Loading...
03-16-2000 '-" ....", , CITY OF EDGEWATER CITIZEN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MARCH 16, 2000 REGULAR MEETING 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Fowler called the Regular Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Members present were: Chairman Tony Fowler, Maureen Borner, Linda Johnson, Ben DelNigro, George Ann Keller, and Susan Hammond. Also present were Code Enforcement Officer Beverly Kinney- Johnson, Code Enforcement Officer Jon Williams, City Manager Kenneth Hooper, Building Official Dennis Fischer, Attorney Sidney Nowell, and Deputy City Clerk Lisa Bloomer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Keller stated at our last meeting, she spoke about a case and she had asked if it had been resolved or not because it had not been listed on the agenda. In the minutes it does not state the case number. She didn't know whether that should be part of the minutes and should be put in the minutes someplace for future reference. The case number was 99-CE-0142. After review by the Deputy City Clerk of the tape from the February 17, 2000 meeting, there was no mention of a case number during this discussion. The only mention was of Vista Palm Drive. Chairman Fowler asked Attorney Nowell if that is specific in these printed minutes and do they need to specifically state the case in question which was merely a question at that meeting. Attorney Nowell stated he thinks the minutes should reflect all discussions and the case in question. Chairman Fowler asked that this be added to the minutes from the previous meeting, the case number and he asked Ms. Keller where this is so she can dually note it on the minutes. Ms. Keller stated they had listed in the minutes, cases in compliance and that was a case that came into compliance and they didn't find out about that until the end of the meeting when she asked how come no mention was made of it. She asked that it be listed under Cases in Compliance. '~ ....., Chairman Fowler asked if she had the name. Ms. Keller stated the address was 2614 vista Palm Drive. Chairman Fowler feels they should stay consistent with what is already there, it is only the names that are listed. Ms. Borner made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, second by Ms. Johnson. The motion CARRIED 6-0. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES Chairman Fowler asked if there were any witnesses concerning any cases that are before the board. He asked them to stand, be recognized, state their name and address and prepare to be sworn in. Deputy City Clerk Bloomer swore in Code Enforcement Officers Beverly Kinney-Johnson and Jon Williams. Also sworn in were Marie L. Buckheit, 512 Sea Gull Court and Flo Gibb, 502 Sea Gull Court. CASES IN COMPLIANCE Per the request of Ms. Keller the following case is being listed as in compliance: 99-CE-0142 - Ronald Jones & Dawn M. Tarus Chairman Fowler asked Ms. Kinney-Johnson whether any cases had come into compliance. Ms. Kinney-Johnson reported the following cases to be in compliance. 2000-CE-0008 - New Smyrna Mortgage Inc. 2000-CE-0010 - Mickie L. Lego 2000-CE-0018 - Donald E. & Betty L. Gibbins 2000-CE-0019 - Donald E. & Betty L. Gibbins NEW BUSINESS 2000-CE-0016 - William E. & Delores Geno - 2330 Juniper Drive Untaaaed Vehicles. Violation of Section 712 of the Edaewater Zonina Code of Ordinances Ms. Kinney-Johnson reported her first visit to the property was January 20, 2000 at which time she observed two untagged vehicles, a beige Toyota Tercel and a brown PlYmouth mini-van. A courtesy notice of violation was left at the property explaining the code violation that exists on the property and the amount of time that was given for compliance, which was ten days. A reinspection was made on January 31, 2000 and no correction action had been taken. Page -2- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 '-'" ...." Ms. Kinney-Johnson further stated a notice of violation was sent February 1, 2000 by certified mail to the property owner explaining the code violations that exist on the property and the amount of time given for compliance which was ten days from receipt of the notice of violation. A reinspect ion was made on February 12, 2000 and no correction action was taken. A notice of hearing was prepared and sent by certified mail to the property owner on February 18, 2000. Ms. Geno picked up the notice of hearing on February 19, 2000. She passed out a photo to the board that was taken today, March 16, 2000. During the course of this case, neither Mr. or Mrs. Geno has not initiated any contact with Code Enforcement. When Ms. Kinney-Johnson was there, she knocked on the door, left the door hanger. There is no one home during the day and she did not respond to any correspondence that was sent certified that she signed for. In conclusion, because the untagged Plymouth van exists on the property, staff has determined Section 712 of the Edgewater Zoning Code of Ordinances has been violated. At this time, it is up to the board to determine the corrective action to be taken, date for compliance, and fine amount if the board so desires. Chairman Fowler asked if there was anyone present concerning this case. There were no witnesses. Chairman Fowler asked if the board had any questions. Ms. Hammond asked if both vehicles are still on the property or is there just the Plymouth. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated the Toyota Tercel has been removed from the property, at least it has been removed from the view of the public or the neighbors. They may have it in the garage and that would put it in compliance. The Plymouth van is the issue at this point. Ms. Hammond stated so they did get some message if they moved one she would say. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated yes but unfortunately they didn't move the second one. Ms. Borner asked Ms. Kinney-Johnson if anyone has contacted her. She informed her no, but they did receive both certified mails along with the door hanger. Ms. Borner stated after hearing the testimony presented and the recommendation of staff, she moved in reference to case number 2000-Ce-0016 that a violation of Section 712, Edgewater Zoning Code of Ordinances, does exist and that the alleged violator has committed the violation. After considering the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violator, she further moved that the violator be given until March 31, 2000 to correct the violation or a fine of $100 be imposed until the violation is corrected, second by Ms. Keller. Page -3- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ....,.. ...." Ms. Hammond asked if the $100 was per day or just a flat $100. Ms. Borner stated it used to say per day. Chairman Fowler asked Ms. Borner what her motion was. He thought she said per day. Ms. Borner stated she did say it but she just realized it doesn't say that in here. Chairman Fowler asked for discussion on the $100 per day fine. He asked Attorney Nowell if he has been involved in some of these situations. The reason he is asking is because in the past the purpose of keeping everything the same basically within a certain realm we have been advised as to an amount so we do stay consistent. Do you find that is going to be a necessity with all of our situations or somewhere can we get parameters of which to work within, not this broad sense of up to $250 or up to $500. Attorney Nowell stated the test for whether or not you have abused your discretion is whether or not you are arbitrary and capricious in your behavior. While it may appear to you and in fact is we have a standard that goes from $100 to $500 to seem to be a broad discretion. If you have established those parameters then you are operating within a confined area. The difference between a $100 fine and a $499 fine may appear on its face to be arbitrary but it's not if that is what you are charged. You are giving a leeway. Let me say it in another way. As board members you are given a tremendous amount of discretion to levy fines. If they are to be challenged, they will be challenged on whether or not they have engaged in arbitrary and capricious behavior. To function within an established parameter of $100 to $500, he feels they meet the test of whether or not they have abused their discretion. The answer to your question is no, you don't have to have a consistent number all the time as long as you have established what your parameters are and you perform within those parameters. Chairman Fowler stated our parameters are not necessarily $100 to $500 but he thinks it is up to. It may be a $1 a day if we want or up to $250. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated for the first violation unless it is irreparable and then it's $5,000. Ms. Johnson stated considering they have made an effort to move one of the vehicles anyway so that does show some acknowledgment on the violator's part. She doesn't recall them coming before the board. She questioned if they have come before board with this in the last five years. They would not be a repeat violator. Perhaps they might be better to set it at the $50 limit to start unless we get it again as a repeat violation. Chairman Fowler stated they have a motion on the floor to allow the Genos until March 31st to take care of the situation and come into compliance or there will be a $100 per day fine. Page -4- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ...... ....., The motion DIED 3-3. Chairman Fowler, Ms. Johnson and Mr. DelNigro voted no. Ms. Hammond stated she thinks she saw in our procedures that it was $250 per day up to $500 per day. Chairman Fowler explained it is a maximum of $250 per day for the first violation. Chairman Fowler stated he has the same feelings Ms. Johnson does. They have eliminated half of the violation. Maybe they aren't talking but they are at least somewhat making an effort. By the looks of it, at a $100 per day, he isn't sure they want to mess with that because the van may not be worth much more than a month's worth of fines. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated considering the gravity of the violation, they aren't talking of a health hazard. The vehicle is in tact and not creating an attractive nuisance. Ms. Hammond asked if it is locked. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated when she is on someone's property she doesn't try to open the doors. She will only do that if it is in the right of way. Ms. Hammond expressed concern with children getting in it. Chairman Fowler stated in his opinion, it has no bearing whether it has a tag on it or not as far as a health hazard. If you are going to sayan unlocked car or a window open so kids can get in it is a hazard, then we have a major problem. There was a brief discussion regarding the vehicle being in tact. Ms. Johnson doesn't think the gravity of the violation warrants a $100 per day. If they let it sit for 10 days, they are already up to $500 at $50. Ms. Hammond stated isn't the point of fining them to get them to move it. Ms. Johnson stated they are kind of making a gamble here that $50 a day to them will be an impressive amount as opposed to $100 which could create a financial burden on them. Ms. Keller asked if anyone has contacted them since this. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated she was out there today and there wasn't a soul around. Ms. Keller stated we don't have any idea what happened to the other car. Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated they could have put it in their garage or an enclosed area that is not visible to the public or the neighboring properties. She hasn't received any complaints about the Tercel being in a backyard where someone else could see it. Chairman Fowler stated theoretically they could turn the car around and back it up next to the garage and they can say it's got a tag on it. They have been through this. You can't go on the property to dispute it if it can't be seen. Page -5- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ....... ....., Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated the driveway and sidewalk to the front door is kind of a gateway, an opening that everyone knows is permission to travel upon unless they tell you they do not want you on their property. This particular case, the van started out between the right of way and their front yard with no tag and gradually ended up being backed into the driveway. The photo she got today was by walking on their driveway, staying on the driveway, and not going onto the private property and getting that picture. Chairman Fowler stated it has been taken from the very front of the property at the right of way and has not at least been parked in the driveway as a normal vehicle would. Theoretically again they have already eliminated one vehicle and also moved this one to a less conspicuous situation. They are at least doing something. We know we have gotten their attention to this point. Now it is a question of whether you want to hit them with a 4 X 4 or a 2 X 4. There were no further comments or discussion. Ms. Borner asked if she could use the same motion and make it $50 per day instead of $100 per day. Chairman Fowler stated the last one failed because of a tie. She would have to make a new motion but they won't make her read every word again. Ms. Borner made a motion that they have until March 31st to get the vehicle in compliance or a $50 fine ensuing after that, second by Ms. Keller. The motion CARRIED 6-0. 2000-CE-0030 - James Gilliaan. 514 Sea Gull Court Outside Storaae. Violation of Section 1101 of the Edaewater Land DeveloDment Code Mr. Williams reported that his first visit to the property was on February 28, 2000 at which time he observed outside storage of old furniture, carpeting, old bedding and various other items. Due to the fact that Mr. Gilligan is a habitual offender with numerous code violations and approaching the agenda cut off date, a notice of violation was posted and photographed on the front door of the property on February 28, 2000 explaining the code violation that exists on the property and the amount of time given for compliance, which was three days. A reinspect ion was made March 1, 2000 and no corrective action was taken. The property and City Hall were posted March 1, 2000 in accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 162, Section 162.12. He took four pictures on March 1, 2000 of the posting of the notice of violation and the actual code. He has seven pictures that were taken March 1, 2000 of the posting of the property, City Hall and the code violations that exist on the property. He presented two pictures to the board that were taken today. Page -6- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ...... ..., Mr. Williams further stated during the course of this case, Mr. Gilligan has initiated contact with Code Enforcement on March 13, 2000. During his contact, he came into the office and said his aunt was staying at his house while he was away and he just got back. The carpet should be moved to the right of way by Wednesday afternoon or the morning of March 16. As of this morning the carpet has been moved to the right of way for pickup. In conclusion, because outside storage exists on the property, staff has determined section 1101 of the Edgewater Land Development Code has been violated. At this time it is up to the board to determine the correction action to be taken, date for compliance and fine amount if the board so desires. Mr. Williams stated he must point out one correction in this case presentation. Four pictures taken on March 1, 2000 is incorrect. That date should have been February 28, 2000. Mr. Williams shared his photographs with the board. The first group coming around would be the posting on February 28, 2000. The second group would be the March 1st posting and the third group would be the photographs as of today. Ms. Johnson asked if Mr. Gilligan mentioned anything about any plans to remove the rest of the stuff. Mr. Williams stated he didn't have any of the contact with him. Mr. Gilligan spoke to Ms. Kinney-Johnson. Ms. Hammond stated Mr. Williams stated he was in contact with him three days ago. Mr. Williams stated not him personally. He was in contact with Ms. Kinney-Johnson, the other Code Enforcement Officer. He came into the office on March 13, 2000. Ms. Hammond asked what his reaction was or what he wanted. Mr. Williams stated he was there to inform them that his aunt was staying with him at the house and that he had just got back into town and that by Wednesday p.m. he would have the carpet at the right of way for pickup. Ms. Hammond asked if there were other impediments there beside the carpet. Mr. Williams stated yes. Ms. Hammond asked if the carpet was all he mentioned moving. Mr. Williams stated yes. The other stuff has been cleared up. In today's pictures there is some outside storage of five gallons buckets, some wood and some other debris that is on the side of the house that is visible from the road. That is also an issue. Chairman Fowler asked the witnesses to come forward. Page -7- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ~ ~ Marie L. Buckheit, 512 Sea Gull Court, stated this has been an on-going problem. That young man is so lazy he doesn't even lift up his feet and he has not been out of town. He has been home every day. That is a bold face lie. She hates to call anybody a liar but it is. He never does anything unless Code Enforcement, Beverly first has been after him for years, his father before him, and now Jon is doing another excellent job. He does things deliberately. He got off from work the other night and someone was driving the car. There was something in the driveway. He gets out kicks it out of the way, gets back in the car and drives up to the house. The man is 22 years old. He should have a little more ambition than that. She doesn't know if this is what she is supposed to be saying but the place is a disgrace. The City refuse department can tell you quite a bit about what has come out of that house. They not only through out cabinets and a dishwasher but the kitchen sink went also. How are they washing? Chairman Fowler stated that is not relevant to what they are looking at right now. Ms. Buckheit stated the Code Enforcement Officers have gone above and beyond. They have really tried to help their neighborhood. This house has brought the sale value down of all of the homes in the area. She doesn't know what else to say other than it is a sad, sad thing. They are just going to do it again and they will be back. Flo Gibb, 502 Sea Gull Court, stated she has been at her address for fourteen years and it is getting worse and worse. When they do put things down there, at times it has been over five feet high. It has one time sat there for a month and a half before the City picked it up. Rats were running. There are dealings going on in that house that everybody knows about. There has been an overdose of cocaine there. There was a beating there not too long ago. A couple of weeks ago the police took someone out of there. The next day those people's belongings were thrown in the yard, their personal belongings and their furniture and someone else backed in and moved in. Young men are going there to buy whatever they are buying and urinating on the street as she is walking by with her dog and looking at her and her husband like do something. Her husband wanted to but she wouldn't let him. She hates to put up with this. It is just getting worse. Chairman Fowler stated he understands what she is trying to say but she is deviating from the actual information they need which is based primarily on the junk that is hanging around there. Ms. Gibb stated they are cleaned up today but they won't be next week. She begged anyone of them to ride by there in about a week. Page -8- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ..... ....., Chairman Fowler stated there are avenues that could be looked at to try and solve that situation. As far as a long of the other issues, Officer Ball is the one she would need to speak to. Ms. Gibb stated the paper said they have had 17 violations in a little over a year. That is more than one a month. She doesn't see how they can get away with it. It is disgusting. Chairman Fowler asked to be enlightened briefly as to how often they have cited this person in the past two years. Mr. Williams stated he didn't have that information available. He just started in August of 1999 and they had some discussion earlier today in regards to that question. Attorney Nowell stated earlier this afternoon he had the opportunity to discuss history of violators and it is his opinion that while it is certainly relevant to determine someone's prior behavior it should not be dispositive in terms of deciding the issue that is currently in front of the board. Unless they are so cited. In this particular case, going back two years, his understanding is they have received other citations which have in some form or fashion been resolved. He thinks the more relevant and more important question would be how many of those violations were found to be in violation of not necessarily how many were they cited for. They wind up working in the concept of double jeopardy and essentially irrelevant material that is not dispositive on this specific issue. Chairman Fowler stated the only reason he was asking said question was to establish whether or not he would fall under the category of being a repeat violator which would then make his fines possibly higher plus retroactive. This was the only reason he was requesting said information. The way he understood what Attorney Nowell was explaining to the board was he was not in this case cited as a repeat violator. Attorney Nowell asked if that was correct. Chairman Fowler asked if when Mr. Williams informed him of the violations, did he also inform him that he would be considered a repeat violator or is this just like a first time thing and we have to work on at this point that way. Mr. Williams stated he did not inform him that he would be a repeat violator. Chairman Fowler asked Attorney Nowell if it was necessary that he be notified that way or that our paper work says anything to that affect or is it up to the board. Attorney Nowell stated if you are going to base your fine on repeat violations then the notice requirements are that he be noticed that he is being charged as a repeat violator also in addition to the instant violation. Chairman Fowler stated to stay within the legal limits they have, in this particular case he was not cited as a repeat violator therefore his fine can not exceed $250. Page -9- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ..... ..." Ms. Hammond asked if they settle this case today, will he be checked on again. Mr. Williams stated they routinely make a visit past that location and try to address any code violations at that point so it doesn't reach this point. They try to get them corrected right away. Chairman Fowler asked if he is correct in assuming James Gilligan is the property owner. Mr. Williams explained there is some question as to exactly who is the property owner there. The property appraiser lists it as Belmont Homes c/o Cecile Gilligan. She is deceased. He would assume from there it went to his father who was Timothy Gilligan who is also deceased. From there he would assume it went to Mr. Gilligan. Chairman Fowler stated someone must be responsible for said property. He doesn't think it is going to be Belmont Homes. Not at this point. They have been that route too. Ms. Borner stated they have been through quite a few cases like this and what was the outcome of them. If they were fined, then it was a repeat violator. Is that how we went about that? Chairman Fowler stated he doesn't know if it even has to go to the board necessarily if it is a continual situation. Attorney Nowell stated the message he was trying to convey was if they are going to look at him as a repeat violator, we should tell him that in our official notification. Ms. Borner questioned if this is brought up again then he would be a repeat violator. Attorney Nowell stated yes. Chairman Fowler stated but he will be notified that is the situation and that is fine can be retroactive which means maybe he gets his act in gear. Ms. Keller stated she did look back and on October 21, 1999, in the minutes he had been here before for violations, not the same violations, but it did concern uncontained trash. There was a problem because it was a contract for deed and who would be the responsible party. It had been said by the board that in the future it would be reviewed as a repeat violator. This followed discussion and Ms. Kinney-Johnson stated that fact of that prior case back in October when it came before the board. She does understand when the notice went out to him for this most recent problem, it was not stated that he was a repeat violator. It should have said something like that. She feels they need to look to make some changes to make sure this isn't done again. This is something where he has been a habitual offender, that property has been and it is not fair to the neighbors to consider this down the road and whether it was twelve years, eight years, or fourteen years, it's not fair and we need to make him understand he will be considered as a repeat violator and she doesn't know if everything has been cleared up now on the property. Page -10- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 '-" ..." Mr. Williams stated the bedding and furniture has been removed. The carpet is setting at the right of way waiting on public works to pick it up. However, on the side of the house there is some outside storage of five gallon buckets, wood and such that is visible from the right of way. Outside storage has not been corrected. Ms. Keller stated she thinks a motion should be made that he be fined a set amount tonight and be given a certain amount of time to see if he will clean up the side and in the meantime continue to check the area as you would normally do. Ms. Keller made a motion after hearing the testimony presented and the recommendation of the staff, she hereby moves in reference to Case #2000-CE-0030 that a violation of Section 1101 of the Edgewater Land Development Code does exist and the alleged violator has committed the violation. After considering the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations committed by the violator, she further moved that the violator be given until March 31, 2000 to correct the violation or a fine of $100 per day be imposed until the violation is corrected, second by Mr. DelNigro. The motion CARRIED 6-0. Chairman Fowler stated he will be notified next time of repeat violations which will make it that much more difficult. Ms. Keller stated in a case that there is a repeat violation, how do they work that. Chairman Fowler stated you are down into discussion items, let's sort of get past all of that. Ms. Buckheit asked Mr. Williams if he noticed when he was taking his pictures that there is now a bra hanging from the live oak tree at the corner of the property. Mr. Williams stated he noticed something when he was looking at the photographs on the picture but he didn't know what it was. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business at this time. DISCUSSION ITEMS Review aoplications/aoolicants and submit recommendation to the City Council for fillinq Board vacancy Chairman Fowler informed the Board that Frank Roberts, the vice Chairman, has resigned as of February 28th. They will have another position to fill. Page -11- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ...... .."" Deputy City Clerk Bloomer passed out Ms. Borner's resignation. Chairman Fowler informed Ms. Borner she is the only one left since he has been here. Ms. Borner stated she has been here twelve years and she is going to retire and travel so it wouldn't be fair because she wouldn't be able to make the meetings. Chairman Fowler stated for the record, they have also received a resignation from Maureen Borner, effective April 1st. Chairman Fowler stated to City Manager Hooper that he recalls discussing the idea of making a push to find some additional people or verify some of the people they have that have any desire to serve on any of these boards. City Manager Hooper stated this will be incorporated in the City newsletter, postings will also occur at the Library and City Hall. Council is interested. They have a number of boards that are suffering from lack of volunteers and they are looking to have an additional number of volunteers. Chairman Fowler stated has it stands right now, they are going to be dropping to five members on the board but he is questioning the idea, do they want to jump into the fire and try to fill these or do they want to wait and see what comes out in the next month or so. City Manager Hooper stated he thinks he would wait. He thinks what he would do is let them push to see what kind of applications they have before the board and then add that to the listing they will have. He feels they will have a number of applications within the next 30 days. For their next meeting they can have a number of them for the board to look at. No one on the board objected to tabling the fulfillment of the vacant seats that they have at this point. Chairman Fowler feels it would be appropriate at the moment to get themselves a new Vice Chairman. City Manager Hooper spoke about the updated set of bylaws included in the agenda packets. He suggested they do this first and then appoint the Vice Chair. He feels they are the two things they are going to request the board does this evening. Go through and review the bylaws. He commented on the changes made. He informed the board that the purpose of what they are doing is the board will be reviewing the bylaws and they will be taking portions of the bylaws and they are going to be included in the new Land Development Code. Page -12- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 '-"" ..." CODB BNFORCEMBNT COMMBNTS Chairman Fowler stated originally when he was appointed to the board they were not told the violations as to where they were in order to keep a board member from checking it out before the meeting which has now changed. He doesn't necessarily have an objection either way but he does notice that under Article VII Paragraph G - The board shall only consider evidence which is presented at a hearing or made part of the record. He thinks that if a member of the board is allowed to go and check out a violator on their own time, that it should be stated in the bylaws that they must make that known for the record. They have in some way started to form an opinion of said case before ever hearing it. Attorney Nowell stated his instincts are correct. However, there is no obligation. This is not a criminal court of criminal law. In a court of criminal law that would be the case. From a practical standpoint and a public relations standpoint and a standpoint of dealing with the citizens, if a board member on their own go out and investigate a case, he might add he doesn't believe it is in their job description, he believes it is in the job description of Jon and Beverly, he thinks it would be helpful for people who are involved in the hearing process to make that disclosure. He doesn't think there is a legal requirement because they are not a court of law and they have much more latitude in this administrative form than you do in a criminal proceeding. From a practical standpoint there is no harm in adding some language like that into the bylaws. City Manager Hooper stated if he were to switch shoes and be on the board, he would go by and look just for his understanding of what is there. He thinks when they advertise there is no way they are going to give the board a case and not tell them or show them where that case is. The common sense approach would be you can look but hold your opinion until you get to the meeting. He urged them to make the disclosure. Chairman Fowler asked if they should put it in the bylaws. City Manager Hooper feels if that is the board's intent, he would recommend they put it in there. Attorney Nowell stated he thought they were just simply going and reviewing a site that is why his opinion was not based on law. If you actually go and have discussions with people who try to influence your decision, then he thinks all of the ramifications of the Sunshine Law do come into affect and you certainly must disclose at that point in time. Page -13- Citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 "-" ...." Ms. Johnson asked if they would want to go so far as to say to make sure a member of the board if they are so inclined to view the property and not initiate discussions with the property owner or the person who has been cited. Chairman Fowler stated he thinks that would come under the Sunshine Laws which are already stated. Ms. Johnson feels it would be mutual members of the board discussing it but if a board member goes to the home where the violation is occurring and speaks with the homeowner. Attorney Nowell stated he thinks they would want to disclose that also. Ms. Johnson stated definitely, so would they want to go that far with making a modification in the bylaws that is maybe not a recommendation that discussions be initiated with the occupant or anyone. Attorney Nowell stated he doesn't know what their practice has been done but he certainly wouldn't recommend that as a practice. Ms. Johnson stated she is not aware that actually happened but if they are going, let's explore the possibilities. Chairman Fowler stated but they also don't want to get the bylaws so cluttered that nobody understands them or can read them. City Manager Hooper stated he thinks the disclosure is what they are after. If you go there and view it, disclose it. If you talk, certainly disclose it. City Manager Hooper asked if the board wanted him to bring these back or just make a motion to approve these with that wording change that they will put in disclosure for any visitation. They can do it either way. Ms. Johnson stated she would like to have Mr. Nowell to be able to sign off as having approved them as far as legal content and form as well on behalf of the board. Attorney Nowell agreed. Chairman Fowler asked the board's pleasure. Do they want to wait and see them again with the change or accept it with the change or do you want to hold it another month. City Manager Hooper stated let me send it back to the attorney. He feels what Ms. Johnson described is appropriate. They will make the wording change, let sid look it over and see if there are any other things where he may have concern. They will bring it back at the next meeting. Ms. Hammond asked how many members are ordinarily on the board. Chairman Fowler stated seven. Right now, they are missing one and will be missing two. Ms. Keller stated in the new copy of the bylaws, concerning Article V - Meetings , Item H, there was a slight change made on the ten days prior to the meeting, listing all matters. The previous bylaws did not state it. It was on the first Friday of each month prior to the meeting listing all matters. So that was changed? City Manager Hooper informed her to ten days. Page -14- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ~ ~ Ms. Keller also spoke about Article VII - Hearings, Item C. If legal counsel are present, they shall be permitted to examine witnesses and to present brief opening and closing statements. Previously they had it they shall be permitted to examine and/or cross examine witnesses. Is that just a slight change too? City Manager Hooper informed her that is correct. Ms. Johnson stated Ms. Keller are you trying to say that there have been text changes that were not struck through as being deleted or changed. Ms. Keller stated yes and it was not in the copy of the minutes from the last meeting. That is why she is questioning it. She looked through her bylaws from the February meeting and she noticed those slight changes. She also knows our Vice Chairman has resigned so that needs to be changed. After motion and second on the vote of the by-laws that will have to be changed and also Maureen Borner's name will have to be deleted. City Manager Hooper stated that is correct. If you want to discuss further tonight and make some recommended changes that is their prerogative. Ms. Johnson stated personally, she would like to get Mr. Nowell's input on these before they take any further action on it. Chairman Fowler stated back to board vacancies, as far as he understands the board also has desire to wait to wait until the next meeting to see if they come up with some new prospects. The board had no objection to this. City Manager Hooper informed the board of two sets of written comments that were received regarding the Land Development Code. They talked of some of those this afternoon and he thinks sid recommended and suggested that for their behalf and his understanding too, maybe they want to do a work session and talk specifically of the code as it is now in place, we were going to change it and talk of those differences. His belief is they probably haven't had the opportunity to really talk of the Code and what is going to be changed and what opportunity they would have to have input into that. He stated they could look at the written comments and address them tonight or they could just go on to and talk of a work session specifically for the Land Development Code as it pertains to Code Enforcement, Administration, and then those areas they will be enforcing of the code. He feels it would be a good idea to have a work session just to talk of those. The schedule we are on is the board is first to see the Code in any kind of a final format. It goes to P & Z in another week or two. The final draft is what you see here and there is only one copy of that that he is still going through. He feels it will be a two to three month process. He feels there will be a number of public meetings and public hearings on that. Page -15- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ~ ~ Chairman Fowler stated he definitely thinks they are going to need a workshop with Mr. Nowell so they could get familiar with him and him with them. He would like to wait until they can fill the opening vacancies. He asked if they have the time to prolong it. City Manager Hooper stated that is probably going to put you 60 days out. He doesn't think they have that luxury. He thinks they have up to a 60 day period. They could start to have the work session and the five members talk and in the next 30 days they will be making their recommendation and it goes to Council two weeks afterwards. Towards the adoption process, they will be added to that. He doesn't think they want to wait and then schedule it and start it afterwards. You are going to be at the end of the review process if you do that after Planning and Zoning and when the City Council is. Ms. Hammond asked if they have a 60 day leeway to make these changes. City Manager Hooper stated no, he is just trying to describe a schedule for the board. Assuming you meet in another 30 days, you are going to interview applicants and then it goes to the City Council and it is going to be 60 days before you have a full board again. Ms. Hammond stated they can't wait that long. City Manager Hooper stated they certainly can wait that long but he is going to present it to Planning and Zoning and it is going to continue through the process. You will be playing catch up. He is not sure they want to do that as much as just meet among the five of them, sid to review it and he will also be reviewing it with them. No matter what order they do it, there will be new members coming in and get adjusted to this as we go. Chairman Fowler stated so what you are saying is we need to get something done within the next 30 days. City Manager Hooper stated they need to have their first work session meeting, talk of it, see the changes and understand them and if staff is off- base, he thinks these have been made pretty much by staff input and he thinks they have had limited input into that. There has been some homeowner association meetings where staff has gotten input from citizens but if we are on track and we are close, whic he thinks we are, he doesn't think there is much in there that will be of difference. He thinks they are on target to what the Code Board wants to see. Hold that first work session. If it's not on target, they will make an adjustment to it. Chairman Fowler asked Attorney Nowell if he has read through these yet. Attorney Nowell informed him he hasn't seen them yet. Chairman Fowler stated what they need to do is get a set to Mr. Nowell and asked him to let them know what his schedule his because he thinks it will be easier for them to catch up with them than for him to catch up with them. Attorney Nowell stated he could do that. Page -16- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 ~ ..., Chairman Fowler stated if nobody has any objection, what they will do is have Attorney Nowell read those and then within a week or two get back to the Deputy City Clerk or Building Official and they will try to contact the board members by phone. City Manager Hooper asked then to try and schedule this in about three to four weeks. Chairman Fowler stated that would give Mr. Nowell a chance to make sure his schedule is free to work with them on an odd day other than the normal meeting night. Attorney Nowell asked if this is the time the board prefers in the evening. Chairman Fowler stated he didn't think there was any objection to this time. City Manager Hooper asked if they were open to a Saturday morning or anything like that. The board was not open to this. Chairman Fowler asked if they need to worry about a Vice Chairman at this point. We've got elections in two months anyway. City Manager Hooper informed him they are fine. Building Official Dennis Fischer reported that he took care of a lot of the comments that everyone had. City Manager Hooper asked Attorney Nowell if he wanted the whole code or just sections that pertain to Code Enforcement. Attorney Nowell wanted the whole book. Mr. Fischer stated they would red tag the areas in there that he will see as cases. He is trying to get this down to a small document and eventually he wants to do a public relations brochure that they can put out as literature to the residents. Ms. Johnson informed Deputy City Clerk Bloomer she is doing a wonderful job with the minutes and she appreciates it. Attorney Nowell thanked the board and Code Enforcement for making his first night where he is walking out with his head still on his shoulders. He is looking forward to working with the board. Chairman Fowler stated we are looking forward to working with you too and having someone that is going to work with them that they can count on being here, unbiased. City Manager Hooper stated they are going to be making some staff changes too. The advertising, the individual Code Enforcement Officers before put it together. Right now they are going to work with Lisa. She is going to be in charge of the advertising to make sure it complies with our code and with statutory requirements. You are going to see from a staff level some of those changes. We are going to talk of Sid's time and how much time he is going to put in. If each member call and talk to him about individual questions, his rates and his hourly charges, well his sum goes up, his hourly charges are consistent. Page -17- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000 '-" ..." City Manager Hooper suggested one answer is, Robin or himself, if they will call them and ask them. Where they can they will assist them. Where they can't they will refer them to Attorney Nowell. He informed Chairman Fowler if other board members have questions, if they would contact him with the question and he pass that on, that is perfectly fine with him. He will be bringing the invoices back so they will be seeing how much time is spent answering questions. He is hoping to minimize that. He is trying to be very cost effective as well as provide direct counsel for them. They are going to keep that open and try to work as they move through that. Obviously at this point, any of them can ask any questions they want. He suggested or requested they try him or Robin first. If that doesn't work and they can't get an answer or they don't like that answer, obviously they should be talking to the attorney. He is there to represent them. Mr. DelNigro asked if the Vice Chairman job will come in the form of an application. City Manager Hooper informed him as a board, someone will make a motion and so forth to nominate someone for Vice Chair. It will be picked among the five or seven, however many sitting board members will be there. Chairman Fowler stated by the time they get their additional two members, by the bylaws they elect a chair and vice chair in June so they only have a couple of months and then that meeting will be upon them and they will address it at that point in time. Ms. Hammond asked if he was saying they could do without a Vice Chairman until the election. Chairman Fowler informed her yes. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman Fowler adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Minutes submitted by Lisa Bloomer Page -18- citizen Code Enforcement Board March 16, 2000