Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10101986CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 10, 1986 - 2:00 P.M. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BLOME AT 2:15 P.M. BECAUSE OF THE LATE COMING OF ATTORNEY GORE, CHAIRMAN BLOME ASKED ATTORNEY LULICH TO SIT IN AS BOARD ATTORNEY. ROLL CAll: PRESENT: MR. GRAY MR. FISCHER MR. MCCLEARY MR. MCCOOL ATTORNEY LULICH CHAIRMAN BLOME ABSENT: VICE CHAIRMAN O'CONNOR, EXCUSED ALSO PRESENT: MR. CLOUTIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL/CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER! MR. THOMPSON, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER! ATTORNEY PALMER, CITY ATTORNEY; ATTORNEY GORE, BOARD ATTORNEY - ARRIVED LATE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. MCCLEARY, SECONDED BY MR. GRAY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 11/12/86 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. ATTORNEY LULICH TOLD THE BOARD HE HAD SEARS) THE RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF VORATH, KEPLER AND TAYLOR AND SINCE MAY NO LIENS HAD BEEN RECORDED. ATTORNEY LULICH STATED HE HAD PREPARED FOR SIGNATURE BY THE CHAIRMAN THREE CERTIFICATION OF FINES AND ORDERS IMPOSING LIENS. CHAIRMAN BLOME ASKED THE BOARD Ir THEY HAD RECEIVED COPIES OF LIENS THAT ATTORNEY GORE HAD PUT AGAINST THESE PROPERTIES. HE STATED THAT EVIDENTLY IT WAS NEVER RECORDED. ATTORNEY LULICH POINTED THAT THE COPIES F~CM ATTORNEY GORE HAD JUST BEEN RECEIVED. ATTORNEY GORE STATED THE LIE~S HAD BEEN RECORDED 12/9/86. ATTORNEY GORE APOLOGIZED AND SAID THE KEPLER FINE HAD BEEN RECORDED 11/26/86. ATTORNEY PALMER QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF WHEN THE LIENS HAD BEEN RECORDED. ATTORNEY PALMER QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF WHAT ATTORNEY GORE HAD GIVEN THE BOARD. THE DESCRIPTION ON THE THIRD PAGE HAD BEEN TYPED ON AND TWO OF THE PAGES HAD THE SAME NUMBER ON THEM. ATTORNEY GORE NOTED THAT THE THIRD PAGE WAS NUMBERED 2542%. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THIS COULD NOT BE DONE AND THAT A CERTIFIED COPY SHOULD BE OBTAINED TO SEE WHAT HAS BEEN RECORDED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - DECEMBER 10, 1986 CHAIRMAN BLOME ASKED ATTORNEY GORE TO GET THE NECESSARY PAPERS FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. ATTORNEY GORE SAID HE WOULD. OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 86-89 - KIGHT, JR. MR. THOMPSON TOLD THE BOARD THAT MR. KIGHT IS IN THE PROCESS OF CLEANING UP, BUT THAT HE STILL HAS A LONG WAY TO GO. HE SUGGESTED TO LET THE FINE KEEP RUNNING. CASE NO. 86-187 - BENHAM MR. THOMPSON TOLD THE BOARD THAT MR. BENHAM HAD COMPLIED. MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. MCCLEARY TO CLOSE CASE NO. CARRIED. 86-187. THE BOARD SECRETARY TOLD THE BOARD THERE WAS A FINE WHICH COMMENCED 11/28/86 AND STOPPED 12/10/86 AT $25.00 A DAY - TOTAL FINE $275.00~ ATTORNEY PALMER SAID THAT IF THE FINE WAS NOT PAID VOLUNTARILY, THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO FILE AN ORDER IMPOSING THE FINE. HE SUGGESTED A LETTER BE SENT REGARDING THE FINE. MR. GRAY WITHDRAWS MOTION, MR. MCCLEARY WITHDRAWS SECOND. MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. MCCOOL TO FINE MR. BENHAM $25.00 A DAY FOR 11 DAYS, TOTAL BEING $275.00 AND IT MUST BE PAID BY THE MEETING 1/14/87 OR FURTHER ACTION OF THE BOARD MAY WARRANT A CLAIM OF LIEN BE RECORDED. CARRIED. THE BOARD SECRETARY WAS REQUESTED TO SEND A LETTER STATING A FINE WAS IMPOSED AND MUST BE PAID BY 1/14/87 OR THE BOARD MAY ASK THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO RECORD A LIEN ©N'THE,~ PROPERTY IN QUESTION. NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 86-189 - O'BRIEN MR. THOMPSON TOLD THE BOARD THAT IN THIS CASE, SOME CLEANING IS DONE AND THEN MORE STUFF IS BROUGHT IN. IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THEHOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE BE REVOKED. ATTORNEY PALMER RECOMMENDED A LETTER BE SENT GIVING A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMPLY AND THEN IMPOSE A FINE IF NOT DONE BY A CERTAIN DATE. ALSO ADVISE HIM THAT IF THIS MATTER IS NOT CORRECTED BY THE TIME THE BOARD MEETS IN JANUARY, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER HEARING TO POSSIBLY REVOKE HIS HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE. ATTORNEY LULICH TOLD THE BOARD THAT THE LETTER SHOULD BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT THE VIOLATION IS. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - DECEMBER 10, 1986 CASE NO. 86-189 - O'BRIEN CONTINUED MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL, SECONDED BY MR. GRAY TO START A $25.00 A DAY FINE COMMENCING AS OF TODAY, GIVING TEN (10) DAYS IN WHICH TO COMPLY AND THAT IT BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY CODE ENFORCEMENT WHEN THE VIOLATION IS CORRECTED. ATTORNEY PALMER STATED THAT THE LETTER SHOULD SPECIFICALLY SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLY. MR. MCCOOL WITHDRAWS MOTION, MR. GRAY WITHDRAWS SECOND. FOLLOWING FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE FOLLOWING MOTION WAS MADE: MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL, SECONDED BY MR. GRAY TO SEND LETTER GIVING TEN (10) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF LETTER TO COMPLY, THEREAFTER CHARGING $25.00 A DAY UNTIL NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED. ALSO, IF THEY HAVE NOT COMPLIED BY THE BOARD MEETING IN JANUARY, THE BOARD MAY REVOKE HIS HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY. CARRIED. CASE NO. 86-206 - BALDANZA MR. THOMPSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT MR. BALDANZA HAD COMPLIED AND THE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED. ATTORNEY LULICH RECOMMENDED THAT IN THE INITIAL LETTER SENT, TO ALSO ADD THAT IF THE PEOPLE IN VIOLATION DO COMPLY AND THERE IS A REOCCURRENCE, A FINE CAN STILL BE IMPOSED WITHOUT THEIR BEING PRESENT AT THE HEARING. MOTION BY MR. MCCLEARY, SECONDED BY MR. MCCOOL TO CLOSE CASE NO. 86-206. A DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE WRITING OF A LETTER TO THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLIED, ALSO INFORMING THEM OF THE POSSIBLE PENALTY OF A REOCCURRENCE. MR. MCCOOL RECOMMENDED A LETTER BE PART OF THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN ALL CASES THAT HAVE COMPLIED. CARRIED. THE WRITING OF A LETTER WAS NOT MADE PART OF THE MOTION. THE BOARD SECRETARY WAS ASKED TO TYPE UP A STANDARD FORM LETTER TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR APPROVAL IN JANUARY. CASE NO. 86-220 - INGRAM MR. THOMPSON TOLD THE BOARD THAT MR. INGRAM HAD COMPLIED AND DID NOT FEEL THERE WOULD BE A REOCCURRENCE. MOTION BY MR. MCCLEARY, SECONDED BY MR. FISCHER TO CLOSE CASE NO. 86-220. CARRIED. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - DECEMBER 10, 1986 BOAR~ ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: ATTORNEY LULICH ASKED THE BOARD TO DEAL WITH HIS STATUS AS ACTING BOARD ATTORNEY. CHAIRMAN BLOME STATED THAT ATTORNEY GORE WAS STILL RECOGNIZED AS THE BOARD ATTORNEY. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN BLOME SAID HE WAS LESS THAN SATISFIED WITH ATTORNEY GORE iAND RECOMMEND HE BE REPLACED. ATTORNEY GORE FORMALLY SUBMITTED HIS RESIGNATION TO THE BOARD. FOLLOWING A BRIEF DISCUSSION, A RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE TO RETAIN ATTORNEY LULICH AS BOARD ATTORNEY. MOTION BY MR. MCCOOL, SECONDED BY MR. GRAY TO ACCEPT ATTORNEY GORE'S RESIGNATION WITH REGRET AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPOINTMENT OF STEVEN LULICH AS BOARD ATTORNEY AT THE CURRENT RATE OF PAY. CARRIED. GENERAL DISCUSSION: MR. MCCLEARY TOLD THE BOARD, THAT ACCORDING TO OTHER CITY BOARDS, CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS NOT DOING THE JOB IT HAD DONE IN THE PAST. ATTORNEY PALMER SAID HE FELT THE COMPLAINTS WERE NOT MADE AGAINST THE BOARD ITSELF, THAT THE BOARD WAS DOING A GOOD JOB. A LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:20 P.M. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DECEMBER lO, 1986 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES- MEETING HELD 11/12/86 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: OLD BUSINESS: CASE NO. 86-89 - KIGHT, JR. CASE NO. 86-187 - BENHAM NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 86-189 - O'BRIEN CASE NO. 86-206 - BALDANZA CASE NO. 86-220 - INGRAM BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: GENERAL BOARD DISCUSSION: ADJOURN NOTE: IF ANY PBRSON 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 APPEALIS BASED.