Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10131982MINUTES OF MEETING OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - OCTOBER 13, 1982 MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN ROBERT FITZMAURICE AT 2:15 P.M. PRESENT: CHAIRMAN ROBERT FITZMAURICE, VICE CHAIRMAN EAP, L WITHERBY, EUGENE POPOW, GEORGE McCLEARY, MARTIN LEWIS, BOARD ATTORNEY GREGORY GONE, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KILBRIDE. GEORGE LA PORTE EXCUSED. (OUT OF TOWN) MOTION BY MR. McCLEARY, SECONDED BY MR. WITHERBY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1982. CARRIED. VIOLATION HEARINGS: CASE NO. 82-4 - ROBERT ~IDDY, 675 JORDAN AVENUE, LOT 21, BLOCK 47, UNIT 2, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS - VIOLATION OF CITY OF SEBASTIAN CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE I, SECTION 12-1, LITTERING, AND ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 202 XIV Q.(e), PARKING OF TRAILERS. MR. LIDDY WAS SWORN IN BY ATTORNEY GORE. THE SECTIONS OF THE ORDI- NANCES PERTAINING TO THE VIOLATIONS WERE READ TO MR. LIDDY BY ATTORNEY GORE. MR. LIDDY STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED LETTERS AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION, BUT DID NOT ADMIT OR DENY THE VIOLATIONS. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED THAT THE CITY IS PREPARED TO PROVE THAT MR. LIDDY HAS VIOLATED SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE CODE, PRIMARILY KEEP- ING JUNK VEHICLES ON HIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS ON THE PROPERTY OF A NEIGHBOR WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND HAS CONTINUALLY PARKED EVEN AFTER REQUEST TO REMOVE, BOATS, IN THIS CASE, MORE THAN ONE, IN THE SWALE PLUS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND NOT BACK MORE THAN 25'. ARTHUR MAYER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, WAS SWORN IN AS THE FIRST WITNESS, AND GAVE THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY: I HAVE OBSERVED THE TOP OF A JEEP IN THE ADJOINING LOT NEXT TO MR. LIDDY"S HOUSE. CAN'T SEE IF THERE IS AN UNDER CARRIAGE BUT IT DOES NOT LOOK MOBILE. ONE BOAT ON BLOCKS RIGHT OFF THE PAVEMENT ~IqH IS IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. ANOTHER BOAT ON A TRAILER IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. SAW THE BOATS ON TWO OR THREE OCCASIONS AND LETTER WAS SENT REQUESTING REMOVAL WITHIN 10 DAYS. WENT BACK ON 10TH DAY. BOATS NOT REMOVED. TOOK PICTUREON 9/8/82. (PRESENTED BY ATTORNEY KILBRIDE AS CItY EXHIBIT NO. i .) JEEP ALSO APPEAR~ IN PICTURE. CAN"T REALLY SEE IN THE WEEDS~ BUT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS JUST A BODY, NO WHEELS, IS ON ADJOINING PROPERTY. FOR THE RECORD, CHAIRMAN FITZMAURICE STATED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS TWO BOATS IN THE RIGHT OF W~Y, ONE ON BLOCKS IN THE SWALE AND ONE ON A TRAILER, AND THE JEEP IN THE BACKGROUND. MR. LIDDY STATED THE JEEP IS FOR SPARE PARTS. HAS TWO MORE IN GARAGE' ONE BOAT BELONGS TO HIS UNCLE~ WAITING TO BE REPAIRED,. EVERYBODY ELSE HAS 40' WINNEBAGOS, ~ SITTING IN THEIR YARDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THEY LOOK LIKE JUNK YARDS. MR. LIDDY WANTED TO KNOW IF HE COULD MEET HIS ACCUSER AND WAS ADVISED THAT THE CITY WAS THE ACCUSER~ THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: I THINK THE UIOI~TIONS ARE VERY CLEAR. I THINK MR. LIDDY HAS ADMITTED TO THE FACT THAT THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, I THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT VIOLATIONS AND NEED TO BE CORRECTED. THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE CITY, THAT'S ALL WE'VE DONE ALL SUMMER IS TO TRY TO HAVE THE VIOI~TIONS CORRECTED. MR. LIDDY OBVIOUSLY HAS A PROBLEM WITH RECOGNIZING HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE MEMBERS OF TH~S COMMUNITY. T~IS IS NOT A JUNK YARD. THIS IS NOT A REPAIR STATION FOR BROKEN VEHICLES OR BOATS. T~E CITY SWALE IS NOT HIS PRIVATE LOT TO STORE HIS BOAT ON IN ANY WAY HE SEES FIT. THE FACT OF WHETHER H$ HAS NEIGHBORS OR NOT IS NOT RELEVANT. THE FACT IS THE COMMUNITY IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ONLY WAY THIS COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND REMAIN RESIDENTIAL IS IF EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND DOES COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIALAREA REMAINS RESIDENTIAL. I REQUEST THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IMPOSING A FINE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE I THINK THE VIO- LATION IS CLEAR AND IT'S CONTINUOUS. YOU'VE SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT WE'VE TRIED TO GET THIS MAN TO RECOGNIZE HIS RESPONSIBILITY SINCE JUNE AND HE'S DONE NOTHING EXCEPT TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT. I THINK A FINE IS CERTAINLY WARRANTED IN THIS CASE AND CERTAINLY AS THE CODE STATES HE HAS SO MANY DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER TO CORRECT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE FINE IS IMPOSED SO HE STILL HAS MORE TIME TO DO IT, BUT IF HE DOESN'T CLEAN IT UP I THINK IT'S TIME THE BOARD TOOK ACTION. MR. LIDDY WAS INFORMED THAT HE HAD A RIGHT TO SUMMARIZ~ BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE CASE ANDASKED MR. LIDDY HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE HIM TO CLEAR UP HIS PROPERTY. HE REPLIED THAT HE THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE A MONTH. THE BOARD MEMBERS FELT THIS WAS TOO LONG A PERIOD OF TIME ~ STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GORE: MR. LIDDY, BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD BY YOURSELF, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER~ FINDINGS OF FACTS ARE DETERMINED THAT THERE IS PRESENTLY EXISTING ON YOUR PROPERTY JUNK MATERIAL AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE III, SECTION 12-30 THEREO~ A MOTOR VEHICLE INCAPABLE OF LOCOMOTION IS PARKED ON YOUR PROPERTY. YOUR TESTIMONY INDICATED YOU ARE USING PARTS OF THAT AUTOMOBILE FOR THE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES WHICH IN FACT WOULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS A JUNKED CAR. WITH REGARD TO VIOLATION OF CODE OF ORDINANCE NO. 202~ SECTION xIV, SUBSECTION Q (E)~] IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT A BOAT TRAILER IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGH~T OF WAY OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN IN VIOLATION OF THE PARTICULAR CODE SECTION AND, IN ADDITION~ THE BOAT TRAILER IS NOT PLACED AT LEAST 25' FROM THE FRONT FOOT LINE OF THE PROPERTY. THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WOULD BE THAT THESE ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE REFERENCED ZONING CODE SECTIONS AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCE SECTIONS AND THE BOARD SHALL NOW DETERMINE THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AN ORDER OF. 'ENFORCEMENT SHALL BE COMPLIED. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IF THE ORDER IS NOT FOLLOWED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD SET, YOU WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A FINE NOT TO EXCEED $250.00 PER DAY FOR EACH DAY AFTER THE TIME PERIOD SET FOR CORRECTION OF THESE CONDITIONS. MOTION BY MR. POPOW, SECONDED BY MR. McCLEARY~ THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CON- CLUSIONS OF LAW AS READ BY THE BOARD ATTORNEY BE ADOPTED AS BEING OUR FINDINGS; THAT AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT BE ISSUED AND THAT THE ORDER PROVIDE THAT THE VIO~ LATIONS BE CURED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 18~ AND IF NOT CLEARED UP BEFORE THAT TIME~ THAT A MAXIMUM FINE OF $250.00 PER DAY BE APPLIED. MR. McCLEARY, MR. L~WIS, MR. POPOW, VOTED AYE~ MR. FITZMAURICE, MR, WITHERBY VOTED NAY. · MOTION CARRIED. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT STATE LAW NOW REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD SHALL CONSIST OF 7 MEMBERS, (THERE IS AN ORDINANCE PENDING FOR ADOPTION) WHICH MEANS 4 VOTES ARE REQUIRED TO CARRY A MOTIO~ IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THE BOARD TO RECONSIDER SINCE ONLY 3 MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. ATTORNEY GORE CONCURRED. ABOVE MOTION DECLARED INVALID. MOTION BY MR. WITHERBY, SECONDED BY MR. McCLEARY, TO GO ALONG WITH THE $250.00 PER DAY FINE AND GIVE MR. LIDDY UNTIL OCTOBER 25 TO CLEAR UP. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY CASE NO~ 82v5~,~ PAT WHITE,. 558 DRAWDY WAY ~ VIOLATION OF CITY,,OF SEBASTIAN CODE 67, ~3NIT 2~ SEBASTIAN HI~HLRNDS,, ATTORNEY GORE STATED F~R THE RECORD THAT THERE\,MAF BE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST E~EN THOUGH HE IS A NON,VOTING MEMBER,. ~ ~ ~ES~G ~E ~Y~LL ~ A CERTAIN ~TTER BF' WAY ~F T~ AT~RN~ ~N~' C~T~ ATTORNEY K~LBR~E ~VI~ T~T IN T~ OP~N ~F T~ C~ ~ ~E H~ SATISFACTORILY C~L~D WITH T~ RE~ TO ~ THE ~IO~TIONS ~CEPT ~OR B~S ~ICH ~ C~ D~SS W2TH ~M, ~P~TLY' H~ IS P~NG A MOTOR HO~ ~D 2 PR~ATE VEHICLES ON A NE~HBOR ~S PROPERS. T~E ~ NO BUILD~G ON T~ PROPERTY ~D THE ~HIC~S ~E P~D MO~ THAN 25~ FROM T~ PROBITY L~, HE ~S INFO,ED THE BUr~ING OFFIC~L THAT HE ~ P~ISS~N TO ~ SO, HE N~S ~ ~R~Y WITH.US T~T HE HnS PE~SS~N OF T~ PROPERTY ~ TO P~K ~N HIS PROPERTY; OTHER~S~' ~S TRESpASS~G~ AZTORN~..~ ~E ~DED T~AT THE ~F;)T~ ORDNANCE READS~ TEC~ICALLY ~EAKING~ ~ MAY OR MAY NOT BE A ~T~N~ P~N~ ON A ~ACANT ~T ~ ~T HE THOUGHT P~KING TO THE RE~ OF THE ~T WAS S~TISFACTORY IN A CERTAIN SENSE, ~. ~YER STATED THAT THE ~IO~TION W~ IN~IALLY IS~ FOR T~ C~ENT MIXERS AND A ~ENERATOR ~ ~E NOW GONE. ~. ~ITE WAS SWO~ IN BY AT~RNEY ~ORE~ HE STAT~ THAT ~ HAS H~D AN A~REEMENT WITH THE O~ER OF T~ ~T FOR 15 YE~S THAT~E COULD U~ T~ ~T AS ~NG AS NO ~WS WERE VIOLATED AND HE HAS ~PT IT MO~D ~ IS NOW' IN THE PR~ESS OF ~RCHAS~ ING THE LOT~ THERE FO~O~D A DIS~SSION ON THE ~TT~ OF TRESPASSING AND ~ILE THE BO~D DETERMINED THIS WAS NOT IN THEIR JURfSDICTION~ ATTO~EY KILBRIDE RE~D HE WOULD FEEL BETTER IF MR. WHITE COULD ~PLY ~IT~N PE~ISSION FROM THE O~ER ~EN THOUGH HE IS P~NNING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. MOTION BY FR. LEWIS, BASED UPON SWORN TESTIMONY OF ALLEGED VIOLATOR, THAT CASE NO. 82~5 BE DISMISSED. AT THE REQUEST OF ATTORNEY. GORE, MR. LEWIS WITHDREW THE MOTION SO THAT THERE COULD BE FURTHER DISCUSSION. MR~ MAYER ASKED HOW MANY VEHICLES COULD B~. PARKED ON A -PIECE OF PROPERTY BEFORE IT WAS CONSIDERED SOME SORT OF VIOLATION. THE QUESTION REVOLt;ED AROUND CARS OWNED BY RESIDENTS OF A HOUSE AND SOMEONE LIKE MR~ WHITE ~ FOR INSTANCE, WHO COULD OWN 15 VEHICLES PARKED ON A ~VACANT LOT. IT WASf~DECIDED THAT AS LONG AS THE VEHICLES WERE PARKED LEGITIMATELY, AND NOT IN SWALES~ THERE WAS NOT MUCH THAT COULD BE DONE ABOUT IT. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED THAT AS FAR AS ANy ~VIOLATION THAT OCCURS OVER WHICH THIS BOARD HAS JURISDICTION, IT DOES NOT TAKE A COMPLAINT FROM A PROPERTY OWNER FOR CHARGES TO BE BROUGHT.. HE WILL STILL BRING CHARGES AGAINST THE VIOLATOR. ATTORNEY GORE BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF IMPOSING FINES WHEN A RENTER IS THE VIOLATOR. THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT A LIEN SHALL BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE PROPERT~ BUT HOW IS NOTICE PROVIDED TO~!THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN A VIOLATION EXISTS ~ND IT IS NOT HIS FAULT? ALSO, IF A VIOLATION EXISTS ON A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE OWNER LIVES OUT OF STATE~ HOW IS THAT TO BE HANDLED? ATTORNEY KILBRIDE STATED THAT IF A TENANT IS CAUSING A VIOLATION, WE WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY THE OWNER THAT A VIOLATION IS OCCURRING AND HE HAS THE OBLIGA- TION TO SEE THAT THE TENANT CORRECTS IT! IF HE DOESN'T GET HIM TO DO IT~ THEN WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IM~'OSE THE FINE AGAINST THE OWNER. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE TAX - 3 - RECORDS BE CHECKED TO SEE WHO IS THE OWNER OF RECORD AND NOTICE OF HEARING SHOULD BE SENT TO THE OWNER AS WELL AS THE TENANT WHO IS THE VIOLATOR. ATTORNEY GORE ADVISED ATTORNEY KILBRIDE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DRAW UP A FORM FOR AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND A FINAL ORDER THAT WOULD BE IMPOSING A LIEN. ATTORNEY KILBRIDE ADDED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A REPORT FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHETHER OR NOT COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MET. IF SO, IT'S ENTERED IN THE RECORD. IF NO~~. THEN WE NEED TO CERTIFY THE DATE. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THERE IS A PROPOSED MOTION, ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS NOT A .FORM AS SUCH, BUT CONTAINS THE ELEMENTS WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND ISSUED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS BY THE BOARD ATTORNEY. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M.