I've asked ROYLE to name the alleged complainant. No response. Badge of fraud and retaliation -- claim of "multiple complaints," and it looks like the only complainer was paranoid MAX ROYLE, who rightly fears firing for incompetence. Listen to the malarkey he told the Record: According to Royle, he didn’t make the complaint but forwarded a complaint about flutter signs in front of Obi’s Fillin’ Station on A1A Beach Boulevard from a person who did not want to be named — that person and others don’t like to be named “given the viciousness (sic) of the personal (sic) attacks going on these days,” according to Royle. Royle didn’t name the person on Thursday."
1. I've asked St. Augustine Beach Police Chief Robert Hardwick for a copy of the .wav file reflecting the St. Augustine Beach City Attorney and City Clerk telephone request for police presence at the meeting.
2. This police call was blatant retaliation for several of us exercising our First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment protected activity rights in questioning City Attorney James Patrick Wilson's unctuous, unconstitutional ukase that public comment was forbidden, also a violation of F.S. 286. Jim Wilson was heard saying that people who wanted public comment should be ejected from the meeting.
3. Wilson's officiousness and effrontery is an embarrassment to the people of St. Augustine Beach.
4. Jim's petulance reminds me of the time when Barbara Bosanko (wife of former St. Johns County Attorney Daniel Bosanko, was chair of the Anastasia Mosquito Control Commission of St. Johns County (AMCD).
5. AMCD Chair Barbara Bosanko said in 2007, "I'm calling the cops," when former Army Captain Don Girvan was at the podium, questioning the illegal $1.8 million no-bid helicopter purchase of a luxury Textron Bell Jet helicopter that was incapable of killing a single skeeter.
6. AMCD Chair Bosanko and AMCD Commissioner Linda Wampler were caught red-handed, violating Sunshine after the meeting, with their lawbreaking recorded on videotape. A Daytona Beach law firm resigned as AMCD's outside counsel because one of its lawyers was heard talking about "security" with two Commissioners, violating Sunshine. Lawbreaking AMCD Chair Bosanko and board member Wampler were NEVER prosecuted.
7. On the illegal helicopter purchase, "We the People" were "warned" by AMCD Chair Bosanko, but "nevertheless [we] persisted." (In the words of Mitch McConnell re: Senator Elizabeth Warren.)
8. We got the illegal helicopter contract cancelled. We won a full refund of our deposit. We're not taking "no" for an answer.
9. Likewise, release of the exact spoken words of whatever was said to the police in requesting officers attend the usually dull Code Enforcement Board meeting is in the public interest.
10. We have a Right to Know. Now. Still waiting for the .wav file.
Signs again cause a stir in St. Augustine Beach
By Sheldon Gardner
St. Augustine Record
Posted at 12:01 AM
Updated at 8:14 AM
A decision to enforce a portion of the city of St. Augustine Beach’s sign code that should have already been changed created confusion at Wednesday’s code enforcement board hearing, which focused in part on a city commissioner’s business.
The city’s code enforcement officer found Commissioner Maggie Kostka’s business, Cone Head’s Ice Cream on A1A Beach Boulevard, in violation of City Code because Kostka had used the prohibited flutter signs on the business property.
But Kostka, who had the signs taken down before the hearing and was no longer in violation of code, said her time had been wasted by the issue since commissioners had already supported changing that section of the code to allow the signs. The problem was, the change was never completed even though it had been planned to be done in 2017.
“This issue has taken my time, energy and resources to address, and the reality is it’s a non-issue,” she said, later offering criticism of the city manager.
City Attorney Jim Wilson said the City Commission changed the sign code “in a gigantic hurry” because of a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court that claimed the city’s sign regulations were unconstitutional. Part of clearing up the suit involved adopting a revised sign code quickly, he said.
But commissioners found multiple issues with the existing code and planned to revise it; during one discussion they agreed to allow up to two signs or banners on commercial parcels like Kostka had, Wilson said. Kostka had her signs up thinking she was complying with the commission’s will, he said.
“Sometimes haste makes waste, and there were some things done there that were unlike what other code, former codes had and things that caused some consternation among the commissioners,” Wilson said.
Wilson said he took the blame for having not provided new code updates yet, “but there’s a bunch of other issues involved.” He also said he doesn’t think the code enforcement board should enforce City Code if someone has two flutter signs or less. He suggested delaying the case until the commission could change the ordinance, and if that happened the case could be dropped.
But code board members disagreed, with Chair Ernesto Torres saying it was the job of the board to enforce what’s on the books.
“My problem is that if we’re going to say, ‘Hey, we’re going to allow businesses to have two signs per storefront that’s on A1A,’ next thing in a weekend or two from now we’re going to have nothing but signs,” Torres said.
Kostka’s concerns extended to City Manager Max Royle. While a notice of violation she received about her business cited multiple complaints, she requested those complaints and only found one — from Royle.
According to Royle, he didn’t make the complaint but forwarded a complaint about flutter signs in front of Obi’s Fillin’ Station on A1A Beach Boulevard from a person who did not want to be named — that person and others don’t like to be named “given the viciousness of the personal attacks going on these days,” according to Royle. Royle didn’t name the person on Thursday.
After the complaint came in, Royle told the code enforcement officer about it, and he asked the officer to check other businesses to see if there were any violations of the sign code to be fair, he said.
″[Kostka] has not been singled out,” Royle said.
Royle said whether the flutter signs will be allowed in the future is something commissioners will have to decide, and there are other issues that need to be addressed with the current code such such as how to handle political signs.
Signs are not allowed on public right-of-way if they’re stuck in the ground, but people can carry a sign or put it on a vehicle or do similar things, and the issue needs to be clarified. The City Code used to reference political signs but part of the code update put in place a blanket ban on signs on City Hall property because regulating the content of signs would be unconstitutional.
Board members voted unanimously Wednesday that there was no longer a violation on Kostka’s property. They also voted the same in the following hearing for the prohibited signs in front of Obi’s because those signs had also been taken down.
City Planning and Building Director Brian Law said he plans to work with Wilson to bring a proposed revision to the sign code to the February City Commission meeting to allow up to two flutter signs per business.
Beach Commissioner faces Municipal Code Enforcement Board
January 25, 2018
Historic City News
Historic City News was informed that St Augustine Beach Commissioner Maggie Koskta was summoned to appear before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board of the City of St. Augustine Beach on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in the City Commission Meeting Room at City Hall, 2200 State Road A1A South, St. Augustine Beach.
Genesis Property & Management Group LLC, was issued a citation pertaining to a notice of violation of St. Augustine Beach Code Section 8.00.03, prohibiting flutter signs like the ones installed at Cone Heads Ice Cream, 570 A1A Beach Boulevard.
“I performed a site inspection of your property on 11/01/2017 relative to multiple complaint(s) and noted a continuing condition that required your immediate attention,” Code Enforcement officer Bill Ward wrote in a letter submitted to the Board. “During that inspection, and in a follow-up visit, I interviewed a manager-on-duty and explained the need to remove the referenced signs that are prohibited as outlined in the SAB City Code Sec. 8.00.03.”
Commissioner Kostka, the owner of the business, provided local reporters with a copy of her position on the charges, asking that they be dropped.
I started my business in Feb of 2008 and moved it to St. Augustine Beach in 2012 after purchasing the property where my business is currently located at 570 A1A Beach Blvd.
I was Granted a Certificate of occupancy, Feb, 2012 and
Opened for business March 3, 2012.
My business has been continuously using flags since 2013 with no notice of violation to code.
I would like to draw your attention to several facts pertaining the issue of the sign ordinance.
Originally the change to the sign code was forced to occur due to a lawsuit brought against the city in April 2016 pertaining to the old sign code. The previous sign code was found to be in violation of the 1st and 9th amendments and only after the lawsuit, was our code forced to be changed. A document was then hastily drafted by a legal firm hired by the city to meet the terms of the lawsuit. In reality it was the same sign code the legal firm drafted for a Jacksonville City. The document was plagued with errors, inconsistencies and redundancies. I have stated on numerous occasions I don’t believe this particular document to be a good fit for our community for a number of reasons, but… none the less, it was adopted in June to cover exposure brought by the pending lawsuit at the time, with the understanding the errors would be addressed and resolved. The code was posted on the city webpage in April, 2016.
From sometime in April 2016 through November, 2016 this sign was posted at City Hall that only added to the confusion. (Exhibit A)
Discussion, workshops and special meetings were conducted in an effort to resolve the issues within the new code by the Commission culminating with a special meeting on June 7, 2017 (more than a year since the first draft). This was a very important meeting. I would like to point out that both the city manager, Max Royal and the previous building official, Gary Larson were present and participated in this meeting, along with the full Commission.
Please allow me to share some important facts concerning that meeting.
1. Exhibit B shows the Agenda for that meeting had planned for discussion to allow certain types of signs.
• At every Commission meeting, it is common for the city manager to make recommendations to the board concerning agenda items. This meeting was no different. As a matter of fact, the city manager recommended allowing banner or flag signs as shown in Exhibit C. On Page H the recommendations given to the commission by city manager, Bruce Royale state, “ To allow Flutter/flag signs, To allow portable signs, To delete section 8.00.04 concerning umbrella signs.
• During the meeting, Gary Larson and Max Royal spoke supporting these types of signs: Exhibit D; Page 4 of the meeting minutes show Building Official Larson advised flutter signs could be taken in at night and put out in the morning (paragraph 7) and also commented the Avenue of Palms project was taking away visibility of business owners’ signs.
• After much discussion by the commission and public comment, it was the consensus of the commission to allow 2 temporary signs per business, including flutter signs. Exhibit E; On page 8, the minutes clearly state it was the consensus of the Commission to allow…flutter signs, sandwich boards during the day and a total of 2 temporary signs per business.
2. It was also Commission Consensus to bring the ordinance back for 1st reading at the July, 2017 meeting and 2nd reading at the August 2017 meeting. Exhibit F. City Attorney Jim Wilson advised he could amend the sign ordinance in several different ordinances and discussion ensued further (on page 9) regarding bringing the ordinance back for the 1st reading in July and the second reading in August.
3. It was never put on the agendas for those meetings as Exhibit G shows the agendas for those dates. As a notation, it is the city manager who creates the agendas for Commission meetings.
I would like to address the 2 certified letters I received pertaining to this alleged violation…RE: Notice of Violation to City Code regarding signs Exhibit H. The letters state a site inspection of my property was conducted on 11/1/17 relative to multiple complaints and states my manager was interviewed.
1. Upon investigating this issue, I did NOT find security footage of Mr. Ward inside of my business on 11/1/17, I did note him on footage Wednesday, November 15th, validated by Mr. Ward and Mr. Larson’s email exchange. Exhibit I
2. Upon requesting copies of the multiple complaints that were referred to in the letter, I received only one, made from the city manager, Max Royale. Exhibit J.
In December I then received a citation to appear, even though my business was closed from Nov. 28-December 26th for regularly scheduled maintenance and cleaning and flags were not put out. Exhibit K
The most troubling part of this situation is that the people who knew the changes in the code and were responsible for the final drafting of the code are the very same individuals who brought these allegations against me and my business.
These inconsistencies and incompetence does not encourage community wellbeing. This issue has taken my time, energy and resources to address and the reality is that it is a non-issue as shown here today.
Thank you for your time and service. I certainly hope that your board can be better directed in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment