Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-1985 Minutes MINUTES OF THE CITY OF OOH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING ,. HELD AUGUST 12, 1985 MLR) ORDER Chairman Frank Carlsson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. John Linebarier led everyone in prayer. Ed Foley led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. The Clerk of the Board called the roll. Present were: Chairman Frank Carlsson Gary Carroll, Vice-Chairman Board Members: John Linebarier Joe Marbais Bob Sorenson Ed Foley John Hatcher-Attorney Ken Griffin-City Manager Bill Hager-Building Inspector Evelyn Nordstrom-Clerk of the Board Board Member absent was Don Barker. APPROVALS Frank Carlsson asked to dispense with the reading of the June 6, 1985 Code Enforcement Board Meeting minutes, John Linebarier made a motion that the minutes be approved as printed and distributed. The motion was seconded by Joe Marbais and the vote was carried unanimously. BEARINGS OF STATEMENTS OF VIOLATIC PANT 10 NOTICES OF HEARING The following cases were dismissed prior to the meeting due to compliance. Copies of the notices of dismissal were furnished to the Board: 85-18 Mr. Carson 85-21 Smail Beverly 85-22 James Moncrief Ken Griffin asked that the board call on Bill Hager, acting as Building Official, because he has first hand information on the cases. Ken Griffin swore Bill Hager in. 85-19 City vs. Betra Torez, nobody was present to represent case 85-19. It was confirmed that the green receipt(notifying certified mail deliverance) from Betra Torez was returned to the city office. Bill Hager said that the car was still sitting beside the house, on the grass, inside of the fence and grass has grown up around the vehicle but he could not tell whether or not the tag was invalid because the vehicle was backed in toward the house. The point was brought up that there was a discrepancy in names, the original police department service report was signed by Petra Torres and the notice of hearing was sent to Betra Tonez. So there was a doubt as to whom actually owns the house or vehicle. It was recommended that the case be tabled until the Page 1 Cont'd-Code Enf. Board-8,85 HEARINGS OF STATEMENTS OF VIOLATION PURSUANT TO IJY1<ICES OF MARINO next meeting in September in order to get a correct reading on the name of the property owner. This recommendation was seconded and the motion carried. Next case was called 85-20 City of Ocoee vs. Randy Cleever. Ken Griffin informed the board that Randy Cleever had called the city hall about 4:30 that afternoon and said that he had to work and could not attend the meeting at this time, but he is still in violation which Bill Hager can testify. Randy Cleever was cited for a red ford, expired tag, by police on June 17, 1985. Mr. Cleever had signed the police service report on July 19, 1985. It was noted that the car was originally in the street in front of the house but now it has been pulled up onto the driveway. Mr. Carlsson moved to enter an order against Mr. Cleever for proper registra- tion and to have the vegicle in operating condition or remove the same within ten days from August 12, 1985, failure to do so would result in a $25.00 a day fine until the violation has been complied. Bob Sorenson seconded the motion, motion was carried unanimously. Next case 85-23 City of Ocoee vs. Randy Tinney. Mr Tinney was not in the audience. Proof of service was signed by officer Steve Caples. Officer Caples went to Mr. Tinney's home to give the notice of hearing to him, but he would not take the notice, so officer Caples just layed the notice downon the ground about two feet away from Mr. Tinney. The violation is that there is a vehicle not in operating condition, grass has grown up around the vehicle. Frank Carlsson motioned that Mr. Tinney was not in compliance, he shall put the said vehicle in operating condition, register the vehicle or remove it, failure to do so will result in a $25.00 a day fine until said vehicle is in compliance. Joe Marbais seconded the motion, motion was carried unanimously. Deputy Clerk Nordstrom was introduced to the Board Members. PROPOSED ORDINANCES The first Proposed ordinance was just introduced at the last commission meeting, it was proposed by the City Attorney. In John Hatcher's opinion the City Attorney's proposal is not consistant as to what the board is doing. The inconsistancies that Mr Hatcher brings up are: if you do not comply it is a misdemeanor, but this board does not enforce misdemeanors, it is not a criminal action that pends before this board, and also this proposal does not explain that the non-compliance is going to come up before the Code Enforcement Board. There is a rule that you have to remove property in violation within seventy two hours, in this proposal it states that you have to remove the property in violation within fifteen days; it is unlawful to keep property in violation on public property more than seventy two hours. This proposal does not address the substantial problems that the board has been having concerning vehicles without current tags. After much discussion, Mr. Hatcher said that the new proposal has the effect of saying that the enforcement officer is right, unless the owner of the vehicle comes before the comission and complains. This proposal is going to put a lot of cases up before the commission meeting when they should be put before the Code Enforcement Board. Also, this would not give the board any more authority but an alternate route that really doesn't solve anything. Page 2 Cont'd-Code Enf. Board-8-12-85 FECCOSED ORDINANCES Proposal number 2.-Junk Vehicles. Regarding Section 3 Article C, there was a problem concerning grass growth, the problem was that in the summer the grass will grow much faster than in the winter, so depending upon the time of year that the violation takes place you have a time frame of sixty days in winter to ten days in summer, as to when the violation is to be removed. The City Manager said that you have to read Section 3 Article A with sub paragraph A and B which are part of section 21-37 and are not addressed in this ordinance. As far as recreational vehicles go, the proposal addresses these vehicles as being allowed if in the back or on the side of a building but it does not say junk vehicles are allowed anywhere on the property, it is either operable or it is a junk vehicle. That is what this proposal is about, what's junk and what's not, and how you go about getting rid of junk. Mr. Hatcher suggested deleting the statement about value from the ordinance, what should the value matter, either it is operable or it's not. Mr. Hatcher also suggested that you make it a law for vehicles to have a tag if the vehicle is qualified to have a tag under Florida law. So, sub paragraph a of 3 should say: The absence of a current license plate on a vehicle shall be prima facia evidence that a vehicle is not operable, then repel all language about value, and then say unless that vehicle is not qualified for registration under Florida law. Ken Griffin said then you have a problem; eg. Mrs. Howell went out and put tags on her car which is still non-operable. Mr. Hatcher said that is one clear indicator of non-operability, as well as high grass around the vehicle. If the grass is dead under the vehicle or growing up along side of it, then that is prima facia evidence that the vehicle is non-operable (wie because it hasn't been moved. Now you have an alternate situation, no tag dead grass/non-operable, no tag no dead grass/non-operable, current tag dead grass/non-operable. AUJOIMMENP Bob Sorenson roved to adjourn, Ed Foley seconded, approved unanimously. CHAIRMAN CARLSSON CLERK OF THE BOARD Page 3