HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 03 15 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes
.
.
.
~
Al1ENDED
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING
MARCH 15, 1982
The Code Enforcement Board Meeting was called to order by Chairman Victor Suarez at
7:00 p. m.
Roll Call:
Victor Suarez, Chairman, present
Jay Alpert, present
Ben Kaplan, Vice-Chairman, present
George Mahoney, present
Gary Hunt, late
J. R. Hattaway, present
Jack Cooper, Code Prosecutor, present
Lt. Bo Smart, Code Inspector, late
Motion was made by Kaplan, seconded by Alpert to approve the minutes of January 18,
1982, as written. Motion carried.
Discussion of new and pending cases:
As the Code Inspector was not present, the Code Prosecutor, Jack Cooper, explained
that by virtue of the fact that the Code Enforcement Board exists, and that the
Inspector wears a uniform, he is getting almost 100% compliance. The Code Inspector
indicates that the citizens who are violating the Code are doing so unknowingly
rather than maliciously. The Board discussed the Inspector's report.
Board Members suggestions to Code Inspector:
Gary Hunt asked that an explanation be given on the report of why the cases are closed;
whether they complied or whether the case was not valid. Mr. Cooper suggested that
the Inspector's daily log sheet be attached to the bi-monthly report. Mr. Hunt asked
that the date of the report be on the report.
The Code Inspector was also asked for a report in writing on the one pending case.
Report of Code Prosecutor re: certificates and plaques to members:
The Code Prosecutor, Jack Cooper, explained that the policy of the City is that at
the termination of service of a member, the City will adopt a resolution of appreciation
and present it to the outgoing member. There was a brief discussion.
}1otion was made by Mahoney, seconded by Alpert, that we drop the idea of any
plaques and accept the normal city practice of issuing a certificate on termination
of services for members of this Board. Motion carried unanimously.
The Code Inspector, Bo Smart, arrived and was recognized by Chairman Suarez. He
discussed his report and the status of the cases and explained that the people have
been very cooperative.
Discussion followed on whether or not the Board should interpret the jurisdiction of
the Code Enforcement Board strictly or liberally. The consensus of the Board was to
proceed as they have been; that is, following a strict interpretation of the law.
Motion was made by Alpert, seconded by Mahoney to adjourn. Notion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary T. Norton,
City Clerk