Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03201996CODE E.,,NFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING 1996 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nicolini at 2:03 p.m. PRESENT: EXCUSED: Chairman Nicolini Mr. Goelz Mr. Metcalf Mr. May Mr. Neglia Mr. Cosco Mr. Gilliams Mr. Generazio ALSO PRESENT: Randy Bonar, Code Enforcement Officer Dorri Bosworth, Secretary AI~OtmCF..NE~S: Mr. Ken Cosco, alternate member, was voting in place of Gilliams, who was excused and absent from the meeting. Mr. Cb_mn. Nicolini introduced himself as the new chairman, and gave a review of his background. He stated he would like to see the Board get tougher and show they are taking an interest in the City of Sebastian, and expect the residents to also take an interest. He felt having the Code Enforcement Officer going out 4 or 5 times for the same violation was not right. Ail present Board members also introduced themselves, reviewed their background, and gave their views regarding code enforcement in the city. Mr. Neglia stated he would like to see a Code Enforcement officer work on weekends and evenings. Mr. May agreed that code enforcement should take a stricter approach. Mr. Goelz stated he realized there were property rights but, that the City had a code that should be followed and violators needed to learn that. He would like to see three code enforcement officers on staff, one working evenings. CQDE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR.~EETING OF MARCH 20. 1996 PAG~ ,TWO Mr. Cosco disagreed with the Board, stating he felt there were extenuating circumstances in many cases, and each violation should be handled on a case by case basis. Most residents did want to follow the code, and only blatant violators shouldn't be given a break. Mr. Bonar agreed with Mr. Cosco, stating no two cases were alike. He disagreed with weekend and night work, stating if the violations and violators couldn't be dealt with in a normal time frame, they weren't going to be on the weekends either. Research he did showed 13 other municipalities did not have code enforcement after hours. Trying to deal with violations during dinner hour, or speaking with residents during evening time would tend to change the community's image of code enforcement. Mr. Bonar stated his first action to a complaint was to give a verbal warning, explain the code, and give a reasonable time frame in which to come into compliance. If the violation continued, he then issued a formal Notice of Violation with a shorter time frame. Finally, a summons to appear before the Board was issued if the resident was still in violation. Many of the violators come into compliance a day or two before the hearing and Mr. Bonar felt this was a misuse of manpower, paperwork, the Board's time, and the attorneys time. Chmn. Nicolini asked if a limit on the number of times (3?) the code enforcement officer went out on a case before a summons was issued would be a solution? Mr. Metcalf thought two times for a complaint was enough. Mr. Bonar again stated no two cases were alike and it would be difficult to determine a fair number of visits for all cases. Mr. Bonar felt it was what happened after the summons was issued that should be addressed. The summons should still be valid even if the resident came into compliance. Whether the meeting was in two weeks or two days, the violator should still be required to come to the meeting and have the case presented. Staff suggested charging a $25.00 summons fee, similar to court costs, or a home occupational application fee, to cover paperwork and the preparation to present the case before the Board. Whether the resident came into compliance before the hearing or not, the fee would still be applicable. Mr. Nicolini agreed with the idea, stating the Board could, at the hearing, waive the fee if they felt circumstances allowed it. After a discussion regarding the suggestion, Mr. May made a motion to recommend to City Council to have a $25 fee assessed, whether violators come into compliance or not by the date of the hearing, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOA/~ REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, .~996 for the paperwork and preparation to bring the case before the Board. If a fine is assessed by the Board at the hearing, the $25 would be deducted from that fine. Mr. Metcalf seconded the motion, and emphasized the fee was just for issuing the summons. Roll call was taken: Mr. Metcalf YES Mr. May YES Mr. Neglia YES Mr. Cosco YES Chmn. Nicolini YES Mr. Goelz YES Motion carried 6-0. Staff was instructed to request a legal opinion from the City Attorney. ATTORNEY'S MATTEI~S: None OLD BUSINESS: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES,:, Mr. Metcalf made a motion to approve the minutes of January 17, 1996, as written. Mr. Goelz seconded the motion. Roll call was taken, motion carried 6-0. NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED: REQUEST FOR CANCEIJ~ATION OF FINE - CASE #96-10784 - WAYNE CLINENAN 922 LAREDOLANE Mr. Bonar reviewed that at the previous meeting, the Board found Mr. Clineman in violation and gave him 24 hours to properly tag his beige van or remove it from the property. A $100 fine would be levied if he was not in compliance by March 21st. Mr. Bonar stated on Monday, March 25th, he found Mr. Clineman working on the van, trying to get it relocated. Mr. Clineman had indicated that they had tried to get a towing service to come all weekend. It was removed by Monday morning. However, the'fine was still assessed. Mr. Clineman had written a letter to the Board members requesting the fine be waived due to his financial difficulties. Mr. Goelz asked Mr. Bonar if he saw Mr. Clineman actually working on the van? Mr. Bonar stated yes, there were 3-4 people trying to get it moved and started. Mr. May suggested reducing the fine in half. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1996 Mr. Nicolini asked how long ago Mr. Clineman was notified he had to remove the van? Mr. Bonar stated since January 9, 1996. Mr. Metcalf made a motion that the Code Enforcement Board reduce the fine to $50.00. Mr. May seconded the motion. It was the consensus of the Board not to waive the fine totally because of the amount of trips Mr. Bonar had to make for this case. Roll call was taken: Mr. Goelz YES Mr. Metcalf YES Mr. May YES Mr. Neglia YES Mr. Cosco YES Chmn. Nicolini YES Motion carried 6-0. BOARD ATT0~Y REO~EST AND UPORTS: None BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: None GENEP2~L DISCUSSIO~ Mr. Cosco stated he felt for the Board to do a better job, they needed to rely on more input from Mr. Bonar during the hearings. Mr. Neglia agreed, stating that he should speak up, even if he was not in agreement with the attorneys. Mr. Metcalf pointed out that Mr. Bonar is under oath during the hearings, and the Board could definitely consider his testimony. PUBL!~,,,,INP~T: None Mr. Neglia made a motion to adjourn the meeting. adjourned the meeting at 3:08 p.m. Chmn. Nicolini Minutes approved at the ~[Fu'~ /~ .! Dorri Boswobth, Code Enforcement Board Secretary , 1996 Meeting./~