Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03132007CBf ////~//yam////' C~AIfiMAN SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION B(~--w -~---~~~ ~-nnmv~d ' ~~~D~t® ~! ~ o ~ 0'1 REGULAR MEETING ApprOVatl ~-~b~~ot ~'0 MARCH 13, 2007 - 7:00 P.M. Meeting was called to order by Ch. Garland at 7:00 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Ch. Garland. ROLL CALL: Present: Ch. Garland Mr. Hosey V.C. Morris Mr. Widup Mrs. Carbano Absent: Ms. Canning -excused Mr.. Dalessandro -excused Mr. Conover - unexcused Also present: Wayne Eseltine -Building Director/Official APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting held 2/13/07. MOTION: Morris/Widup I make a motion we approve the minutes of the regular meeting held 2/13/07. ROLL CALL: Ch. Garland -yes Mr. Hosey -yes V.C. Morris -yes Mr. Widup -yes Mrs. Carbano -yes Motion carries 5 - 0. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Thomson * Prometric Exam Lang, Jason D./General Construction Mr. Lang was sworn in by Ch. Garland. In talking with Mr. Lang, the Board did not feel he had enough experience to take the General Construction Exam. He was asked if he would be willing to take the Residential Construction Exam instead. Mr. Lang said he would. MOTION: Morris/Widup I make a motion that we modify the request from Jason Lang from the General Contractor Exam to the take the Residential Exam. ROLL CALL: Ch. Garland -yes Mr. Holey -yes V.C. Morris -yes Mr. Widup -yes Mrs. Carbano -yes Motion carries 5 - 0. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: Ch. Garland opened the public hearing: DAMIEN GILLIAMS Appeal of an administrative decision to revoke an electrical sub-permit for non-compliance with Resolution R-97-27 at 806 Indian River Dr. Wayne Eseltine, Building Official was sworn in by Ch. Garland. Charles Sanford, attorney for Damien Gilliams asked that they both be recognized. Mr. Eseltine told the Board that the City Attorney, Mr. Stringer could not be at the meeting due to a prior commitment at the county since it was election day. He said that since this was the first appeal this Construction Board has heard, it is recommendation of the city staff that this appeal be continued to a date when the City Attorney can be present. Staff would recommend that this date be set for the following Tuesday, March 20th at 7 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Stringer said the Construction Board can continue this meeting to another date with a tune certain without affecting the public notification process. Mr. Sanford said that they were here for a hearing. V.C. Morris said that since the City Attorney was not present that the Board needed to discuss whether or not to make a motion to continue the hearing until March 20th. Mr. Sanford asked who Mr. Stringer represented. He said he thought it was Mr. Eseltine (the city) not the Board. MOTION: Hosey/Carbano I make a motion to continue this hearing until March 20th, 2007. ROLL CALL: Ch. Garland -yes Mr. Hosey -yes V.C. Morris - no Mr. Widup - no Mrs. Carbano -yes Motion carries 3 - 2. For the record, Mr. Sanford said they had no opportunity at this hearing to address this recommendation of the motion, that they had no response to that request made by the city. He asked that this be noted and accepted to the record. Mr. Gilliams asked to speak to the Board and was sworn in by Ch. Garland. Because they were not given an opportunity to speak he felt they did not get due process. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: Mr. Eseltine said that Mr. Gilliams was notified in writing on 3/9/07, spoke to him on the phone several times on 3/8/07 and 3/9/07 regarding the fact that Mr. Stringer was not going to be here and that we wanted to continue this meeting. When asked how the letter was sent, the Board was told the letter was faxed and that we received confirmation that it was received. ATTORNEY MATTERS: None BOARD MATTERS: Ch. Garland said he had talked to the Building Official in regards to the workshop that was held concerning the "fines". Mr. Eseltine said the City Attorney would have something for the Board at their next meeting. RECORD SCORES IN SCOREBOOK: Hosey/Morris 15 MINUTES TO PUBLIC: Mr. Sanford, in regards to what Mr. Eseltine said, wanted to note that prior to this public testimony that they were previously on the agenda for a hearing with the Construction Board in the matter of the appeal with Damien Gilliams who is Mr. Sanford's client. The Board's decision was to move the hearing date one week forward. The hearing was then terminated. Under Building Official Matters, Mr. Eseltine proceeded to tell the Board how he had given Damien notice testifying after the fact about the case that was previously before this Board. He said that this was highly improper, the Board should not be listening to such things, the Board stands in judgment and he wanted to note this for the record. There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M. cm ~ _-- ,.~- HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5537 • FAX (772) 589-2566 MEMORANDUM Date: 3/9/07 To: Mr. Damien Gilliams Owner of subject property at 806 Indian River Dr. Sebastian From: Wayne Eseltine, CBO Building Official Subject: Construction Board meeting to hear an appeal Mr. Gilliams, The regular construction board meeting is set for the second Tuesday of every month. The up coming meeting on March 13, 2007 agenda has the quasi judicial hearing for the appeal of an administrative decision by the building official to revoke the electrical permit for 806 Indian River Dr. Unfortunately, our City Attorney, Mr. Rich Stringer will not be able to attend this regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday March 13~'° as his presence is mandatory at the canvassing board as part of the election process. Since this is the first appeal that the present Construction Board has heard and in light of the controversial circumstances that surround the appeal, it is the recommendation of City staff that this appeal be continued to a date when the City Attorney can be present. Staff would recommend that this date be set for the following Tuesday, March 20~' at 7pm in City council chambers. Mr. Stringer has indicated that the Construction Board can continue the meeting to another date with a time certain without affecting the public notification process. Please contact me if you have any question, comments or concerns at 388-8235. "An Equal Opportunity Employer" Celebrating Our 75th Anniversary 1225 MAIN STREET ^ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 388-8201 ^ FAX (772) 589-5570 O~'~'ICE Off' Tf1E CITY ATTORAEY To: Sebastian Construction Board From: Rich Stringer, City Attorney Date: March 13, 2007 Re: Gilliams electric permit appeal I do not recall the Construction Board having a similar matter before it in all my years here, so I feel a memo is in order. You are presented with an appeal of an administrative determination, in this case, the revocation of an electrical permit. Under City Code section 26-69 this Board sits as the board of adjustment for the Electrical Code. The relevant item of jurisdiction as a board of adjustment is the authority to "hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that there is error in any ... determination made by an administrative official ...", City Code section 54-1-2.5(b)(2). Thus, the only issue that may be determined by this Board is whether it was erroneous for the Building Official to revoke the electrical permit. This Board does not have the authority to grant a variance to the requirements of the Code, to modify the approved site plan and conditional use approval for the subject parcel, nor does. this Board have the authority to decide that the City is required to honor the previously-issued permit due to considerations of fairness or equity. Those are all matters that may only be properly considered by another body. The original permit revocation was based upon matters contained in both the Electrical Code section of the City Code, as well as matters arising under the Land Development Code. Rather than splitting the issues for determination by separate boards of adjustment, which is not accepted practice in matters of conflicting jurisdiction, I determined that the matter was most properly placed before the Construction Board because the ultimate issue revolves around revocation of an electrical permit. Although this Board by its nature tends to deal with narrow issues relating only to the technical codes, it must be remembered that those provisions do not operate in a vacuum, and in this matter there is an interplay with other provisions of City Code, state statutes and the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason, I recommend that the Board call a special meeting for next week and continue this appeal to that time. If the continuance motion specifies a time and date certain, then there will be no need to republish the required public notices.