A serious problem was forced on my husband and myself by apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of Pensacola City Officials on March 19, 2005 and continues to this day. After reporting this to Pensacola City Officials, who did nothing, I have reported this to various agencies for correction. These agencies have contacted local officials about the matter, the local officials have sent false statements designed to protect themselves and other local officials and the agency I have contacted dismisses the matter.
In addition to putting this on my blog, I am sending this information, once more, to the Pensacola Mayor and Pensacola City Council Members. Perhaps the new Mayor and the two new City Council Members will see that apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of City Officials is not appropriate and take the necessary steps to stop this.
It appears there was a discussion on 09/09/2010 between the Florida State Attorney, Mr. Bill Eddins, the Pensacola City Attorney, Mr. Wells, and Pensacola Community Development Department employee, Ms. Morris. They discussed the answer Mr. Wells was going to send to Mr. Ramage of the FDLE regarding my reporting to FDLE the illegal closing of our small business, an art gallery/antique shop holding functions, on March 19, 2005.
Since the illegal closing was the day before City Officials announced the Community Maritime Park (CMP) plans, on March 20, 2005, it appears that City Officials illegally closed us down in order to drive us out of business so someone, perhaps a member of one of the illegal power cartels which appear to control so much of Pensacola, wanted and still wants our property. Our property is located at 520 N. Spring Street leading to the entrance to the proposed CMP. We have been illegally closed for almost 6 years and no valid reason has ever been given for our closing.
Mr. Wells sent the email to Mr. Ramage, FDLE, at 3:03 PM on 09/09/2010 to FDLE.
Mr. Wells made many false statements in this email to the FDLE.
Mr. Wells stated to the FDLE that the reason we were closed is that we were violating Conditional Use requirements by having outside functions. This is a false statement and is impossible as we have never had nor do we now have a Conditional Use so we can’t possibly violate it. The first reason given for our closing, by Mr. Cowper in 2005, was that we did not have a Conditional Use and I had to point out then to Mr. Cowper that we did not need a Conditional Use as we were officially recognized as being grandfathered after we restored our building in 2000. It is repeatedly documented that we do not nor have ever had a Conditional Use.
THE LOCATION OF OUR PROPERTY IS AT 520 N. SPRING STREET, DOWNTOWN
Mr. Reeves owns the apartment buildings next to us – formerly used for HUD. I don’t know and have never met Mr. Reeves.
As usual, Mr. Wells submitted no documentation to FDLE to support his false statements. He did not submit a copy of the fictional Conditional Use as there isn’t one. He said that we had numerous complaints from our neighbors, which is false. He did not submit a copy of these complaints as they also don’t exist. I have requested a copy of these imaginary complaints from Mr. Wells and Mr. Wells has failed to furnish them.
We are and have been in compliance with every ordinance City Officials complain about and they have refused to state any ordinance that we have really violated.
Mr. Ramage, FDLE, wrote to me and quoted Mr. Wells’ false statements to me, as fact and as a reason why the FDLE was dropping my complaint, why the FDLE would not stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us and why the FDLE would not investigate.
All of the agencies I have contacted have refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us. It appears my requests for assistance were dismissed, in all instances, due to officials making false statements and, because of that, we remain illegally closed.
Mr. Wells and Mr. Ramage dwelled on the prohibition of outside displays as a requirement of the Conditional Use. That deals with outside displays of antiques and art “for sale” not outside functions. Even though we do not have a Conditional Use, we do not display our products outside, as that would be tacky. We are in compliance with outside displays.
The action on the part of FDLE in believing undocumented false statements instead of the heavily documented report I submitted concerns me as I am now questioning the findings of the FDLE in local matters where they have found that government officials were not guilty of an apparent illegal/criminal action. It appears that FDLE may not really investigate or even read the facts but stands behind fellow government officials no matter if the officials are right or wrong. If FDLE, Mr. Ramage, had read the facts, surely he would have realized something so simple as we can’t violate the terms of a Conditional Use if we don’t have one. As I stated above, this concerns me very much and I am contacting Mr. Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, pointing out that Mr. Ramage failed to do a good job regarding our situation.
I am also writing to the new Governor and the new Florida Senator with the hopes that one of them will be concerned about apparent illegal/criminal activity against law-abiding citizens and take proper steps to correct this situation. I insist on City Officials obeying the law.
I then reported the City Attorney, Mr. Wells, to the Florida Bar Association for making false statements to the Florida Law Enforcement Agency plus conflict of interest and unprofessional behavior. I am aware of some who are in trouble for making false statements to law enforcement but it appears to be okay as far as Mr. Wells is concerned. The Florida Bar Association defended Mr. Well’s actions. It appears that self-policing of attorneys doesn’t work very well.
I have repeatedly notified the Pensacola Mayors, Pensacola City Council members, Pensacola Police Chiefs (Potts, Mathis and Simmons) and Escambia County Sheriffs of these apparent illegal/criminal actions which have deprived us of the income (grand theft against persons 65 of age or older) from our legitimate, licensed, vetted business and have used extortion (will charge us with a crime if we hold functions) to keep us illegally closed down. Both of these actions violate Florida State laws and appear to be first and second-degree felonies - both call for incarceration. All we have contacted refuse to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us.
In addition, City Officials appear to be violating our United States Constitutional rights which is especially egregious since both my late husband and myself are veterans and served to protect and defend the United States Constitution. All government officials also swear to protect and defend the United States Constitution but that is not happening here in our hometown, Pensacola. It appears that all government officials I have contacted are violating our rights under Pensacola City Ordinances, Florida State Statutes and Federal Laws.
The City Officials’ actions of apparently driving our business from the City seems to be in opposition to the City’s often stated goal of inviting businesses into the City. At one meeting, City Council Members discussed incentives to bring in women owned businesses. I, a woman and a veteran, am the majority owner and president of our business. I run the business on a daily basis and my husband, a partner who is an accountant, does the books and taxes yet they have illegally closed us down. Pensacola will never flourish as long as law-abiding, responsible, hard-working people, such as we are, are prevented from operating in the City.
The Pensacola Mayor and Pensacola City Council Members should take steps to stop apparent illegal/criminal actions instead of condoning or ignoring them.
As City Attorney, Mr. Wells has refused to stop the illegal actions against us and protects those who are also apparently committing illegal/criminal actions against us. As a result, individuals, such as ourselves, have lost and are losing valuable possessions, historic artifacts, income from legal investment property, and years of our lives being denied what we have been legally authorized to do.
Since this situation also appears to be a federal matter, I wrote to our new Senator, Marco Rubio, and reported the whole situation which is causing us terrible financial problems. While we have had no income from our business property for six years, the expenses continue: mortgage payments, insurance payments, property taxes, electricity, water, etc. I recently paid our annual property taxes, @ $6,000.00, and what services have we received: the City Attorney, Mr. Wells, has refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us; the City Attorney, again Mr. Wells, has made false statements about us to FDLE and others; Mr. Cohen, Pensacola Community Development Department, has made false statements to us and when I corrected him, he ignored us from then on; the Police Department closed us down and, since then, has refused to stop this; Mr. Coby ignored us from the beginning; the Pensacola City Council and Pensacola Mayors have refused to stop this; the Escambia County Sheriff (who also receives our tax money) has refused to stop this and on and on. Although we pay property taxes, we can’t use our property as we are legally authorized since we have been threatened with being charged with a crime if we do.
Each time I have asked for a legal reason for our closing, Mr. Wells and the other City Officials have furnished only false statements such as the ones above.
Background:
In the summer of 1998, my husband and I bought a business at 520 N. Spring Street, an historic property built in 1883 and listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, which was and is an art gallery/antique shop holding functions (which had been in operation since 1980). We restored the property in accordance with the United States Secretary of the Interior Guidelines covering restoration of historic properties and in 2000 we won the North Hill Preservation Association’s award as best restored historic property for the year. We were on the Tour of Historic Homes that year to announce our reopening as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions.
The Head of the Pensacola Planning Office officially determined that we were legally grandfathered (in lieu of a Conditional Use) and, in addition, met all current requirements regarding zoning and parking.
According to Pensacola City Ordinances, our PR-2 zone codes freely permit the functions we hold. Functions (weddings, reunions, etc.) are freely permitted in PR-2 for assembly Certificates of Occupancy. In addition to being grandfathered for functions (assemblies), since we restricted, by contract, attendance to less than 100, our business classification permitted assemblies of less than 100. According to the Standard Building Code, we are allowed assemblies of less than 100 as long as that assembly is allowed in our zoning, according to City Ordinances. We can have the same assemblies as churches, as they are freely permitted in our zoning, but not the same assemblies as restaurants, as they are not permitted in our zoning.
Parking was grandfathered to the parking available in 1994. Since our current parking requirement was 14 on-site spots and we had over 20 on-site spots we exceeded the current requirements by quite a lot in addition to being officially grandfathered. Also, our property is on a corner on a one-way 4 lane major artery, both outside lanes are demarked for parking and this on-street parking is available to anyone.
The Head of the Pensacola Planning Department officially declared that we were legally grandfathered and approved our continued use of the property as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions.
From May 2000, until March 2005, we operated our business as authorized by officially being grandfathered. We operated an art gallery/antique shop where functions were held as we were legally authorized. We enjoyed collecting antiques and art pieces for resale. We also enjoyed the gallery nights, meet-the-artist nights, children’s tea parties, poetry readings, weddings, reunions, and other social functions which took place in our beautiful historic building especially the candlelight weddings (I supplied the candles and flowers free of charge) for young servicemen and women where I performed the marriage ceremony as I am a notary public.
It was a win-win situation. The people holding the function hired photographers, caterers, florists, even a limo a few times and out-of-town guests stayed in the nearby motel. Several local schools conducted walk-throughs of the historic neighborhood and I always invited them in for a tour of our building which was constructed before electricity, refrigeration, cars, and indoor bathrooms.
During this time, we received no complaints from the City, our neighbors or our clients. In fact, our neighbors frequently visited and especially enjoyed seeing the preparations for a function as we spruced up the landscape and decorated the house. We have followed the rules and have done no harm to our neighborhood. Neighbors and guests have indicated that we have added greatly to the appearance of the neighborhood.
City Officials, through use of the Pensacola Police Department, illegally closed our business down on March 19, 2005, the day before the announcement that the Community Maritime Park would be built at the end of our street, Spring Street which was identified as the Spring Street Corridor.
Without notice and out of nowhere, a police cruiser showed up at 7:00 PM on a Saturday night, during a wedding, causing a disturbance by going the wrong way on a one-way street with lights flashing. The police officer said, loudly and repeatedly in front of many witnesses, that we were not authorized to have weddings. He said we were closed down altogether as we were breaking the law by having functions.
I called the desk sergeant the next morning, Sunday, March 20, 2005, and told him that we were authorized to have functions but that we were closed down by a police officer. He said that if we had functions a police officer would be dispatched and hung up.
On reading the Sunday paper later that morning, I discovered that City Officials had decided to spend approximately 40 million dollars on a Community Maritime Park to be built at the end of our street, Spring Street. Suddenly our property became very important.
Monday morning I called Mr. Cowper, Director of the Community Development Department and told him that we were grandfathered and had been properly reauthorized or vetted for operation, to include functions in 1999-2000, and that proper procedures, required by Pensacola City Ordinances, for closing a business had not been followed as neither Code Enforcement nor any City Official had given us prior notice that we were in violation of anything.
Mr. Cowper said that we were not authorized to have functions and were completely closed down. After 25 years of authorized operation as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions, in the same location, our business was closed down with no reason given other than functions were not authorized and we were having them so we were closed down as punishment. There appears to be a conspiracy among City Officials as, after 25 years of peaceful operation, three City Departments closed our business down within 48 hours.
As I stated above, there is a process, required by Pensacola City Ordinances, to close a business. City Officials violated this City Ordinance and instead of the process which requires prior notice, a hearing by Code Enforcement, etc., City Officials illegally used a policeman, with no prior notice given, in a code enforcement capacity to close us down during a function – a wedding.
My husband and I agonized over what to do and finally decided to stay, but declined to reopen under the illegal restrictions, and decided to fight against being forced off of our property and work, as we did with the illegal Certificate of Occupancy requirement, to get City Officials to obey the law so we could open using our building, as previously authorized, with a chance of succeeding.
Mr. Cowper and his Department, Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Morris, steadfastly refused to obey the law. His replacement, Mr. Cohen and his Department, including Ms. Morris, continue to violate the law and continue to refuse to allow us to use our property as authorized by City Ordinances. They refuse to let us operate our legally sanctioned business which is depriving us of our income from our business property for six years now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from our letter to City Officials letting them know they had acted improperly.
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CITATIONS AND CITATIONS PROCEDURE
Pensacola City Ordinance Sec. 13-2-2. Authority to issue citations and citations procedure.
(a) Prior to issuing a citation, a designated code enforcement officer shall provide notice to the person that the person has committed a violation of a code provision and shall establish a reasonable time period within which the person must correct the violation. …
Your office ignored proper procedures. You claim that we broke the ordinances of the City by having functions. If so, the procedures stated above, by City Ordinance, must apply. Your office ignored the city ordinance regulating what is considered a code enforcement violation. Instead, a police officer informed us, at 7:00 PM during the celebration of a wedding, that we were breaking the law as we were not authorized to have weddings on our property and that we were closed down. We are authorized to have weddings on our property. No prior notice was given and no citation was issued.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I contacted Ms. Melanie Nichols, the President of our North Hill Historic Preservation Association, where our property is and where we are members, about the illegal closing. She wrote to the Community Development Department for clarification for the Association. On July 27, 2005, Ms. Morris responded:
“Hi Melanie, according to City records, the Meads have a business
license for an office use (a consulting business). This is a general
employee license which would cover most office uses with the
exception of medical offices and things of that nature. According to
Inspections Services, hosting wedding and other special events
would change the occupancy of the building due to the fact that any
gathering in excess of 50 people for events such as this would
require an Assembly Occupancy, and that would in turn require
improvements such as fire rating for exits, bathroom requirements,
floor loads, parking requirements, panic hardware on doors, etc. .”
All of Ms. Morris’s statements are false. We are not and have never been an office building, we have had a license for a retail shop since 1998, we classify for assemblies of less than 100 people, etc.
On Aug 15, 2005, we received an email from Mr. Cowper: “we have no record that a conditional use permit was ever approved by the planning board and city council for an art gallery.” And, “While I do not wish to see you sell your property I’m sure that you can understand that I must enforce the applicable zoning regulations. I encourage you to review the applicable zoning regulations and to restrict the use of your property to those allowed. “
In Sept 2005, Mr. Cowper sent an email, in answer to my many emails, where he finally admitted that we are grandfathered as an art gallery/antique shop but he still, illegally, refused to recognize our grandfathered status to hold functions and still refused to allow us to hold functions, even gallery nights. He stated, “Based upon information and evidence presented by you along with city records that I have reviewed I am convinced that the use of the property for an antique store / art gallery is indeed grandfathered.” and “While I agree that the occasional art showing is incidental to an art gallery I do not think this extends to weddings and similar gatherings/functions/social events in the PR-2 zone.”
From then until 2007, I sent many emails to Mr. Cowper explaining and reexplaining that we were and are authorized to have functions as part of our business. He refused to allow functions, large or small, indoors or outdoors.
Many members of the North Hill Preservation Association, of which we are members, expressed delight and approval that we were holding functions in this beautiful building and said that its use that way complemented and enhanced the spirit and atmosphere of the historic area.
On April 25, 2008, Mr. Cohen, AIA, Director, Department of Community Development, sent an email regarding the City’s illegal restrictions placed on our property:
“I am sorry for the delay in my response to you.
This memo, however, is to reaffirm the City’s position that the use
of the property as an antique store and / or art gallery is a
grandfathered use that is allowed to continue. The property being
utilized for weddings and other similar functions, however, remains
an issue. There are accessory / incidental uses that would normally
be associated with and antique shop or art gallery, such as featured
art showings. That same connection is not apparent for weddings
and other similar social functions which tend to have a large
attendance and a greater requirement for the availability of off-
street parking; and therefore is not permitted. The PR-2 zoning
district allows limited commercial uses with conditional use
approval, and the continued use of your property as an antique shop
or art gallery (with no outside displays) is certainly permitted.”
On April 28, 2008, I emailed Mr. Cohen, “The number of off-street parking spaces provided for buildings constructed prior to October 13, 1994, shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of this code, for as long as the same land use is maintained within the same building footprint.” (quoted from City Ordinance). For over a year, I emailed Mr. Cohen monthly reminding him that we were in compliance with all parking requirements and that we wished to operate as authorized. He has never acknowledged or answered these emails much less admitted that he was wrong about the parking.
Sec. 12-3-1. Off-street parking spaces requirements.
Off-street parking is required in all zoning districts, except as provided below. The following off-street parking is required by this chapter.
(A) General provisions.
…….
(7) The number of off-street parking spaces provided for buildings constructed prior to October 13, 1994, shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of this code, for as long as the same land use is maintained within the same building footprint.
…..
Our building was constructed in 1883 and was used from @1980 on as an art gallery/antique shop (documented in City records) where the previous owner had many social functions there, as part of her business, as I have previously indicated. There are no changes in the building footprint (since initial construction in 1883) and the same land use has been maintained at least since 1980. We fall under this exclusion.
Mr. Cohen was also wrong about the statement, “There are accessory / incidental uses that would normally be associated with and antique shop or art gallery, such as featured art showings.”
According to City Ordinance ARTICLE IV. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION STANDARDS Sec. 12-2-31. Accessory uses and structure standards. addresses accessory use as use by another building on the same lot to support the use of the main building. From the beginning, our detached garage was recognized as an accessory use as the previous owner and we, also, use it as a repair shop for antiques that need gluing, painting or restaining and storage for surplus inventory.
During the last 6 years, I have persistently asked for a legal reason for our closing. City Officials have given many different invalid reasons for our closing. We will have been closed for 6 years as of March 19,2011, and City Officials have failed to supply a valid reason for our closing but have refused to let us operate as we are legally authorized.
The stalling routine is: City Officials give a reason for our closing (no Conditional Use) and I counter with the reason we are legal (we are grandfathered). Then City Officials give a new reason for our closing (no parking) and I counter with the reason we are legal (our parking is grandfathered to 1994 and, in addition, we exceed current requirements).
As I stated above, the current reason for our closing is that we are violating our Conditional Use and I have countered with the reason we are legal - we don’t have a Conditional Use.
Some City Council Members and City Officials have insisted that we appear before the Zoning Board of Adjustments. We are in compliance with our zoning and don’t need an adjustment. All of the Advisory Boards I have researched, including the ZBA, appear to be in violation of Florida State Laws as the majority of the members regularly have contracts to do work for the City. This is classified as a Conflict of Interest situation and is forbidden by Florida State Laws yet Pensacola City Council Members routinely appoint and reappoint members to the Boards who have a conflict of interest. I have pointed this out for almost ten years and nothing has changed.
I have also pointed out that it appears that no rulings are legal. It appears that, since the majority of the Board members are in violation of the law, no quorum can ever be reached and without a quorum, no discussion or voting should take place.
I am looking forward to this matter being settled according to local, state and federal laws so, with the help of my children and grandchildren, I can reopen our business and receive income from our investment property.
Mary Mead
