Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 05 18 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MAY 18, 1981 e The Code Enforcement Board Meeting was called to order by Chairman Gary Hunt at 7:06 p. m. Roll Call: Chairman Gary Hunt, present Board Prosecutor, Jack Cooper, present Code Inspector Ray Bradshaw, present Members: Jay Alpert, present George Schrader, absent William Daucher, absent J. R. Hattaway, present Victor Suarez, present Also present: City Attorney Wallace Stalnaker Officer Wesley Dowell Robert L. Grady Motion was made by Suarez, seconded by Alpert to approve the minutes of March 16, 1981. Motion carried. Mr. Cooper explained that Case #2-01-81, Hunt and Associates was postponed since Mr. Hunt was the defendant and only three other members were present and would not constitute a quorum. Discussion followed. Code Prosecutor Cooper asked the City Attorney whether or not this Board has the jurisdiction to enforce an order of another board of the City which other board is established and which has its duties defined in the Code. Attorney Stalnaker cautioned the Board to be very conservative and to enforce only those cases relating to occupational licenses, fire, building, zoning, sign and related technical codes as prescribed in Section 166.052 F. S. e The second item Mr. Cooper asked the City Attorney was a jurisdictional item. Whether or not the Board has the jurisdiction to enforce the code in a geographical area which is off the specific site of the defendant, the real property which he owns, the perimeter limits of his lot. If the code offense is committed outside of those specific boundary limits of his lot - does the Board have jurisdiction to enforce these issues. Attorney Stalnaker's statement was in certain circumstances you can do that. The City has to be cautious what they allow in the right-of-way because they have a policing responsibility. Mr. Cooper asked where the swale of a road exists immediately adjacent to a piece of real property and the defendant interferes with the drainage flow by virtue of con- structing something, or digging in a swale, does the Board have proper jurisdiction to hear a case of such matters and render a decision - specifically Sec. 13-1. Attorney Stalnaker said in his opinion Sec. 13-1 is not the intent of the legislation and not the intent of the ordinance. Also it is not the prosecutor's place to pick .. and choose which case comes before the Board. He again cautioned the Board about their jurisdiction. He felt this was not a technical portion of the code. Attorney Stalnaker said the Board itself needs to make the decision which cases to be heard; and to limit their jurisdiction to those areas in the ordinance and the statute. e' .Mr. Cooper asked the Attorney in the event a meeting has been scheduled and a defendant . has been properly notified and he fails to appear are you advising us to prosecute the . matter and Attorney Stalnaker advised yes - go ahead just as if the defendant were present. ~ Code Enforcement Board Meeting May 18, 1981 Page 2 The City Attorney left the meeting at 7:55 p. m. ~ Case #4-01-81 - Robert L. Grady: Mr. Grady, 147 Hayes Road, is charged with violating Sec. 13-1 of the code in that he was in the process of erecting a quasi retaining wall in the swale area in the right of way in front of his house without a permit and he was noticed and was properly served a notice to appear. The City is ready to present evidence to the Board. Mr. Ray Bradshaw was sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr. Ray Bradshaw, 252 Hayes Road, Winter Springs, Florida, is the Code Enforcement Board Inspector. He acknowledged the City's Exhibit B, Complaint Form. He received a complaint from the Building Inspector that there was activity going on within the right of way. A permit had not been issued for this activity. Mr. Cooper asked if he followed the complaint with a Notice of Violation and Mr. Bradshaw said yes. He acknowledged the City's Exhibit C. Mr. Cooper asked did he have cause to see that the notice was so delivered. He acknowledged the City's Exhibit A, Notice to Appear, was issued in this case. Mr. Cooper then called Officer Dowell. Officer Dowell, police officer of the City of Winter Springs, was sworn in by the City Clerk. Officer Dowell acknowledged the City's Exhibit A Notice to Appear. He certified that he delivered the Notice to Appear to Mr. Grady's house, 147 Hayes Road. Officer Dowell had noticed a wall made of railroad ties was in the swale; however, the wall has been removed and the area has been satisfactorily corrected, except for relocating some earth and the disturbing of the grass. ~ Mr. Robert L. Grady, 147 Hayes Road, was sworn in by the City Clerk. He explained that his intent was to improve the looks of the property. Mr. Suarez asked what he would have to do to bring the property back to its original condition. Mr. Bradshaw answered he would have to bring it back to the same grade, and some seeding would be in order. Motion was made by Mr. Suarez that we give Mr. Grady a reasonable time (30 days) to get this deficiency corrected and pending a visual inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer and recommendations to that effect, that the case be dismissed. Seconded by Mr. Alpert. Discussion. Motion carried. Motion was made by Mr. Alpert to purchase a camera for use by the Board. Seconded by Mr. Suarez. Motion carried. The Chairman asked the Code Inspector to document all dates of phone conversations and dates of any contacts so that the Board is notified of all contacts on the case. All information should be documented. Mr. Cooper's interpretation was that a letter delivered by a police officer was more effective than certified mail. It was decided that in the future the Board would use the police department whenever practical. ~ Chairman Hunt reported that the Notice to Appear was received by Hunt & Associates, but that a written notice was never received not to appear. The Code Prosecutor, Mr. Cooper, notified Mr. Hunt by telephone that his case would not be heard when we were notified a quorum would not be present. Mr. Cooper felt there would not be a quorum because two members would not be present and Mr. Hunt was the defendant in the case. Mr. Cooper felt this was adequate to request a continuance of the matter if the Board was willing to accept jurisdiction or until Hunt & Associates came into compliance with the order of the Site Plan Review Board, to the next regularly scheduled meeting. . . . ~ ~ Code Enforcement Board Meeting May 18, 1981 Page 3 Chairman Hunt brought up the matter of attendance. The rules that were established by the Board was consent of the Chairman be the only approval for not attending a case. If they missed two meetings without the approval of the Chairman they would be dismissed from the Board. Mr. Hunt asked for direction from the Board how to deal with absences. Mr. Suarez and Mr. Hunt, the Rules Committee will each present a plan to deal with absences at the next meeting to be discussed by the Board and for the Board to approve. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Mary T. Norton, Secretary to the Board