HomeMy WebLinkAboutexhibit 5IN RE MATTER OF:
CITY OF MIAMI
Petitioner
vs..
Marks Classic Corp.
Respondent
CITY
DEPARTMENT OF pF MIgMI
HEARING BOARDS DIVISION
LANNING & KING
S
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Case No.: 0207881
MLR
This Order supersedes the Order of this Special Master dated May 29, 2002.
The Matter came to be heard at a final hearing on May 22, 2002, concerning violations o
of Miami Code and sections of the Zoning Ordinance, and on June 3, 2002 on the Respondent'sf the City
for Reconsideration, the Special Master having heard all interested h Motion
City of Miami Code, the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, and otherwise being reviewed
record, vand the
premises, finds as follows: 8 Y advised in the
1. Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which controls municipal code violations, does not
limitations period during which violations of municipal codes must be commenced. No Include any
95, Florida Statutes refers to or pertains to municipal code violations and therefore it does n not pplyt o
these proceedings. apply to
2. The subject sign is located in a CI zoning district. Article 4 of the City•
of
prohibits outdoor advertising signs, such as the subject sign,
Zoning Code
Marks Classic City gn. in ClC 1 zoning d � cts. Therefore, Respondent,
Corp.,rp.is in violation of the ofMiami Code and is hereby found guilty ofsaid violation.
3. Ordinance 11000, Article 11, Section 1107.2.2 provided that any sign, billboard
advertising structure which constitutes a nonconforming characteristic of use shall be completely or cotremoved
from the premises within five (5) years ("amortization period') from the date it became nonconforming.
removed
onconformung.
4. The effective date of Ordinance 11000 was September 4, 1990. The five 5 ear
period expired on September 4, 1995. {) Y amortization
5. In April, 2002, the Miazni City Commission adopted Ordinance
12213 which repealed Article 11,
Section 1107.2.2.
• '6. Marks Classic Corp., asserts that Section 1107.2.2, which is penal in
force and effect as Ordinance 12213 contains no savings clause. The proceedin nas rn th repealed, it of no
brought on April 22, 2002, after the date of repeal and this Special Master d' g zt matter wenfirst
based on that assertion. dismissed these proceedd first
7. These proceedings were re -noticed and rescheduled for May 22, 2002. The Nonce of Violation
issued for these proceedings contains language referring to Article 11 as well as langviolator(s)uage City
of
of the status of their violation in accordance with other provisions of the C advising the
The Notice is proper, ry of Ivtiami Code.
8. The amortization period contained in Article 11, Section 1107.2.2, (1990)expired
4, 1995 and therefore a savings clause is not required to "save" this Article. The subject
ign became
nonconforming in September, 1990 and illegal in ptred on September
g September, 1995. The fact that Article s11,, Section
1107.2.2 was repealed is of no consequence to these proceedings as the intent and
remain the same today as they did from 1990 to 1995. The repeal of Article 11, Section 1107.2.2
does not serve to convert a sign that was found to be illegalpurpose °f this section
into a legal sign. �•� in 2002
in 1 gg5
Wherefore, it is ADJUDGED AND ORDERED as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations is denied.
2. The previous order of this Special Master dismissing these proceeding bue
d
assertion that the new ordinance did not contain a savings clause is hereby reversedn the
3. The subject sign is illegal and must be removed within 90 days of the date of this
Order.
4. If said sign is not removed within the 90 days, the violator will pay a fine of two h
and fifty dollars ($250.00) per day until compliance with this Order. unfired
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Miami -Dade Coup • .: da, on this 18�' day of June, 2002.
� 1■
A. cam
Copies Furnished to:
Carol Licko, Special Counsel, City of Miami
Douglas Halsey, Counsel for Marks Classic Corp.
Joel Maxwell, Esquire, Deputy City Attorney
2
Master
IN RE MATTER OF:
CITY OF MIAMI,
Petitioner,
v.
OWNERS OF PROPERTY
LISTED ON EXHIBIT A
Respondents.
CITY OF MIANII
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
HEARING BOARDS DIVISION
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Case Nos. Sec Attached
Exhibit A
ORDER
In accordance with the agreements and stipulations of the parties, by and through their
respective counsel, the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Order entered on June
18, 2002 in Case No. 0207881, attached as Exhibit B, apply to and are binding upon the Petitioner and
Respondents in each of the cases Iisted on Exhibit A as if each of those findings of fact and
conclusions of law were set forth hirein.
By agreement of counsel for the parties, the record for each case listed on Exhibit A
consists of the following:
I. The Notices of Violation and corresponding envelopes.
2. The Notices of Violation and Summonses to Appear and corresponding envelopes.
3. The City's Complaint ticking System Fact Sheet.
4. All evidence received at the hearings held before the undersigned on May 22 and May
29, 2002, all stipulations made by counsel for the parties at such hearings,
g ,and the transcripts of such
hearings.
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT F
Exhibit A.
5. The testimony of Manuel Mejido and the City's cross-examination, objections mo
tions,
and arguments made regarding this testimony in the first five sign cases is part of the record in ea
ch
case identified in Exhibit A.
6. The testimony of William Hull and the City's cross-examination, objections, motions
and arguments made regarding this testimony in the first five sign cases is part of the record in ea
ch
case identified in Exhibit A.
7. All other witness testimony, exhibits, objections, motions, and legal arguments
concerning the signs located at 5500 N.E. 4th Ct., 7889 N. Bayshore Dr., 7910 N.E. 4th P1., 1165 N.E.
79t St., and 411 N.E. 6I St. will be considered to be part of the record for each signlistedin in attached
Exhibit A.
8. The affidavit of Sergio Guadix is made a part of the record for each sign listed on
9. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., f/k/a Eller Media Cor
p., as tenants, have an interest in the
outcome of these matters and have been permitted to present evidences of those interests. The Special
Master has not joined Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., Vida Eller Media Corp., as a party to these
proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Miami' D County, Florida, this ! 1L day of
2002
cc: Carol A. Licko, Special Counsel, City of Miami
Douglas M. Halsey, Counsel for Respondents L`
Joel Maxwell, Deputy City Attorney, City of Miami ��