01/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(1372) -- (1398) (1415) (1436) e (1505 ) - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal. Councilman Bradley wondered if it was inappropriate for him to participate in the decision since he had not attended the tour. Mayor Anderson responded that since the issue did not come under Fasano regulations it would be a matter for Mr. Bradley's own determination. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, explained the issue - that the ordinance was changed to permit the second hand dealers use in an industrial district, then when Mr. Stathakis applied for a dealers license it was denied because of signs he had erected in violation of the sign code. The main identity sign for the operation would be permitted. but other miscellaneous signs would not be permitted under code provisions. Mr. Nolte said that in contact today, Mr. Stathakis had applied for a permit for the main identity sign and had agreed to remove the others. Councilwoman Beal thought if no action was taken by the Council, Mr. Stathakis still would not have his license but might be able to return and apply for it again. Mr. Murray had no objection to postponing action but was not aware that the applicant had requested postponement. He said the license had been denied once already and the issue had gone on for some time prior to coming to the Council. Manager thought taking no action would leave the issue in limbo. Denial by the Council would in effect continue denial of the license and also would be an instruction for disposition of the issue at the staff level. Councilman Murray commented on the remarkable operation Mr. Stathakis had es- tablished and its interesting contribution to that neighborhood. However, he felt with the sign ordinance "under fire" from some quarters it would seem in- appropriate to make an exception in this jnstance. Councilman Bradley thought perhaps postponement would be best. Perhaps more information was needed, or there might be some reason for the appellant's absence. Councilman Haws asked if the appellant could apply again for alicense after two or three weeks if the license was denied. Manager answered that the appellant had been contacted and was well aware of the hearing at this time. He added that regardless of whether the Council denied the license, the administration had the responsibility of pursuing the issue to get conformance with the sign code. Unless the Council proposed to amend the sign code to allow the various outdoor displays at Mr. Stathakis' operation there was no choice but to enforce the code, and using the license denial was perhaps a more humane and less costly way of trying to get.compliance than court procedure. He said that Mr. Stathakis could seek a license at any time if it was denied at this meeting, and it would be issued if there was no reason not to. There was general concurrence that the issue should be disposed of, that inaction on the part of the appellant was perhaps not the best way to handle the situation. Mr. Bradley asked if there was a code provision for suspension of business licenses for violation of the sign code. Mr. Nolte replied that there were two sections having to do with licensing that required compliance to the code prior to issuance of a business license. Vote was taken on the motion to deny the appeal. Motion carried unanimously. 1/27/75 - 11 2,..,