Loading...
07-05-1978 - Special .. ~ (.) o CITY OF EDGEWATER CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 5, 1978 Mayor Christy called the special meeting of the City Council to order at 1:00 P.M. in the Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and act upon the recommendation of the City Attorney concerning the two-story house being built on the East side of Riverside, North of the handball court. ROLL CALL Mayor Robert H. Christy Councilman Louis J. Rotundo Councilman Carl Shell Councilman Walter B. Sikes Councilman Calvin R. Dietz City Attorney Judson Woods City Clerk Sue Blackwell Police Chief Earl Baugh Present Present Excused Present Present Present Excused Present City Attorney Judson Woods asked Mr. Harris how long he had been a building contractor. Mr. Harris said he had been a builder for about 25 years. Mr. Woods asked Mr. Harris if he had ever constructed a two-story home on Riverside Drive. Mr. Harris said that he had built a two-story home on Riverside Drive in 1968. It wa s est a b lis he d t hat the 0 w n e r 6 'fi" the - b u i 1 din g now:~ u n de r, s ton s t r u c t ion on Riverside Drive was 'Mr. Don Williams. The permit however, shows that Mr. Harris is the owner and builder. Mr. Harris said that this was obviously a mistake on the part of his secretary. Mr. Harris also said that Mr. Williams had checked three times with the Building Official on the question of a two- story house on Riverside Drive. Mr. Woods said that he had been somewhat concerned about the principal of estoppel working against the City after having issued a permit. However, the rule of law seems to go back to the Florida Supreme Court case Godson v. Town of Surfside, decided June 26, 1942. "A building permit issued in violation of law or under a mistake of fact may be rescinded although construction may have commenced." The next case cited by the Attorney was Miami Shores Village v. Wm. N. Brockway Post No. 124 of American Legion., decided by the Florida Supreme Court on December 14, 1945. II Generally, a building permit issued under mistake of fact or in violation of law confers no right on permittee, since every person is presumed to know nature and extent of powers of municipal officers." The Attorney also cited New Smyrna Beach's change of a zoning law in the case of Andover Corp. Edgewater is not considering any zoning change in regard to this problem of two-story houses on Riverside Drive (east side). The City is concerned with a mistake made by its Building Official. The Attorney continued by citing the case of City of Miami Beach v. Samuel Meiselman a decision in this case stated that liThe city is not estopped under the circumstances herein to revoke a permit which had been obtained in violation of its ordinance." 1 (.) o Mr. Woods mentioned another case, Champlain Building Corp. v Town of Surfside, decided in August, 1960. "Because the proposed building was in violation of the town's zoning and setback regula- tions and would therefore have involved violations of the law, the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be employed." It was the opinion of the City Attorney that the Council would be condoning a violation of the city's laws if they allowed the construction to continue on this two-story building. Mr. Williams spoke to the Council about the expense he has already incurred and the increased costs in changing the building and construction plans. He said that the total expenses are already close to $10,000. Members of the Council questioned both Mr. Harris and Mr. Williams. Councilman Sikes asked the Attorney is the fact that Mr. Harris is listed as owner and builder on the permit would affect who the city is dealing with in this case. Mr. Woods said that it would seem to go against Mr. Harris and Mr. William~ since Mr. Harris is representing that he is actually the owner of the property (on the permit) when in effect he is not. Councilman Sikes asked how Mr. Harris could have been listed as the owner on someone else's property. Mr. Murphy, Building Inspector, said that when a contractor is building a house for someone else it is not a common practice to be listed as both owner and builder on a permit. He was under the impression that Mr. Harris was building the house for himself. When a person, who is not a contractor, wants a permit they must show the Building Department their deed. He does not require a deed from a contractor. Mr. Woods said that he assumes Mr. Harris would have to come against the city since he is represented to be both owner and builder. Mr. Harris said that at no time was he the owner of this property. Mr. Woods reminded Mr. Harris that he had signed the permit. Councilman Sikes made a motion that based on the recommendation of the City Attorney the City recognizes the authority of the Building Official in revoking a permit issued to Mr. Harris for the building on the east side of Riverside Drive. Permit No. 0874. Councilman Dietz seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion CARRIED 4-0. The City Attorney informed Mr. Harris that if he felt he had been aggrieved by the action of the City Council, his next step would be to contact his attorney and file a petition in the circuit court alleging your feelings on this matter. Councilman Sikes asked what the procedure would be for submitting new house plans. The City Attorney said that a new request for a building permit would have to be submitted to the'Building Inspector. The city will refund the money on the permit that has been revoked. Mr. Williams asked what the city's position was on the expenses that he has incurred. The City Attorney said he believed this would be a negotiable item. He does not believe that the court would assess costs against the city because the city is acting in a governmental capacity in denying or revoking the permit. It is his legal opinion that the only thing the court would require, if the case went against the city, would be to grant the permit. 2 .. .. (.J o Councilman Dietz said that there was no way the Council could spend the taxpayers money in reimbursing Mr. Williams. There would have to be a suit brought against the city and a decision made by the courts. Mayor Christy told Mr. Williams that regardless how each individual Councilman might feel about this problem, they cannot let their feelings .interject into this matter. The Council must follow the advice of their attorney that we are not obligated to reimburse Mr. Williams for that money. Councilman Dietz said that the Council certainly offers Mr. Williams their apologies but it was an honest mistake. Mr. Williams said that obviously he had no recourse but to seek reimbursement through the courts. Councilman Sikes made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Councilman Rotundo seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned. Nancy Blazi ~, MINUTES TAKEN BY: ~~ h eJ I Councilm, r{j65 p,'+A-l ) E- XC-Lists 0 ATTEST: cif:cferk ~~ -du /D--- day of f;: If(U if Approved this July, 1978. Mayor 3