Loading...
01-31-1985 ....- o Q CITY OF EDGEWATER Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, 1985 Minutes Mr. Williams called the regular meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Williams, Rosa, Turano, Richardson and Mrs. Kane. Also present: Jose' Alvarez, City Attorney, Dennis Fischer, Building Offi- cial and Joan Taylor, Secretary. Also in attendance were Mr. Wm. Cichewicz, Mr. Lloyd Van Winkle, Mr. Sam Comerate and Ms. Cindy Shuckley, court reporter, present at the request of Mr. Cichewicz. The secretary read a statement into the record which outlined the duties of the Board noting that it is governed by Ordinance 84-0-1, and introduced the Board members. The Chairman suggested that the minutes and old business be handled at the end of the new business. It was noted that Case 83-CC-13 was filed by Mr. Fischer, citing Mr. Van Winkle for violation of the approved site plans, which called for restrooms. Mr. Alvarez suggested that the two cases be combined, because the violation complaint concerning the restrooms is also listed in the complaint filed by Mr. Cichewicz. The second case is 83-CC-14. The members agreed with this proposal, as all of the complaints are interrelated. Mr. Cichewicz, Mr. Van Winkle and Mr. Comerate were in agreement that the cases be handled together. Mr. Rosa moved that the two cases be combined into one case. Mrs. Kane seconded the motion, which CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Alvarez, in an opening statement, advised that Mr. Cichewicz alleged certain violations of the Code which he brought to the attention of the Building Official. He also brought the notice of violations to the City Council. It was Mr. Alvarez' advice, after hearing Mr. Cichewicz' pre- sentation, that the case should be brought before the Citizen Code Enforce- ment Board. This will give Mr. Cichewicz a forum to ventilate his complaint and his points of view on what he considers are violations. The Board should listen and legislate on the matter and come to a decision. He added that he doubted if the Board members were familiar with the premises, short of the material which was presented to them. If the Board so agrees after Mr. Cichewicz makes his presentation and they find that there are factual matters which they need to review, and they wish to review individually and personally, they are not obligated to render a decision tonight. A decision should be rendered after they are satisfied that they have listened to all the parties involved; a decision should be made on a full record. Mr. Cichewicz was sworn i~ by the secretary. The Chairman asked Mr. Cichewicz to take the violations one at a time and explain his views. Mr. Cichewicz said he felt that the petition he sent to Mr. Fischer, which was dated November 19, delineated what the complaints are. There should be a copy of that in their packet, but he would read it into the record, if requested. Mr. Williams asked that he refresh the Board's memory of what the complaints are. Mr. Cichewicz said he would read from the petition, because he was not aware that he would be allowed to talk to the Board. He thought the Board would go over the complaints and then they would ask questions. The complainant read from the petition dated November 19, 1984, addressed to Mr. Dennis Fischer, and related a history of the variance granted to Mr. Van Winkle and the subsequent problems which he alleges have resulted. Mr. Turano asked Mr. Cichewicz what he found wrong with the site plan. Mr. Cichewicz said the first complaint is the sun roofs. He stated that in the Code a service station is required to work on cars in an enclosed area, not in an outside area. He said that Mr. Van Winkle shows stalls o o at the northeast corner but it is used for storage and as a workshop. On the southwest corner he has rented them out to Personal Touch for small motor and repair. He stated that that is a separate entity and has no toilet facilities, as was stated in the original petition and now brought to the Board by Mr. Fischer. The only working stall he has is in the front of the building. He said that they have run into a problem with the licensing because originally Mr. Van Winkle was issued a City license restricting him to three employees under small motor and repair. Now by putting a wall along one of the bays and separating two of them they have applied for and the City has issued it, restricting him again to three employees. Because someone is not checking on the licenses which are issued by the City this is allowed to happen. Referring to the sunroofs, he stated that Mr. Van Winkle is working under the three sunroofs, but in the minutes of March 8, 1984, he states that it was not to be used for repairing automobiles but primarily for parking. These minutes are from the Board of Adjustments meeting, he stated. He indicates parking where there has been no parking, Mr. Cichewicz testified. He also stated that until this week when they lined the parking areas, there were boats parked on trailers, motorcycles, lawn mowers, making it impossible for anyone to park there. Mr. Cichewicz submitted photographs for the Board to review and to be made a part of the record. These were marked as Exhibi~A, B, C and D. When asked by Mr. Rosa if there is now 30 minute parking on the street, Mr. Cichewicz said that a sign has been put up there but Mr. Comerate parks there with impunity daily, and his employees have used the parking places in front of his place of business all day long. He asked for cooperation, but Mr. Comerate chose not to do this, he stated. He said that there is garbage piled up in back of his property in the way of lawn mowers and machinery of all sorts, so there is no way they could be parking there. Mr. Cichewicz also said that he has just a 12' driveway and he is calling that park and drive. He said that they have now lined off a dozen parking spaces, all of which back out onto U. S. 1. He said that the D.O.T. will not allow cars backing out onto U. S. 1. Mr. Fischer has stated that Mr. Van Winkle and Personal Touch have cooperated, but, Mr. Cichewicz pointed out, they had to be sent registered letters twice on the same item, which was removal of a banner sign. He claimed that the mulch was dumped on his property along with Mrs. Sedgwick's property and remains on Mrs. Sedgwick's property. He objected to the fact that all the correspondence from the Building Office was directed to him when Mrs. Sedgwick, Dr. Christenson and A-Better TV had all signed it. There was discussion about the bathrooms. Mr. Cichewicz pointed out that the owner has put up a petition separating the two stalls, and got a license to operate for small motor repairs. He pointed out on the sketch the location of the restrooms. Mr. Turano suggested that Mr. Fischer comment on what has been stated. Mr. Alvarez explained that Mr. Cichewicz is present to ventilate his grivances,' and he reiterated that Mr. Cichewicz should present to the Board what the complaints are which he contends are violations. Once the Board knows what the problems are it can address them. Mrs. Kane and Mr. Turano said they want to know what the existing problems are. Mr. Turano said that he should be specific, numbering each one which are existing now. Mr. Cichewicz said he would make the list: 1) working on vehicles outside of an enclosed area as prescribed by the Code; 2) not enough parking - improper and inadequate parking; 3) lack of a bathroom in a working facility; 4) the removal of debris which has been allowed to collect in the rear of the property as well as the removal of the mulch; and lastly, 5) to quote page 1530, Sec. 706, with regard to fences. Regard- ing the fence, Mr. Cichewicz said that Mr. Fischer has allowed a permit to be issued to Mr. Van Winkle to erect a fence between the properties. It is on the southwest corner going back to the small building. It goes up to the sidewalk on U. S. 1. Mr. Richardson said that he measured it - the building to the sidewalk is 25 feet and from the building to the tip of the fence is 25 feet. There was further discussion as to whether this would be considered a corner lot. Mr. Cichewicz pointed out that it has been a common exit for this piece of property since the building was erected, over 25 years. He explained the problems encountered for his customers leaving his property. Mr. Alvarez reviewed the five alleged violations, and asked if there were any more which he wished to bring before the Board. Mr. Cichewicz asked if the Building Official is responsible for enforcement of the State Statutes. Citizen Code Enforcement Board ~. ~ - 2 - (J o Mr. Alvarez advised that the jurisdiction of the Board ~s the City Code. Mr. Cichewicz said that covered his presentation. Mr. Alvarez suggested that the other parties be permitted to speak before Mr. Fischer responded. Mr. Turano noted that the allegations are going directly to Mr. Fischer. It was his judgment that Mr. Fischer should go down the list and respond to each item. Mrs. Kane and Mr. Rosa agreed that Hr. Fischer may be able to eliminate some of the allegations, and Mr. Rosa commented that the Board has to go by what the Code Enforcement Officer says. Mr. Cichewicz said that he understands that Mr. Fischer is Supposed to enforce the Code, and Mr. Fischer apparently felt it was not worthy of his looking at. That is why he had to go the route he did to get it to the Code Enforcement Board, and reiterated his feelings about the way the situation was handled. Mr. Turano said he would like to hear from Mr. Fischer. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fischer to speak on the subject. Mr. Fischer said he would address the items as they were presented. No.1, outside areas, not enclosed, working areas for mechanical work; h~inquired where this is covered in the Code~ Mr. Cichewicz asked if Mr. Fischer had been sworn in. Mr. Fischer, Mr. Van Winkle and Mr. Comerate were sworn in by the secretary. Mr. Alvarez advised that Section 713 of the Code covers service stations. Mr. Fischer read Sec. 713.04, which states, "No repair of motor vehicles or parts thereof shall be made except within a structure provided for such purpose and no storage of motor vehicle parts shall be other than in an enclosed building." The question is, he noted, is whether or not a covered canopy area where work is being done is considered an enclosed area. Mr. Rosa pointed out that one of the things he has to contend with is the statement from the Board of Adjustments meeting quoting, "Chairman Bennington then said that with 3 working bays, only 9 parking spaces are required and the site plan shows 10. He asked Mr. Van Winkle if the sun roofs would be covered parking spaces, rather than a bay, to which Mr. Van Winkle replied, yes." Mr. Rosa said this indicates to him that the covered parking spaces were intended for parking. Mr. Van Winkle said that that activity has been going on for 25 years there. The only thing which they did was to cover it. This statement from the minutes was discussed further. Mr. Bennington spoke to the members, noting that the reference to the Board of Adjustments should be corrected to indicate that this con- versation took place at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on February 15. Mr. Fischer said that is for the Board to decide: whether these covered areas which mayor may not be used as workable areas, are enclosed areas. Mr. Bennington said that the reason this carne up at this statement of Mr. Van Winkle that these were to spaces made him comply with the parking ordinance. plan as parking, he stated. the meeting is that be used for parking It was shown on the Mr. Fischer said that he has witnessed work being done there as well as parking there. He feels this is a gray area. It is up to the Board to determine if it is a working bay. Mr. Williams responded that this is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. It is up to the Planning and Zoning Board to say if it qualifies or not. Mrs. Kane said that she feels it is up to the Code Enforcement Officer to determine this. Mr. Williams said the only way the Board can act on something is if it is in noncompliance. Mr. Turano said that it is rather simple. If it is to be used for parking it is not to be used for working. So, in his opinion, according to the Code he cannot work there. Mr. Van Winkle said that it has been used for the same activity for 25 years. The only difference is that they covered the areas. He said that the majority of the customers corne and go within 30 minutes. Mr. Cichewicz said that that does not corne into play, according to the Code. Mr. Van Winkle said that it should be in the records somewhere that it would be okay to work on vehicles in those areas, as it has been done for years. Mr. Rosa remarked that once someone complains, then the Board has to decide something. Mr. Turano agreed, and commented that probably there are other service stations which are doing the same thing. Citizen Code Enforcem.. ent.fPoard .,.:::> r\1, :::>"V"H ":I' -4-{)"on- l&t C/r .,(fl,--'"7 - 3 - Q o Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fischer if he is, or is not in compliance. Mr. Fischer explained that presently he is working in the bay areas, which are designated as parking areas. Mr. Van Winkle said that most of those vehicles are parked. He replied that he only has two mechanics, so they can't work on 15 vehicles at one time. He admitted that there is work done occasionally by one o~ his mechanics in those areas. Mr. Rosa asked how many cars he works on a day, and Mr. Van Winkle said approximately 20. Mr. Cichewicz said, regardless, how many cars he works on doesn't matter. It says he cannot do it. Mr. Alvarez reviewed the testimony just heard and said that it appears no one disputes that there is work going on. He said the Code is clear. But how much of a violation it is is the question. That is why there are Boards. The people can sit down and discuss, intrepret and apply. Mr. Alvarez suggested that the Board take the testimony under advisement and instruct the Building Official to review the matter and see what kind of adjustments Mr. Van Winkle can make, and how occasionally is occasionally, and what type of work. Mr. Rosa said that it see~that Mr. Alvarez is reading a different Code than he is reading. It says, no repairs. It doesn't say some repairs, it says no repairs, he commented. Mr. Van Winkle reiterated that he only has two mechanics. Mr. Alvarez directed a question to Mr. Van Winkle, saying that there may be a violation here, and does he wish to continue with this, or request the Board to give him an opportunity to review this and consult with Counsel. Mr. Van Winkle said he would leave it up to the Board to make a decision on it. He reviewed that he just has two mechanics. The one bay is busy all of the time, but one of the others is being worked on under the canopy. The rest of them (the cars) are parked vehicles. The nature of the work being done under those bays takes 5 to 10 minutes to do ll. Mr. Cichewicz commented here that he believes it has been established what the Code says and that he is in violation. That is the reason he is before the Board. How much work does not have any bearing. Mr. Alvarez said that there is an element of discretion and an element of recognizing the realities of the situation. Mr. Williams suggested that this first item be tabled until the next meeting and let Mr. Fischer take a look at it. Mr. Rosa directed a question to Mr. Bennington. Mr. Bennington was sworn in by the secretary. If the outside bays are being used for work, Mr. Rosa asked, would he comply with the other City codes, i.e. having enough parking spaces for the business. Mr. Bennington said that he did not believe so, but he would need to review the Code. Mr. Cichewicz remarked that Mr. Fischer had been advised of this from November 1984, and he questioned how much more time is sufficient to take under advise- ment what has been presented to him. Mr. Alvarez said he felt that was a rhetorical point. It is being looked at today as far as the Code Enforcement Board is concerned. Mr. Turano questioned how many of the Board members went down to walk on the property and take a look at it. All of the members except one had been to the site. Mr. Turano felt perhaps they should get together with Mr. Fischer at a later date. Everyone there understands what the law saysj he pointed out that law does have a heart, somewhere. Mr. Cichewicz said that he is exasperated because he has been at this a long time and nothing is being done. Mr. Turano pointed out that everybody is here - it is being done. It is working. He suggested that the Board consider item number 2. Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, r~ /~y)~ - 4 - o o Item number 2 is inadequate parking spaces for the number of licenses issued. Mr. Fischer said that this is also a very questionable area. The licenses for these businesses were issued prior to December, 1983, which is when he was hired at Building Official/Code Enforcement Officer. He explained that he had no input concerning the issuance of these licenses. Since his time with the department, he advised, his office verifies numerous things . and ofie_is parking for this kind of buisness. He explained that he cannot speak to the criteria which was used for the number of parking spaces in this case. The Deputy City Clerk would be able to speak to this. At the time of approval for the sun roofs the Planning Board indicated he would need nine parking spaces. Compounding City licenses becomes a question before the Board. The parking areas in question, sharing with the street parking, which are shared by all common areas, has to be left up to the Board on the number of spaces involved for a City license. Mrs. Kane asked if that was not determined by Mr. Bennington's Board already. Mr. Bennington said that when they reviewed his application they only knew of two businesses. That was the electric and Personal Touch. He said that the night of the meeting it was discussed that parking spaces cannot be shared. Spaces required for one use may not be assigned to another use. Mr. Turano asked how Mr. Fischer determines how many parking spaces a business is supposed to have. Mr. Fischer responded by the number of employees, the square footage, building stalls; there is a section in the Code which deter- mines the parking requirements. Mr. Turano asked how many that whole area requires at this point. Mr. Fischer said that without researching the licenses he could not say. The question is, he remarked, do we compound the parking areas when we issue more than one license. If a business has one license per square footage, per stall, per number of employees, it is very easy to calculate. But when a business is issued compounding licenses for numerous areas, do we compound parking, he questioned. There was further discussion on the parking - whether employees could park at another location was brought up. Mr. Turano said that he was advised that the employees are not parking at the business. This would alleviate a lot of the problem. Mr. Williams asked the Board members if they would like Mr. Fischer to check this out to see how many parking spaces should be there for the licenses which have been issued. Mr. Turano asked if this could not be determined at this time. He asked how many people were working there. Mr. Comerate said that he had ten employees. Mr. Cichewicz interrupted and said that by Mr. Comerate's own admission, during the summer he had as many as 17 people working. Mr. Comerate agreed that he had as many as 22 people working for him in June. Mr. Comerate said that the church has granted him permission to park'.o~ their property on Park Avenue. This is for all of his employees. Mr. Turano said that he has checked this out and they have enough space to put the cars. He then asked how many licenses have been issued for this area. Mr. Cichewicz said that he has copies of five licenses. Mr. Turano said that a given area can do so much business. Mr. Comerate pointed out that the one license required no one to be there _ that is the rental business. This matter was discussed at length. Mr. Alvarez said that if these licenses were issued sometime in the past the Board has a problem trying to enforce something retroactively. Mrs. Kane asked about in the future, if they find that there have been too many licenses issued, then that is not the Board's job to enforce either. Mr. Alvarez said that now there is apparently a parking problem compounded by apparently repairs being conducted some of the time under the sun roof. These issues could be looked at after Mr. Fischer prepares a report to the Board. Directing his comment to Mr. Fischer, Mr. Alvarez suggested he determine exactly what is there, and if the parking spaces where allegedly repairs are being conducted the same parking spaces which supposedly were counted when the licenses were issued to determine the adequacy of parking. Mrs. Sedgwick, in the audience, asked Mr. Comerate which church he was referring to. Mr. Commerate said that it is on Park Avenue. After some discussion it was made clear that the site is across the street from the Baptist Church. Mike and Regina Matzen, Church representatives, and Mrs. Sedgwick were sworn in by the secretary. Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, 1985 - 5 - o o Mr. and Mrs. Matzen and Mr. Comerate explained that the property owned by the church is on the north side of Park Avenue just above the library. It was agreed that Mr. Fischer should investigate and report at the next meeting concerning the alileged parking violations, reo the repairs, the types of licenses, the duration of the businesses, location of the employee parking. The Board went on to consider the alleged item 3 violation. This is that there is no toilet facility in an area designated so on the site plan. It was pointed out that this facility is owned by Mr. Van Winkle and rented by Mr. Comerate. Mr. Van Winkle referred to the violation charge which states that he deviated from the approv~site plan. He said that the Board was looking at a hand drawn sketch which was made before the site plans were made up. He exhibited a site plan which was made up by Mr. John Amaral, his engineer, and submitted to the City's engineer, Mr. Frank Marshall. Mr. Marshall had turned down the first plan submitted, stating that the storm water management system had to be larger. Mr. Van Winkle's engineer drew up another plan which was sent back to the Board and they said that it had to be more than submitted. They wanted shrubbery added, curbing along Dr. Christenson's property and spouting to divert all rainwater. The engineer made up another plan and these were submitted to the Board. On this site plan which was given to Mr. Fischer when they pulled the permit they didn't ask for restrooms. None were shown on the site plan. He said that by the time they got done with the project to satisfy everybody, the price of the job had doubled from $15,000 to $30,000. They had authorized him to complete it to 70 per cent, but his engineer said let's complete the stormwater management system with any funds you can find, so that it won't get contaminated and render the system ineffective. At that time they abandoned the idea of having the restrooms inside that structure. He said that the secretary in the Building Office told him that he did not have to get a site plan approved to make an addition inside the building. He just needed to pull a permit. He explained that there are existing restrooms in his business and in the building used by Personal Touch. He pointed out that they never asked Mr. Fischer to issue a permit for the restrooms. He issued a permit for the two canopies and the stormwater management system. Mr. Rosa said that they did have a restroom and he did not see any problem which would be caused. Mr. Cichewicz asked why Mr. Fischer had issued a summons to put the bathrooms in. He said he believed it is because it is a violation of the Code, which requires that area, since it has now been rented out as a separate entity and been given a separate license it now requires a bathroom to service the people who are working in that area. Mr. Comerate asked if it is fair to judge Personal Touch as separate businesses. He said that he thinks he overpermitted himself. He inquired as to how many bathrooms are required out of one building, if there are two businesses running under the same management. Mr. Fischer said that presently if you have a retail business with walkin off-street trade you need adequate facilities for both sexes, which means two bathroom facilities. It was pointed out that this is two buildings but one company. It was Mr. Turano's opinion that what he saw there is adequate. Mr. Cichewicz argued that there are two separate licenses and two separate buildings so he is operating two separate businesses. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fischer to speak about the site plan. Mr. Fischer explained that the plan he has shows areas for two employee restrooms. Mr ~ Williams pointed out that! I the one the Planning and Zoning approved shows nothing, and questioned why the case came to the Board. Mr. Fischer said that the question that needs to be answered is whether or not it is required to install additional bathrooms which asks for sun roofs which have bathrooms already installed. He said that he did not believe it was a stipulation of the Planning Board that additional bathrooms be installed. Mr. Bennington said that they never address the bathrooms. The Board never does. They leave it up to the Building Official. It has to do with the Standard Building Code. It was determined that it is about 18 feet from the building in question and the existing bathrooms. Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, 1985 - 6 - Q. o discussion There was further/about the reason for on the site plan. Mr. Fischer the matter further. for the subpoena and what is called said that he will have to research Mr. Turano moved to note that this Board accepts the fact that these two bathrooms are enough for these premises as they are at this point. He stated that he felt it would be very wasteful to go any further. Mr. Rosa asked if it is a deviation from the approved site plan. That is the question. Mr. Turano noted that Mr. Comerate is employing all of these men. Mr. Rosa moved to table the question on the bathrooms until the next meeting to let Mr. Fischer research it to see if there is a deviation. He amended his motion to include the first three items for Mr. Fischer to research and make a report back to the Board, after which the Board could make a decision on it. Mr. Richardson seconded the motion which CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Rosa suggested that if the information could be obtained sooner than the next regular meeting, perhaps a special meeting could be called. Mr. Fischer referred to item #4. Removal of trash, and mulch, from other properties. Mr. Fischer reported that David Jones, a certified State Fire Inspector and a lieutenant with the New Smyrna Beach Fire Department and an employee of the City of Edgewater as an Assistant Code Enforcement Officer has investigated these premises for possible hazardous storage and mulch. Upon investigation he found used mowers stored upon a roof area to the rear of the property of Personal Touch and also mowers stored in between two buildings i.e. Personal Touch and the adjacent property. These violations were corrected and it is his determination that these fire hazards were removed. It is their feeling that no hazards exist in this area at this time. Mrs. Sedgwick commented that this whole area was awful looking and constituted a hazard, but thanks to Mr. Cichewicz, who cared enough and was concerned enough to see that all these areas have been cleaned up, everyone in Edge- water can only say thank you to Mr. Cichewicz, because he was willing to take so much time. And only after all this effort were these mowers and all the rest of the debris removed from the properties. She suggested that all the members go look at the area. It used to be a lovely area, she commented, but is now virtually a junkyard behind the fence. Mr. Rosa said that he did look at it and remembers when he went there when his lawnmower was broken and had to buy a castor from them. It looked junky until the man pulled out the part he needed. So apparently this is all parts which they use. He noted that Mrs. Sedgwick is living next to a business area. Having the lawnmowers there is pertinent to their business, he remarked. Mrs. Sedgwick said that she is concerned that when she goes north this will again become an eyesore. She also commented that the Board should not feel that all the time they have spent has been wasted. These could be precedents which are set in this lovely City, and whether or not people are going to abide by the Codes is of ~ital importance. Mr. Cichewicz questioned if Mr. Fischer is stating that there are not more fire code violations, be they state and/or city violations on that property. Mr. Fischer said that to his knowledge, regarding the mulch and the used mowers, it is Mr. Jones' opinion that as they are now they do not consti- tute a hazard. Mr. Cichewicz referred to his petition and stated that no one can be certain that the gasoline in these mowers does not constitute a fire hazard. He also pointed out that in the location where they are stored vermin can infest. Mr. Turano pointed out that this type of business tends to have that type of appearance, and this type of business is allowed in this zone. Mr. Rosa moved that the Board send out an in-compliance form with regard to this item, pointing that both Mr. Jones and Mr. Fischer have accepted it. Mr. Jones has had 8 years experience and the Board should accept his opinion. Mr. Turano seconded the motion, and it CARRIED 5-0. Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, 1985 - 7 - (..) o Regarding the fence which was erected between two property owners, Mr. Fischer stated that a permit was issued to erect a 4' high fence on a property line abutting a property line on U. S. 1. After researching the fence ordinance he issued a permit. He referred the members to the fence ordinance which was read into the record by Mr. Rosa. He said that this ordinance is very vague and the City has had several complaints. He explained that he sent a letter to the Planning Board in September asking them to help him clarify this and response is still waiting. So a judgment call was made in this area. It is his belief that a property owner has a right to fence his property. The City can limit fencing in areas of possible hazards, such as visually obstructing traffic upon a corner lot. He incorporated visibility in his determination and found that no visibility on a corner lot was in question. It was clearly a separation between two property owners. On that basis you can erect a four foot high fence that is visibly void 50 percent. A cyclone fence was asked for; a chain link fence was permitted. He ended his statement saying that the fence itself is in compliance with the Code. Mr. Bennington said that he would like to take exception to Mr. Fischer's statement, commenting that it is the second time he has said it. He said he had sent the Planning and Zoning Board a letter and got no response. Mr. Bennington said they had asked Mr. Fischer to come before the Board to discuss the problem and he sent word by his secretary that he wouldn't have time until after the first of the year. At the last meeting they again asked Mr. Fischer to come before the Board. He objected to the fact that Mr. Fischer went before Council and said that they had refused to do anything about it. Mr. Fischer said that he did not indicate that they had refused. Mrs. Kane commented that it is her experience in real estate work that when an area is left open to the public for a period of over seven years and the general way of walking, driving, parking, etc. that you can't fence it off, because now it has become the use of the general public by reasons of being left open. She pointed out that that has always been left open. She felt that that is his basic complaint, not that it is a corner lot. That's what is creating the hazard of cars backing into U. S. 1. They cannot drive through and get out on the end of his property. Mr. Van Winkle asked to speak, and.commented that Mr. Fischer was right in issuing a permit for that for this reason. The property 25 years prior to this was owned by one person and he didn't fence his own property. Since then it has split up into two property owners and that is now a dividing point between two property owners. The main reason which brought the fence on is because after his neighbor bought this property he considered it a public thoroughfare. He would come personally with his own vehicle and penetrate my property, Mr. Van Winkle stated, go 140 feet across it, through his entrance canopy at excessive speeds, endangering his employees and his customers in order to make an exit to Park Avenue. The only way that he could stop this to prevent this endangerment to his people was to erect the fence, he stated. Mr. Cichewicz said he does not know what right Mr. Fischer has to act as a traffic enforcement officer, and go against the Code, which clearly says that you can't erect a fence on a corner lot. He also circulated a letter from Mr. Robert Poland, who did own both of the properties, and he states that this has been an exit for over 25 years. Mr. Van Winkle said that his property is a corner lot. He just happens to own the property in the center of the block where the fence is located. That is another address. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fischer if it is a corner lot. Mr. Fischer said that he has not researched the plat map, but was under the impression that Personal Touch owned the property and that it is a division between him and the abutting neighbor. Mrs. Kane asked for Mr. Alvarez' opinion about blocking off something which has been used for over 25 years. Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, 1985 - 8 - o o Mr. Alvarez responded that if it is private property it would be a private dispute. One neighbor blocks the access of a neighbor, that is just between them because it adversely affects only the two property owners. If it was a public thoroughfare the City would be involved. The issue is, is it or is it not, a corner lot. He noted that there is a third alternative: does it constitute such a nuisance that even though it's a private matter it endangers the health and safety of the citizens of the City. Mr. Williams asked if it would be considered a civil matter if it is an individual feud. Mr. Alvarez agreed that was correct. Mr. Williams said that then it is up to the Board to decide if it is in compliance or not, because they cannot get involved in civil matters. Mr. Cichewicz said that the Building Official has stated that he did not research to find out if they were corner lots, and he is asking if it is in compliance with the code. Mr. Rosa asked the attorney if this would be a civil case. Mr. Alvarez responded that whether or not it is a corner lot is the Building Official's decision. He is the code enforcement official. But, he stated, if the Code has an area, like all codes, which require intrepretation and a judgment call, it is his judgment - his decision. Mr. Williams asked if the Code Inspector says it is okay, then it is okay. Mr. Turano asked Mr. Van Winkle to again explain why the fence was put there, and Mr. Van Winkle related the problem of the endangerment to his employees and customers caused by Mr. Cichewicz and his customers speeding through his property to get to Park Avenue. There was further discussion about whether the property constitutes a corner lot. Mrs. Kane said that the question would be, if it were considered a corner lot, that you don't obstruct the view on Park Avenue and you don't obstruct the view on U. S. 1. So there is no obstruction at that corner and the question is immaterial. Mr. Fischer agreed that that is his intrepretation. Mrs. Kane said that in her opinion the property has been open for 25 years and when you shut it off you create a hazard to the public in that they have to go out onto U. S. 1 backward. Mr. Van Winkle pointed out that Mr. Cichewicz has bought a piece of property which has no exit. He does not want him using his property for his customers. Mr. Cichewicz argued that it has been a public exit for a long period of time. He noted that signs have to be back 5 feet from the property line but the fence comes up to the property line. Mr. Comerate said that the fence is set back more than is required just to avoid any ramifications. Mr. Cichewicz explained that he is talking about a different setbacki the fence does come to the property line at the street. He said that it the fence complied with the five foot setback there would be no problem. It was pointed out that there is no five foot setback for a fence in the City Code. Mr. Turano offered that it appears to be a personal problem between the two gentlemen. Mr. Fischer has stated that it meets the Code. The grievance should be taken to another court, he commented. Mr. Turano offered this as a motion. Mr. Richardson asked if this could not have been handled by putting up a sign stating, No drivethru,__ rather than putting up the fence. Mr. Turano noted that he did not wish to do that and it is his right. Mr. Rosa pointed out that it is not hard to see that there is no love lost between the people involved, but they will have to live together unless one of them sells out and Mr. Rosa suggested that both parties make some con- cessions. It may be a court case, but why take it that far, he asked. Mr. Richardson moved that this case be dismissed and let them take it to other stages. Mr. Turano said that is what he just said. He is in com- pliance. The Chairman asked for a second to the motion. The secretary asked that it be made clear who made the motion and what it was. Mr. Turano said that the fence is in compliance. Mr. Richardson said that he moves that the case be dismissed. Mrs. Cichewicz asked if she could make a statement. She was sworn ln by the secretary. Mrs. Cichewicz said that it goes back to Mr. Fischer's remark that he had to go back and examine what the laws are regarding the fence. You're making a motion but you're not letting him go andinvestigate, she commented, whether he's right of wrong. Mr. Rosa said that it is still his intrepre- tation. Mr. Cichewicz said that he felt that Mr. Fischer would want to go the Police Station and find out if it does present a traffic hazard in Citizen Code Enforcement Board 1 rn /QI:; - 9 - o Q any way. And two he should go to the County plat and find out if it is a corner lot. Th~re was more discussion on the question of whether or not it is a corner lot by the Board members. Mr. Turano repeated his motion, that is that the Board finds that the fence is in compliance with the City Code. Mrs. Kane seconded the motion to bring it to a vote. The motion DID NOT CARRY by a 3-2 vote. Mrs. Kane, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Rosa voted no. Mr. Rosa moved that the Board wash their hands of the case and that it go before a civil board. He does not want to say that the fence is in compliance. Mr. Alvarez addressed the Board, saying that there is no question that this is a spite fence and there is no question that it is not clear whether there is a division of property. The question is whether it is a nuisance that causes a dangerous situation to the public by causing the backing out into U. S. 1. Possibly this should be taken up with the D.O.T. to determine to what extent the City has a responsibility. Mr. Rosa moved that Mr. Fischer contact the D.O.T. regarding this matter and to make a report back to the Board, and to table the matter until we get his report. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Kane. The motion CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Comerate questioned the statement that people have to back out onto U. S. 1 to get out of the parking spaces in front of his property. The Chairman advised that the hearing is over. The Board went on to consider the balance of the items on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Rosa moved for approval of the minutes of October 25, 1984 and November 15, 1984. The motion was seconded by Mr. Turano and CARRIED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 84-CC-12 - Charles N. Hamel - Weeds and high grass on property at 310 S. Riverside Drive. Mr. Williams advised that an Affidavit of Compliance for this case has been signed by the Code Inspector on November 29. Mr. Rosa moved to find Mr. Hamel in compliance with the Code. Mrs. Kane seconded the motion which CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Richardson moved that the meeting be adjourned and Mr. Rosa seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Minutes prepared by Joan Taylor Citizen Code Enforcement Board January 31, 1985 - 10 -