 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Vote on billboard hangs on odd twist
By ALEX LEARY CRYSTAL RIVER -- Harry Chisholm walked into City Hall on Nov. 14, just as he had many times before, and convened the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals. On the agenda that night was an appeal of an administrative decision denying businessman Ed Tolle the right to relocate a billboard from land he sold to the state. The zoning board agreed that former building official Walter Brown misinterpreted a city ordinance -- that no billboards could be placed within 1,000 feet of another -- and granted Tolle a variance. But there was a problem: Chisholm's term had expired on Sept. 30. He was no longer a member of the zoning board yet he convened the meeting, participated in discussion and voted in favor of Tolle. The case raises an interesting legal question: Because Chisholm had no legal powers, was the action of the entire zoning board tainted? Some residents have called for a new hearing and have found some support among City Council members. "The man had no business sitting on that board," council member John Kendall said. "He had no authority to convene the meeting. That being the case, all business is null and void." But City Attorney Clark Stillwell said the 3-1 vote appears to be legal because a quorum existed without Chisholm, who said he had recently returned from vacation and was unaware his term had expired. No one has suggested Chisholm participated knowing he was no longer a legal member of the five-member board. Stillwell could not be reached Friday but sent a letter to the city citing state law requiring a quorum and public notice. He went on to cite legal precedent that allows an appointed board member to continue to serve until a successor is appointed. Though the matter seems far from resolved, as it stands now, it appears Tolle can relocate the billboard -- even though the city now bans all such signs. That will not sit well with some residents who plan to press their case. But they may not have far to go. Because the zoning board is a quasi-judicial entity, its decision would have to be appealed in the court system. Only a party to the case could appeal. "I'm not a proponent of an abundance of billboards in the city, but I felt he should have been given due process under the old ordinance," City Manager Phil Lilly said. As clear-cut as that ordinance appears, it is a major source of controversy. It states that a billboard may be no closer than 1,000 linear feet of another billboard. Stillwell has asserted the intent was to restrict only billboards on the same side of the road. In rejecting Tolle's request, Brown said that 1,000 feet applied to any direction. In this case, Tolle was seeking to put a billboard on the west side of U.S. 19, near the mall. There was another across the street. In an interview, Brown said he carefully researched minutes of city meetings to find the intent of those who drafted the ordinance. He concluded that officials wanted a more stringent ordinance than the state's, which refers to one side of the street. Brady, a former council member, made the same argument before the zoning board on Nov. 14. He asked the board to table the matter, but his request was rejected. Brown said that he and Tolle have had their differences, but he pointed to requests he denied from another billboard owner based on the same 1,000-foot guideline. The board allowing Tolle to move his billboard "just opened the floodgate" for other billboard owners to make the same argument as Tolle, said former council member Paula Wheeler. She intends to challenge Stillwell's interpretation at the City Council meeting Monday and also raise questions about a conflict of interest. Stillwell has worked for Tolle in the past and in 1998 asked the county to relax requirements governing where billboards can be erected.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Citrus Times |
