Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07191990 CODE ENFORCE.~ENT B.OARD REGULAR MEETING JUL._.~Y 19t 1990 - 2~00 P.M.__=. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2,00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT, MR. NICOLINI MR. TOZZOLO CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER ATTORNEY LULICH MR. GILLIAMS ALSO PRESENT~ EXCUSED, MRS. KOSTENBADER BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1990. CARRIED. ATTORNEY'S MATTERS, ATTORNEY LULICH INQUIRED ABOUT A LIST OF LIENS THAT STAFF MIGHT HAVE ON RECORD. THE BOARD SECRETARY STATED SHE WOULD TRY TO GET A REPORT TOGETHER SHOWING ANY LIENS IMPOSED ON ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES IN FILE. OL___D_D BUSINESS, STEVE PHILLIPSON CASE# 90-3471 MR. PHILLIPSON HAS NOT PAID HIS FINE OF $250.00 AS OF THIS MEETING. HE WAS NOTIFIED BY CERTIFIED MAIL A SECOND. TIME. MR. PHILLIPSON INDICATED TO MR. COOPER THAT HE WOULD PAY THE FINE. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 19. 1990 CONTINUED OLD BUSINESS CASE% 90-3471 PAGE 2 MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY MR. TOZZOLO TO INSTRUCT THE BOARD ATTORNEY UNDER OLD BUSINESS TO HAVE HIM PUT TOGETHER A LIEN TO BE FILED AGAINST STEVE PHILLIPSON, CASE# 90-3471. CARRIED. JAHES WADSWORTH CASE# 90-3617 MR. NICHOLSON~ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER~ STATED HE DIDN'T KNOW IF THE VIOLATION WAS CORRECTED BUT THE SWAMP BUGGY WAS HOVED WHETHER UNDER ITS OWN POWER OR NOT ONTO AN ADJOINING LOT. MR. WADSWORTH DOES NOT OWN THE LOT. HR. WADSWORTH WANTS TO PURCHASE THE LOT TO STORE THE BUGGY ON. THE VEHICLE IS NOT OPERABLE. IT IS STILL IN VIOLATION EVEN IF HE MOVES IT TO AN EHPTY LOT. HR. WADSWORTH WANTED MORE TIME TO TAKE CARE OF HIS SWAMP BUGGY. A MOTION WAS HADE BUT NOT SECONDED OR CARRIED BY MR. GILLIAMS IN REFERENCE TO CASE 90-3613 JAHES WADSWORTH THAT A 30 DAY TIME PERIOD BE GIVEN TO PURCHASE LOT OR REMOVE BUGGY. IF CANNOT PURCHASE LOT IN 30 DAYS BRING IN SALES PURCHASE CONTRACT DATED AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES, NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS. THE CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, RECOMMENDED TO GIVE EXTENSION TO HAKE SWAHP BUGGY OPERABLE OR REMOVE IT ENTIRELY. A MOTION WAS AHENDED BY MR. GILLIAMS~ SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI IN REFERENCE TO CASE# 90-3613 JAMES WADSWORTH THAT AN EXTENSION OF 30 DAYS BE GIVEN TO COMPLY OR REHOVE SWAMP BUGGY FROH PROPERTY. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS~ LEONARD GALBRAITH CASE# 90-3916 ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN HR. GALBRAITH, BOB NICHOLSON, TIM SHITH AND ALL WITNESSES RELATING TO THESE CASES. ATTORNEY LULICH READ THE VIOLATION SECTION 2OA-5.16(C)(4) TO HR. GALBRAITH. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY ~ 199._~ CASE #90-3916 PAGE 3 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY QUESTIONED MR. NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION OCCURRED ON 1/11/90. THE OWNER WAS NOTIFIED BY A.S.A.P. ON 2/12/90 CASE# 3371 OCCURRED BUT WAS CORRECTED WITHIN 11 DAYS. ON 2/26/90, CASE #3421, SAME VIOLATION TOOK 10 DAYS TO CORRECT. ON MAY 27, 1990, CASE #3767 SAME VIOLATION (3 R.V.'S) TOOK 7 DAYS TO CORRECT. ON 6/25/90 THE CURRENT CASE OCCURRED WHICH HAS NOW BEEN RESOLVED AS OF THIS MEETING. SIX (6) VIOLATIONS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE JANUARY 1990. MR. GALBRAITH WAS SERVED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD ON 7/11/90 BY A.$.A.P. PHOTO'S WERE GIVEN AS EVIDENCE TO BOARD FOR REVIEW. MR. GALBRAITH GAVE HIS SIDE OF THE CASE. HE SAID THE WEEK BOB WAS TALKING ABOUT THE R.V. WAS AT A BODY SHOP AND THE NEXT DAY TO THE WELDING SHOP. HE STATED BOB PICKED ON HIM AND WAS CLAIMING DISCRIMINATION. MR. COOPER STATED THAT A 48 HOUR PERIOD USUALLY IS GIVEN BEFORE MR. NICHOLSON CAN TAKE ACTION ON A VIOLATION. MR. NiCHOLSON ONLY GAVE HIM 24 HOURS ON THIS CASE BECAUSE OF HIS PREVIOUS 9 CASES ON SAME CODE VIOLATION. THE CITY ATTORNEY CROSSED-EXAMINED MR. GALBRAITH. HE STATED ON 6/26/90 WAS THE R.V. PARKED IN YOUR DRIVEWAY? MR. GALBRAITH STATED YES IT WAS ON THAT DATE. ON NOVEMBER 17, 1989 WAS A UTILITY TRAILER IN YOUR DRIVEWAY? MR. GALBRAITH STATED HE DID NOT KNOW. ON OCTOBER 24, 1989 AND OCTOBER 4, 1989 WAS A UTILITY TRAILER IN YOUR DRIVEWAY? HE STATED HE DIDN'T KNOW THE DATES. MRS. ADAMS TESIFIED FOR MR. GALBRAITH. SHE STATED THAT MR. GALBRAITH MOVES ANY VEHICLES WHEN HE IS DONE WORKING ON THEM. SHE STATED THAT SHE GOES BY MR. GALBRAITH'S HOUSE AND THE R.V. HAS BEEN ON SIDE OF HOUSE. HE HAS ALSO PUT IN A CEMENT DRIVE ON SIDE OF HOUSE TO PUT THE VEHICLE. HIS HOUSE ALWAYS LOOKS NICE. MR. GALBRAITH STATED HIS R.V. WAS NOT IN DRIVEWAY FOR 48 HOURS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED MR. GALBRAITH HAD SEVERAL REOCCURRENCES OF THE SAME CODE. HE ALSO RECOMMENDED A FINE OF $200.00. MRS. GALBRAITH ALSO TESTIFIED STATING THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION IN THE PAST. THEY HAVE PROPERTY TO PUT ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT ON. THEY ALWAYS TRY TO KEEP THEIR HOUSE LOOKING NICE. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY 19, 1990 CASE #90-3916 PAGE 4 STAFF MODIFIED RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE WILL BE NO SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR A FINE. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT IF THE BOARD DETERMINES A VIOLATION EXISTS AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR IS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD AGAIN THAT A STIFFER PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED AS A REOCCURENCE. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY READ FROM AMENDED STATUTE THAT IF VIOLATION IS CORRECTED AND THEN REOCCURRES OR IS NOT CORRECTED BY THE TIME SPECIFIED BY THE CODE INSPECTOR, THE CASE MAY GO BEFORE THE BOARD. MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLIAMS, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI IN REFERENCE TO CASE #90-3916 INVOLVING MR. LEONARD GALBRAITH THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION, FINDINGS OF FACT~ ON OCTOBER 29, AND OCTOBER 4, 1989 MR. GALBRAITH HAD INDICATED THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THE TRAILER WAS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. ON 6/6/90 THE R.V. WAS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THE VIOLATION IN FACT DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. C) AN "ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT" IS WARRANTED. IF THE ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH THAT THERE BE A FINE IN THE FUTURE. AT THIS TIME NO FINE SHALL BE SUGGESTED BUT IF WE HEAR THIS CASE AGAIN THAT A STIFFER PENALTY WILL OCCUR. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, THE MOTION WAS CARRIED. TOZZOLO VOTED NAYE. MR. TIMOTHY SMITH CASE# 90-3640 MR. SMITH HAS COMPLIED WITH SECTION 14-7 OF THE CODE. MR. GILLIAMS MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. TOZZOLO TO DISMISS CASE# 3640. CARRIED. ~ODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGUL6R MEETING ~ JULY ~ 1990 PAGE 5 PUBLIC INPUT, MRS. ADAMS STATED SHE IS A VIOLATOR OF THE CODE. SHE HAD A BOAT IN FRONT OF HER HOUSE. MR. ADAMS IS A FISHERMAN AND USES IT FOR HIS BUSINESS. WHEN HE IS DONE WITH THE BOAT, IT WILL BE PUT IN THE BACK YARD. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS SUGGESTED THAT SHE TALK TO MR. COOPER OR MR. NICHOLSON. A LETTER HAS NOT BE SENT YET. MRS. ADAMS ONLY RECEIVE A NOTE TO ADVISE HER OF THE ORDINANCE. MR. COOPER SUGGESTED THAT MRS. ADAMS TALK TO CiTY COUNCIL IF SHE WANTS TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. IF MRS. ADAMS NEEDS TIME TO TAKE CARE OF THE BOAT, MR. COOPER SAID THE DEPARTMENT WILL WORK WITH HER. BU_~ING OFFICIAL MATTERS, BRUCE COOPER STATED HE DOES NOT WORK FOR THE BOARD. HE WORKS FOR THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL. THE BOARD INVESTIGATES VIOLATIONS THAT ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM NOT TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE OPEN, CLOSED ETC. AS FOR MR. SKILLMAN THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT A LONG TiME AGO AND CLOSED ON ATTORNEY'S OPINION. IF SOMEONE HAS NOT CLEARED THEIR LOT ONCE BEFORE, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MOWED. MR. SKiLLMAN HAS MOWED THE PROPERTY. MR. NICHOLSON TOOK PICTURES AND NOW MR. SKILLMAN MUST MAINTAIN THE LOT SINCE WE HAVE PROOF. AS FOR THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION CO. , IT HAS A CONSTRUCTION SITE ON MAIN STREET. IT KEEPS ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT IN ONE PLACE. STAFF DECIDED IT WAS APPROPRIATE. THE CITY REQUIRED THEM TO HAVE A FENCE. THE CITY TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS~ND THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. THIS IS TEMPORARY UNTIL OCTOBER.T~THE** SEWER COMPANY WAS PERMITTED BY CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTION SITE ON MAIN STREET. AS FOR BOB'S GARAGE ON U.S. %1, NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BEFORE. HE WILL BE ON THE NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA FOR REOCCURRING VIOLATIONS. ~QARD ATTQ~NEY REOUE.STS & REPORTS~ THE BOARD HAD ASKED FOR GUIDELINES iN JURISDICTION FROM ATTORNEY LULICH. HE GAVE THEM RESEARCH ON THIS MATTER. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR. MEETiNG - 7-19-90 PAGE 6 THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY READ SECTION 162.O8 POWERS OF ENFORCEMENT BOARDS: SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO: 1. ADOPT RULES OF HEARING 2. SUBPOENA WITNESSES TO HEARING 3. SUBPOENA EVIDENCE TO HEARING 4. TAKE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH 5. ISSUE ORDERS HE ALSO READ 162.O6 SUBSECTION 1-ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES THE DUTY OF CODE INSPECTOR IS TO INITIATE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES OF THE VARIOUS CODES. HOWEVER, NO MEMBER OF THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO INITIATE SUCH ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. THE BOARD ENDS THE PROCESS. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BOARD ATTORNEY'S. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BELIEVES THE BOARD'S ROLE IS TO LISTEN TO EVIDENCE OF CASES BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD BY THE CODE INSPECTOR'S OFFICE, NOTHING MORE. THE BOARD ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE ASSISTANT CiTY ATTORNEY BRING THIS BEFORE THE CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL TO INTERPRET THE STATUTES. BASED UPON ATTORNEY LULICH'S REVIEW OF THE CITY ORDIANCE, THE ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYS IN 2.93(B) THE BOARD HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE BOARD CAN INITIATE AS A CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR CAN INITATE INVESTIGATIONS BUT, WITH A POSSIBILITY OF DISCRIMINATION THERE COULD BE A BOARD INFLUENCE. IF ANY SITE VIOLATION EXCEEDS BEYOND THE TIME SPECIFIED FOR CORRECTIONS THE CODE INSPECTOR OR BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL NOTIFY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND REQUEST A HEARING. IF THE CODE INSPECTOR DOESN'T WANT TO BRING A CASE BEFORE THE BOARD, HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. HOWEVER, UNDER PUBLIC INPUT IF PEOPLE ARE COMING TO BOARD COMPLAINING ABOUT DISCRIMINATION HAPPENING CONSISTENTLY, THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HAVE IT INVESTIGATED. ATTORNEY LULICH READ THE PROCEDURES FOR THE HEARING AS FOLLOWSi 1. ALL ALLEGED VIOLATORS AND WITNESSES SWORN IN. 2. ARTICLE OR SECTION OF CODE READ TO ALLEGED VIOLATOR. CODE ENFORCEmenT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - JULY .19. 1990 PAGE 7 3. CITY ATTORNEY PRESENTS CASE & WITNESSES. 4. ALLEGED VIOLATOR CROSS-EXAMINES CITY ATTORNEY'S WITNESSES. 5. ALLEGED VIOLATOR GIVES CASE & WITNESSES. 6. CITY ATTORNEY CROSS-EXAMINES ALLEGED VIOLATOR ANY WITNESSES. 7. CITY ATTORNEY GIVES SUMMATION. 8. ALLEGED VIOLATOR GIVES SUMMATION. BRUCE COOPER STATED THAT THE LETTER FROM MR. LULICH WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL. ADJOURN~ A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLIAMS, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 4,15. CARRIED. *** Amended Minutes Approved at August 15, 1990 Meeting. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF T. HE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVF. R COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD THEIR REGULAR MEETING ON TItURSDAY, JULY 11.9, 1990 AT 2:00 P.M..IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. G. KUBES, SECRETARY 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. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 1:3 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 FAX 407-589-5570 SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 1990 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: OLD BUSINESS: REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1990 STEVE PHILLIPSON CASE# 90-3471 JAMES WADSWORTH CASE# 90-3617 NEW BUSINESS: LEONARD GALBRAITH CASE# 90-3916 TIMOTHY SMITH (AVION) CASE# 90-3640 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.