Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04211993 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 r~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 ~ FAX (407) 589-5570 SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: NONE DISCUSS PROPOSED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING PROCEDURE CASE# 93-7835 SAHAK & SILVA DAVIDIAN BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: GENERAL DISCUSSION: PUBLIC INPUT: ADJOURN: NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WiLL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1993 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 ~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 r~ FAX (407) 589-5570 PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD THEIR REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1993 AT 2:00 P.M. iN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~'S ," SECRETARY SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH ~ RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21~ 1993 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. NICOLINi MR. METCALF MR. TOZZOLO CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ATTORNEY LULICH MRS. KOSTENBADER VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER UNEXCUSED: MR. GILLIAMS EXCUSED: ROBERT N. NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1993. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: DISCUSSING THE PROPOSED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING PROCEDURE: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS EACH HAVE IN THEIR PACKET AN OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURE THAT THE CITY INTENDS ON FOLLOWING FROM HERE ON OUT IN PRESENTING CASES TO THE BOARD. THE BASES FOR THIS PROCEDURE IS THE RELATIVELY RECENT CHANGES IN THE LAW WITH REGARD TO PROCEEDINGS IN FRONT OF QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARDS. WE SHOULD HAVE A CONSISTENT PROCEDURE THAT WILL RESULT IN EVIDENCE BEING PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN CONSISTENT TO THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. HE ALSO GAVE THE BOARD MEMBERS A COPY OF A PROPOSED ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT WHICH HE DISCUSSED LATER. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 21, 1993 PAGE 2 HEARING PREPARATION: THE BOARD PACKETS IN THE PAST HAVE CONSISTED OF VARIOUS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING EACH CASE. THE PACKETS WILL NO LONGER CONTAIN THOSE DOCUMENTS. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE IN THE PACKETS WILL SIMPLY BE THE NOTICES WITH REGARD TO THE HEARING. BOARD MEMBERS NOT INVESTIGATORS: THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT INVESTIGATORS BUT ARE JUDGES. DO NOT GO TO A SITE THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD. THE BOARD AS A GROUP COULD GO TO A SITE TOGETHER BUT NOT INDIVIDUALLY. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER HAS INFORMATION THAT WILL MAKE THEM PARTIAL, THE MEMBER SHOULD ANNOUNCE IT AND NOT VOTE. TAKING EVIDENCE: ALL WITNESSES MUST BE SWORN. MUST SPEAK INTO THE RECORDING SYSTEM. IF SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING FROM THE GALLERY, THE CHAIRMAN SHALL ASK THEM TO COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BEFORE THEY SPEAK SO IT IS ON RECORD. THE CITY WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURS IS IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER ALLEGED VIOLATOR. IF A DOCUMENT IS OFFERED AS EVIDENCE, IT MUST BE MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT AND FROM NOW ON KEPT iN A SEPARATE FILE (BOARD HEARING FILE). IN THIS HEARING FILE THERE WILL ONLY BE NOTICE OF HEARING AND THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE OFFERED IN THE HEARING AND THE ORDER THAT RESULTS FROM THAT HEARING. IF THE CITY DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE VIOLATION ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED WITHIN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND THAT WE HAVE NOT NOTIFIED THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR, THE CASE WOULD BE DISMISSED REGARDLESS OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE. WAS VIOLATION COMMITTED: CITY MUST OFFER EVIDENCE, EITHER THROUGH WITNESS TESTIMONY, WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, OR DEMONSTRATIVE (I.E., PHOTOS) THAT ESTABLISHES: VIOLATION OF EACH ELEMENT OF CITY CODE WAS COMMITTED; AND ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED VIOLATION. (THIS MAY MEAN ALLEGED VIOLATOR OWNED THE PROPERTY WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURRED, OR THAT ALLEGED VIOLATOR ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE VIOLATION, OR BOTH.) ALLEGED VIOLATORS CASE: THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR HAS TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. THE FIRST IS AFTER THE CITY PRESENTS A WITNESS. THE CHAIRMAN WILL ASK THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS. THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY THEY HAVE IS WHEN THE CITY IS FINISHED PRESENTING ITS ENTIRE CASE. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 21~ 1993 PAGE 3 ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT AND FINE: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY HAD PROVIDED A COPY OF A PROPOSED ORDER FORM WHICH HE HAS USED ON OTHER BOARDS. THE CITY WILL BE PROVIDING TO THE BOARD THIS ORDER FILLED OUT FOR EACH CASE. WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR THE CITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS BOARD, THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING THIS PROPOSED ORDER. THIS ORDER DOES NOT MEAN THE BOARD HAS TO AGREE WITH IT. IF THE BOARD DOES AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSED ORDER, THE BOARD CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE CITY'S PROPOSED ORDER. THE VIOLATOR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE iT AND IT WOULD BE ON THE RECORD AND IT COULD BE READ TO WHAT IT IS. IF THE BOARD DISAGREES WITH THE PROPOSED ORDER, THE BOARD CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MOTION. IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT A VIOLATION DID OCCUR, AN ORDER SHOULD BE ENTERED STATING THE SPECIFIC FACTS THAT THE BOARD DEEMS TO CONSTITUTE THE VIOLATION. THE FINDING OF FACTS SHOULD BE VERY SPECIFIC IN CASE OF AN APPEAL. THE CITY MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER EVIDENCE REGARDING REPEAT VIOLATIONS. FINE: UPON SEPARATE MOTION, THE BOARD MAY IMPOSE A FINE FOR EACH DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES TO EXIST. FINES MAY NOT EXCEED $250.00 PER DAY, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A REPEAT VIOLATION, IN WHICH CASE A FINE MAY NOT EXCEED $500.00 PER DAY. FORM OF ORDER: THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HAS PROVIDED A PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER. THERE IS GOING TO BE A MODIFICATION ON THIS PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER TO HAVE A SECTION FOR EACH BOARD MEMBER'S VOTE. THE BOARD SECRETARY ASKED IF SHE SHOULD ASK FOR A ROLL CALL ON EVERY MOTION. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED ONLY IF THERE IS A NAY VOTE. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS: AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE LABELED AS EXHIBIT "1", EXHIBIT "2", ETC. THE ORIGINAL FINAL ORDER, AND ALL EXHIBITS, SHOULD BE MAINTAINED, BY THE BOARD CLERK, IN A SEPARATE SUB-FILE OF THE ORIGINAL CASE. ONLY DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE OFFERED AT THE CODE BOARD HEARING MAY BE MAINTAINED IN THE PROCEEDING FILE. ATTORNEY LULICH ASKED ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY IS IT THE INTENTION OF THE CITY TO BE DOING THE ORDERS OR IS IT STILL THE JOB FUNCTION OF THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO DO THE ORDERS. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL ~ 1993 PAGE 4 ATTORNEY TORPY REPLIED THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO DO THE ACTUAL ORDERS. ATTORNEY LULICH MADE SOME COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN GIVE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR IS DUE PROCESS OF LAW SUCH AS MAKING SURE HE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED, THAT HE IS HEARD AND THAT HE CAN PRESENT TO THE BOARD EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT PARTIAL BECAUSE THE BOARD WOULD BE RECEIVING EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF EVERYONE FROM BOTH THE CITY AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR. WITH REGARD TO THE PROCEDURE, ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THE BOARD HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE EXHIBITS ARE ALSO HANDED TO THE BOARD BY THE CITY AND SOME TIMES THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR HAS SOME EXHIBITS. THERE SHOULD BE A TOTAL FILE AND THE TAPE WILL CONFIRM THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE. THE CITY IS SAYING THERE WILL BE TWO SEPARATE FILES BECAUSE THE CITY IS ENTITLED TO A PRIVATE FILE CALLED WORK PRODUCT. ANYTHING THAT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD IS THE PUBLIC FILE. WHEN ATTORNEY LULICH THINKS THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT MADE A CLEAR MOTION, HE DOES ASK THE BOARD TO CLEARLY STATE WHAT THE FINDING OF FACTS ARE. THE CONCLUSION OF LAW MEANS THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OR THERE WASN'T PURSUANT TO THE ORDINANCE. THIS HAS BEEN BUILT INTO THE MOTION AND HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THE TYPED OUT TAPE IN FRONT OF HIM WHEN HE IS DRAFTING THE ORDER. SO THE ORDER IS USUALLY WHAT THE MOTION WAS IN HIS SUMMARY. THE CITY COULD ALWAYS GIVE ATTORNEY LULICH A COPY OF THE MINUTES SO HIS ORDER COULD BE EXACT. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED HE THOUGHT ATTORNEY LULICH SINCE HE IS THE BOARD ATTORNEY, SHOULD DRAW UP THE ORDER BECAUSE HE WOULD BE DRAWING UP THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. ATTORNEY LULICH THINKS THE OVERALL DISCUSSION IS GOOD AS FAR AS PROCEDURE AND HE DOES THINK THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE. HE HAS COME TO THE BOARD WITH DIFFERENT MOTIONS REVISING THEM TRYING TO MAKE THE BOARD'S JOB EASIER. HE THINKS IF THE CITY WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH WHAT WAS SUGGESTED OF THEM iN PUTTING IN WRITING THAT PROPOSED MOTION, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO APPROVE IT BY THE BOARD AS THEY HAVE WRITTEN OR THE BOARD TO MODIFY IT AND HE COULD WRITE THE CHANGES ON THEIR PROPOSED MOTIONS SO WE ARE ALL IN LINE. ATTORNEY LULICH FINDS THE PROPOSED ORDER PRESENTED BY ATTORNEY TORPY LACKING IN MANY WAYS. THERE IS NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION, NO STATEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE OR CODE THAT IS BEING VIOLATED. THE PROPOSED ORDER ALSO STATED THAT THE CODE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 21~ 1993 PAGE 5 ENFORCEMENT BOARD MAY LEVY A FINE BUT, IN THE PAST WE HAVE LEVIED IT OR NOT LEVIED IT BUT HAVE NOT LEFT IT UP TO A FUTURE DATE. ATTORNEY LULICH'S ORDER WHICH IS ALMOST THE SAME AMOUNT OF PAGES IS A LITTLE MORE THOROUGH. HIS ORDER STATES THAT THE VIOLATOR HAS TO NOTIFY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WI~EN THE SPECIFIC VIOLATION HAS BEEN CURED. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THE REASON FOR A SEPARATE FILE ON EACH CASE IS STRICTLY IN EVENT OF AN APPEAL. IT IS ASKING THE CLERK TO GO THROUGH AND SEPARATE THE FILES OF WHAT WAS OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. HE STATED HIS OFFICE HAS NO INTENTION OF PREPARING THESE ORDERS OUTSIDE REVIEWING THEM AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE WHAT THE CITY THINKS IS IMPORTANT FOR APPEAL PURPOSES. THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION IS SIMPLY TO HAVE THE ORDERS BE PREPARED BY STAFF. ATTORNEY LULICH SUGGESTED MEETING WITH MR. COOPER TO IRON OUT EXACTLY WHAT PROCEDURES WOULD BE RECOMMENDED HOPEFULLY JOINTLY BY THE TWO OF THEM. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THAT THE ORDERS OR THE FINES ARE REGULATED BY CHAPTER 162.09 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. IF AN ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPON NOTIFICATION BY THE CODE INSPECTOR THAT AN ORDER OF THE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE SET TIME, THE BOARD MAY ORDER THE VIOLATOR TO PAY A FINE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BOARD SAYS THE VIOLATOR HAS 20 DAYS TO COMPLY OR ELSE A FINE OF X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS IS IMPOSED PER DAY. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS TO GO OUT AND INSPECT THAT PROPERTY AND ENTER AN ORDER OF NONCOMPLIANCE BEFORE THE FINE CAN BEGIN TO RUN. THE PROPOSED ORDER SAYS UPON FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, ON BEFORE THE DAY OF , 19 , THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MAY LEVY A FINE UP TO ($ FOR EVERY DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES PAST THE DATE SET FOR COMPLIANCE. THIS IS AN OPTIONAL THING AND THIS IS WHY THE CITY IS USING THE WORD MAY IN THERE. ATTORNEY LULICH BROUGHT UP AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE. THE POLICY WAS TO HAVE AN ORDER IMPOSED BY THE BOARD ORDERING A VIOLATOR TO DO SOMETHING SUBJECT TO A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD AND IF IT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THEN IT CAME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE BOARD SET A FINE. USUALLY WE PLACED A LIEN AT THAT TIME. THE LIEN HAS TO BE A FIXED FINE. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ASKED ATTORNEY TORPY IF THE BOARD WAS TO HEAR CASE 93-7835. THERE WERE NO CASES TO BE DISCUSSED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 21, 1993 PAGE 6 A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MRS. KOSTENBADER TO AUTHORIZE OUR ATTORNEY, MR. LULICH, TO SIT DOWN WITH MR. COOPER AND GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS HE FEELS NECESSARY. CARRIED. VICE CHAIRMAI~ FISCHER LEFT EARLY (APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M.) OLD BUSINESS: MR. NICOLINI BROUGHT UP THE MOTION CONCERNING DAVID A. KOZDRA, CASE 92-7475 STATED IN THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1993. THE MOTION READ A FINE OF $25.00 IS IMPOSED TO BE PAID NOT LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THIS MEETING. THiS WAS AMENDED TO A $50.00 FINE BUT THE 10 DAYS WERE STILL THERE. ON THE ORDER TO MR. KOZDRA, UNDER CONCLUSION OF LAW, THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT A SET TIME OF 10 DAYS. HE THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED. MR. COOPER STATED WE ARE GOING TO ASK THAT THIS ACTUAL ORDER BE AMENDED ANYWAY IN REGARDS TO ANOTHER PORTION OF IT. ATTORNEY TORPY STATED IT WILL BE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR NEXT MONTH. NEW BUSINESS: CASE 93-7835 SAHAK & SILVA DAVIDIAN CITY WITHDREW CASE. BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: NONE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: NONE GENERAL DISCUSSION: NONE PUBLIC INPUT: CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED TO MR. STURM THAT THE BOARD RECOGNIZES HIM AND UNDER THE PROCEDURE OF PUBLIC INPUT, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK WILL HAVE A TIME LIMIT OF NO MORE THAN 5 MINUTES. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 21~ 1993 PAGE 7 MR. STURM OF 549 SAUNDERS STREET QUESTIONED THE 5 MINUTE TIME LIMIT GIVEN. HE ASKED IF IT WAS IN ANY PUBLISHED ORDINANCE. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED THE CITY COUNCIL OPERATES UNDER THE SAME RULING. MR. STURM STATED THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOWS 10 MINUTES. THE CHAIRMAN FELT 5 MINUTES WAS ADEQUATE. MR. STURM ASKED IF IT WAS HIS DECISION OR THE BOARD'S DECISION. MR. DEROBERTIS STATED HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. THE CHAIRMAN SUGGESTED MR. STURM SHOULD PROCEED AND THAT HIS TIME WAS RUNNING. MR. STURM STATED IN ORDER TO PUT INPUT FROM A PROSPECTIVE ALLEGED VIOLATOR, HE FINDS THE CONDUCT OF THE CHAIRMAN VERY HARSH AND UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE CHAIR PERSON OF THE BOARD. MR. STURM THOUGHT ATTORNEY TORPY'S PROPOSED ORDER IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. MR. STURM ASKED ATTORNEY LULICH ABOUT THE KOZDRA ORDER. HE IS SAYING THERE IS NO ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDER. MR. STURM SAID HE TRIED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WAS TOTALLY IGNORED. HIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED. HE POINTED OUT THAT ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD CAN MAKE A DECISION ON WILL BE ACCEPTED. ANYBODY WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE WILL BE HEARD. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAS COME UP AT THE MEETING THAT MR. STURM DOES NOT SEE IN ANY ORDINANCE OR FLORIDA STATUTE. THE STATUTE IS WHAT GIVES THE BOARD ITS AUTHORITY. HE STATED THE ORDINANCE STATED AT LEAST THREE OF FOUR MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE FOR AN ORDER TO BE LEGAL OR OFFICIAL. WITHOUT DOING A ROLL CALL VOTE, YOU CAN NOT PROVE THAT AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED. MR. STURM ASKED ATTORNEY TORPY IS THERE ANY POINT IN TIME THAT THE CITY IS DONE WITH ITS PRESENTATION OF THE CASE. ATTORNEY TORPY THOUGHT HE WAS VERY CLEAR IN SAYING THE VIOLATOR HAS TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. FIRST, EACH TIME ATTORNEY TORPY ASK QUESTIONS OF A WITNESS AND IS FINISHED, THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS. SECOND, AFTER THE CITY FINISHES THEIR CASE AND ANNOUNCES THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS OWN WITNESSES AND ATTORNEY TORPY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED MR. STURM'S PUBLIC INPUT WENT ON FOR ALMOST 10 MINUTES. ADJOURN: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MRS. KOSTENBADER, SECONDED BY MR. TOZZOLO TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 3:14 P.M. CARRIED. Minutes approved at the 19~ Meeting. Donato Derobertis, Chairman Board Secretary