Loading...
10-25-1984 o Q CITY OF EDGEWATER Citizen Code Enforcement Board October 25, 1984 Minutes Mr. Prater, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Messrs. Rotundo, Prater, Williams, Richardson, Turano and Rosa. Members absent: Mrs. Kane. Also present: David Jones, Assis- tant Code Enforcement Officer, Mrs. Taylor, Secretary and a member of the press. Present in the audience were Mr. J. C. Carder and Mrs. Susan Dobson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Williams moved to approve the September 27, 1984 minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosa and CARRIED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued 84-CC-8 - David W. McCallister, 2020 S. Ridgewood Avenue - storage of pipe - continued from September 27 meeting. Mr. David Jones, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer, was present and advised that he had taken pictures of the site this date. The photographs indicate that Mr. McCallister has moved the pipe approximately 60 feet from the pro- perty line. He advised that the photographs were taken from the property of the complainant. Mr. Turano asked if the people who filed the original complaint are happy with the site now that the pipe has been relocated. Mr. Jones said that they are not happy with it. Mr. Jones commented that the pipe has been on the property since 1942. He had suggested to the complainant that a stockade fence could be erected. Mr. Richardson said that from the photo- graphs it does not look like much of an eyesore and the use was grandfathered in. Mr. Rotundo pointed out that Mr. McCallister has made an effort to cooperate by moving the pipe. Mr. Rosa agreed that Mr. McCallister has complied with the Board's request. Mr. Richardson moved to remove this case from the Board. Mr. Rosa asked if there would be an In-Compliance form filed on this. Mr. Prater inquired of Mr. Jones if he would be willing to file a Now-In-Compliance form. Mr. Jones said that he would do that the next day. Mr. Turano said that at the last meeting Mr. McCallis- ter was asked to move the pipe to a location where .it would not be seen. He asked Mr. Jones if he felt that Mr. McCallister really made a true effort to do this. Mr. Jones responded that, in his opinion, the gentleman could have fought the complaint and may have won it in court. The man did move the pipe, and he plans to sell the pipe, and he is not going to store ~flY more. Mr. Rosa seconded the motion to remove the case from the Board. The motion CARRIED 6-0. 84-CC-ll - J. C. Carder, 2305 S. Ridgewood - boat shed not completed in accordance with the approved site plans. Mr. Jones produced photographs which he had taken of the site this date. One shows two signs. He stated that this is where the culvert going into the drive would be. Another photograph shows the wall which was encroaching on the setback. A portion of the wall was removed, and is now as is shown in the photograph. Mr. Jones produced a photograph of the parking area. He stated that it is not exactly as is shown on the plans. He has provided 11 parking spaces. Mr. Richardson said it looks like he's in compliance now. Mr. Jones said that that decision is up to the Board. Mr. williams asked if everything has been taken care of that is complained about. Mr. Jones said he had to leave it in the hands of the Board as far as setback. He said that he didn't know Jf the Board wnllld accept an opening like that. o o Mr. Richardson commented that he thinks the opening part is alright if the setback is satisfactory with the Building Inspector. Mr. Jones responded that Dennis Fischer says that it is in compliance. Mr. Rosa reminded the members that at the last meeting they had suggested that the Planning and Zoning Board look at this and make a final inspec- tion. He asked if anything has been brought to them and Mr. Rotundo pointed out that Mr. Carder's letter advised that the project is not completed. Mr. Turano said that the building is completely different from what he was told that it was. He said that it is a real cement block building. Mr. Carder said that it has cement block at two ends. Mr. Richardson noted that he has moved the addition off the back, so he made a motion that this case be removed from the Board. Mr. Prater asked Mr. Jones if he would provide a Now-In-Compliance form on this case as to the way it is at present. Mrs. Susan Dobson was present and said that she was just here to listen. She lives next door, and has to look at it every day. It is not a pretty sight, she stated. She told the Board that when it was first put up it was not in compliance with Code. The Planning Board let him move it around and call the side the front and the front the side. She asked if there is any way of determining what is the front of the building. Mr. Richardson said that it is up to the Building Inspector to tell them how they are going to build it and see that it is built according to plans. Mrs. Dobson said that the building was put up without Planning Board approval. She said the way it was originally put up it had no door to the south and the front of the building would have been where the openings are; that way he is 10 feet too close to her property, she stated.. Mr. Jones noted that that is why the building was changed around so that it would not cause undue hardship to Mr. Carder. He said that the one wall was not in compliance and explained that Mr. Carder has knocked down a portion of the wall. If Mr. Carder plans to put the build- ing to another use he can have the wall recessed in so that it will not corne into the setback. Mr. Turano asked if Mr.. Carder does this struc- turally what will Mr. Fischer say to this. Mr. Jones responded that he (Mr. Fischer) would say that it is in compliance. Mr. Carder said that as long as it is kept as a shed he is not going to do anything further. He told the members that as he sees it he has two ways to go. If they enclose the building, which he intends to do eventually, then he will have to go and get a variance for about two and a half feet in order to hold the 20 foot setback at the rear of the building. In order to con- tinue to be legal he will have to continue to use the door that has been erected. He noted that this is the only shed house he has seen with a door in the front. Mr. Carder reviewed the background of the case: He had gotten a permit to build the shed house for the purpose of storing the boats there, so he got the permit and constructed the building. He pointed out that Mrs. Dobson could have stopped construction immediately had she corne out and said to them that they were out ten feet too far on this side of the building but she did not do that, she waited until the building was sheeted. He informed the Board that they had a meeting to talk about it. She said at the meeting that what she wanted to do was to sell her property. Mr. Carder had offered her $40,000 for it but she wanted $80,000. (Mrs. Dobson corrected this and said she wanted $75,000 for it.) He stated that he had also offered to give her a house in Florida Shores, but she said no. They changed the front of the building around so that the side setback would be in compliance. He also offered to buy five to ten feet of her property to give him a 20 foot setback. She was not interested in this offer. He could have also given her a piece of property 20 x 100 feet behind her house which is of no value to him but would be good for her. So they have turned the building around. He stated that he would be more than happy to put up a spite fence between the two properties so that she would not see the boat shed. Mrs. Dobson said that would be fine. But, he said, when he makes an offer he meant it at the time - the offer is withdrawn as of the last conversation he had with her when he offered to buy the property. He stated that he feels Mrs. Dobson feels she would be a lot happier if she had $75,000 for her house. He said that he wishes Mrs. Dobson had called their hand at the time they were putting the foot- ings in; he has plenty of property so that is not the question. Mr. Carder said that he sincerely felt he was in compliance and held the building at 10'1" from the line because that is what he thought he had to have in a commercial area. Citizen Code Enforcement Board In-?~-R4 - 2 - o o Mrs. Dobson responded that she did not know until she called the building inspector and asked him that the setback should be 20 feet. Mr. Richardson asked again if he would put a fence across there and Mr. Carder said he would be glad to. He asked if Mrs. Dobson would accept that and she replied that she guessed she would have to, and asked if she had a choice. The Planning Board approved it, she stated. Mr. Richardson said that he can have the front door any where he wants, as long as he complies with the building code. Mrs. Dobson said that she wants a fence or hedge up so that she doesn't have to see it. Mr. Turano said that is up to Mrs. Dobson and Mr. Carder. The Board is not discussing that. That is a personal thing. The Board's problem is to determine if he does what is shown in the photos if he is in compliance. Mr. Jones said that he asked Dennis Fischer that and he said yes, he was. Mr. Richardson said that his motion still stands to remove it from the Board. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Prater asked for questions on the motion. Mr. Rotundo said he had one question. He said that we are still human beings and he would like to have them bury the hatchet right here.: If you are satisfied with the fence will he erect it. That's what we want. Mrs. Dobson said she would like to have it cleaned up to make it look decent. It would devalue my property the way it looks right now. She stated there are trusses stored within three feet of her property - Mr. Carder said they are within eight feet. Mr. Turano pointed out that this Board cannot take responsibility for the fence that he's going to build. Mrs. Dobson said that she understands that. Mr. Rotundo said that he would like to get some harmony. Mr. Richardson said the Board is faced with a roll call now. Mr. Rotundo responded that he was asked for a question and he stated his question. He said that the Board doesn't need to be in that big of a hurry. Upon a roll call vote the motion to remove the case from the Board CARRIED 6-0. There was no other business before the board. Mr. Richardson moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was immediately reopened to discuss a case brought up by Mr. Jones. Mr. Prater asked for a roll call. Members present were: Messrs. Prater, Williams, Richardson, Rotundo, Rosa and Turano. Mr. Jones explained that his office has received a complaint concerning heavy equipment breaking up the streets in Wildwood Subdivision. The complaint was s~red by three people on wildwood Drive. He felt that perhaps the Building Official could withhold the COs until repairs are made to the roed Mr. Rosa enlightened the Board members about the situation, saying that he lived in Wildwood and knew the people who signed the complaint. He said that new houses are being buil,t on the easternmost street. It is a concrete road, which looks like just a poured road. Heavy equipment is being driven over the roads and there are chunks missing from the street as a result. The people living there are afraid of the cost to them to replace the streets and it will also cost the City money. Mr. Rosa said that they have done major damage to the roads already. Mr. Rotundo said he felt this should go to Council and Mr. Prater agreed. Mr. Rosa asked if there isn't a common weight limit for trucks in the residential district. This question could not be answered. Mr. Prater said he feels signs should be posted with the weight limit. Mr. Rosa pointed out that the roads are in need of repair right now and no one has even moved into that block. Mr. Turano felt that those people who have done the damage should do the repairs. Mr. Rosa said he was asked by the complainants what to do and he had recommended going to the Police Department or the Building Department. Mr. Richardson said he did not feel this should be talked about at the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Rosa restated that if those contractors leave the road in its present condition it will not only cause personal hardship but it will cost the City a lot of money to repair. He said that as the roads are today, they are not in the same condition as when the construction started. Mr. Turano motioned that the City Council look into the destruction of roads by bulldozers and heavy equipment on wildwood Drive in the Wildwood Subdivision. He stated that this has to be looked into quickly because Code Enforcement Board, 10-25-84 - 3 - . p o o roads are deteriorating. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Rosa asked if he should refrain from voting because his father had signed the complaint. Mr. Prater advised him that he could vote. The motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Rosa asked if this would go on the Council agenda. Mrs. Taylor advised that she would send the letter to them as requested. Mr. Rosa also asked that the complainants be advised that this would be on the Council agenda. Mr. Richardson felt that someone from the Board should be at the meeting. Mr. Williams suggested that pictures be taken of the heavy equipment using the streets. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Citizen Code Enforcement Board 10-25-84 - 4 -