Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06161999 CITY OF SEBASTIAN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 1999 Chairman Neglia called the meeting to order at 3:02 pm. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Ms. Barczyk VChmn. Cosco Mr. Davis(a) Chmn. Neglia Mr. Schofield EXCUSED ABSENCE: Mr. Cavallo and Mr. Connelly UNEXCUSED ABSENCE: Ms. Gdffin Martha Campbell, City Engineer Rich Stringer, City Attorney Ann Breck, Recording Secretary Doral Bosworth, Board Secretary ALSO PRESENT: Tracy Hass, Growth Management Director Kathy Brauer, Code Enforcement Officer j Tim Zelinski, Code Enforcement Officer ..r~ ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chmn. Negiia announced that Mr. Davis will be voting in place of Mr. Connelly, and he noted that there are five (5) members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (5/19/99) MOTION by Davis/Barczyk I make a motion that we accept the minutes. (of 5/19/99) A voice vote was taken. The vote was 5 - 0, motion carded. OLD BUSINESS: A. VIOLATION HEARING CONTINUED - Case #98-13702 - Ted & Matra Andruski - 573 Palm Avenue Martha Campbell, City Engineer, was present and was sworn in at 3:05 pm by Atty. Stringer. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1999 Atty. Stringer explained an appeal process by which this Board can file an appeal on a staff decision for which the Board disagrees. This appeal would be heard by the Board of Adjustment. He then referred to the fact that Mr. Andruski has a driveway that was not permitted, and Mr. Andruski stated that he can't get a permit because Engineering requires a culvert, and he doesn't think he should have to have the culvert. Atty. Stringer then noted that the decision for this Code Enforcement Board is to determine a legal requirement for a permit, and if there is, has he gotten it. He noted that the question of whether the culvert requirement is correct is in the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. There was discussion on this issue. It was noted that when a ddveway permit is issued, there is a 60 day time pedod in which to complete the driveway. Atty. Stdnger explained the history of this driveway, noting that when Mr. Andruski applied for the permit, he didn't agree with the size of the culvert. He also noted that Mr. Andruski never got together with staff after the last Code Enforcement meeting, because he didn't think he had to do it. He also noted that staff has reported that upon inspection, this site is causing some waterflow problems. MOTION by Davis/Barczyk I'd like to make a motion that, in Case #98-13702, that the Code Enforcement Board finds Mr. Andruski in violation, and will go along with what staff of Sebastian recommended, and we should notify the individual of the decision that he obtain a permit by July 21, 1999, and comply with the permit within sixty (60) days, or be subject to a fine of ten dollars ($10) per day. Roll call: VChmn. Cosco - yes Chmn. Negtia - yes Mr. Schofield - yes Ms. Barczyk - yes Mr. Davis(a) - yes The vote was 5 - 0. Motion carded. B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO ORDER - Case #99- 14741 - Herbert & Kathryn Sturm - 549 Saunders Street Atty. Stdnger gave information on this case. He noted that in his research about this forty dollar ($40) charge, he found the Resolution where the permit amount was set, and it is the classic 'setting the amount of fees for permits'. On the list was a fee of forty dollars ($40) for use of the easement. However, there was never an Ordinance actually requiring a permit for the use of the easement. He noted that apparently the Ordinance never got wdtten. He summarized that we had a Resolution adopting a fee for a permit that didn't exist. He continued, that while the fifteen dollar ($15) required fee has been paid, there hasn't CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1999 been a complete application submitted, as he understands it. Tim Zelinski noted that Mr. Sturrn has paid his fifteen dollar ($15) fee and completed the application, and has received his permit. Atty. Stringer recommended that this Board rescind the Order so it's not on the record against Mr. Sturm. MOTION by BarczykJCosco I make the motion to rescind the previous motion from May 19, 1999 for Case #99-13741. Roil call: VChmn. Cosco - yes Ms. Barczyk - yes Mr. Schofield - yes Chmn. Neglia - yes Mr. Davis(a) - yes The vote was 5 - 0. Motion carded. Atty. Stdnger informed the Board that this user fee is being discussed administratively at present. NEW BUSINESS: C. VIOLATION HEARING - Case #99-015135 - Frederick Heindl - 933 Streamlet Avenue - Section 26-138 & 66-1, Code of Ordinances Mr. Tim Zelinski was sworn in by Atty. Stdnger at 3:27 pm. Mr. Zelinski gave staff presentation about pool screening which is loose and rotted out at the above address. He proceeded to show a video for evidence. He also noted that upon contacting the Health Department, they informed him that this issue is not in their area of expertise. Ms. Barczyk noted the urgency of correcting this situation, and likened it to a refrigerator with a door sitting by the curb. Mr. Zelinski then noted that in dealing with Mr. Heindl for a year or more, he has learned that somebody else will have to repair it because he has no faith that Mr. Heindl will take care of it. Atty. Stdnger indicated that there is another way to force this issue because of safety issues. Ms. Barczyk noted that in reference to "How to determine fines" and commented that Section 2-194 says that the gravity of the violation should be considered, and she recommended that this Board should act quickly on this Case. 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1999 There was more discussion on this issue. Mr. Zelinski offered to make the repairs himself as he doesn't feel that Mr. Heindl will do the repair since he has been working him with a year. There was discussion on the legalities of this subject. MOTION by Neglia/Barczyk I'd like to make a motion on Case #~9-015135, Mr. Frederick Heindl, is in violation of 26-138 and 66-1, that he has five (5) calendar days to come into compliance by Monday, June 21, 1999 at 8:00 am, and if he doesn't come into compliance, he can be fined twenty-five dollars ($25) a day. Chron. Neglia - yes VChmn. Cosco - yes Ms. Barczyk - yes Mr. Davis(a) - yes Mr. Schofield - yes The vote was 5 - O. Motion carded. Mr. Schofield voiced his opinion that residents who make Code Violation complaints need to provide their names and addresses instead of being anonymous. There was bdef discussion on this issue. Mr. Schofield distributed a copy of a newspaper article about the problems of collecting fines placed on Angler's Obsession and Robert Taylor. Atty. Stringer gave information that was obtained dudng the course of the tdal on Mr. Taylor's appeal, noting that the property was conveyed, prior to the Code Board action, to a separate owner which is a Church. He indicated that the property has since been conveyed again. But he noted that the Court found that he was too late to appeal the finding that Mr. Taylor and Angler's Obsession were in violation of the Code. He gave further information on ownership activities and suggested that it may be quicker to bdng the Corporation before this Board. He noted that there is a finding that the violation exists. He also noted that the appeal was dropped, and there needs to be a second Order which would set the fine. He then suggested that the violation be reestablished and a fine set and an Order issues with a current date. He reminded Board members that a Corporation does not have a Homestead and are liable for a lien. He summarized by noting that the violation should be reestablished in the Corporate name as well as Mr. Taylor~s name with a wdtten Order, and to initiate the procedures with the Corporation who has ownership of the property. Ms. Barczyk handed out copies of a memo dated 12/8/98 from Mr. Tom Frame about land clearings and drainage approvals on waterfront properties. She asked questions about this memo, and there was discussion. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1999 Atty. Sthnger offered some insight into the issue of cutting or clear cutting of properties owned by the City. Mr. Davis commented that this was an interdepartmental memo. Dord Bosworth, Board Secretary, explained how the information for members' packets is selected. Tracy Hass suggested that this memo probably should have been 3resented dudng staff presentation on this case. Chmn. Neglia brought up the subject of ladders and ropes in swimming pools. Thero was discussion on this issue. It was determined to ask the Building Department about requirements of ladders, etc. for residential swimming pools. Mr. Cosco commended Tim Zelinski and Kathy Brauer for their voluntary efforts to help not only Mr. Heindl with his pool screen, but also Mr. MacVicar with his plants. He stated that the City is very fortunate to have people like them that are willing to do this. Chairman N eglia adjourned the meeting at 4:10 pm. (6/'17/99 AB)