Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 06-14-1983 Regular — reading text

all the property owners are notified. Mr. Miller stated that the State Statutes prescribes how we notify people under certain circum- stances and it is extremely cumbersome and expensive. Mayor called tor the 'Vote and! ,the 'Illation carried usly. unanimC), FINAL PLAT 219&217, REQUEST: Approval of Final Plat for the construction of 213/ 215 FIRST STREET townhouse units at 219 and 217 and 213/ 215 First Street, Lots LOTS 228, 229 & 230/ 231 228, 229,( 20 feet of Lot 229) and Lots 230/ 231, Ocean City Subdivision. ( Jack Gardner- Harbeson Construction)  6/14/ 83 086 FINAL PLAT 210&217, PLANNING BOARD recommends PRELIMINARY Plat be approved sub- 213/ 215 FIRST STREET ject to correction of eight discrepancies listed by Engi- LOTS 228, 229 & 230/ 231 neering Department. Final Plat to be corrected and pre- Con' t) sented to Planning Board for review. Mrs. Thornber moved that the Planning Board' s recommendation be approved. Mr. Franklin seconded the motion and motion carried unanimously. ) CHARLES COXWELL Mr. Charles Coxwell stated he would like for Council to dis- HUMANE SOCIETY solve the Humane Society Board immediately and replace them with a city councilman, veterinarian and a business man from Fort Walton Beach along with a county commisssioner, Nancy Kenaston who has stated she might be interested in going back, city councilman, veterinarian and a business man from Crestview. Mr. Baughman moved that Council take this item under advise- ment and set it forth for the new council. Motion died for a lack of a second. DECORATIVE FENCE Mr. Dean Crane stated that he hadinstalled a 3- 4 foot rail ON RIGHT- OF- WAY fence in front of his residence at 328 Sudduth Circle on 328 SUDDUTH CIRCLE the right- of- way and had not requested a variance as he was unaware he would need one until someone had told him. He stated he was requesting permission to leave the fence in place. Mr. Baughman moved that they grant the right to use the easement with the understanding that if the city needs to do work on utility lines he will move it. Mr. Franklin seconded the motion. Mr. Bishop inquired as to whether they had put a request for using the right- of- way in writing before. He was told that they had. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Crane inquired as to where he would need to go to sign the agreement. City Attorney told him it would be at City Hall. QUALIFICATIONS OF Mayor presented under the Mayor' s Items, discussion and COUNCILMEN PER- possible Council action pertaining to City Charter, Sec. 4 TAINING TO JOHN Creation and Composition of Council-- Qualifications of City FRANKLIN Councilmen as it pertains to Councilman Franklin. Mayor asked Council what their pleasure was. Mr. Miller moved the order of the day, let' s go to the next item. Mrs. Thornber seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney stated that the board needed to take some action 'on this issue. Mr. Baughman asked that the attorney explain what action they should take so that we will under- stand. I City Attorney stated that the Charter provides that you are the determiner of the qualifications of your council and the Charter also provides the circumstances and qualifications for each of the council members. The issue presented is whether the Charter requires that Mr. Franklin no longer sit as a council member and therefore would not vote obviously and sit as a member of this Council except to the extent  6- 14- 83 087 QUALIFICATIONS OF that he can sit as a member of the public or whether he is in COUNCILMEN PER- fact a council member. My opinion is that it does require TAINING TO JOHN some action by the council. FRANKLIN ( Con' t) Mr. Baughman moved that they determine Mr. Franklin remain as a council member. Thornber seconded the motion. Mrs. Mr. Miller asked if that was based upon the conditions of the issue at this point. City Attorney asked if that was the question Mr. Miller was asking. Mr. Miller stated yes. City Attorney stated he was nbt sure he understood the question, I isit based upon the fact that there has been a finding of guilt and the feeling taken from that? Mr. Miller stated that the issue was . moot fat thispoiri.t tintilbhe ~ dislios tion. City Attorney stated that he did not agree with him, as he said in a letter directed to Council he saw the appeal as being basically irrelevant, the issue is whether or not at this point there has been a conviction. Mr. Miller stated that withholding adjudication certainly is not irrelevant. City Attorney stated that was true. He stated he did not understand why Mr. Miller was saying it was moot. Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Franklin had not been convicted of a crime at this point by his evaluation. He stated that his ideal' ' was that, no action is correct. City Attorney stated that Mr. Miller should go in favor of the motion. Mr. Miller stated his point ;! n. inquiry was is the motion based upon the set of facts as they are before us now. City Attorney stated yes. Mr. Miller said final disposition of any issue or is that a and he did not want to elude anything, any position on Mr. Franklin' s part but a different situatio~ would that preclude the council from taking any action under other circumstances or other developments in the matter. Mr. Miller stated that he did not want to use Mr. Franklin' s case as hypothetical, let' s presume someone is convicted of an extremely serious crime and adjudication is withheld and we take some action which those of us who have the frame of mind that I have that withholding of adjudication makes the issue moot and in that likeness if adjudication were subsequently extended and that is adjudication of guilt was made to a very serious felony for example that he would certainly change his position on that issue. That is my point, is that a disposition based on the facts before us now or if a change of circumstances does that renew the issue? City Attorney stated that he thought the issue was whether or not there had been a con- viction or whether or not with an adjudication of guilt there is a conviction. If you are saying suppose there was an extremely serious felony and withholding of guilt and yet I think the question remains the same, is there a conviction where there is a withholding of guilt. Your answer may be no. I If your answer is no, this means that I think your answer would remain