Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12211988./ CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 2!~ 1988 - 2z00 MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MCCOOL AT 2zOO P.M. ROLL CALLs PRESENTs MR. VICKERS MR. GRAY MR. FISCHER MR. STRNAD MR. DEROBERTIS ATTORNEY LULICH CHAIRMAN MCCOOL ABSENTs MR. LINDSEY - EXCUSED ALSO PRESENTs JOHN KMRICK, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APPROVAL OF MINUTKSz MOTION BY MR. DEROBERTIS, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 11/16/88 AS WRITTEN. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESSs ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND ViCE CHAIRMAN MR. MCCOOL AND MR. GRAY EXCUSED THEMSELVES FROM NOMINATIONS SINCE THEIR TERMS EXPIRE IN 1989. CHAIRMAN MR. MCCOOL NOMINATED MR. DEROBERTIS. MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. CARRIED. MOTION BY MR. GRAY, SECONDED BY MR. FISCHER TO ELECT MR. DEROBERTIS AS CHAIRMAN OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. CARRIED. VICE CHAIRMAN MR. FISCHER NOMINATED MR. LINDSEY. MR. DEROBERTIS NOMINATED MR. FISCHER. ELECTION OF ViCE CHAIRMAN cont. MOTION BY MR. DEROBERTIS, SECONDED BY MR. VICKERS TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. CARRIED. ROLL CALL VOTE~ MR. VICKERS - MR. FISCHER MR. GRAY - MR. FISCHER MR. FISCHER - MR. LINDSEY MR. STRNAD - MR. FISCHER MR. DEROBERTIS - MR. FISCHER MR. MCCOOL - MR. FISCHER MR. FISCHER WAS ELECTED VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING THE GAVEL WAS GIVEN TO CHAIRMAN DEROBERTIS TO CHAIR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD, ATTORNEY LULICH INFORMED THE MEMBERS THAT THE CHANGES TO UPDATE THE STANDARD LIEN AND ORDER FORMS HAD BEEN DONE. ATTORNEY LULiCH WENT OVER THE PARLIAMENTARY ORDERS ON MOTIONS WiTH THE BOARD. PRESENTATION - PROCEDURE FOLLOWED FOR VIOLATIONS - JOHN EMRICK. MR. EMRICK TOOK THE BOARD STEP BY STKP THROUGH THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED WHEN A VIOLATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. GENERAL DISCUSSION= ATTORNEY LULICH EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED ON REPEAT OFFENDERS. ATTORNEY LULICH SUGGESTED THAT ALL NOTICE OF HEARINGS BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM ARE CLOSED BEFORE THEY GO BEFORE THE BOARD. MOTION BY MR. STRNAD, SECONDED BY MR. FISCHER THAT STAFF FORWARD TO THE BOARD ALL NOTICE OF HEARINGS WHETHER THEY ARE COMPLIED WITH OR NOT. CARRIED. PAGE ATTORNEY LDLICH ASKED MR. EMRICK TO EXPLAIN THE TYPE OF CASES PENDING ON THE MONTHLY REPORT GIVEN TO THE BOARD. MR. EMRICH EXPLAINED THAT MOST OF THE CASES PENDING WERE LOT MOWINGS. THE CODE REQUIRES US TO GIVE THEM 30 DAYS AND A LOT OF THE OWNERS LIVE OUT OF STATE. ATTORNEY LULICH SUGGESTED THAT A LIST SHOWING THE NUMBER OF SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS PENDING BE GIVEN TO THE BOARD. THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3~30 P.M. SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21~ 1988 - 2:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, ~988 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: OLD BUSINESS~ NEW BUSINEBS~ ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN BOARD ATTORNEY REQUESTS AND REPORTS: BUILDING OFFICIAL'S MATTERS: PRESENTATION - PROCEDURE FOLLOWED FOR VIOLATION - JOHN EMRICK GENERAL DISCUSSiONs 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 [3 SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 PUBLIC MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDD OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WILL HOLD THEIR REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1988 2:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. K. NAPPI, SECRETARY SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION 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.