Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09031992 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 3. 1992 - 10:00 A.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER AT 10:O5 A.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: MR. GILLIAMS VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER MR. METCALF ATTORNEY LULICH MR. NICOLINi MR. TOZZOLO MRS. KOSTENBADER EXCUSED~ CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ROBERT NICHOLSON ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY OLD BUSINESS: CASE# 92-6909 HERBERT STURM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, RICHARD TORPY, STATED TO THE BOARD THAT THIS IS THE CASE THAT MR. STURM HAD DONE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO HIS SWALE. THE BOARD FOUND HIM IN VIOLATION. THE ORDER WAS DATED JULY 23, 1992. HE EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. MR. STURH HAS SINCE COME IN AND APPLIED AND OBTAINED A PERMIT TO DO SOME DRIVEWAY ADDITIONS AND WORK WHICH WILL AS A RESULT CORRECT THE PROBLEM THAT EXISTED WITH HIS SWALE. MR. STURM HAS ALSO FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SINCE THE VIOLATION IS BEING CORRECTED, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION FROM A FINANCIAL STAND POINT, IT IS RIDICULOUS TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH AN APPEAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT AND GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESS THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THAT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS A HOOT ISSUE. THE CITY SAT WITH HR. STURM AND ADVISED HIM THAT WE SIMPLY INTENDED TO TAKE NO ACTION AND ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD DISMISS HIS APPEAL. MR. STURH REFUSED TO DO THAT AND WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH HIS APPEAL. THE NEXT MOST ECONOMICAL THING FOR THE CITY TO DO, EVEN THOUGH WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A GOOD CASE AND THE BOARD'S ORDER WOULD BE UPHELD ON APPEAL, WOULD BE HAVING THE BOARD TO SIMPLY RESCIND THEIR ORDER. THAT WOULD MAKE MR. STURM'S APPEAL MOOT AND COULD GET THE CASE DISMISSED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 PAGE 2 MR. STURM HAD BEEN SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THIS AND WAS WELL AWARE OF THE HEARING TODAY. APPARENTLY. HE HAD DECIDED NOT TO ATTEND. MR. NICOLINI STATED THAT HE THOUGHT MR. STURM WAS STILL GUILTY OF NOT HAVING A PERMIT AND TOLD THE BOARD THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO GET A PERMIT. IN OTHER WORDS. MR. STURM WAS GOING TO-DO WHAT HE WANTED TO DO. MR NICOLINi FEELS THAT IF WE RESCIND THIS ORDER, MR. STURM WILL THINK HE HAS MORE POWER iN THE CITY THAN THE CITY HAS. ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED THAT THE CITY HAS TAKEN A VERY STRICT POSITION OF THE FIRST APPEAL OF MR. STURM'S WHICH IS PENDING. THE CITY WILL TAKE THiS APPEAL RIGHT TO THE END IRRESPECTIVE OF COST FOR EXACTLY THE REASON MR. NICOLINI · MENTIONED. BUT, SINCE THE PROBLEM OF THE SWALE IS BEING CORRECTED, THE CITY DOES NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE SECOND APPEAL FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. BRUCE COOPER STATED THE CITY HAS CORRECTED THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OF MR. STURM. MR. STURM HAS RECENTLY PULLED A PERMIT FOR HIS OWN DRIVEWAY TO WIDEN HIS EXISTING CULVERT WHICH WILL TAKE CARE OF HIS SWALE PROBLEM. THE FIRST THING THE CITY DOES NOT WANT IS SOMEONE THINKING THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE FILES AN APPEAL, THE CITY WILL RESCIND THE BOARD'S ORDER. HE DOES NOT THINK THIS IS THE CASE. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED WORST CASE SCENARIO IF WE SPEND $3000.00 OR $4000.00 ON AN APPEAL AND FOR SOME REASON A JUDGE DOES NOT LIKE SOMETHING IN THE RECORD AND LETS HIM WIN. FROM A PERCEPTUAL STAND POINT THAT WOULD BE REALLY BAD. IF WE SPEND ALL THIS MONEY AND WIN THE APPEAL BECAUSE SOMEONE TRIED TO CLEAN OUT HIS DRAINAGE DITCH, THAT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE RECEIVED WELL BY THE PUBLIC. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MRS. KOSTENBADER, SECONDED BY MR. NICOLINI TO RESCIND THE ORDER AND FINE. MR. METCALF OPPOSED THIS MOTION. THE PERCEPTION MAY BE THAT THE BOARD IS INEFFECTIVE. EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT COST A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS, WE WOULD AT LEAST ESTABLISH OUR VALIDITY. MRS. KOSTENBADER STATED THAT ON ONE HAND THE BOARD CAN PROVE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 PAGE 3 THEIR POINT BY PURSUING THE OTHER CASE AND SAVE THE CITIZENS THE MONEY FOR THE SECOND APPEAL SINCE HE IS COMPLYING. THAT IS WHY SHE MADE THE MOTION. MR. GILLIAMS ASKED IF WE WENT AHEAD AND WENT WITH THE APPEAL, IS THERE ANOTHER STEP AFTER THIS PROCESS?. THE APPEAL IS IN MR. TORPY'S OFFICE. THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE THE COST IS BY WHAT THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING NOW. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT THE APPEAL IS IN PROCESS NOW. WE RESCIND THE ORDER, MR. TORPY WILL HAVE THE APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS MOOT. IF MR. NICOLINI STATED THAT MR. STURM WAS FINED $250.00. WOULD IT BE ANYTHING WORTHWHILE TO CUT THE FINE. MR. TORPY SAID NO. EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T FINE HIM, HE CAN APPEAL THE DECISION OF HIS BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. WE COULD NOT HOLD MR. STURM FOR A REPEAT VIOLATOR FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE iF WE RESCIND THIS ORDER. BUT, WE DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE ANY NOTICE ON THE SAME VIOLATION AND SEND HIM DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD. ROLL CALL: MR. GILLIAMS MRS. KOSTENBADER VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER MR. NICOLINI MR. TOZZOLO MR. METCALF YES YES YES NO YES NO CARRIED. ADJOURNs.. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLIAMS, SECONDED BY MRS. KOSTENBADER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:25 A.M. CARRIED. Minutes approved at the . _~-w~-~- ,ow , 1992 Meeting. Donato Chairman Derobertis, Gerry Kub6s, Board Secretary