Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-1988 Minutes UINMIW 4E IME GUI QE QQQMM QQPJ MME4MSMQMNI ANN OAKUM HALO AMR 22L IIfI B4L4 SILL PRESORTS Vice Chairman John Linebarier, Members Gary Carroll, Kathleen Shidel, Douglas Rush and James Skirvin, Attorney Dwight Cool, Code Enforcement Officer James Coschignano and Deputy Clerk Susan Swilley. A$1T: Chairman Frank Carlsson (excused) and Member Joe Marbais (unexcused) . Chairman Linebarier called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. and led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Mr. Carroll then led everyone in prayer. BUM MQ alta V& Qt MIMQTis Mr. Carroll moved to waive the reading of the minutes of the June 28, 1988 Code Enforcement Board meeting and to accept them as printed and distributed. Motion seconded by Mrs. Shidel and approved unanimously. YIQIITIQM! MiiHIMQI Denver R. Harper S/or Emmett Harper - Case 88-23 Denver Harper and Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano were sworn in by Deputy Clerk Swilley. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that he received a complaint on the property at 197 Ocoee Hills Rd. on July 25, 1988 and investigated. He further stated that he took some photographs on that date and passed them around to the Board members. He stated that on July 26, 1988 a Notice of Code Violation was issued to Mr. Harper for operating a commercial business in a residential zone and construction of an accessory building prior to construction of a main building. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that on August 10, 1988 a Statement of Violations and Notice of Hearing were issued to the respondent and that Proof of Service has been received. He further stated that since then both Denver and Emmett Harper have visited with him and that Building Official Nagel, himself and Mr. Denver Harper have visited. Code Enforcement Officer Coschignano then passed out a second set of photographs taken on August 23, 1988. He then stated that it does not appear that a business is still being operated from this location but that the accessory building still stands. He further stated that the dirt piles and loading machine that were on the property earlier and appeared to be part of the business operations were now gone. Mrs. Shidel asked what kind of business was being operated. Code Enforcement Officer Coschignano answered that it appeared to be a yard for materials and equipment and that it did not generate traffic. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked 1 CEB 8/23/88 PAGE 2 Code Enforcesent Officer Coachignano if he was sure that the business was out of operation. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano answered that to the best of his knowledge, yea. He then stated that the only information/testisony he had on the accessory building is that it is an accessory building and that it stands on the property without a main building. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked his if he was sure that it was in the City and not in the County. Coda Enforcement Officer Coachignano answered yes. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked if there were any building permits secured for construction of this accessory building. Code Enforcement Officer Coschignano answered yes that according to Building Official Nagel, there was a building permit issued to build this structure and that it had passed all inspections by the City. Vice Chairman Linebarier then asked Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano if, to his knowledge, there were any plans to construct the main building at the time of the issuance of the permit. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that he did not have any knowledge of that situation. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Harper if he had a legal description when he applied for the permit. Mr. Harper answered that he was unsure since it was many years ago and that Dean Harper had secured the permit. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that it was indeed several Building Officials ago and that he was unsure. Mr. Rush asked what the intent of the building was at the time of the permit. Coda Enforcesent Officer Coschignano stated that he was unsure. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked Mr. Harper if he contradicted any of the testimony/comments heard ao far. Mr. Harper answered no. Vice Chairman Linebarier then asked Mr. Harper if he knew the use of the building intended when Dean Harper pulled the permit and Mr. Harper answered no. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Harper what his future plans were for this building/property. Mr. Harper answered that he was unsure but stated that he would not use it as a business operation. He further stated that he planned to fence the City property so it could not be used as an access road to or from the County property. Vice Chairman Linebarier questioned what type of fence would be erected and stated that he felt a privacy fence would be better than a chain link fence. Mr. Carroll stated that the fencing was voluntary and whatever type fencing Mr. Harper chose to use would be his decision. Vice Chairman Linebarier stated that he was troubled by the 2nd Violation in reference to the accessory building since the City issued a permit. Mr. Carroll stated that he felt it would be a hardship to tear the building down and since the City granted a permit, he would not vote to have the building destroyed. Vice Chairman Linebarier stated that it was not *orally right since Mr. Harper met all of the City requirements. Mrs. Shidel agreed that she could not see penalizing Mr. Harper for the situation. Mr. Rush stated that he had the same 2 Cu 8/23/88 PAGE 3 opinion and asked what the City wanted. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that he was unsure. Mr. Carroll moved to dismiss the second part of the Violation (Construction of accessory building prior to construction of main building prohibited) based on the fact that the City issued a permit for construction of the building. Motion seconded by Mr. Skirvin and carried unanimously. Mr. Carroll then moved to postpone ruling on the first part of the Violation (Commercial business in residential zone) until the next regular meeting of the Board so that the property could be reinspected by Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano to insure compliance. Notion seconded by Mr. Rush and approved unanimously. Vice Chairman Linebarier cautioned Mr. Harper about any future use of this property or building in a commercial manner and stated that the Board would not have to go through the same procedure but would take immediate action. He then thanked Mr. Harper for his attendance and cooperation. Paullette Billson - Case 88-24 Ma. Billson complied prior to the hearing and the case was dismissed by the City. Dept. of Housing t Urban Development - Case 88-25 Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that on July 26, 1988 he received a citizen complaint and on July 27, 1988 a Notice of Code Violations was issued. He further stated that on August 10, 1988 a Statement of Violation and Notice of Hearing were issued. He also stated that Proof of Service has been received and that today the property looks the same as it did on July 26, 1988. He then passed photographs to the Board members. Code Enforcement Coachignano stated that . he has received correspondence from H.U.D. and passed a photocopy for the Board members. He stated that this form referred him to Don Asher Realty who handles the H.U.D. property in this area. He further stated that this Realty also handles the Vetrana Administration property in this area. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that Don Asher Realty informed him that they have not received this property yet but when they do, they will cut the yard and put up a for sale sign. Vice Chairman Linebarier asked who was taking care of the front yard. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that he did not know. Vice Chairman Linebarier stated that he felt H.U.D. should contact their agent after receiving notice from the City instead on asking the City to contact the agent. Code Enforcement Officer Coachignano stated that he has the same problem with some property on Lady Ave. owned by the V.A. Mr. Skirvin stated that he would like to know who is taking care of the 3 CE8 8/23/88 PAGE 4 ,, front yard. Mr. Carroll moved to find the respondent in violation and to give seven (7) calendar days after receipt of Compliance Order to come into Compliance with a fine of 8100.00 per day for each day of noncompliance thereafter. Notion died for a lack of a second. Mrs. Shidel moved to find the respondent in violation and to give seven (7) calendar days after receipt of Compliance Order to come into Compliance with a fine of 8230.00 per day for each day of noncompliance thereafter. Motion seconded by Mr. Rush. Motion passed with all members voting AYE except Mr. Carroll who voted NAY. NUB IMMO Notice of Dismissal, Gary F. Hoffman - Case 88-18 A copy of the Notice of Dismissal was supplied in the packets. Notice of Dismissal, Donald R. Tyndall - Case 88-21 A copy of the Notice of Dismissal was supplied in the packets. MUM Code Enforcement Officer - He asked Attorney Cool for any direction/advice in reference to dealing with these H.U.O. and V.A. properties. He stated that it is not an isolated problem and could use some help. Attorney Cool stated that he would check into federal laws, etc. and report back. Police Department - Not present, Sgt. Gailit had school but will be present for future meetings. Board Attorney - None. Citizens - None. Board Members - Vice Chairman Linebarier asked to check into the update on the Code Enforcement Board Ordinance. Mrs. Shidel asked to have copies of the new sign Ordinance supplied to the Board members. ANNUMINT Mr. Carroll moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Skirvin and approved nanimous . Meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.a. - -11- s e4441:41 J n H. Linebarier, Vice Chairman ATTEST: - 1 Deputy Clerk Swilley 4