Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02151989SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15~ 1989 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. VICKERS VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER MR. LINDSEY MR. MCCOOL ATTORNEY LULiCH CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ABSENT: MR. GRAY - EXCUSED MR. STRNAD - UNEXCUSED ALSO PRESENT: MR. COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL; MR. EMRICK, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP, ASSIST. CITY ATTORNEY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL, SECONDED BY MR. LINDSEY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 1/18/89 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT THE BOARD SECRETARY EXPLAINED THAT THE APPLICATION TO BE A ROOFING LIMITED CONTRACTOR HAD BEEN APPROVED BUT THAT THE LICENSE COULD NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL HE ALSO HAD OBTAINED A CITY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE. THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED FOR AS YET SINCE HE WAS LOOKING FOR A BUSINESS LOCATION. ATTORNEY LULICH SUGGESTED THE ORDER BE SIGNED AND A COPY SENT TO MR. JEWETT. MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL THAT CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT BE POSTPONED FOR 30 DAYS OR OUR NEXT MEETING. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP SUGGESTED THAT ON THE ORDER TO MOVE THE LAST PARAGRAPH UNDER "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" INTO THE ORDER REQUIRING THE LICENSES BE OBTAINED AND DIRECT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER GIVE THE BOARD AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE NEXT MEETING DATE. MR. MCCOOL WITHDREW HIS MOTION. PAGE 2 CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT cont. MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL, SECONDED BY MR. LINDSEY TO TABLE CASE NO. 88-1539 - JEWETT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. LINDSEY, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION. CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. LINDSEY, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS THAT CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT TO AMEND THE ORDER DIRECTING MR. JEWETT TO OBTAIN A ROOFING SPECIALTY LICENSE, AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AND OBTAIN A PERMIT PRIOR TO 3/14/89. MR. FISCHER VOTED NAY. CARRIED. CASE NO. 88-1014 - WALSH MR. WALSH WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE MEETING. ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN WITNESSES AND STAFF. IT WAS NOTED THAT MR. WALSH iS IN VIOLATION OF ART. VII, 7- 20, 7-99 AND 14-4. JOHN EMRICK, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STATED THAT HE DELIVERED THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO MR. WALSH AT THE SEBASTIAN INLET GIFT SHOP AND THAT HE WAS INFORMED AS TO WHAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF. MR. EMRICK TOLD THE BOARD THAT UPON CHECKING CITY RECORDS THAT A PERMIT HAD NOT BEEN iSSUED FOR WORK DONE AT 425 ENGLAR DR. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP WAS GIVEN PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HE MARKED AS EXHIBITS A - E. THESE WERE GIVEN TO MR. EMRICK FOR VERIFICATION AND WHAT THEY REPRESENTED. iT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS REPRESENTED THE CONDITIONS THAT MR. EMRICK SAW THE DAY HE MADE A PERSONAL iNSPECTION. THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE GIVEN TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR EXAMINATION. MR. BLOCKER, OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 425 ENGLAR DR. IDENTIFIED EXHIBITS A - E. PAGE 3 CASE NO. 88-1014 - WALSH cont ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP NOTED THAT THE CHARGES WERE NOT BEING PROPERLY LICENSED AND OBTAINING NO PERMIT TO DO THE WORK. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP REQUESTED THAT AN ORDER BE ISSUED THAT MR. WALSH OBTAIN THE PROPER LICENSES PRIOR TO 3/14/89 AND THAT THE CITY WOULD IMPOSE A FINE BUT THAT AT ITS NEXT MEETING ALLOW MR. WALSH TO PRESENT THE CIRCUMSTANCES IF HE CORRECTED THE PROBLEM. MOTION BY MR. LINDSEY, SECONDED BY MR. FISCHER, CASE NO. 88- 1014 - WALSH, THAT MR. WALSH BE ORDERED TO OBTAIN A SPECIALTY LICENSE AND PERMIT BY 3/14/89 OR A FINE WILL COMMENCE NOT TO EXCEED $2S0.00 A DAY. CARRIED. CASE NO. 88-1354 - JUDSON ATTORNEY LULICH SWORE IN MR. JUDSON AND WAS TOLD THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 20A-15.4 (C). CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS NOTED THAT MR. JUDSON HAD A 4 X 8 SIGN FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO PERMIT. MR. JUDSON SAID THAT HE DID NOT KNOW HE NEEDED A PERMIT AND THAT THE SiGN HAD BEEN TAKEN DOWN. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP REQUESTED THAT MR. JUDSON BE GIVEN AN ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST THE PLACEMENT OF A SIGN INDICATING A BUSINESS AND THAT A FINE NOT BE IMPOSED. MR. JUDSON TOLD THE BOARD THAT HE DID NOT PLAN TO HAVE A SIGN iN THE FUTURE DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS. MOTION BY MR. VICKERS, SECONDED BY MR. LINDSEY, WITH REFERENCE TO CASE 88-1354 INVOLVING MR. JUDSON THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING DETERMiNATiON: THE SIGN HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN, THE VIOLATION DID IN FACT OCCUR, THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR DID COMMIT THE VIOLATION, AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS WARRANTED, THERE IS NO FINE SINCE THE SIGN HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN AND STAYS DOWN. CARRIED. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: MR. COOPER TOLD THE BOARD THAT AS OF THE NEXT WEEK THAT MR. EMRICK WOULD NO LONGER BE WiTH THE CITY, THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED A JOB ELSEWHERE. PAGE 4 THE BOARD SECRETARY WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL THAT 2 POSITIONS ON THE BOARD HAD EXPIRED AND 1 POSITION WAS BEING FORFEITED DUE TO 3 UNEXCUSED ABSENCES AND THAT THOSE POSITIONS BE FILLED. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:15 P.M. SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 1~, 1989 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 18, 1989 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 88-1014 - WALSH CASE NO. 88-1354 - JUDSON 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. City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 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, FEBRUARY 15, 1989 AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. K. NAPPI, 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.