in. He doesn't agree that they need to have a permit for a visitor to come and live on our property as long as he is abiding to the other portion of this code. His feeling is they have a concurrence of opinion. They need to have two or three people write a format and present it for a final vote at the next meeting. Page -13- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Anderson spoke about having four or five people in a trailer for two weeks. He asked if this would be a health hazard. Do they have tanks that will hold that much? He was informed they do. Chairman Card stated they are on wheels and you take them out and dump them. Mr. Ross feels the Code needs to include a prohibition against dumping of fluids into the sewer. Mr. Holland stated it is already in there. Mr. Anderson was concerned if this would be a health hazard. Mr. Jenkins said it is an incentive to use the house instead of the motor home because it costs to dump it. Ms. Donahue feels the purpose of the permits is to make sure people stay two weeks and not months. This way the town has some control. Mr. Holland feels most people will be law abiding citizens. A lot of this is redundant. Mr. Heeb stated he didn't know what it meant until somebody told him. There was a brief discussion regarding gray water. Mr. Jarrett stated Council gave them a proposal of 24 foot in length. He feels they are going to run into a problem when they try to get anything passed regardless of the property line. He questioned if they will limit motor homes visiting to 24 feet. Is it going to be the property line? Mr. Ross stated he doesn't think length is a problem. Mr. Holland stated just because it's in there doesn't mean Council fully agrees with City Manager Hooper. City Manager Hooper admittedly said that he is the sole individual that implemented these figures in there. Mr. Aloise amended his motion to include a two week period with a permit. Mr. Jenkins again spoke about using it for sleeping at night only. Mr. Aloise feels they need to keep it that they are allowed to reside in the motor home for a two week period with a permit. Chairman Card entertained a call for the question. Mr. Heeb called for the question. The motion CARRIED 15 -1. Mr. Jarrett voted NO. Mr. Ross made a motion to incorporate another section into this code that would include boats, watercrafts, campers, R.V.'s, etc. and that it would basically read: R.V.'s parked on residential use property must be owned by the occupant of the property. That is already in the code. He would add to that: and that this vehicle shall not be lived in except during utility outages resulting from storm damage. Mr. Aloise feels if that is acceptable by the City in a disaster control type situation why bother with that. Mr. Ross stated what if the City people change next year. He doesn't know why they are afraid to write in the code the intention of the City. He feels they should make it specific. Mr. McKay agreed with Mr. Ross but the verbiage storm might be problematic in a situation where a power pole is knocked down. He feels they need to change that verbiage. Ms. Plaskett stated it is natural disaster. Mr. Jenkins suggested saying emergency situations or natural disasters. Page -14- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 Mr. Ross accepted the amendment. Mr. McKay stated emergency in lieu of storm. The motion CARRIED 16 -0. Mr. Loeffler stated the owner has to own a vehicle but they are going to have a section for visitors with an exception they can park there for a limited period of time. Mr. Jones spoke regarding noise. In the City Ordinance you can make noise up until 10 p.m. at night. If his neighbor does that he will be very upset. He suggested changing the time from before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m. Ms. Plaskett stated the Committee decided to make it consistent with the rest of the Code. Mr. Jones asked if there is a reason they have to make it consistent. Mr. Holland asked if there is a second. Mr. Jenkins stated the reason is equity. If they have different rules under different sections of code that can come up under equity and be challenged. What Mr. Jones is describing would also come under the nuisance section. Mr. Jones doesn't want anything started after 8 p.m. Mr. Jones feels they should leave it up to the Council to recognize this is something that is inconsistent and will need to be changed and make it their responsibility to change. Mr. Holland stated this group has already voted and they agreed to go with the City ordinance. Chairman Card stated they are in a period where if he wants to make a motion he can do so. Mr. Jones stated he would wait until the next meeting. Mr. McKay told Mr. Jones to make his motion and do it now. Mr. Jones stated he knows where this is going to go because of the time element. Mr. McKay stated you don't know where it is going to go, let's try it. Mr. Jones made a motion to amend any entries in our ordinance that establishes a time limit of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Mr. Ross stated in the definition section which they aren't charged with the authority to make changes to, he thinks they need to identify and define R.V.'s. He thinks it needs to say any wheeled vehicle, trailer, or truck attachment boat topper designed and equipped for the primary purpose of residing in for short recreational periods hereinafter referred to as R.V.'s. There is a big wide range of R.V.'s and campers out there. Ms. Plaskett read the definition of R.V. in the Code already. It means a vehicle designed as temporary living quarters for recreational camping or travel use which either has its own motor power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle. The term recreational vehicle excludes park trailers automotive vans and mobile homes. That includes travel trailers camping trailers truck campers and motor homes as defined by Chapter 320.01 F.S. Mr. Madewell asked if they can establish what they are going to cover in the next meeting. Chairman Card informed him that is the next thing on the agenda. There was no further discussion. Page -15- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000 DISCUSSION ITEMS Set next agenda (September 21) and any administrative items that remain Chairman Card stated the next item up for discussion is the restoration of vehicles. He suggested several of them attempt to develop model language or things they can agree to. He asked if anybody is willing. Mr. McKay stated he can keep the Committee busy. If the Committee is open to him giving his oversight of this he has a little bit of background information. He has taken the time to write some proposals. He asked if the Committee feels that a drive -by count such as what was done with boats and R.V.'s should be done for how many automobile enthusiasts there are in the City. Chairman Card asked for a straw vote. It was determined it was not necessary. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -16- Land Dev. Code Review Cmt. September 7, 2000