Loading...
04-28-1983 ) ~ . u o City of Edgewater Citizen Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting April 28, 1983 Minutes Chairman Mason called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the conference area of the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present: Mr. Hamel, Mrs. Hoffman, Mrs. Kane, Mrs. Mason, Messrs. Prater, Wargo, Williams and Whittet. Also present - Joan Taylor, Secretary, and one member of the press. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Mr. Wargo, and seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the minutes of the March 31, 1983 meeting. The motion CARRIED 7-0. Moved by Mr. Hamel, seconded by Mr. Williams and CARRIED 7-0, to approve the minutes of the March 31, 1983 Code Enforcement Board/City Council Workshop. OLD BUSINESS Mrs. Mason brought up the chairmanship status, and asked for a vote of confidence on herself as chairman, remarking that she would not want to endanger the committee in any way, because she felt it was one of the finest and most important boards the City has, and it should be completely unbiased and honest in every way. Mr. Hamel made a motion that the Board give Mrs. Mason a vote of confidence in her duties as chairman of the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Wargo felt that the motion was improper. He felt that the accusation against Mrs. Mason should be talked over. The integrity of the Board is at stake, in his opinion. He said that the election wasn't proper. Mrs. Mason asked him if he had read the letter to the attorney from the secretary~ and the minutes. He said there were 3 people sitting on the Board who should not have been, those being Mr. Holahan, Mr. Hall and Mr. Whittet. He was advised that Mr. Whittet's vote was not counted. Mrs. Mason asked that someone read the paragraph pertaining to Mr. Hall, which states that the tapes show that Mr. Hall was excused on one occasion and marked absent on another. Mrs. Mason stated that Mr. Holahan was still on the board, as no formal action was taken to have him removed. Mr. Wargo argued that he shouldn't have been on the Board. Mr. Williams said the vote was legal. Mr. Hamel reminded the members that there was a motion on the floor. Mr. Williams seconded the Motion. The Motion CARRIED 4-3. Mrs. Kane, Mr. Prater and Mr. Wargo voted No. Mr. Hamel motioned to approve Mrs. Mason as the Chairman of the Board until the end of the fiscal year, or June. Mr. Wargo said it was a very frivoless motion. Mr. Hamel said it was just to make it clear. Mr. Wargo said that she is chairman and there was no need for the motion. Mrs. Mason also brought up the fact that Mr. Prater stated at the previous workshop that the tape did not say that Mrs. Mason voted no to herself; she read the verbatim minutes which indicated that she did vote no. Mrs. Kane said she be on the agenda. Mr. Prater said he new ordinance came felt the appointment of chairman and vice-chairman should Mr. Hamel asked why it was not on the agenda in June. was asked by the City Attorney to hold it up until the out. Mr. Williams motioned that the June meeting be moved to 8 p.m. to permit everyone to be present for the election of officers. Mr. Hamel seconded the motion and it CARRIED 7-0. 82-CC-22 - Hermosa Palms Condominiums Chief Baugh advised that this complaint was originally filed by the Building u (.j Official. He advised that he had checked the property and in his opinion the property does comply with Code. He submitted the Affidavit of Compliance to the Board. Mr. Wargo moved that the Hermosa Palms case is in compliance, seconded by Mr. Whittet. The motion CARRIED 6-0. Mr. Hamel abstained. 83-CC-l - Thomas King - 2614 Pine Tree Drive Thomas King was given 30 days to bring the property to compliance, at the March 31 meeting. The Chief advised that he had checked the property and found it to be in compliance. He suggested that when the letter thanking them for complying was sent the Board should advise them that they expect it to remain cleaned. Mr. Wargo moved that the case should be continued for 90 days without a fine to make sure that the property stays as it is. Mr. Whittet said that it is obvious that the people did as the Board asked and as they had agreed to do. He said that he had watched them on Sunday and they had worked very hard on it. He did not believe the Board had a right to guess what they were going to do in 90 days. If the property is in violation again in 90 days, then it would be brought to the Board again. The Board agreed that perhaps he was right and that they were not a "watch-dog" board. The Chairman suggested that the Chief keep an eye on the property, but because they did have the In-Compliance form signed by the Chief, the case should be closed. The motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Kane motioned to find the Thomas King property to be in compliance, seconded by Mr. Whittet. The motion CARRIED 7-0. COMMUNICATIONS The Board reviewed the letter from Mr. Charles Murphy in regard to the privacy fence erected by Glenn and Helen Jones, Lot 22 and 24, on Valencia and Rio Vista Drives. Mr. Murphy stated that the fence has been installed in conformance with the fencing code, Section 706.00. The six-foot high fence is at the rear of the property; the house fronts on Riverside Drive. Mrs. Mason felt a letter should be directed to the City Council stating that they have two letters from both code officers, saying it was approved as to their parts of it. Mr. Wargo made a motion to have the new building inspector check this matter. Mr. Whittet seconded the motion and the motion CARRIED 7-0. Under new business, Mr. Prater asked why the Board members got their agenda and packets the day before the meeting, noting that it gives them very little time to check it over. The Chairman advised that the Rules and Regulations call for 24 hours before a meeting. Mr. Prater said that that was for a hearing only. He said that when the Board was organized the members voted for a cut- off of 7 days prior to any hearing. The Chairman read from the Rules and Regulations, Section 3, which states that the clerk shall prepare copies of pertinent information for the board, which shall be available at City Hall at least 24 hours prior to said meeting or hearing. Mr. Wargo stated that he had not received a copy of the Rules and Regulations. Mrs. Mason suggested that the City Attorney should update the Board's Rules and Regulations. She asked if this could be on the agenda for the next meeting, for the members to work on. Mr. Prater asked why the a~enda was not ready on time and Mrs. Mason said that she had requested that they be held until 24 hours before the meeting. This is legal. The Chairman asked if they wanted to update the Rules and Regulations and if the members wanted it on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Hamel said it would take a lot of study by a committee of some kind. He felt there would be points of order that the members would not think of. He asked if the State regulations were not sufficient to govern the Board. Mrs. Kane said she felt the only change would probably be the number of , days prior to a meeting that the agenda should be ready for pick-up. Mr. Hamel suggested that this could be handled by a motion. Mrs. Mason suggested that all members be provided with a copy of the Rules and Regulations so that they would have time to look them over. If, at the next meeting they wanted to make changes, a motion could be made at that time. Citizen Code Enforcement Board, April 28, 1983 -2- ~ o Mr. Wargo made a motion to wait until next meeting to make any motions for changes to the Rules and Regulations to give the members time to study them. The motion was seconded by Mr. Prater, and CARRIED 7-0. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Opal questioned whether the No Confidence vote was legal, because Mrs. Mason voted on the issue. Mr. Prater said he was advised the attorney would be present tonight to clear some of these things up; Mrs. Mason said he had called her and asked if he should be there. She advised him that there was no hearing scheduled and she could see no reason for him to be there. Mr. Williams said it really made no difference, because the Board had just found out that she was legally elected. Mr. Hamel commented that the Board should take into consideration the cost of having the City Attorney attend every meeting. If it is necessary, he should be at the meeting, but it was not necessary that he attend every meeting. He remarked that the attorney was hired for a flat fee and the meetings would cost the city extra. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by Joan Taylor Code Enforcement Board, April 28, 1983 - 3 - o Q Da te cf/"- 3 I)} .:::, -~ -=- -,.. f,,3 ---- . ~ ~