The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10021989 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER ~ 1989 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS AT 2:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. GILLIAMS MRS. KOSTENBADER VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER ATTORNEY LULICH MR. LINDSEY CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS ABSENT: MR. VICKERS - UNEXCUSED ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL; GEORGE BONACCI, CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR; ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD TORPI ATTORNEY MATTERS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: CASE# 89-2688 ROBERT GRANDSTAFF AFTER MR. BRUCE COOPER WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TORPI, HE GAVE HIS TESTIMONY CONCERNING CASE # 89- 2688, HE STATED THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY 4, 1989 AT 501 GERALD STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. MR. ROBERT GRANDSTAFF WAS HIRED BY MRS. IDA WILLIAMS FOR A FLAT ROOF REPLACEMENT ON REAR OF HER HOUSE. MR. GRANDSTAFF WAS IN VIOLATION OF CODE 7-20 (FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT), CODE 7- 99 (NOT LICENSED IN CITY OF SEBASTIAN) AND CODE 7-16 (INSTALLING IMPROPER ROOF COVERINGS). NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO MR. GRANDSTAFF BY SPECIAL SERVICE (ASAP). LETTER WAS SENT SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF HEARING. ALSO SECOND NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT BY SPECIAL SERVICE (ASAP) FOR NEW DATE OF HEARING. NO VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED AS OF THIS DATE (OCTOBER 2, 1989). RECOMMENDATION BY BRUCE COOPER WAS MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $250 FINE FOR VIOLATIONS AND TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS. A NEW ROOF SHOULD BE INSTALLED PROPERLY UNDER BUILDING CODES WITH PERMIT AND BY A LICENSE CONTRACTOR OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN OR PAY TOTAL RESTITUTION TO MRS. WILLIAMS FOR THE WORK DONE. IF MR. GRANDSTAFF DOES NOT CORRECT VIOLATION BY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - OCTOBER 2, 1989 CASE# 89-2688 PAGE 2 10 DAYS, A FINE OF $250 PER DAY SHOULD BE IMPOSED. MR. GRANDSTAFF DID NOT APPEAR AT THIS HEARING. MR. KINSELL (STEP SON OF MRS. WILLIAMS) WAS SWORN IN BY ATTORNEY LULICH. HE STATED MR. GRANDSTAFF WAS RECOMMENDED BY A FRIEND. HE GUARANTEED ROOF FOR 1 YEAR. ONE (1) MONTH LATER THE ROOF WAS STILL LEAKING. MR. KINSELL AND MRS. WILLIAMS HAD CONTACTED MR. GRANDSTAFF A NUMBER OF TIMES BY PHONE AND A LETTER. MR. GRANDSTAFF NEVER CONTACTED EITHER OF THEM. MOTION BY MR. GILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY MR. LINDSEY THAT IN REFERENCE TO CASE #89-2688 INVOLVING ROBERT GRANDSTAFF THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION: A) FINDINGS OF FACT: MR, GRANDSTAFF REPAIRED A ROOF LOCATED AT 501 GERALD STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA AND WAS iN VIOLATION OF CODE 7-99 (NO PERMIT) AND 7-20 (NO LICENSE IN CITY OF SEBASTIAN) AND 7-16 (IMPROPER ROOF COVERINGS). B) THE VIOLATION INFACT DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. C) AN "ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT" IS WARRANTED. D) A $250 FINE IS TO BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AND A SEBASTIAN CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE. THE SAID VIOLATOR HAS 10 DAYS TO HAVE THE ROOF REPAIRED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WITH A PERMIT OR MAKE RESTITUTION OF $700 TO OWNER, MRS. WILLIAMS. IF THE ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY 10 DAYS, A FINE OF $250 PER DAY SHALL BE IMPOSED. MOTION CARRIED. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED A MOTION AS FOLLOWS: I HEREBY MOVE THAT, WITH REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER 89-2688 INVOLVING ROBERT GRANDSTAFF THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION: A) FINDINGS OF FACT: MR. GRANDSTAFF WAS IN VIOLATION OF CODES 7-99 (NO PERMIT) AND 7-20 (NO SEBASTIAN CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE) AT 501 GERALD STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - OCTOBER 2~ 1989 CASE # 89-2688 PAGE 3 B) THE VIOLATION IN FACT DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. C) AN "ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT" IS WARRANTED. D) IN THE EVENT THE VIOLATOR FAILS TO CORRECT THE SAID VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE 'rIME ALLOWED, A $250 FINE SHOULD BE IMPOSED. MR. GILLIAMS STATED MOTION STANDS AS READ BY ATTORNEY LULICH AND MR. LiNDSEY SECONDED IT. MOTION CARRIED. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED THAT THE FIRST LENGTHLY MOTION SHOULD BE RESCINDED. THE FIRST MOTION WAS RESCINDED BY MR. GILLIAMS AND THE SECONDED BY MR. LINDSEY. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED ANOTHER MOTION AS FOLLOWS: "I HEREBY MOVE THAT, WITH REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER 89-2688 INVOLVING ROBERT GRANDSTAFF THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION: A) FINDINGS OF FACT: MR. ROBERT GRANDSTAFF IMPROPERLY INSTALLED ROOF COVERINGS IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 7, SECTION 16 AT 501 GERALD STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA. HE HAS 10 DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECTUATE REPAIR BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR AND APPLICABLE BUILDING PERMIT OR MAKE RESTITUTION OF $700 TO MRS. WILLIAMS, OWNER. B) THE VIOLATION IN FACT DID OCCUR AND THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR COMMITTED THE VIOLATION. C) AN "ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT" IS WARRANTED. D) IF THE ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY 10 DAYS, A FINE OF $250 P~R~DAY SHALL BE IMPOSED. MR. GILLIAMS MADE MOTION AND MR. LINDSEY SECONDED IT. MOTION CARRIED. FOR THE RECORD CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS STATED AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED THEY WILL BE LENIENT WITH THE HOME OWNER, MRS. WILLIAMS, UNTIL THIS MATTER IS RESOLVED. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:50 P.M. SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 2, 1989 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL REGARDING: UNLICENSED SUBCONTRACTOR ROBERT GRANDSTAFF CASE # 89-2688 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 FAX 407-589-5570 PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE COmE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD THEIR SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1989 AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. G. MURTAGH, SECRETARY 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.