Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03151989SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15~ 1989 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. VICKERS MR. GRAY MR. MCCOOL ATTORNEY LULICH CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ABSENT: VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER - EXCUSED MR. LINDSEY - EXCUSED ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL; BOB NiCHOLSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT; PAUL KREUZKAMP, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL, SECONDED BY MR. GRAY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 2/15/89 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP, IN REGARDS TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE, MR. JEWETT HAD OBTAINED HIS LIMITED ROOFING LICENSE ON 2/24/89 AND PULLED THE PERMIT FOR #5 CALAMONDIN STREET ON 2/27/89 AND REQUESTED THAT THE CASE BE CLOSED. MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS THAT CASE NO. 88- 1359, JEWETT, BE CLOSED. CARRIED. CASE NO. 88-1014 - WALSH MR. COOPER TOLD THE BOARD THE ENFORCEMENT ORDER WAS HAND DELIVERED TO MR. WALSH. HE ALSO NOTED THAT MR. WALSH HAD CALLED THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING REQUESTING THE PAPER WORK BE SENT TO HIM TO RENEW HIS ALUMINUM SPECIALTY LICENSE, BUT THAT HE (WALSH) FELT HE DID NOT HAVE TO PULL A PERMIT FOR THE JOB SINCE AT ONE TIME THE SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD DESIGNATED ALUMINUM SPECIALTY A "NON PERMITTED TRADE". PAGE 2 CASE NO. 88-1014 - WALSH cont. THE BOARD SECRETARY NOTED THAT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION, AT MR. COOPER'S REQUEST, INCLUDED A COVER LETTER STATING THAT A PERMIT MUST BE PULLED FOR THE WORK DONE AT 625 ENGLAR DR. FOR MATTER OF RECORD THE BOARD SECRETARY STATED THAT AS OF THE MEETING, MR. WALSH HAD NOT OBTAINED HIS LICENSE OR PULLED A PERMIT. WITH THE ABOVE INFORMATION, ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP REQUESTED THE BOARD ISSUE AN ORDER IMPOSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE AND A LIEN AGAINST MR. WALSH IN THE AMOUNT OF $25.00 PER DAY COMMENCING TODAY. MOTION BY MR. ViCKERS, SECONDED BY MR. GRAY TO ACCEPT ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP'S RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP ASKED THAT THE BOARD SECRETARY DOCKET THIS CASE AND IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE THAT IT BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE APRIL MEETING TO REVISIT THE ISSUE OF THE LIEN. CASE NO. 87-528 - BREVARD ROOFING, INC. MR. COOPER NOTED THAT THEY HAD NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN REGARDS THAT THEY WERE NOT LICENSED TO DO WORK IN THE CITY AND THAT A PERMIT HAD NEVER BEEN PULLED. THE SECRETARY STATED THAT MR. TOLIVERT WAS ORIGINALLY THE QUALIFIER FOR THE COMPANY AND THAT CERTIFIED LETTERS HAD BEEN SENT THAT WERE RETURNED "UNCLAIMED". THE PAPERS WERE THEN SERVED BY A COMPANY LOCATED IN BREVARD COUNTY. MR. TOLIVERT DID ATTEND A MEETING AT WHICH TIME HE TOLD THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD BE RETIRING AND THE A MR. FRET WOULD BE TAKING OVER AS THE NEW QUALIFIER. A MR. CROFT WAS THE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME IN TO PiCK UP THE PAPER WORK AND SAID HE WOULD BE QUALIFYING THE COMPANY. OTHER THAN A CREDIT REPORT, TO DATE NOTHING HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM MR. CROFT. AFTER TALKING WITH THE SECRETARY FOR BREVARD ROOFING, iNC., MR. TOLIVERT IS STILL WITH THE COMPANY. AS OF THIS MEETING, MR. TOLIVERT HAS NOT RETURNED ANY PHONE CALLS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 3, 1987 WAS NEVER SERVED. IT WAS MAILED CERTIFIED MAILED AND RETURNED "UNCLAIMED" PAGE 3 CASE NO. 87-528 - BREVARD ROOFING, INC. cont. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP RECOMMENDED THAT AN ORDER BE SERVED UPON BREVARD ROOFING, THE QUALIFIER AT THE TIME THE WORK WAS DONE AND WHOEVER THE QUALIFIER IS NOW, ORDERING THEM TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND SCHEDULING THIS CASE FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING TO IMPOSE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE AND LIEN IF NOT COMPLIED WITH. SCHEDULING FOR THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD AFTER THEY ARE SERVED, AT THE NEXT MEETING IMPOSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE OR LIEN. ATTORNEY LULICH NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS SIGNED 12/16/87 GIVING THEM FOURTEEN DAYS TO COMPLY, THEREFORE THE FINE COMMENCED 12/30/87. MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS TO SERVE THE ORDER SIGNED 12/16/87 TO BREVARD ROOFING, INC., MR. TOLIVERT AND THE CURRENT QUALIFIER OF THAT COMPANY. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS: ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS OF: CHARLES W. GRAY - RESIDENT POSITION CLIFFORD W. MCCOOL - MEMBER POSITION THE RESIGNATIONS WERE ACCEPTED WITHOUT A FORMAL MOTION. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ASKED THAT UNTIL WE HAD NEW MEMBERS FOR THOSE POSITIONS, TO CHECK WITH THE SECRETARY TO SEE IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A QUORUM. IF NOT, WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO ATTEND THE MEETING. BOTH ANSWERED THEY WOULD. CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ASKED THAT AT FUTURE MEETINGS, PREPARED MOTIONS BE GIVEN TO THE BOARD FOR INDIVIDUAL CASES. ATTORNEY KREUZKAMP SAID IT WOULD BE DONE. MR. COOPER INTRODUCED BOB NICHOLSON TO THE BOARD AS THE NEW CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:32 P.M. SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15~ 1989 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 15, 1989 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 88-1359 - JEWETT CASE NO. 88-1014 - WALSH CASE NO. 87-528 - BREVARD ROOFING, INC. NEW BUSINESS: ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS OF: CHARLES W. GRAY - RESIDENT POSITION CLIFFORD W. MCCOOL - MEMBER POSITION 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 n 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, MARCH 15, 19~ AT 2:00 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IN K. NAPPI, SECRETARY SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WiLL NEED A RECORD 05' 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.