Loading...
CEB_10-27-81_MinV ink X V t= O of 'Xong£n.aub 175 Prot Par= �fiz. `�imcS£unn,�, �Ivn`ba 3275II 831 -IIz55 SINCE 1 883 7 � ~ ti I October 27, 1981 The Codes Enforcement Board of the City of Longwood, Florida met at 7: p.m. Present: Richard I. Wallsh Virgil Pavone Bob Thomas William Mitchell Marvin Rooks, City Attorney Donald Terry, Board Secretary Absent: Mr. B. H. Farrell 1. Mr. Wallsh called the meeting to order. The roll was called by the Board Secretary and all hers were present except Ix. B. H. Farrell. Mr. Terry said that Mr. Farrell ' s wife had called saying he would be unable to attend meeting. Mr. Wallsh said he was therefore excused. 2. Motion by Mr. Pavane seconded by Mr. be approved as submitted and that reading was carried by voice vote. Mitchell that minutes of August 28, 1981 of minutes be dispensed with. Motion 3. Mr. Wallsh stated that the following members had been reappointed as follows: Mr. Bob Thomas to another three year term and Mr. B. H. Farrell to another one year term as alternate. Mr. Wallsh stated that Mr. Steven Kircher had resigned . 4. There were no public hearings scheduled and no unfinished business to report. 5. Mr, Walsh stated that the rules call for the annu meeting to be held in October and required the Board to readopt or amend the operating rules and that new officers be elected. 6. Notion by Mr, Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Pavane that the codes Enforcement Board readopt the present rules and regulations. Motion carried by voice vote. 7. Presentations of filed affidavits of violations: Case No. 2 - Mr. and Mrs. Richard Miles, 749 Logan Avenue, Longwood, Florida Change wit violation of Ordinance No. 495 - keeping a rooster on premises which caused complaints from neighbors. Mr. Terry said that the rooster had been moved from the premises and recommended that the case be dismissed and Mr. Wallsh dismissed the case. Case No. 3 - Bonnie F. & Felton Carter, 725 Logan give, Longwood, Florida. Charge wit violation of ordinance No. 207 by keeping a 1970 Chevrolet Sedan on driveway for approximately 30 days without license plates. Officer Russell Cohen was sworn and testified that he had inspected the property at 3:30 p , m. October 27, 1981 and that the vehicle was still on the premises but moved to the west side of the house and that the tag expired the latter part of September. 14r. Rooks stated that the case was a violation of ordinance No. 207 since the ordi- nance required that cars be in operating condition and this one could not operate without a tag. Mr Wallsh asked if a title search had been conducted on the property and Mr. Rooks stated that there had not been a title search. Mr. Rooks recor mended Aonblk 00 "S that a title search be conducted before any summons are issued. Mr. Terry asked if a search of the tax records with a verification from the property appraiser's office that title had not changed would not be sufficient and Mr. Rooks said he was being conservative but that he reconmieZded a title search. He said that a 20 year search could be conducted for about $35.00. Mr. David Chacey was present and said that he did not believe a title search was necessary; that a search of the tax records and verification with property appraiser were sufficient, Mo tion by Mr. Pavane, seconded by Mr. Thomas that Mr. and Mrs. Caster be issued a summons to appear before the Codes Enforcement Board for violation of Ordinance No. 207. Mo tion carried by a roll call vote. Mr. Rooks said he would determine the mu' u mn acceptable levels of title search. After discussion, the Board agreed to hold the next meeting an November 17, 1981. Mr. Rooks said the decision as to whether a tax search was necessary should be up to the Co ni.ssion. Mayor Hepp was in the audience and asked if a lien could be placed on the car and Mr. Rooks said no. Mr. Wallsh asked the Board Secretary to prepare a book of ordinances that carne under the jurisdiction of the Board for every der. Case No. 4 - Leon and Caroline Lindsay, 317 Heather Avenue with violation at S Lyns Drive, Longwood, Florida. Viol. of Ord. No. 495, Section 618.5 The Secretary read the Affidavit of Violation and the article of the zoning ordinance which prohibits buses in residential areas. The secretary said that Mr, Lindsay had obtained a license tag for the vehicle issued for a Recreation Vehicle but said that the bus does not meet the standards for a Recreation Vehicle by having one of the following, (1) 110 Volt electrical wiring, (2) LP gas piping and (3) Plumbing System ( consisting of bathroom facilities) which are required for a van -type vehicle converted to qualify as a recreational vehicle. Mr. Pavone said that he was f ami l iar with the case and lived on Lyns Drive and therefore would not participate in the deliberations on this case. Mr. Rooks read the def of a Recreation Vehicle. Mr. wallsh called for a vote as to whether there was a violation. Mr. Thaws votes yes, Mr. wallsh voted No. and Mr. Mitchell voted No. Mr. 14allsh said he had voted no because the affidavit was not proper but that the City could ref ile the affidavit if they wi shed . Case No, 5 - William H. Murphy, 881 No, Lorman Circle, Longwood, Florida. Violation of Ord. 185 keeping a barking dog that di. s turb s neighbors on premises. The Secretary read the off idavit of violation the police officer's comments on the s� min s sheet. Mr. Rooks said that the Codes Enforcement Board did not have authority under Ordinance No. 185 but did have authority under Ordinance No. 206 which prohibited noisy animals. Mr. Mitchell said he dial not agree that the affidavit of violations could be corrected in this ma nner and said he thought the party should be cited under Ord. No. 206. Motion by Mr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Thomas that YT Murphy be again cited under Ord. No, 206. Mr. Mitchell voted Yes, Mr. Thomas voted Yes and Mr. Pavone voted No. and Mr. Wallsh said matter should be tabled so motion failed by a 2-2 vote. Mr. Wallsh asked for a vote as to whether there was probable cause for is suing a summons and the vote was as follows to issue a s to Mr . Murphy: Mr. Thomas Yes, Mr Pavone Yes, Mr. Wallsh Yes and Mr Mitchell No. Mr. why will therefore be summoned to appear at the November 17, 1951 meeting of the Codes Enforcement Board. Case No. 6 - J. Russell and Ruth Grant, 553 E. Palmetto Avenue, Longwood. Violation of Urd. No. 252 by having junked, wrecked and abandoned cars on the property. The secretary read the Affidavit of violations which was f fled by Mr. Robert Daves and the four photographs submitted were distributed for the board to view. Mr. Wallsh asked who could file affidavits of violation and Mr. Rooks said that anyone coin d file. Mr. Robert Dave s was not present to discuss the violations. officer Russell Cohen of the Longwood Police Department was present and said he had inspected the premises on October 27, 1981 and that the violations shown on the photographs had been corrected, Mr. Wallsh asked Officer Cohen if he had observed any other violations and officer Cohen said there were other vio lat ions of Ord. No. 252 on the property. Mr. Rooks said the board should confine itself to the evidence submitted in the affidavit and since the affidavit mentions certain items and they have been corrected they should not consider other matters unless they were presented to the board. Mr. Pavone said if the violations shown in photographs had been cleaned up there was no violation and he should be recharged if other violations exist. Mr. Wallsh asked for a vote to determine if probable cause existed sufficient to issue a sunnans and the vote was as follows Mr. Mitchell - No , Mr. Wallsh - No , Mr. Pavone -- No , and Mr . Thomas -- No. The Board dismissed Case No. 6. 8. New Business - Mr. Wallsh distributed a proposed amendment to operating rules and regulations for the Codes Enforcement Board and asked the Commission to consider the changes. Motion by Mr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Pavone that proposed en d ent be read in its entirety and the secretary read the proposal which grants the board to grant an ext ens ion of time to an individual or corporation under certain condit ions . Mr. Rooks stated that the Board would lose all authority to grant an extensions once the fine attached. Mr. Wallsh said he believed the board had peer to amend and the was concerned about legit xjat e ext ens ions and agreed that the board would have no power after the deadline was reached. Mr. Wallsh said his proposal would permit a sworn off idavit requesting an extension only if it were received at least 48 hours before the deadline. Mr. Wallsh explained various sections of the proposals. Mr. Thomas said he had expressed his view in the Yarnall case that the Board should not consider any requests for extensions of time. He said that the Board gave a reasonable time to comply and that requests for extensions of time would tie up meetings. He said it was very important that the Board remain above criticism and that he thought granting the Chairperson authority to call a meeting to consider an extension mould bring criticism to the board. Mr. Thomas said he had heard previous connents that the Codes Enforcement Board was a "Kangaroo Court" and he resented such comments and that they should not be permitted. Mr. Thomas said the Board knew how much time to give a person to comply and he suggested that the procedures not be changed. Mx. David Chacey, , City Administrator, said he thought the Board should provide the authority to grant an extension under certain conditions. Mr. Rooks suggested that the Board defer a vote until the next meeting. Mr. Wallsh withdrew his proposal until the next meeting and asked the Viers to review his suggestions. Mr. Pavone said he thought the entire Board should be involved as to whether a special meeting would be called. Mr. Rooks suggested that we start with bas is thought that no one would be entitled to an extension. Mr. Thomas asked about cases now setting a precedent for future cases. Apbk Mr Wallsh asked that a copy of any resignation from the Board be Witted to him so that he could be kept informed, 9. Elections of officers. Motion by Mr. Mi..t chell , seconded by Mr. Thomas that Mr. Wallsh be renominated as Board Chairman. W. Wallsh was reelected by a vote of 3 to 0 with Mr. Wallsh abstaining. Motion by Mr Thomas, seconded by Mr. Mitchell that Mr. Pavone be renominated as vice Chairman of the Codes Enforcement Board and Parliamentarian. Mr. Pavone was elected by a vote of 3 to 0 with Mr. Pavone abstaining . 10. The neat meting of the Codes Enforcement Board was scheduled for November 17, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. 11. The board adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: FR_ - o a rr d S e c r 7e �a 'p Awot mak ART T C IMF XT EXTENSIONS IN COMPLIANCE TIME The Board shall have the power to grant an extension for the time that an individual or corporation has to comply with an Order previously entered by the Board according to the following procedure only: A. An individual or corporation seeking an extension must file a sworn affidavit outlining the reason or reasons for an extension with the Secretary of the Board as soon as possible, but in no event, any later than forty -eight (48) hours prior to the deadline. B. The Secretary will contact the Chairperson of the Board who will consider the sworn affidavit and determine if sufficient grounds exist to consider the request. If the Chairperson decides to enter- tain the request, he shall call a special meeting prior to the deadline or, if practical, place the request on the agenda for a regular meeting so long as the regular meeting is prior to the dead- line. C. If the Chairperson declines to call a special meet- ing or place the request on the agenda of a regular meeting, the Secretary will contact all Members of the Board (excluding alternates). Each member will Qortc� j .� have the opportunity to consider the sworn affidavit and, if two or more members so desire, a special meeting will be called. No Member is required to consider the affidavit. D. Any special meeting called for the purpose of an extension must comply with the requirements set forth in Article V of the Rules and Regulations. E. The Secretary will notify all parties concerned, including the prosecuting city official of the date, time, and place when the request will be considered. F. All parties concerned shall have the opportunity to present testimony and evidence, and argue in support of their respective positions. G. An extension can only be granted by a majority vote of the Board at a duly constituted regular or special meeting. H. No extension can be granted after the deadline specified in the order of Noncompliance has passed notwithstanding that a petition has been filed prior to the deadline. I. The Board must specify the length of any extension granted in an Amended Order of Noncompliance. J. No one requesting an extension can personally contact or cause another to contact a Member of the Board to urge that he consider the request for a special meeting. All contact with the Board must be through its Secretary. Failure to follow this provision will result in automatic denial of the extension request. The Secretary is authorized to inform the requesting individual or corporation of the status of his request.