HomeMy WebLinkAboutexhibit 7IN RE MATTER OF:
CITY OF MIAMI
Petitioner
vs..
Marks Classic Corp.
Respondent
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
HEARING BOARDS DIVISION •
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Case No.: 0207881
This Order supersedes the Order of this Special Master dated May 29, 2002.
The Matter came to be heard at a final hearingon Ma
of Miami Code and sections of the Zoning May22, 2002, concerning violations of the City
for Reconsideration, the Special Ordinance, � on June 3, 2002 on the Respondent's Motion
P4 Master having heard ail interested Cityof Miami Code, the City of Miami ZoningDames, reviewed the record, and the
premises, finds as follows: Ordinance, and otherwise being fully advised in the
1. Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which controls municipal code violations, does
limitations period during which violations of municipal codes must be commenced. No
not include any
95, Florida Statutes refers to or pertains to municipal code violations and therefore it does
t pplyt o
these proceedings. snot apply to
2. The subject sign is located in a CI zoning district. Article 4 of the City of �� Zoning Code
proprohibits outdoor advertising signs, such as the subject sign, in CI zoning districts. Therefore, Respondent,
Corp.,rp.is in violation of the City of Miami Code and is hereby found guilty of said violation.
3. Ordinance 11000, Article 11, Section 1 1 07.2.2 provided that any sign, billboard,
advertising structure which constitutes a nonconforming characteristic of use shall be completelyor commercial
removed
From the premises within five (5) years ("amortization period") from the date it becarne
nonconforming.
removed
came noncoa#'orming.
4. The effective date of Ordinance 11000 was September 4, 1990. The five 5
period expired on September 4, 1995. () year amortization
•
5• In April, 2002, the Miami City Commission adopted Ordinance 12213 which
repealed Article 11,
Section 1107.2.2,
EXHIBIT B
6. Marks Classic Co
force and effect as Ordinance �elr3tscihat� no savingstion 1107.2.2, which
The
is proceedings in this m
penal in nature, as repealed, is of no
brought on April 22, 2002, after the date of l and this Special Master dismissed the alter weed first
repeal
based on that assertion- se proceedings
7. These proceedings were re -noticed and rescheduled for May 22, 2402. The Notice
issued for these proceedings contains language referring to Article 11 as well as languaget�ce of Violation
violator(s) of the status of their violation in accordance with other provisions of the of Miami
Code. the
The Notice is proper. City of Miami
8. The amortization period contained in Article II, Section 1107.2.2, (1990)expired
4, 1995 and therefore a savings clause is not required to "save" this Article. The subject P d on September
nonconforming in September, 1990 and illegal in September, 1995. 1 t sign became
1107.2.2 was repealed is of no consequence to these proceedings as the intentaandchat purposeArtio i Section
remain the same today as they did from 1990 to 1995. The repeal of Article 11, Section 1107.2.2 in2
of this section
does not serve to convert a sign that was found to be illegal in 1995 into a legal sign. 240_
Wherefore, it is ADJUDGED AND ORDERED. as follows:
1. The Motion to Dismiss based on the Statute of Limitations is denied. erred.
2. The previous order of this Special Master dismissing these proceeding based
assertion that the new ordinance did not contain a savings clause is hereby rersed. the
3. The subject sign is illegal and must be removed within 90 days of the date of this Or
der.
4. If Said sign is not removed within the 90 days, the 'violator will pay a fine pf two hundre
and fifty dollars (S250.00) per day until compliance with this Order. d
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Miami -Dada County, Florida, on this 18`h
day of June, 2002.
Copies Furnished to:
Carol Licko, Special Counsel, City of Miami
Douglas Halsey, Counsel for Marks Classic Corp.
Joel Maxwell, Esquire, Deputy City Attorney
EXHIBIT.B
2
MaryAnne Lukacs
- Special Master