CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog
Council Member Leo Nicholas
Council Member Buzz Petsos
Mayor Rocky
Randels
Council Member Shannon
Roberts
Others Present:
City Manager
City Clerk Susan Stills
Building Official Todd Morley
Public Works Director Ed Gardulski
Stormwater Administrator Jeff
Ratliff
BOARD MEMBER INTERVIEW:
Interview for an Alternate
Position on the Business and Cultural Development Board – Lieutenant Hugh
Evans.
Mayor Randels called on
Lieutenant Hugh Evans of
Ms. Roberts asked Lt. Evans
what it was about the Business and Cultural Development Board that interested
him and what did he hope to offer the City in this capacity. Lt. Evans replied
that the web site and the application provided a complete Board listing and he
chose the Business and Development Board since the Board appeared to have an
impact in the community. Lt. Evans
stated that he brings to the table the fact that he has lived all around the
world and could bring a diversity of possible concepts to the planning process. Council Members welcomed Lt. Evans
participation on the Board. Mayor
Randels stated that he was impressed with Lt. Evans and related on his
practical experience coming from the military and his use of problem
solving Lt. Evans’s suggested that the
Board present three items for the Council’s review which proved beneficial
during their meeting. Lt. Evans thanked
the Council for the interview and expressed his hope to be a productive member
of the Board. Mayor Randels stated that
a Resolution to appoint Lt. Evans to the Board would appear on the next City Council
Meeting Agenda. Mr. Petsos also thanked
the Board Chairperson, John Anderson, for his presence in the audience in
support of the Board’s newest member.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
2. Outdoor
Entertainment Permit for the
3. Amending
the Outdoor Entertainment Permit for Ladies Night Sponsored by Fairvilla
MegaStore.
Mayor
Randels at this time reminded the Council to speak audibly into the microphones
in order to be heard during the Meeting Minutes transcription.
Mayor Randels referred to the single sheet amendment
with corrections that the Council received.
He pointed out that there were two corrections to Discussion Item No. 10
from the previous meeting related to the Fire Department purchase. Mayor Randels stated for clarification,” that
the Volunteer Fire Department owned both the land and the building.” He also
stated for clarification purposes that there would be two separate appraisals
performed, “one for the entire complex and the land and one for the land
only.” Mayor Randels informed that Chief
Dave Sargeant requested the corrections and was in agreement with the amended
language.
Ms. Roberts stated that she also had a few points in
Item No. 1 and would also like to discuss Item No. 3.
Ms. Roberts pointed out in the February 20th
Meeting Minutes, Item No. 1, on Page 5 under the discussion related to the
City’s Arborist. She asked if the
Council concluded that the City Arborist would comment on the diseased trees.
Council members agreed that that was the intent of the discussion. Ms. Roberts
stated that the language was not clear on the intent to hear from the
Arborist. She clarified that in the
meeting minutes the discussion concluded with the Council’s agreement which
stated that they “could” hear from the Arborist, not that they “should.” Mayor Randels made note of the correction to
strike the word could and insert that word should. Mr. Petsos agreed that the Council would
either hear from the Arborist or be informed of his input since the item was on
this evening’s Agenda.
Ms. Roberts pointed out, in order to make a
clarification for the community, on Page 7, under the City Manager’s report,
bullet number 5, Mr. Boucher’s reply that reads, “that the building was
considered for Law Enforcement.” Ms.
Roberts expressed that the language as read did not clarify the point that
during the discussion it was stated that the building was not considered for
the Fire Department due to its lack of a turning radius for the fire trucks.
Mayor Randels made note of the correction.
Mr. Boucher added that Chief Sargeant did not desire to move the Fire
Department due to the ISO rating.
A motion
was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve Consent Agenda
Items No. 1 and 2, with corrections. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with
voting as follows: Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and
Ms. Roberts, For.
Ms. Roberts re-stated her request to discuss Item No.
3. Mr. Nicholas agreed that he too wanted to discuss Item 3 from the Consent
Agenda.
3.
Amending the Outdoor Entertainment
Permit for Ladies Night Sponsored by Fairvilla MegaStore.
Mayor Randels explained that the City’s permit for
Outdoor Entertainment did not request information on alcoholic beverage
service. He informed that all proceeds
from alcoholic beverages served at the Fairvilla event would go to the Brevard
Humane Society. Mr. Garrett Lind, Events
Coordinator for the Fairvilla Megastore stated that the sale of alcoholic
beverages was not purposefully omitted, but that the City application did not
request it. Mr. Lind affirmed that the
proceeds would go to the Brevard Humane Society.
Ms. Roberts asked the question for the Council to
consider as a discussion item if there might be a desire to obtain
clarification on the application as to what type of beverages would be served
if an application should be presented in the future. Mr. Nicholas asked Mr.
Lind if he were obtaining a one-day liquor permit to which Mr. Lind replied
that when the Zoning Department received the application for the permit, at
that time the question was raised about the initial application. Mr. Nicholas
asked if there would be music. Mr. Lind affirmed that music was anticipated and
also that the fact that there was a show made it an outdoor event. Mr. Lind informed that the show would begin
at approximately 9:00 P.M. and conclude at 10:00 P.M. which was in compliance
with the City’s noise ordinance. Mr.
Nicholas raised the concern of the noise level for the adjacent Treasure Island
Condominium residents. Mr. Lind informed that the speakers would project toward
the Fairvilla building as well as toward its back deck. Mayor Randels thanked Mr. Lind for his attempt
to come into compliance and for donating the proceeds to a local non-profit
organization.
A motion
was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Approve Item
No. 2 as Amended. The vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows:
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and
Ms. Roberts, For.
CONSIDERATIONS:
4. Motion
to Approve: Cooperative Purchase of
Paving Services to APAC-Southeast, Inc. in the Amount of $1,145,195.98.
Mayor Randels noted that the City had set aside
$200,000 each year for this upcoming project.
Jeff Ratliff, Stormwater Administrator, explained that Public Works was
tasked with obtaining three bids for the Presidential streets and the
Mr.
Ratliff, Stormwater Administrator, stated that APAC-Southeast was the lowest
bid at $1.145 million and he was seeking approval from the Council to enter
into a contract with APAC. Mayor Randels
read that the other two bidders were: Community Asphalt at a cost of $1.415
million and VA Paving at a cost of $1.372 million. Mayor Randels informed that the City jointly
used the County’s cooperative purchase for road maintenance for the bid. Mayor Randels clarified that the bid did not
include
Mayor
Randels informed that the project did not include the private streets such as
Mr.
Nicholas pointed out that
Mayor
Randels referred to a letter from Mr. Craig Stewart who owns four lots on
Mayor
Randels pointed out that Presidential Court sloped in the wrong direction and
created a flooding problem for those residents.
Mr. Gardulski affirmed that he was aware of the problem. Mr. Petsos asked if the traffic “loops,”
those that trip the traffic signals, were incorporated since he did not see
them in the project. Mr. Ratliff stated
that the traffic loops were not included in the cost. Mr. Boucher informed that the Brevard County
Traffic Signal Division would address the loops. Mr. Ratliff reminded that the intent was to
go to an electronic eye and to eliminate the loops.
Mr.
Ratliff returned to the discussion on the road crowning and stated that
2) there were 75 proposed adjustments to man hole covers, and 3) the project
would begin within the next three to fourth months.
Mr.
Petsos asked if the contract that APAC has with
Mr.
John Gedney asked if there was a best and final offer requested from all
bidders. He explained the Best and Final
Offer process in that all Bidders, whether high or low, were asked to reply
with their BAFO (Best and Final Offer).
Mayor Randels pointed out that offers would be made on the bids after they
were opened. Mr. Nicholas informed that in government once the bids were open,
the information becomes public record.
Ms.
Roberts asked if it were appropriate to amend the motion to add the suggestion
that the remaining funds would target
A motion
was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve the Cooperative
Purchase of Paving Services to APAC-Southeast, Inc. in the Amount of
$1,145,196.98. The vote on the motion
carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and
Ms. Roberts, For.
5. Motion
to Approve: Proposal from Brown &
Caldwell to Conduct Florida Department of Environmental Protection Compliance
Assistance in the Amount of $37,125.
Ed
Gardulski, Public Works Director, explained how the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection [DEP] required more stringent testing regulations for
certain elements present in effluent that flowed to the
Mr.
Nicholas asked if these elements were tested for in the discharge in prior
years. Mr. Gardulski replied no. Mr. Nicholas also asked if the sludge was
tested for these contaminates. Mr.
Boucher affirmed that the sludge was tested; however, the testing was not
required for the effluent. Mr. Gardulski
replied to Mayor Randels that the testing was done off-site. He replied to Mr. Nicholas that testing would
be performed monthly, or weekly, or until the contaminants were
identified. Mayor Randels affirmed that
the Permit defined the required tasks and in what weeks they were to be
performed and the compliance section was clear in that the City had 24 months
to come into compliance. He clarified that
this report would be inclusive of Steps I through III within the first
reporting period. Mr. Gardulski stated
that the first reporting period would conclude at the end of the Fiscal Year
and he would return with the reporting results and to clarify his direction.
Ms.
Roberts asked if the City competitively bid this proposal or were Brown and
Caldwell the ongoing company. Mayor
Randels explained how not all projects were subject to the Consultants
Competitive Negotiations Act. This bid
process required negotiations to begin with the selected bidder and if no
agreement was reached the negotiations would proceed to the next bidder. Mayor Randels noted that the City’s civil
engineers were incapable of handling this project. Mr. Gardulski stated that he sought an
Environmental engineer for the project.
Mr. Boucher informed that the DEP also required different testing
methods from other municipalities as part of their permitting process. Mayor Randels raised the questions of the
source of the problem, how it could be found, and also if it were possible that
some of the elements were being emitted from the plant. Mr. Boucher replied that contaminates would
be deduced by process of elimination.
Mayor
Randels concluded that the funding for the project would come from the
Contingency Fund. Ms. Roberts mentioned
to anticipate upfront in future years as an opportunity to plan forward. Mayor Randels clarified that the expense was
not planned. Ms. Roberts said that if the
City anticipated some trends in the profession or the standards, the City could
be vigilant of those trends. Mr. Boucher
explained that the mercury standard was new and required rigorous quality
control. The City then had to find a lab
to perform the test using the proper procedures according to the DEP
regulations. Mr. Boucher summarized that
DEP cited the City for the newly required testing standard because it had an
active permit application under review at the time.
A motion
was made by Mr. Gardulski and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to Approve the Proposal
from Brown & Caldwell to Conduct Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Compliance Assistance in the Amount of $37,125 for Task I, II and
III with One Progress Report. The
vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and
Ms. Roberts, For.
ORDINANCES: Second Public Hearing:
6. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No. 03-2007; Amending Chapter 102,
Providing for a Definition of “Diseased Tree,” at Second
Mayor Randels read Ordinance No. 03-2007 by
title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 102, VEGETATION, OF THE
CAPE CANAVEREAL CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO LAND CLEARING; PROVIDING FOR A
DEFINITION OF “DISEASED TREE”; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE;
SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Randels stated
that the language in the ordinance was amended that related to structures. Mayor Randels read a portion of the
definition of diseased tree which “means a tree with a sustained or progressive
impairment caused by tree disease which seriously compromises the viability of
the tree in that it is unlikely the tee will remain living and viable for a
period of more than three (3) years or the tree causes other imminent peril to
viable trees, existing structures or persons in the vicinity of a diseased
tree.”
Ms. Roberts pointed
out that the intent in amending the language was to add both the words existing
and proposed structures. Ms. Roberts
stated that she thought both words were included to anticipate the future
too. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the
word proposed referred to something that did not yet exist and if a tree were
an imminent danger it would be taken care of during the permitting
process. He stated that the word
existing was acceptable; however, proposed would apply to any vacant
property. Mayor Randels explained how
in adding the word proposed it would mean that any proposed structure would
result in the removal of the tree. Ms.
Roberts agreed and thanked the Mayor for the clarification.
Ms. Roberts stated
that she thought the Council was going to ask Tim Davis the City’s Arborist to
attend the meeting and comment on the ordinance. Mr. Boucher related that Mr. Davis, City
Arborist, conveyed to him that three years was a reasonable time. Mr. Petsos pointed out that the Council was
seeking to hear from the Arborist since three years was the time spoken of
during the previous meeting. Mr.
Gardulski stated that the point was having a licensed, professional Arborist to
ascertain the tree’s condition.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
presented the supposition to the City Attorney on who was liable if the
Arborist recommended three years and the tree falls on someone within two
years. Attorney Garganese explained that the City was not placing the Arborists
in any different capacity than another other person who uses their professional
judgment. Attorney Garganese explained
how the definition for a diseased tree was a criterion for the removal of a
tree. Another provision, however, in the
City code that referred to imminent peril to life, health, safety and welfare
also required a tree’s removal even if the tree had a longer survival rate and
he referred to the those trees that were removed in the Winter Park area
subsequent to Hurricane Charley.
There was no public
comment.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Nicholas to Adopt
Ordinance No. 03-2007 at Second
5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For;
Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For.
RESOLUTIONS:
7. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2007-07; Approving the
Preliminary Replat of Casa Esperanza Townhomes.
Mayor Randels stated
that the completed Preliminary Replat for three units was recommended to the
City Council by the Planning and Zoning Board on February 14th.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to
Adopt Resolution No. 2007-07 Approving the Preliminary Replat of Casa Esperanza
Townhomes. The
vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as follows: Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and
Ms. Roberts, For.
DISCUSSION:
8. Chronic Nuisance and Code Enforcement
Citation Codes.
Mayor Randels referenced the City Manager’s package
and noted that the existing City Code included a Code Enforcement Citation
Program in Section 2-280. Mayor Randels
pointed out that a recent Workshop with the Sheriff’s Office revealed that
there were some rental properties that resulted in a high frequency of
calls. One such property had over 160
calls in one year from the Sheriff’s Department. There were two suggested methods to utilize
to abate such a chronic nuisance: 1) to
expand the use of Code Enforcement citations by way of civil citations, for
example, those used for fireworks and unlicensed contractors, and 2) the City
of
For example, a Class I citation of $50, was for yard
waste not properly prepared and placed at the curb; a Class II citation of
$100, would be for stealing recyclable materials from an approved container, a
Class III citation, was given for discharge of any substance or materials which
were harmful to the sanitary sewer system; and Class IV for $300; however, the
Mayor did not have an example for this category. The
Mr. Boucher explained that there were some newspaper
articles on
Mr. Boucher queried the type of civil citation
infractions that the Council would seek staff to develop. He expressed that the Building Department
staff and the Sheriff’s Department would be comfortable issuing civil
citations. As for the automatic nuisance
ordinance, Mr. Boucher recommended the
Mayor Randels related on the success of the Alarm
System violation. He informed that after three calls a business was fined when
the Alarm System requires the Police and Fire service for false alarms. Mr. Boucher stated that the City code needed
strengthening for nuisance abatement.
Mr. Boucher stated that he would like to hear feedback from the
Council. Mr. Petsos added that he would
like to gain input from the Sheriff’s Office since they were the regulating
authority required to write the tickets.
A resident stated that the City would need to develop an ordinance with
more authority for regulation purposes.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog queried if there was an issue with whether the
problem was witnessed. Mayor Randels
replied that the regulation would be based on the call for service. Mr. Boucher pointed out that the
Ms. Roberts stated that one of the things that came
up during the short term rentals discussion, by the neighbors of the transient
population, was that fact that the person might not be available by the time
City addressed enforcement. Mayor Randels related on the difficulty of
identifying who was responsible in a rental community; however, the on-site
manager or property owner was confronted with the problem. Ms. Roberts explained the question of
observation: saying that if a neighbor called to say that they observed
something, by the time the Sheriff’s Office or Code Enforcement arrives the
activity may have ceased or the person might have left the scene.
Mayor Randels read the definition of an incident of
service from the Sanford code as, “each time one or more city police officer(s)
or city code enforcement officer(s) commences and completes a response to an
identifiable unit of property as recorded by the Seminole County Sheriff’s
Communication Center’s computer aided dispatch system or a written report of a
police officer or code enforcement officer which sets forth the time the
officers were present upon the property.”
Mayor Randels concluded that each call was counted per incident.
Mayor Randels provided an example and concluded that
by the time violators reach the Code Enforcement Board, the situation may have
lost some validity. Mayor Randels
referred to a provision in the
Ms. Roberts mentioned another factor since dogs and
cats on the premises were mentioned in the ordinance, and asked about
peacocks. She raised the question if
Council cared about the nature of the animal.
Mayor Randels responded that when the City received any calls about a
troublesome peacock, a trap was set and the peacock was transferred to a new
home. Ms. Roberts observed that in
Mr. Nicholas pointed out that the peacocks wandered
and dwelled at various residences; however, the peacocks could not be attached
to any property or person.
Mr. Boucher emphasized that the ordinance was not
part of a Land Development Code and did not require the Planning and Zoning
Board’s review. Mr. Nicholas suggested
hearing from some of the other related City Boards to gain additional
perspective. Mayor Randels agreed and
suggested giving the Boards a portion of the Draft ordinance for review. He concluded that he favored notifying the
Boards that Council was considering the nuisance ordinance for problems and
enforcement. Council members recommended
seeking input from the Code Enforcement Board, Business and Cultural
Development Board, and the Beautification Board.
Attorney Garganese pointed out that there were two
ordinances for two different purposes.
The first ordinance was a Citation ordinance. The City currently has a Citation on the
books and the City can issue citations for fireworks violations. The issue was, if the Council chose to refer
the ordinance to some other Boards, were there any other Code provisions that
should be subject to civil citation and if so, what should be the recommended
penalty if a civil citation was issued.
Attorney Garganese stated that that would require general knowledge of
the existing code and what other codes would be subjected to civil citations. He stated that the Code Enforcement Board had
the most vested interests in that whatever was included in the civil citation
route, could not go to the Code Enforcement Board. Attorney Garganese stated that the Code
Enforcement Board’s input was important, as well as that of the Code Officer
and the Sheriff’s Department.
The second ordinance was a User Fee and that
ordinance stated that if someone was a chronic user of Police, Fire, and Code
Enforcement services provided by the City, the City would charge a User
Fee. The User Fee was $250 for the
fourth visit within a 30-day period and $500 for the fifth and any subsequent
visits within a 30-day time period.
Therefore, the issue for the Council to decide was whether or not the
City should impose a User Fee to get reimbursed for excessive use of those
services. This ordinance was first a
financial issue and; second, in some respects it had an indirect impact on Code
Enforcement, but it was not a Code Enforcement ordinance. The impact was chronic use related to Code
Enforcement that would allow the City to recoup some of its costs above and
beyond the penalties imposed by a Code Enforcement Board or a court in civil
citations. For the City of
Attorney Garganese recalled the substantial debate
prior to instituting the civil citation procedure and how the Council
ultimately decided to make only fireworks subject to civil citations. Many other municipalities made any of its
code provisions subject to alternative remedies, Code Enforcement Board or
civil citation, depending on the best judgment of the Code Enforcement Officer
or Law Enforcement Officer at the time of the violation. Attorney Garganese stated that the Council
could make the entire code subject to civil citation and leave the application
subject to the Code Enforcement or Law Enforcement Officer or the Council could
choose what code provisions would apply at its discretion.
Ms. Roberts stated her observation of how many times
had the City issued any citations for fireworks and asked if the City collected
on them. Mayor Randels replied that
there was one instance in which someone was apprehended and sent to jail. Attorney Garganese was aware of money
collected on one civil citation for fireworks two years ago. Ms. Roberts stated that the City tended to
have a warning approach for fireworks.
Attorney Garganese replied that the City was
required by Statute to give a warning.
Ms. Roberts suggested looking at period of six months to one year due to
repetitive examples that might not be intense but repetitive.
Mayor Randels read from Subsection B related to
repeat violation, “a Code Enforcement Officer shall provide a warning notice prior to issuing a citation; a
warning notice shall at a minimum provide the following: the date of issuance
of the warning, specified time for compliance, maximum amount of fine if not
corrected, and a place for the signature of the person receiving it. Then upon personal investigation, the Code Enforcement
Officer finds the person has not corrected the violation within the time
period, the Code Enforcement Officer may
issue a citation to the violator.”
Ms. Roberts said that the Code Enforcement Officer
speaks to the visitor and that may or may not be the property owner; therefore,
when the warning was given it was given to the visitor. However, there was the weekly experience of
visitors discharging fireworks and them being warned with still no a correction
to the problem. Mayor Randels stated
that he anticipated the property’s owner’s involvement. Ms. Roberts said that she anticipated some
enforcement authority and mentioned the nature of a transient situation as such
that a person present on a transient basis was at least warned if it did not
reach the property owner.
Attorney Garganese informed that in the City of
Sanford the User Fee was connected to the property; therefore the property
could be subjected to lien even if the violator was no longer in the area. Mayor Randels related on a letter from a
resident who experienced the results of nuisance behavior and her subsequent
inconvenience and stated that it was time to address the problem. Ms. Roberts recommended considering a
substantial fine for the categories that the Council would decide on in the
citation fee program. Attorney Garganese
clarified that the User Fee was based on costs for service. He informed that the City of
Mr. Boucher expressed his agreement with the City
Attorney to allow the Code Enforcement Board to review the citation
program. Todd Morley, Building Official,
explained that there were two types of Code Enforcement problems: street-level
code enforcement and also the Code Enforcement Board cases. He stated that the greatest percentage of
Code Enforcement work was performed on the street-level and those cases did not
reach the Code Enforcement Board. Mr.
Boucher stated that those City costs needed to be recouped for the street-level
Code Enforcement as well. Ms. Roberts
added that in the sequence of things, she hoped that the Sign Ordinance would
be resolved before this ordinance since there were many issues there as well. Mr. Boucher concluded that he would also
obtain input from the Sheriff’s Office.
REPORTS:
1.
City Manager
·
Mr.
Boucher referred to the meeting calendar in order to schedule a meeting on the Short Term Rental ordinance on Wednesday, March 14 at 5:00 P.M.
·
Mr.
Boucher also referred to the meeting calendar to schedule a meeting for the Sign Code on Tuesday, March 20th at 5:30 P.M. prior
to the regular City Council Meeting and another meeting on the Sign Code on Monday, March 26 at 5:30 P.M. Mr.
Boucher suggested that the Recreation Board scheduled for that day and time
meet at the
·
Mr.
Boucher informed that some of the residents in the northeast part of the City
complained about the odors from the Coastal Fuels property. He stated that he inquired with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection the regulating agency that monitors Coastal Fuels air
permit. DEP monitored the facility on
January 19th, January 31st and March 5th and
found them in compliance with DEP’s permit.
Mr. Boucher related how in speaking with DEP
staff that DEP reviewed the technical parameters of whether or not Coastal
Fuels was in compliance with the issued permit.
If Coastal Fuels was within the technical parameters with chemical
loading and the problem still exists, DEP staff related that the problem appeared
to be one of two issues: the asphalt burners and the type of asphalt in
use. In about three weeks Coastal Fuels
will use another type of fuel that would generate less odor, if that did not
work they could add some scent to the fuel to make it more fragrant. There is a small asphalt operation in
Mr. Boucher explained further that there was
another issue when fuel was placed in the tanks, the fumes, as the tank levels
rise, were purged from the tanks and that was another cause of the odors. Coastal Fuels informed the DEP that they
would attempt to rectify the situation.
Mr. Boucher stated that after that point, if the odor extends their
property lines, then it was up to Code Enforcement’s judgment to establish if
the issue constituted a nuisance. Mr.
Boucher related that he personally experienced the odors during the asphalt
purging operation. He concluded that in order for Code Enforcement to address a
nuisance violation, they would have to observe the odor extending the Coastal
Fuels property line and they would have to know the time of day that the odor
constitutes a nuisance.
Mr. Boucher stated that a reasonable
standard exists when an overpowering odor extended beyond the Coastal Fuels
property. Mr. Nicholas, returning to the
discussion on the odors, stated that DEP had standards and he asked if DEP had
any sensors or monitors that they could use to judge whether there standards
were met. He requested that the City
Manager seek the use of DEP’s instrumentation.
·
Mr.
Boucher reported that
·
Mr.
Boucher reported that he received the 30
percent plans for the
The middle turn lane design had 33-feet of
travel width from a total of 60-feet.
Some alternatives for the middle turn lane design were: three, 11 foot
lanes, one north/ south and one in the middle, all at 11-feet, or two, 12-foot
travel lanes and one, 10-foot center lane.
However, Mayor Pro Tem Hoog questioned the extra footage to which Mr.
Boucher replied that this was the engineer’s recommendation. Mr. Boucher reported an estimated cost of
$1.366 million. He stated that until a permit was submitted to St. John’s River
Water Management District, the discussion of drainage was uncertain. Mr. Boucher informed that the project was on
hold at 30 percent and he had a meeting on March 13th with the County to
discuss the impact fees and prepare for the intersection signalization project.
Mr. Boucher replied to Mayor Randels that the plan was to complete the intersection
project first.
Mr. Petsos referred to previous discussion
on the middle turn lane project, to keep the two lanes and perhaps even narrow
it and install stop signs. He referenced
a letter that the City received from a woman who expressed the same
concept. Mr. Petsos expressed his view
that the road was used as a thoroughfare to the Port. He said that he would like to see the Council
pursue the stop sign venue. Mr. Petsos
pointed out that the City was enhancing traffic flow to the Port rather then
for the citizens. A resident stated that
if the stop signs were installed, the Council could still implement the center
turn lane. Mr. Petsos pointed out that
with the installed stop signs the traffic would be mitigated to the Port and
there might be no need for a middle turn lane.
Mr. Nicholas pointed out that there was
traffic egress from the developments adjacent to the road. He expressed that the center turn lane was
vital to egress. Ms. Roberts expressed
how the City Manager hoped to obtain an architectural rendition of what
Ms. Roberts said that she anticipated
hearing from the community on what they proposed in the same manner that was
done with the
Mr. Boucher concluded that he would speak
with the County in order to obtain some mock-ups on the results of a two-lane
and three-lane approach and report back to the Council and proceed to a town
meeting for input on the project. Council
directed the City Manager to put the project on hold in order to acquire
storyboards for the project.
2.
Staff
Building Official
·
Mr.
Morley reported that the City received an Appeal
from the Torpy Group on the Building Official’s decision on Coastal Fuels.
City Clerk
·
No
report.
City
Attorney
·
No
report.
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
There was no
public comment.
3. City
Council
Council
Member Shannon Roberts
·
Ms.
Roberts asked if there was any status report from the contractor on the
potential savings that the City might achieve in cooperating with
·
Ms.
Roberts mentioned to the Council that she received feedback from the community
on why Appeals did not come before
the Council. She mentioned this for
consideration of a process change where an appeal of the decision by staff
would come to the Council such as the Coastal Fuels issue. Ms. Roberts expressed the concern from the
community that the elected officials should hear the concern versus the Appeal
proceeding to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Roberts raised the point to consider
a process change in the future if the Council found it appropriate or at least
to discuss it.
·
Ms.
Roberts asked for the scheduled date for the Visioning Session which would include a Master Calendar of events
as part of a new process. Mr. Boucher
replied that planning was in progress.
·
Mr.
Roberts brought out that the meeting
with Mr. Bill Parsons,
·
Ms.
Roberts asked if there were any feedback
on the property purchase for the City in terms of its options, such as the
David Kabbord property. Mr. Boucher
replied that the Appraisal was in progress.
·
Ms.
Roberts asked if the appraisal on the
Fire Department had begun. Mr.
Boucher replied that two Appraisal firms began work as of today.
·
Ms.
Roberts referred to earlier materials on additional pedestrian crosswalks on State Road A1A. She related on the difficulty in how a
pedestrian and a person with a bicycle attempted to cross the road at two
separate locations in the City where there were no crosswalks. Ms. Roberts raised the questioned of
sufficient crosswalks. Mr. Boucher
replied that the City requested the Brevard County Metropolitan Planning
Organization and the Florida Department of Transportation every year to address
this concern; however, the reply was that the crosswalks were unwarranted.
·
Ms.
Roberts related that she observed a disabled person using a cane at one of the
City’s bus stops and she wondered if
the City could have any influence on acquiring seating at the bus stops.
·
Ms.
Roberts pointed out that she did not see any advertisement in the Community
Celebration regarding input from the
community on the Comprehensive Plan.
She expressed that this was an opportunity for advertising for it.
·
Ms.
Roberts referred to the Beautification Board’s letter to the Council regarding
the purchase of a gift for
·
Ms.
Roberts inquired on behalf of the residents of Solana on the River on the
status of the
Council
Member Nicholas
·
No
report.
Council
Member Petsos
·
Mr.
Petsos inquired about the soccer field. Mr. Boucher replied that the irrigation leak
was repaired. He stated that he desired
to get input from those using the field.
Mr. Petsos stated that his concern was the irrigation problem.
·
Mr.
Petsos asked if the City Manager had any report from the Port or Ron Jon’s
about the Ron Jon resort. Mr.
Boucher replied that he had no status report at this time.
·
Mr.
Petsos asked if Mr. Gardulski or Mr. Ratliff planned to have a display about the mangroves at the
Community Celebration. Mr. Boucher
affirmed.
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog
·
No
report.
Mayor
Randels
·
Mayor
Randels informed that Mayor Pro Tem Hoog would throw out the first ball of the
season at the Little League Opening Day
on Saturday, March 10th.
·
Mayor
Randels related on how he participated in an American Legion ceremony that recognized four chaplains who
relinquished their life preservers. In
the story of the SS Dorchester, four represented faiths went down with the ship
that was torpedoed and each one of the faiths was acknowledged during the
ceremony in a moving tribute.
·
Mayor
Randels acknowledged a thank you from the League of Women Voters to the City
for their support in buying 500 of the new Legislative
Contact pamphlets.
·
Mayor
Randels referred to an advertisement for a four-bedroom, three-bathroom
residence in the City that was selling in light of the City’s intent to phase out the weekly rentals.
·
Mayor
Randels recognized that he heard from Howard Marlowe of the