Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-10-2007 Workshopr .r CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING r CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY July 10, 2007 5:30 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tern Council Member Council Member Mayor Council Member Others Present: City Manager City Clerk Assistant City Attorney Building Official DISCUSSION Bob Hoog Leo Nicholas Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Shannon Roberts Bennett Boucher Susan Stills Kate Latorre Todd Morley 1. Chronic Nuisance Ordinance Prior to start of discussion, Mr. Boucher distributed a flow chart from the City Attorney's office related to the discussion. Attorney Latorre explained how a Code Enforcement action and a chronic nuisance violation might progress concurrently. She stated that a user fee was attached to the chronic nuisance violation in order to recoup for the services of law enforcement intervention. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog read the heading of an Ordinance amending Chapter II, Article VI of the City code regarding Code Enforcement creating a new division regarding Chronic Nuisance properties. Ms. Roberts recommended inserting language related to the City's quality of life as one of the intents as one the Ordinance purposes. Discussion concluded to place language related to quality of life in the WHEREAS provisions. Ms. Roberts questioned the meaning of Purpose and Intent Attorney Latorre explained that the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting Chronic Nuisance Ordinance July 10, 2007 Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS clauses would not be codified in the City code; however, the Purpose and d Intent would be coed. Attorney Latorre recommended placing the language in both portions. Mayor Pro Tom Hoog clarified that "quality of life" language would be added to the first sentence of Section 2 -292., Purpose and Intent. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog reviewed Section 2 -293., Definitions Ms. Roberts suggested adding an "s" to the terms, law enforcement and code enforcement officer under the definition for Consumption of Law Enforcement Services Mr. Nicholas questioned the meaning of, "other then at the convenience of the law enforcement agency or the city code enforcement office." Attorney Latorre explained that if the officer was in the routine course of duty and noticed a code enforcement infraction, then no inconvenience to service was imposed. Mr. Nicholas explained that some code enforcement action was still required which resulted in use of service. Mr. Petsos stated that the code enforcement action would probably occur during the weekday and not during the days of a nuisance call such as on the weekend. Ms. Joyce Hamilton stated that the City already had a False Alarm Ordinance and this would impose a second fine as a nuisance. Todd Morley, Building Official, explained that the Code Enforcement services were performed on a drive -by basis. He requested that the Council allow for a one -time occurrence unless Code Enforcement was called out on a violation. Mr. Boucher explained how several types of criminal violations, such as a false alarm, a domestic violence incident, or a narcotics complaint, could occur during one month at one unit. Mr. Petsos stated that the City has a successful False Alarm code and it should stand alone. Ms. Roberts pointed out how at some large complexes, as the City Manager said, multiple violations were possible. Attorney Latorre stated that the City ordinance allows for three false alarm occurrences in any one year, in which emergency services were called out, before any fines were imposed. Duree Alexander, Code Enforcement Officer, explained that a call from a resident established the nuisance activity. Mr. Boucher pointed out that the definition for Incident of Service established the different type of service calls for law enforcement or code enforcement. Mr. Boucher clarified his proposed amendment to the definition for Consumption of Law Enforcement Services at the third line, end -of- sentence: add a period after "alleged to be existing upon the property" and strike out the remainder of the sentence. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog asked for clarification on an "identifiable" unit. Attorney Latorre explained the difficulty of taking action on a violator when a unit might not be identifiable at the location of the call. Council members discussed the "third parties." Attorney Latorre responded that this was a judgment call on an officer's part. Mr. Boucher confirmed for Mr. Nicholas that every dispatched law enforcement call was documented. Ms. Alexander explained that she submits her calls in a software program; she also logs City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting Chronic Nuisance Ordinance July 10, 2007 Page 3 of 6 in Incident Reports as well as calls from the City's E -Better Place citizen complaint process from the web site. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog questioned the resulting action for a property that had a percentage of renters and owners. Attorney Latorre replied that the City would contact the property owner related to the unit. Discussion followed on the types of ownership. Mr. Morley suggested inserting the word "real" before the word property in Incident of Service as was done in Unit of Real Property Ms. Roberts stated her concern with the 30 -day time in the Monthly Period definition. Ms. Latorre explained that the unit of time related to any 30 -day period, from date to date, not a calendar month. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog proceeded to the definition for Nuisance Activity Harry Pearson, Planning and Zoning Board Member, related to previous discussion that used the City of Sanford ordinance which included misdemeanors and felonies under its list of nuisance activity. He stated that arson was not a nuisance activity. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog and Mr. Petsos agreed. Attorney Latorre explained how recurring crime was a nuisance to the neighbors. There was no intent to prosecute arson before the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Nicholas asked if prostitution at a property also constituted a nuisance. Attorney Latorre replied that the City has a Code provision to prosecute violations of its code as a public nuisance which could be applied in this instance. Discussion followed on relief for a neighbor of nuisance activity. Attorney Latorre stated that her flowchart was intended to depict the complete realm of prosecution efforts. She explained how the Ordinance was a tool to impose a user fee related to law and code enforcement services. Mr. Pearson stated that this Ordinance generated from the short-term rental discussion wherein nuisance activity was said to have occurred. He said that he did not realize that the City was seeking to address felonies through this Ordinance. Ms. Roberts pointed out that this was previously discussed as a solution to any one who disturbed the peace. Ms. Roberts also suggested including growing marijuana. Attorney Latorre replied that she believed "manufacturing" was relative to growing marijuana. Ms. Roberts suggested another category related to feeding or harboring animals, such as feral cats or peacocks, which could become a nuisance to neighbors. Mr. Boucher stated that the the condominium associations handled the matter for their premises within their regulations. Ms. Roberts went on record and stated that feeding wildlife was a public safety and health issue for the City. Mr. Morley pointed out that perhaps there were statutory definitions that exist for the items on the enumerated list. Attorney Latorre explained that the list was just an example of what could constitute a nuisance activity and the Ordinance was written ,r "broadly" to allow the City to address what it considers a nuisance activity. Ms. Roberts City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting Chronic Nuisance Ordinance July 10, 2007 Page 4 of 6 pointed out that the issues of violation could relate to the person as well as the property. Attorney Latorre reminded that this Ordinance was written to address repeat nuisance properties and subject to a civil citation. She stated that the Civil Citation Ordinance would address someone feeding wildlife. Mr. Boucher clarified that this Ordinance, Chronic Nuisance related to service usage; the next Ordinance, Civil Citation would relate to a penalty for a violation. Mayor Pro Tom Hoog made note to include "domestic animals" to Item Number (11) and the City Attorney could draft nuisance language related to wildlife. Mayor Pro Tern proceeded to Item Number (12) in the enumerated list under Nuisance Activi . Ms. Robert asked if the property's amenities, such as a swimming pool were included in Item 12. Attorney Latorre replied that a swimming pool was covered under land. On the next item, Production or Creation of Excessive Noise or Vibration Ms. Roberts asked what this item covered. Mr. Boucher replied to Ms. Roberts that there was a Statute that covered her concern related to motor cycle revving. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that this could also be addressed through the Condominium Association. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog proceeded to, Loitering Ms. Hamilton questioned if it were illegal to sit on one's own property and drink an alcoholic beverage outdoors. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog replied that this was permissible as long as the person remained on their own property and their behavior was not unruly which became subject to law. Ms. Roberts asked why alcohol was not included in Item No. (18). Attorney Latorre stated that this was covered in Item No. (15) and drugs were included in Item No. (9). Mr. Boucher replied to Ms. Roberts that Item No. (20) addressed a property owner that continued to keep junk vehicles on his premises. Mr. Morley addressed No. (22) and requested to replace the word "this" with the word "City" before code. Attorney Latorre agreed that she could specify that the Ordinance related to the City code chapter for Code Enforcement. Attorney Latorre explained how the, Person Associated With provision was intended to prohibit nuisance persons from entering a property. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog proceeded to Section 2 -294., Monthly Allowance of Services; User Charges; Service Fees Imposed Ms. Roberts stated her concern with the sufficiency of the 30 -day period as they relate to short-term rentals. Secondly, Ms. Roberts requested to reduce the number of calls to two within a 30-day period. Mr. Petsos pointed out that this would allow up to three calls per month and for violations twice per month. Mr. Petsos also noted that short-term rental might constitute another classification. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog stated that three calls were too many within a 30 -day period and �a a fine at the fourth call; however, he did not agree with up to a fifth call but a revocation �, of license. Discussion brought out three calls per year. Mr. Boucher referred to Sub- City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting Chronic Nuisance Ordinance July 10, 2007 Page 5 of 6 paragraph (e) and the provision which called for fines of a $500.00 service fee charged to the property owner for calls after the fifth violation. Mr. Boucher reminded that this Ordinance would also apply to hotels and businesses too and it was difficult to revoke hotel licenses using a City Ordinance. Mr. Nicholas stated that a more stringent Code would bring about the intent to maintain the City's residential character. Ms. Roberts stated that one of the things that would bring about license revocation was reaching a threshold and Council would need to determine that threshold. Attorney Latorre clarified that the City could only revoke their Certificate of Non - Conforming Status. The City could not revoke their State Resort- Dwelling license; however, the City could impose a fine under this Ordinance. Ms. Roberts stated that she thought those Resort Dwellings in the non -C -1 zoning district would fall under the revocation of license provision. Ms. Roberts stated that if it were not defined in this Ordinance, then there was no provision to revoke their license. Mr. Boucher clarified that the Council was not prosecuting under this Ordinance. Mr. Morley clarified that discussion was not for revoking the State license but for the Non - Conforming Status. Mr. Morley also pointed out that vacant property was not VAN included in types of properties. He questioned why the differentiation service calls when err calls would occur at any type of property. Attorney Latorre replied that they could remove the Table inset on Page five. Discussion followed on the amount of the fine. Attorney Latorre advised against becoming too severe in the penalties. Attorney Latorre referred to the Resort Dwelling and Resort Condominium Ordinance relating to losing non - conforming status when a person violated the three times within one -year rental provision. Attorney Latorre read the provision related to the City Manager taking lawful action which included seeking injunctive relief. Attorney Latorre explained how Section 2 -295, Notification of the Nuisance Activity Procedures was procedural to noticing the violator. Discussion ended in the agreement to strike the word "may" in the third sentence and insert the word "shall" to read "the City Manager shall notify the property owner." Mayor Pro Tern Hoog read the four instances of what the Notice shall contain. [Copy of the proposed attached.] Discussion clarified that the violator was required to file an Appeal within ten days of the Notice and the City Manager would have within 30 days to make a final decision. Ms. Roberts questioned Section 2 -298 in which the City Manager's determination would be final. Attorney Latorre explained that the City Manager's final decision was based on the whether or not three infractions had occurred. This would set the fining process in motion. Attorney Latorre stated that the Appeals process in Section 2 -298 would be clarified in the next Draft. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Workshop Meeting Chronic Nuisance Ordinance July 10, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Mayor Pro Tern Hoog read Section 2-296. Attorney Latorre replied to Ms. Roberts that the Lien was based on non-payment of the fine. Ms. Roberts referred to past instances of Liens and stated how staff time and Attorney's fees were also included as Administrative cost along with in those imposed Liens. Mr. Morley responded that the purpose of the fine was to cover Administrative costs involved in enforcement. Attorney Latorre explained that this was an Administrative fee based on the user charge. Ms. Roberts stated that there was a cost to the community for the nuisance upon reaching this stage. Mr. Boucher responded that Ms. Robert's recommendation would defer to the penalty structure and emphasized that this was a cost recovery action. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog read Section 2-297. Ms. Roberts requested to strike Section 2-297, Exemptions, in its entirety. Attorney Latorre informed that this was one of the provisions in the model Ordinance. Council members agreed by consensus to strike Section 2-297, Exemptions, from this Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Hoog made note that discussion would skip Section 2-298, Appeals, in order for the City Attorney's office to amend the language. Cor t Mayor Pro Tern Hoog read Section 2-299. Reports: Administrative Rules. Attorney Latorre explained that this would allow the City Manager to develop Administrative Rules. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog recommended changing the word "Rules" to "Procedures." Mr. Petsos pointed out that parking and excessive vehicles were not on the enumerated list of Page 4. Attorney Latorre clarified that those were included in Item No. (22) since these were already included in the City code. Mr. Boucher reiterated that the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance did not provide for a penalty but was an Administrative action for law enforcement and code enforcement service use. Attorney Latorre reminded that the Civil Citation would count toward the user fee. Mr. Boucher replied to Ms. Roberts that an applicant would make the Appeal to the Council for loss of Non-Conforming Use Status. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:15 P.M. Susan ills, C C, CITY CLERK