Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11201991 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] FAX (407) 589-5570 SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1991 - 2,00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: OLD BUSINESS: REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1991 CASE# 91-5643 JOHN BAGBY & MARLYN VEREEN NEW BUSINESS: CASE# 91-5853 SANTO J. ROMANO (ROMANO'S SHOTCRETE, INC.) CASE# 90-4072 & 91-5786 HARRY & EDNA WILLEY (THE SQUARE) BOARD ATTORNEY REOUESTS 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. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 r~ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 [] 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. NOVEMBER 20, 1991 AT 2,00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~. KUBES, 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 EASED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1991 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2,05 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS MR. NICOLINI MRS. KOSTENBADER MR. METCALF VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER MR. GILLIAMS ATTORNEY LULICH UNEXCUSED: MR. TOZZOLO ALSO PRESENT: ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER~ BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL RICHARD TORPY, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL OF MINUTES~ MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD OCTOBER 16, 1991. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS, THE BOARD ATTORNEY SWORE IN HARRY & EDNA WILLEY, SANTO ROMANO, BRUCE COOPER AND ROBERT NICHOLSON. CASE# 91-5786 & 90-4072 HARRY & EDNA WILLEY (THE SQUARE) ASSISTANT CiTY ATTORNEY RICHARD TORPY STATED THE CITY WOULD PRESENT FACTS AT THIS MEETING ON CASE# 91-5786 FOR THE BOARDS DELIBERATION. THE ATTORNEY QUESTIONED BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, CONCERNING THIS CASE. BRUCE COOPER WROTE A LETTER TO MR. HARRY WILLEY WHICH WAS SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. THE RECEIPT DATE OF THIS LETTER WAS 10/1/91 SIGNED BY MR. WILLEY. MR. COOPER SENT THIS LETTER INSTEAD OF THE NORMAL CODE ENFORCEMENT LETTER FOR NOTICE OF VIOLATION. HE STATED USUALLY IF HE IS INVOLVED IN A MATTER, HE SENDS OUT A LETTER THAT BASICALLY HAS THE SAME CONTEXTS AS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. MR. COOPER STATED THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBBR ~O, 1991 PAGE 2 DBPARTMENT HAD RBCBIVED A COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE BACK AREA IN REGARDS TO A BURNED-OUT TRAILER, ALSO A SIGN THAT WAS FALLING DOWN WHICH COULD BB UNSAFE AND ALSO JUNK VBHICLES FROM A PREVIOUS CASE. THE COMPLAINT CAME iN FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, TREASURE COAST LIGHTING. BRUCE HAD CONTACTED MR. & MRS. WILLEY BY LBTTER ASKING THEM TO PLEASE CONTACT HIM JUST TO DISCUSS THIS SITUATION. BASICALLY, IN BRUCE'S LETTER DATED 9/27/91, MR WILLEY DID COMB IN 9/18/91 AND ASKBD FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO REMEDY CBRTAIN THINGS BUT HE ALSO ADVISED HIM DUE TO CBRTAIN PROBLEMS WITH OUR PROCEDURES, WE COULD ONLY ALLOW A CERTAIN TIME FOR A REMEDY. WE KNOW MR. WILLEY HAS HAD THIS BUSINESS FOR MANY YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS STORED THESE TYPE OF ITEMS IN THE BACK. PROVISIONS OF THB LAND DEVBLOPMENT CODE DOES PROVIDE UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT WITHIN 3 YEARS FROM 1985 WHEN THE LAND DEVELOPMBNT CODE WAS ENACTBD THAT CERTAIN THINGS SHALL BE TAKEN CARE OF. SCREENING OF OUTDOOR STORAGB IS REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. MR. COOPER STATBD SINCE WE DID RECEIVE THE COMPLAINT FROM THB NEIGHBOR, HE FELT IT WAS iN THE INTBREST OF THE CITY TO REQUIRE THE SCREBNING OR THE REMOVAL OF THE STORAGE OF THE BACK AREA. AS FAR AS THB VEHICLES, WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED THE VEHICLE STATUS. THE SCRBBNING WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THB LETTER. THE SIGN WAS RELOCATED TO THE PROPER LOCATION PURSUANT TO A PERMIT THAT WE HAD GIVEN EDNA WILLEY. OUR CONCERN NOW IS THB SCREENING AND IF THERE ARE ANY JUNK VEHICLES IN THE BACK. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNBY TORPY ASKED MR. COOPBR IF A PERMIT WAS PULLED OR APPLIED FOR REGARDING THB SCREENING OF THE STORAGE AREA. HE STATED "NOT AT THIS TIME" MR. NICHOLSON DROVE BY THIS WEEK AND HE DID NOT SEE ANY SCREENING. PHOTOS WBRE ALSO GIVEN AS EVIDENCE. MR. WILLEY ASKED WHAT THE SECTIONS OF THE CODES WERE FOR HIS RECORD. CHAIRMAN DEROBBRTIS STATED JUNK VEHICLB SECTION 12- 30 & 12-31 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND ALSO SCREENING OF THB STORAGE AREA WHICH WE ARE PURSUING TODAY IS SECTION 2OA- 7.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. MR. WILLEY WANTED TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS GIVEN AS EVIDENCE BY THE CITY. HE STATED ACCORDING TO THE PHOTOS THERE IS NO BURNED-OUT TRAILER. BRUCE COOPER STATED THE iSSUE IS THE SCREENING OF THE STORAGE OF THE MATERIALS BACK THERE WHICH IS INCLUDING A TRAILER, BOAT, VEHICLES, MISCELLANEOUS STORAGE. MR. WILLEY STATED BEFORE HB MAKES ANY KIND OF COMMITMENT ABOUT THE SCREENING, IT WILL BE INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY AND HIS ATTORNBY WILL CONTACT THE CITY. ATTORNEY LULICH READ SBCTION 20A-7.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 2~. 1991 PAGE 3 MR. WILLEY STATED HE IS IN THE USED MERCHANDISE BUSINESS. YOU HAVE TO STORE ITEMS OUTSIDE AND IF YOU PUT UP SCREENING, HOW WILL YOU BE ABLE TO SELL THEM. HE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS SO OFFENSIVE ABOUT THE SIDE OF HIS PROPERTY. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THE SECTION WE ARE PRESENTING OUR EVIDENCE ON IS SIMPLY NOT HAVING THE REAR AREA SCREENED. THERE IS NO APPROPRIATE FENCING AROUND THE PROPERTY THAT SCREENS IT FROM VIEW OF PUBLIC AREAS. BRUCE COOPER STATED YOU COULD SEE THE STORAGE AREA FROM U.S. #1. MRS. WILLEY ASKED WHAT TYPE OF SCREENING IS THE CITY LOOKING FOR. MR. COOPER STATED WE ARE LOOKING FOR A SCREEN THAT YOU CAN NOT SEE THROUGH, GENERALLY A STOCKADE FENCE IS THE EASIEST WAY. YOU CAN GO WITH VEGETATION, WALL OR FENCE THAT COVERS THE STORAGE AREA FROM THE VIEW OF THE PUBLIC. MR. WILLEY STATED HE HAS NOT SEEN ANY PLACE IN SEBASTIAN SCREENED. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE DOES NOT SEE ANYTHING IN THE STORAGE AREA THAT IS UNSIGHTLY. HE IS SELLING IT. NOT HIDING IT. MR. GILLIAMS STATED THAT THE POLICE COMPOUND ON LOUISIANA AVENUE HAS GREEN VINYL SCREENING. HE STATED THAT THIS IS INEXPENSIVE COMPARED TO HIRING AN ATTORNEY AND A COURT REPORTER AND SUGGESTS THAT HE GET AN ESTIMATE OR PROPOSAL FOR THE SCREENING. MR. WILLEY STATED HE WILL CONSULT HIS ATTORNEY AND WOULD GIVE HIS ANSWER. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY STATED THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED THE BOARD TODAY TO FiND HIM IN VIOLATION AND HIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND OPPOSE THE CITY'S ACTION IS TODAY. AFTER TODAY, THE ONLY AVENUE HE WILL HAVE IF THIS BOARD FINDS HIM IN VIOLATION IS AN APPEAL WHICH WiLL BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS OFFERED TODAY NOT LATER ON. THE ATTORNEY ALSO STATED MR. WILLEY STATED HIS PROPERTY IS NOT OFFENSIVE. ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, EVEN IF THE STORAGE IS NOT OFFENSIVE, IT STILL NEEDS SCREENING. MR. WILLEY AT ONE POINT SAID IT IS NOT STORAGE, HE HAS TO BE ABLE TO DISPLAY HIS WEARS. IF THAT IS WHAT HE IS DOING, YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE PUBLIC WAY. THEN MR. WiLLEY STATED WELL YOU CANNOT SEE IT FROM ANYWHERE. THEY ARE INCONSISTENT COMMENTS. MR. METCALF DROVE BY THE SQUARE. HE STATED THIS IS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND IN HIS OPINION SHOULD BE VISIBLE. A LETTER FROM MRS. WILLEY WAS RECEIVED TO CITY COUNCIL, MR. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 20~ 1991 PAGE 4 METCALF GOT A COPY OF THIS LETTER AND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE LETTER IS NOT IN HIS PACKET. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THAT IN REGARDS TO THE LETTER IF MR. WILLEY WANTS THE LETTER TO GO IN, THERE WOULD BE NO OBJECTION. FOR THE RECORD, MR. METCALF WAS ASKED NOT TO VOTE ON THIS MATTER AND HAS LOST HIS OBJECTIVITY SINCE HE HAS DONE HIS OWN PERSONAL INVESTIGATION. A CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IS TO REMAIN AN OBJECTIVE BODY. THE BOARD ATTORNEY STATED THAT IT IS TRUE THE BOARD SHALL NOT CONDUCT A SEPARATE INVESTIGATION AND THEREFORE ANY COMMENTS THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THINGS NOT OF RECORD WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS DRIVING BY AND LOOKING AT THE SITE, IN THE BOARD ATTORNEY'S LEGAL OPINION THERE IS NO PROBLEM IN THAT. BRUCE COOPER STATED THAT MR, WILLEY'S BUSINESS IS BASICALLY THE DEALING OF SECOND-HAND GOODS. THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BASICALLY REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THESE STANDARDS WITHIN 3 YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE AND THAT IS 1985. TECHNICALLY, THAT SHOULD HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE IN 1988. RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF IS TO FIND HIM IN VIOLATION AS FAR AS SCREENING IN STORAGE AREA AND STIPULATE A TIME FRAME FOR COMPLIANCE. MR. WILLEY ASKED WHAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE WAS OF SECTION 20A- 7.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BRUCE COOPER STATED AUGUST 28, 1985, AFTER 1988, THIS WOULD BE A VIOLATION. MRS. WILLEY STATED THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED MORE WITH PRINCIPLE THAN THE ACTUAL CODE VIOLATION. THEY WILL PUT THE SCREEN UP ON THAT ONE SIDE IN ORANGE PLASTIC. BRUCE COOPER STATED WHATEVER IS ACCEPTED BY PLANNING & ZONING. THERE ARGUMENT IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE 1979 AND THEIR NEIGHBOR HAS ONLY BEEN IN BUSINESS LESS THAN A YEAR AND MAKES A COMPLIANT AND THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT. THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC WAY. A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS SOMETHING THAT IS OWNED BY THE PUBLIC. A PUBLIC WAY IS SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC MAY GENERALLY WALK ON. FOR EXAMPLE, AN ALLEY WAY. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 20, 1991 PAGE 5 MRS. WILLEY STATED IF BRUCE COOPER WILL MEET WITH THEM AND TELL THEM JUST WHAT THEY SHOULD DO, THEY WILL COMPLY. THIS SHOULD GO TO PLANNING & ZONING TOO. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NICOLINI IN REFERENCE TO CASE #91- 5786 THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION. THE VIOLATION DOES EXIST AND IS CAUSED BY HARRY & EDNA WILLEY. IN THE JUNK VEHICLES, TRAILER AND BOAT STORED IN THE REAR OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 825 U.S. #1 IN SEBASTIAN. IN REFERENCE TO 91-5786 SCREENING OF THE STORAGE AREA, VIOLATION OF SECTION 20A-7.4 DOES EXIST IN THAT NO SCREENING HAS BEEN DONE. THE VIOLATION DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE VIOLATORS WERE NOTIFIED ON FOUR SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN 1991 AND ONCE IN 1990 AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS WARRANTED. A FINE OF $250.00 BE IMPOSED FOR THE EXISTING VIOLATIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE AND IF AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY 14 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE, THAT $1OO.00 PER DAY SHALL BE IMPOSED. MOTION IS DEAD DUE TO LACK OF SECOND. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ASKED FOR ANOTHER MOTION. HEARING NO MOTION, THERE IS NO VIOLATION. CASE IS CLOSED. CASE# 91-5853 SANTO J. ROMANO (ROMANO'S SHOTCRETE) ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD TORPY QUESTIONED MR. ROBERT NICHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONCERNING THIS CASE. ON OCTOBER 21, 1991, IT CAME TO MR. NICHOLSON'S ATTENTION THAT MR. ROMAN0 WAS OPERATING A BUSINESS WITHOUT EITHER AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE, HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE OR CONTRACTORS LICENSE. HE WAS SITED FOR SECTION 14.3 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SINCE HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE IN THAT AREA AND 7.99 FOR HAVING NO CONTRACTORS LICENSE. PRIOR TO BEING FORWARDED TO THE BOARD, MR. ROMANO APPLIED FOR A LICENSE SO SECTION 14.3 BECAME MUTE AT THAT TIME. HE WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR SECTION 7.99 FOR NOT HAVING A COMPETENCY CARD FOR SEBASTIAN. HE CANNOT OBTAIN AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE UNTIL HE IS LICENSED AS A CONTRACTOR. EVEN THOUGH HE HAS APPLIED FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE, HE IS KIND OF IN LIMBO. HE WAS SERVED AN ORIGINAL NOTICE ON 10/4/91, SIGNED BY MR. ROMANO. AGAIN. HE WAS SERVED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD BY COURIER ON 11/13/91. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD L REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 21, 199! PAGE 6 MR. ROMANO STATED HE WAS IN THE SHOTCRETE BUSINESS FOR 19 YEARS. HE HAS HAD A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LICENSE FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS. HE ALSO HAS A BROWARD COUNTY LICENSE. HE STATED HE DOES NOT RUN A BUSINESS OUT OF HIS HOME. HE HAS A WAREHOUSE ON COUNTY ROAD 512. HE SAID HE HAD SOME WORK WITH CRYSTAL POOL COMPANY. THIS CITY MADE AN EFFORT TO CALL THE POOL COMPANY TO iNFORM THEM THAT MR. ROMANO IS NOT LICENSED TO WORK IN SEBASTIAN. THEREFORE, HE LOST HIS ACCOUNT WiTH CRYSTAL POOL. HE GETS BUSINESS PHONE CALLS AT HIS HOUSE. MR. ROMANO STATED HE HAS A STATE LICENSE. MR. ROMANO STATED HE TOOK A COMPETENCY TEST 11 YEARS AGO FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA ISSUED BY BROWARD COUNTY. THE BOARD ATTORNEY SWORE iN KATHY NAPPi, CONTRACTOR LICENSING. KATHY EXPLAINED WHAT MR. ROMANO NEEDS TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR A LICENSE IN SEBASTIAN. SHE STATED THAT MR. ROMANO NEEDS TO BRING BACK APPLICATION TO HER. SHE ASKED IF MR. ROMANO CONTACTED THE AREA THAT SPONSORED HIM FOR THE BLOCK EXAM TO SEND US A LETTER OF RECIPROCITY. HE SAID HE WOULD CONTACT BROWARD COUNTY. ONCE KATHY HAS THE LETTER OF RECIPROCITY AND BRING IN THE APPLICATION AND PAY THE FEES, SHE WILL HOLD iT UNTIL SHE GETS ALL THE OTHER PAPERWORK REQUIRED. THEN IT WILL GO BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD. THE NEXT CONSTRUCTION BOARD MEETING IS DECEMBER 10, 1991. THE PAPERWORK MUST BE IN KATHY'S HANDS NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 4, 1991 TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA. RECOMMENDATION BY THE CITY IS TO FIND MR. ROMANO IN VIOLATION OF NOT HAVING A CITY CONTRACTORS LICENSE. STAFF HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE BOARD GIVING HIM 60 DAYS TO COME iNTO COMPLIANCE. FINE LEFT UP TO THE BOARD. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLiAMS, SECONDED BY MR. METCALF IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER 91-5853, SECTION 7.99 INVOLVING SANTO J. ROMANO THAT THE BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS: THAT IN FACT THAT THE VIOLATION DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 7.99 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. AT THIS TIME, NO FINE SHALL BE LEVIED AND TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, KATHY NAPPI, AND TO ALLOCATE 90 DAYS FROM THIS DATE TO GET THIS PROBLEM RECTIFIED. CARRIED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 20, 1991 PAGE 7 OLD BUSINESS: CASE# 91-5643 JOHN BAGBY & MARLYN VEREEN STAFF WANTED THE MOTION TO BE CLARIFIED FROM SEPTEMBER'S MEETING. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT HE WOULD DRAFT AN ORDER TO READ: THE INDIVIDUAL WAS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF SAID' ORDINANCE AND A FINE OF $1OO.OO PER DAY FOR 12 DAYS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,2OO.OO IS LEVIED. MR. GILLIAMS STATED THAT WAS HIS INTENTION REGARDING THE MOTION. BOARD ATTORNEY REgUESTS AND REPORTS: A CORRECTED ORDER ON CASE# 91-5643 IS REQUESTED FROM THE BOARD ATTORNEY. THE LIEN CONCERNING THIS CASE ALSO NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE RECORDING. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS~ NONE ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPY STATED THE CITY'S STANDPOINT ON THE WILLEY CASE. DRIVING BY A PREMISE, THE CITY HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BUT, MR. METCALF WAS TESTIFYING NOT ONLY OF THE DRIVE BY BUT, OFFERING ADDITIONAL FACTS (A LETTER FROM MR. WILLEY) TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THIS MADE HIM A WITNESS AS OPPOSED TO A NEUTRAL PERSON. YOU CAN GET FACTS FOR YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE BUT ASK QUESTIONS OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR SO THAT ALL THE FACTS COME TO THE BOARD AS A WHOLE. YOU CAN ACHIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO BUT YOU MUST DO IT THROUGH THE WITNESSES. GENERAL DISCUSSION: MR. NICOLINI COMPLIMENTED STAFF FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SUMMARY. HE STATED IT ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS HE HAD. PUBLIC INPUT: NONE ADJOURN, A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. GILLIAMS, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 3:55 P.M. CARRIED. Minutes approved at the ~ /~ , 1991 Meeting. Donato Derobertls, Chairman Gerry~Kubes, Board Secretary