Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07151992 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING JULY ~ 1992 - 2~00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2:05 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT .' MRS. KOSTENBADER MR. METCALF MR. NICOLINI CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ATTORNEY LULICH EXCUSED: MR. GILLIAMS MR. TOZZOLO VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER ALSO PRESENT~ ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MRS. KOSTENBADER APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1992. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: CASE# 92-6805 MICHAEL WADE ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN ALL WHO WOULD BE TESTIFYING OR SPEAKING AT THE MEETING. MICHAEL WADE WAS PRESENT AND WAIVED THE READING OF THE SECTION OF THE CODE TO HIM. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, QUESTIONED ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. ON JUNE 8, 1992, MR. NICHOLSON DROVE BY THE RESIDENCE AND OBSERVED A COMMERCIAL UTILITY TRAILER PARKED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY (SECTION 20A- 5.16(C)(2)&(5)). THIS WAS A RECURRENCE AND THEREFORE THIS COD___~ ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 15. 1992 PAGE 2 MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD. THE ORIGINAL CASE WAS ON MAY 8, 1991 WHICH WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD PREVIOUS TO THIS. IT WAS THE SAME TRAILER. MR. WADE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD JULY 17, 1991. THE TRAILER HAS BEEN REMOVED AS OF THIS MEETING. PHOTO OF THE TRAILER WAS GIVEN AS EVIDENCE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED TO MR. WADE. MICHAEL WADE GAVE HIS TESTIMONY. HE STATED THAT THE ONLY REASON THE TRAILER WAS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS BECAUSE HE HAD A BROKEN AXLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. MR. WADE ASKED WHY THE CITY TOOK $200.00 OUT OF HIS PAY FOR DOING WORK FOR THE CITY FOR HIS CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES. HE STATED THE TRAILER HAD BEEN MOVED AND DID NOT KNOW WHY HE HAD TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD THE PREVIOUS TIME. ATTORNEY LULICH TOLD MR. WADE THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING STATED "YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD AT THAT TIME TO ANSWER AND DEFEND THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE ABOVE CITED PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. MR. NICHOLSON STATED THAT THERE WERE 5 IDENTICAL VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO THE ONE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD NOW. MR. WADE STATED HE WAS NEVER NOTIFIED FOR OTHER CASES. MR. NICHOLSON STATED HE LEFT NOTICES ON THEIR DOOR. THIS IS A REPEAT VIOLATION AND DID NOT NEED ANY OTHER NOTIFICATION THAN THE NOTICE OF HEARING. THE CITY WOULD REQUEST THAT A FINE BE IMPOSED AT THIS TIME. A MAXIMUM FINE THAT COULD BE iMPOSED FOR THIS VIOLATION COULD BE UP TO $500.00 HOWEVER, THE CITY WILL LEAVE THIS UP TO THE BOARD. MR. COOPER ASKED MR. NICHOLSON FROM THE DAY THAT YOU NOTICED THE VIOLATION BEFORE YOU TODAY VERSES THE DAY HE WAS SERVED HOW MANY DAYS WAS THAT? MR. NICHOLSON STATED 5 DAYS. ELIZABETH HARBUS (MICHAEL WADE'S GIRLFRIEND) GAVE HER TESTIMONY. SHE ASKED IF iT WAS ALLOWABLE TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF MR. WADE'S PAY. MR. COOPER TOLD HER SHE SHOULD CHECK WITH OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT. SHE STATED THE AXLE WAS BROKEN AND DID NOT SEE ANY NOTICES ON THE DOOR. MR. COOPER TOLD HER IF THE AXLE WAS BROKEN, THEY SHOULD HAVE CALLED US RIGHT AWAY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI WITH REFERENCE TO CASE# 92- 6805 INVOLVING A VIOLATION OF CODE 20A-5.16(C)(2)&(5) FINDING A FACT THAT THE VIOLATION DID OCCUR AND THAT MICHAEL WADE IS THE VIOLATOR. HAVING BEEN DETERMINED THAT A TRAILER WAS PARKED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS WARRANTED. THIS IS A REOCCURRENCE AND WOULD RECOMMEND A FINE OF $250.00 BE ASSESSED AGAINST MR. WADE TO BE PAID WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OR NOTICE OF LIEN TO BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY. COD___~_~E~FORCEMENT. BOARD ~ REGULAR MEETING - JUL~15_~ 199__2 PAGE 3 MOTION DIED LACK OF SECOND. MR. NICOLINI WITHDREW HIS MOTION. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MRS. KOSTENBADER WITH REFERENCE TO CASE# 92-6805, SECTION 20A-5.16(C)(2)&(5) INVOLVING MICHAEL WADE THAT THE BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION. WE FIND THAT THE VIOLATION DID OCCUR. THE TRAILER WAS PARKED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AT 1685 CLEARMONT STREET. AT THIS POINT AND TIME SUGGEST A FINE OF $25.00 AND SHOULD MR. WADE HAVE A RBOCCURRENCE OF THIS, HIS FINE WILL BB $500.00. MOTION DIED LACK OF SECOND. CASE WAS DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF MOTION. CASE# 92-6909 HERBERT STURM ATTORNEY LULICH READ SECTION 7-78 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO MR. STURM. HE ALSO SWORE IN MR. HERBERT STURM. MR. METCALF STATED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, HE WAS APPROACHED BY MR. STURM WHO STATED HE HAD DIFFICULTIES WITH VARIOUS PEOPLE IN THE CITY. MR. METCALF DID NOT AGREE WITH MR. STURM REGARDING THIS SITUATION. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED MR. METCALF WAS WELL QUALIFIED TO RULE ON ANYTHING THAT CAME UP AT THiS MEETING. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY QUESTIONED MR. NICHOLSON CONCERNING THIS CASE. ON 6/30/92 AT 9~30 A.M. MR. NICHOLSON PERSONALLY SERVED A VIOLATION NOTICE ON MR. HERBERT STURM. THE CITY ENGINEER, DAN ECKIS, BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO MR. NICHOLSON'S ATTENTION. PRIOR TO THIS DATE, MR. JERRY THOMAS LOOKED AT THE SWALE. MR. NICHOLSON STATED MR. STURM DUG A DRAINAGE DITCH FROM HIS CULVERT OVER TO THE NEIGHBOR'S CULVERT ONTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND ALSO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CULVERT, HE OPENED THE CULVERT PROBABLY ABOUT 3 FEET. HE CHECKED WITH ENGINEERING AND THEY STATED NO PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED. PHOTO #1 LOOKING AT THE HOUSE SHOWS THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY. THAT IS WERE MR. STURM EXCAVATED HIS OWN CULVERT. PHOTO #2 WAS TAKEN FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY AND SHOWS THE DITCH DUG FROM MR. STURM'S CULVERT OVER TO THE NEIGHBOR'S CULVERT. THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS DATED 6/30/92 AND WAS ISSUED 9:30 A.M. AND WAS SERVED TO HERBERT STURM AT 549 SAUNDERS STREET. THIS WAS GIVEN AS EVIDENCE. MR. STURM WAS GRANTED 3 DAYS TO RETURN THE SWALE TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION. HE DID NOT COMPLY. MR. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 15, 199~ PAGE 4 STURM WAS SERVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON JULY 8, 1992, 10:50 A.M. PERSONALLY BY MR. NICHOLSON. THIS WAS ALSO GIVEN AS EVIDENCE. TO MR. NICHOLSON'S KNOWLEDGE. THIS SITUATION HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED AS OF THIS TIME. TIM SMITH, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN FOR THE CITY, GAVE HIS TESTIMONY. HE MADE A FIELD REPORT ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. HE STATED THE SWALE HAD BEEN EXCAVATED AND THIS WAS IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. TIM SMITH STATED THAT IT APPEARED IT WAS DUG DEEPER THAN IT NEEDED TO BE AND RETAINED MORE WATER THAN BEFORE. THERE WAS A RECESS AT 2.' 41 REQUESTED BY THE BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THE MEETING RESUMED AT 2:45 P.M. MR. HERBERT STURM GAVE HIS TESTIMONY. MR. STURM SHOWED A PHOTO OF ANOTHER CULVERT AT 557 SAUNDERS. HIS ADDRESS IS 549 SAUNDERS AND SAID THE PHOTO SHOWED WHAT MR. STURM'S CULVERT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE HE DUG UP THE GRASS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED FOR THE RECORD WHETHER ANOTHER HOME WAS IN VIOLATION IS OF ABSOLUTELY NO IMPORTANCE TO THIS PROCEEDING IN REGARD TO MR. STURM'S PROPERTY AND WOULD OBJECT TO THE ENTRY OF ANY EVIDENCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PICTURES OF MR. STURM'S OWN PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SOME IMPORTANCE. A RECESS WAS CALLED UNTIL MR. STURM WOULD AGREE TO SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIKE FOR RECORDING. MR. STURM ASKED MR. NICHOLSON TO READ THE SECOND PORTION OF THE VIOLATION NOTICE STATED "SWALE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION". MR. NICHOLSON STATED HE HAD INFORMED MR. STURM OF THIS VERBALLY. MR. STURM WANTED TO SUBMIT A PHOTO OF SOMEONE ELSE'S DRIVEWAY AS TO WHAT HIS SWALE LOOKED LIKE BEFORE. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED THAT THE CITY OBJECTS TO SUBMITTING THIS PHOTO AS EVIDENCE. HE ALSO STATED THAT MR. STURM SHOULD HAVE CONTACTED THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM. ATTORNEY LULICH ASKED MR. COOPER WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR MODIFYING A SWALE. WHEN A HOMEOWNER WANTS TO MODIFY THEIR SWALE, TIM SMITH GOES OUT AND SETS THE GRADES AND ELEVATION. WHEN WE SAY PERMIT, IT IS A LETTER ASKING FOR SWALE PERMIT. TIM SMITH. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, STATED WHEN HE WENT TO MR. STURM'S PROPERTY, MR. STURM WAS ON THE SITE. HIS PURPOSE WAS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY !5, 1992 PAGE 5 TO DO A FIELD INSPECTION. IT IS RARE THAT HOMEOWNERS CLEAN OUT THE SWALE. GENERALLY PUBLIC WORKS GOES OUT AND TAKES CARE OF IT. IN TIM SMITH'S OPINION, THE MODIFICATION OF MR. STURM'S SWALE JUST MOVED THE STANDING WATER TO THE NEIGHBORS. TO BRING THE SWALE BACK TO SPECIFICATIONS WOULD BE TO BRING UP THE SWALE LINE A FEW INCHES AND SOD ON TOP OF THAT. MR. STURM STATED THE CITY ENGINEER TOLD HIM THAT THE CULVERT NEXT DOOR WAS GOING TO BE LOWERED 6 iNCHES. HE ALSO TOLD HIM THAT IF HE WANTED TO EXTEND HIS DRIVEWAY IT WOULD BE OK AND COULD ADD THE STANDARD HEADWALL AND WOULD NOT NEED TO GET A PERMIT SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 60'S. TIM SMITH STATED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO A DRIVEWAY CULVERT WOULD NEED A PERMIT. MR. STURM READ A PORTION OF SECTION 7-78 "A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY ENGINEER AFTER PAYING THE ESTABLISHED FEE IN ORDER TO CHANGE, MODIFY, CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, OR REPAIR ANY DRAINPIPE UNDER A DRIVEWAY, OR ANY OTHER STRUCTURE OR LAND FILL ACCESSORY TO ANY DRIVEWAY, IF ANY SUCH STRUCTURE OR LANDFILL MIGHT ADVERSELY EFFECT DRAINAGE OF ANY DRAINAGE SWALE" HE STATED HOW COULD WHAT HE HAD DONE ADVERSELY EFFECT THE DRAINAGE OF THAT SWALE. HE STATED HE DID NOT DIG ANYTHING ANY LOWER THAN THE END OF THE CULVERT. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE SWALE HAS DONE A COUPLE OF THINGS, 1. IT SHIFTED STANDING WATER, 2. IT CHANGED THE GRADES AND PUT GRADES TOO LOW. MR. STURM STATED THAT MR. TORPY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AS A WITNESS AND THAT HE IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. MR. TORPY STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT HE IS NOT A WITNESS AND SIMPLY LEGAL COUNSEL. HE IS SIMPLY GIVING THE CITY'S RESPONSE WHY MR. STURM HAS VIOLATED THiS ORDINANCE. THIS IS A LEGAL OPINION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. THE POINT OF THIS HOWEVER, HE IS REQUIRED BY THiS ORDINANCE TO COME IN AND RECEIVE CITY APPROVAL TO DUE THIS WORK BECAUSE THE WORK MIGHT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE DRAINAGE. MR. STURM STATED THAT WATER WAS RUNNING INTO HIS HOUSE IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN CITY HALL WAS CLOSED. HE THEN COMMENCED TO OPEN THE SWALE. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE DID NOT MODIFY THE SWALE BUT HE REMOVED THE NON-FUNCTIONAL HEADWALL. HE THEN SUBMITTED PICTURES AS EVIDENCE OF HiS CULVERT AFTER HE DUG UP THE HEAD WALL AREA. THE PICTURE WITH THE WATER IN IT WAS THE LOWER END. THE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN AFTER HE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. COD____~E ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 15, 1992 PAGE 6 THERE WAS A SHORT RECESS SO THE CITY COULD ASK DAN ECKIS, CITY ENGINEER, TO TESTIFY. ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN DAN ECKIS. MR. STURM REPEATED TO THE BOARD WHAT MR. ECKIS SAID TO HIM CONCERNING THIS CASE. MR. ECKIS WAS AT HIS PROPERTY THIS MORNING AND LOOKED THE SITUATION OVER AND HE IN FACT WOULD SEE TO IT THAT THE CULVERT NEXT DOOR WOULD BE LOWER BY ABOUT 6 OR 7 INCHES. AS MR. STURM UNDERSTOOD, DAN ECKIS STATED THAT MR. STURM DID NOT NEED TO GET A PERMIT AS LONG AS HE PUT THINGS BACK IN THE WAY THEY NEEDED TO BE. DAN ECKIS STATED WHEN HE MET WITH MR. STURM EARLIER, HE STATED ONE WAY TO SOLVE SOME OF THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AROUND THERE WAS TO LOWER THE CULVERT NEXT DOOR TO HIM. MR. ECKIS SAID ANY WORK THAT IS DONE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES A PERMIT. MR. STURM HAS BEEN IN ENGINEERING SEVERAL OCCASIONS WANTING TO HAVE A TECHNICIAN TO DO SOME ELEVATION WORK FOR HIM TO ESTABLISH SOME GRADES. I REQUIRED AT THAT TIME THAT HE COME IN AND ACQUIRE A PERMIT. AT THiS TIME, MR. STURM HAS NOT OBTAINED A PERMIT FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. MR. STURM STATED HIS NOTICE OF VIOLATION ONLY STATED SWALE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. MODIFYING SWALE ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAY. THE NOTICE OF HEARING STATED MODIFYING SWALE ADJACENT TO CULVERT WITHOUT PERMIT. HE STATED HE WAS NOT NOTIFIED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT ON HIS FIRST NOTICE DATED 6/30/92. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED THAT THIS BOARD FIND MR. STURM IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 7-78 AS A RESULT OF HIM MODIFYING THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SURROUNDING HIS CULVERT AND HIS SWALE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT FOR SAID MODIFICATION AND WOULD REQUEST THAT HE BE FOUND IN VIOLATION AND BE FINED $250.00 FOR THAT VIOLATION AND BE FINED AN ADDITIONAL $100.00 PER DAY FOR EVERY DAY THE VIOLATION CONTINUES TO EXIST AFTER 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. METCALF, SECONDED BY MRS. KOSTENBADER WITH REFERENCE TO CASE #92-6909, SECTION 7-78 INVOLVING HERBERT STURM THAT WE FIND THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION. WE FIND THE FACT THAT THE SWALE WAS MODIFIED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER WAS AFFECTED. THE VIOLATION IN FACT DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED TH~ VIOLATION, VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 7-78 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS WARRANTED. IF THE ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER, A FINE OF $100.O0 PER DAY MAY BE IMPOSED. A FINE OF $250.00 IS LEVIED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 15, 1992 PAGE 7 ATTORNEY LULICH ASKED MR. METCALF FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER SHOULD BE COMPLIED WITH, IN FACT DID YOU MEAN THAT A PERMIT SHOULD BE OBTAINED AND THE SWALE SHOULD BE CORRECTED PURSUANT TO CITY INSTRUCTIONS. MR. METCALF STATED THAT WAS HIS INTENT. MOTION CARRIED. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED TO MR. STURM IF HE WANTED TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, HE COULD. BOARD ATTORNEY REOUESTS AND REPORTS: NONE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: NONE PUBLIC INPUT~ NONE ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY ASKED THE BOARD WHY TWO MOTIONS WERE MADE CONCERNING MICHAEL WADE, CASE# 92-6805, AND NEITHER ONE OF THEM WERE SECONDED. THEREFORE, THIS CASE WAS DISMISSED. THE BOARD NEEDS TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WHEN THIS HAPPENS. UNFORTUNATELY, IF THERE IS NO SECOND TO A MOTION, IT DIES. SOMEONE SHOULD SECOND THE MOTION AND THEN CAN DISCUSS IT. IF YOU SECOND A MOTION, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION TO CARRY. MR. METCALF STATED THE CiTY SHOULD SHOW PROOF OF VIOLATION NOTICES EVEN IF DOOR HANGERS. MR. METCALF SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP IN DISCUSSION AT TIME OF MOTION. MRS. KOSTENBADER ALSO REQUESTED THAT WHEN WE BRING BACK FOR REPEAT VIOLATION THAT IN SOME MANNER THE CITY MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE BOARD TO SEE WHAT HE DID AND WHEN THE LETTERS WERE SENT INSTEAD OF SEARCHING IN THE PACKET FOR THAT INFORMATION. IF THE CITY MAKES A LIST OF DATES OF VIOLATIONS WITH LETTER SENT OR DOOR HANGERS LEFT, IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THE BOARD. A MEMBER CAN ASK TO STOP THE MEETING FOR A FEW MINUTES SO THEY COULD REVIEW THE FILE FOR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION. MR. METCALF STATED THAT THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE LET THE VIOLATIONS GO FOR 5 OR 6 TIMES BEFORE BRINGING THE CASE BACK AS A REPEAT VIOLATION. REPEAT VIOLATORS DO NOT HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED FIRST BEFORE SENDING A NOTICE OF HEARING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 15, 1992 PAGE 8 CHAIRMAN DEROBERTiS DID RESEARCH ON DIFFERENT ORDINANCES FROM OTHER CITIES. THE ONE ON STORAGE WAS FROM VERO BEACH. THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED THIS LIGHTLY AT THE LAST MEETING. HE SAID THE ORDINANCES WE HAVE ARE TOO VAGUE. HE SUGGESTED PASSING THESE ORDINANCES TO THE CITY, (MR. COOPER), FOR STAFF'S REVIEW AND INPUT FOR THE NEXT MEETING. IF THERE IS POSITIVE INPUT, WE WILL HAVE MR. COOPER PASS IT ONTO CITY COUNCIL. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TOLD THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THEY NEED TO REMAIN NEUTRAL IN CASES. THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD NOT DISCUSS THE CASES WITH CITY STAFF, THE VIOLATOR, OR ANYONE. GOING OUT AND VIEWING A SITE WITHOUT TALKING WITH ANYONE, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS HAD A QUESTIONED ABOUT A MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW ON THE APPEAL OF MR. STURM. THE CITY IS NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW. IF THE CITY WINS THE APPEAL, THE ORDER WILL BE IN EFFECT AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND THE FINES WILL RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER & UP. MR. METCALF ASKED ABOUT VIOLATION OF FLAG POLE IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY. HE WANTED TO ASK WHY IT WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION INSTEAD OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. ATTORNEY TORPY TOLD MR. METCALF THAT THE FLAG POLE COULD REMAIN IF APPROVED BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. PLANNING & ZONING DID APPROVE IT BUT THE CITY WENT AGAINST IT FOR LEGAL REASONS. NOW IF THE OWNER DOES NOT REMOVE THE FLAG POLE, THEN IT WILL BECOME A VIOLATION AND MIGHT BE BROUGHT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. ADJOURN: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI, SECONDED BY MRS KOSTENBADER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 4:05 P.M. CARRIED. Minutes approy~d at the ~~~.-/~.1 , 1992 Meeting. Donato Derobertis, Chairman Gerry Kub~ Board Secretary City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 1992 OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: CASE# 92-6735 MICHAEL MANFRE & LINDA BROWN CASE# 92-6500 MANUEL RAIMI, PRUDENTIAL BUILDING CO. HENRY A. FISCHER, FISCHER & SONS, INC. 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.