Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08061986CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 6, 1986 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN LEWIS AT 2:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. MCCLEARY MR. GRAY MR. BLOME VICE CHAIRMAN O'CONNOR MR. FISCHER MR. MCCOOL ATTORNEY GORE CHAIRMAN LEWIS ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: TOM PALMER, CITY ATTORNEY, ROGER CLOUTIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, HECTOR FRANCO, CITY ENGINEER. ATTORNEY' S MATTERS ATTORNEY GORE PASSED OUT THE CERTIFICATE OF FINE FOR CASE #86-7 - VORATH, KEEPING OF FOUL, TO BE SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN LEWIS. HE STATED HE STILL NEEDED A LEGAL DESCRIPTION. HE ALSO TOLD THE BOARD HE HAD PREPARED AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT FOR CASE #86-73 - PATTON, IMPOSING A FINE OF $25.00 PER DAY. THE BOARD HAD GIVEN HIM A TEN (10) DAY GRACE PERIOD. CHAIRMAN LEWIS SAID THIS WOULD BE DISCUSSED UNDER OLD BUSINESS. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. MCCLEARY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 7/9/86 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 85-5 - KEPLER & CASE NO. 85-12 - TAYLOR IT WAS NOTED THAT DESCRIPTIONS WERE STILL NEEDED. ATTORNEY GORE SAID THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR A SEWER AND WATER TREATMENT PLANT, BUT THAT STREET ADDRESSES SHOULD BE ENOUGH. ATTORNEY PALMER TALKED TO MR. KEPLER'S ATTORNEY. HE WAS TOLD THEY WERE CONSIDERING SELLING OUT THE WATER SYSTEM AND HAVING EVERYONE GO TO WELLS. THE INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE BOARD FILE A LIEN, POSSIBLE AGAINST "PURE GOLD". ALSO, IN THE CASE OF MR. TAYLOR, IT BEING DIFFICULT TO FIND A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, A STREET ADDRESS SHOULD BE ENOUGH. CASE NO. 86-7 - VORATH MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN O'CONNOR, SECONDED BY MR. BLOME TO APPROVE CERTIFICATION OF FINE FOR GEORGE VORATH. CARRIED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ~ AUGUST 6, 1986 CASE NO. 86-73 - PATTON ~. CLOUTIER STATED THAT MR. PATTON HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO COMPLY~ BUT IS NOT QUITE FINISHED. HE FELT SATISFIED WITH WHAT HAD BEEN DONE SO FAR. IT WAS DECIDED TO POSTPONE THE CASE UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER MEETING. CASE NO. 86-111 - ROBERTS MR. CLOUTIER TOLD THE BOARD THAT MR. ROBERTS HAD COMPLIED WITHIN THE GIVEN TIME LIMIT. CHAIRMAN LEWIS CLOSED THE CASE. CASE NO. 86-118 - LIN-MARC KENNELS ATTORNEY GORE SWORE IN ALL POTENTIAL WITNESSES. MR. CLOUTIER STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED QUITE A FEW COMPLAINTS ABOUT DOGS BARKING, THE MAJORITY FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SEBASTIAN. (COMPLAINTANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE MEETING) MR. CLOUTIER TOLD THE BOARD THAT ON ELEVEN DIFFERENT OCCASIONS HE HAD CHECKED OUT THE COMPLAINT AND THAT ONLY TWICE DID HE HEAR DOGS BARKING. AT THE TIME HE WAS APPROXIMATELY FIFTY FEET FROM THE KENNELS AND HE DID NOT FEEL THEY WERE CREATING A NUISANCE. HE ALSO TOLD THE BOARD THAT IN MEASURING THE DISTANCE FROM WHERE THE COMPLAINTANT LIVES TO THE KENNELS IS APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET. MR. CLOUTIER STATED THAT BECAUSE OF ALL THE PHONE CALLS FROM THE COMPLAINTANT, THE PHONE LINES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CITY HALL WERE BEING TIED UP. ALTHOUGH LIN-MARC KENNELS ARE GUILTY OF PAST COMPLAINTS, ALL CORRECTIONS NEEDED HAVE BEEN MADE. COMPLAINTANT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED TO STOP THE PHONE CAllS. VINCE TORPY, ATTORNEY FOR LIN-MARC KENNELS~ AGREED WITH ATTORNEY GORE THAT SINCE THE COMPLAINTANT DID NOT LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SEBASTIAN, THE BOARD HAD NO JURISDICTION. HE DID ADD THAT HIS CLIENT HAD RECEIVED NUMEROUS CALLS FROM MRS. WAGNER. THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN: CORPORAL KEN BENNETT, SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT STATED HE HAD HANDLED AT LEAST FIVE OF THE CALLS AT DIFFERENT TIMES, DAY AND NIGHT AT THE KENNELS, AND THAT HE HEARD NO BARKING UPON ARRIVAL. FRED HANSON AND BONNIE FEY, NEIGHBORS OF THE KENNEL BOTH STATED THAT OCCASIONALLY THEY HEAR THE DOGS BARKING, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO BOTHER THEM. MR. CLOUTIER REPEATED FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTION BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD IS TO TRY TO STOP THE COMPLAINTS COMING IN FROM MRS. WAGNER. HE ASKED THAT MRS. WAGNER BE NOTIFIED OF THE RESULTS OF THE MEETING. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - AUGUST 6, 1986 ATTORNEY GORE GAVE A FINDING OF FACTS - COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST LIN-MARC KENNELS ALLEGING VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 16, NUISANCES. THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINTANT RESIDED OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. HOWEVER, THE BOARD DID ENTERTAIN TESTIMONY TO ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR FUTURE REFERENCES SHOULD A COMPLAINT ARISE WITHIN THE CITY ITSELF. TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ALL~GED VIOLATOR INDICATING NO HARM HAD EVER BEEN INFLICTED UPON THEM DUE THE PRESENCE OF THE DOGS. ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT - ALTHOUGH THE BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION, EVIDENCE WAS ENTERTAINED IN ORDER TO HAVE SOMETHING ON RECORD IN CAS~ THAT IN THE FUTURE THERE IS A COMPLAINT LODGED FROM WITHIN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. ATTORNEY GORE SAID HE WOULD SEND A LETTER TO MRS. WAGNER STATING THAT IN THE FUTURE THE BOARD WOULD NOT ACCEPT ANYMORE COMPLAINTS FROM HER SINCE SHE DOES NOT LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN O'CONNOR, SECONDED BY MR. MCCLEARY THAT IN THE CASE OF LIN-MARC KENNELS, CASE NO. 86-118 THAT THE BOARD FINDS NO VIOLATIONS AND THAT THE COMPLAINTANT IS SO NOTIFIED. ROLL CALL: AYES: MR. MCCLEARY MR. GRAY MR. BLOME VICE CHAIRMAN 0 ' CONNOR MR. FISCHER MR. MCCOOL CHAIRMAN LEWIS NAYS: NONE CARRIED. CASE NO. 86-37 - GDC MR. CLOUTIER REQUESTED THAT THIS CASE BE POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS. THE BOARD AGREED. CASE NO. 86-130 - MORRISON MR. FRANCO EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THAT MR. MORRISON HAD USED RAILROAD TIES AS A RETAINING WALL IN A DRAINAGE DITCH. THE DRAINAGE DITCH WAS DESIGNED BY GDC A LONG TIME AGO AS PART OF A MASTER PLAN FOR THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN THE CITY. MR. MORRISO~ BY USING THE TIE~ CHANGED THE SYSTEM OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH. BY DOING THIS, GDC CAN CLAIM THEY ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SINCE IT HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN. ATTORNEY GORE SWORE IN MR. MORRISON. MR. MORRISON BROUGHT IN PICTURES OF THE DITCH. HE EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THE REASONS FOR USING THE TIES. HE TOLD THE BOARD THAT IT WAS DONE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIS HOME. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - AUGUST 6, 1986 MR. CLOUTIER RECOMMENDED THAT THIS CASE BE POSTPONED FOR 30 DAYS UNTIL A SOLUTION CAN BE FOUND. THE BOARD AGREED. CHAIRMAN LEWIS WELCOMED MR. FISCHER AND MR. MCCOOL AS NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:15 P.M. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 6, 1986 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 7/9/86 AT]CORNEY'S MATIERS: OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 85-5 - KEPLER CASE NO. 85-12 - TAYLOR CASE NO. 86-7 - VORATH CASE NO. 86-73 - PATTON CASE NO. 86-111 - ROBERTS N~ BUSINESS: CASE NO. 86-37 - GDC CASE NO. 86-118 - LIN-MARC KENNELS CASE NO. 86-130 - MORRISON BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: GENERAL BOARD DISCUSSION: ADJOURN NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHEWILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHEMAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIMRECORD 0FTHE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.