04-19-1988 Regular Meeting•
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 19, 1988
L
The regular scheduled meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was
called to order by Mr. Edward Whitehead at 7:30 p.m., on April
19, 1988. Members attending were Edward Ivey, Emma Higgins,
Joseph Wiebush, Martin Wright, and Nick Jones. William McKinney
was excused.
MINUTES of the Meeting held February 16, 1988 were approved as
presented.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Whitehead introduced Case No. 88-09
CITY OF CLERMONT
VS.
BOB WADE
The defendant is in violation of Resolution # 574 which granted
the defendant permission to revise the reclamation plan as
approved by Resolution No. 574.
The City Council on December 12, 1987 approved Resolution No. 574
and the revised reclamation plan with the condition that: 1.)
The west retention area be re-established to size 2.) that the
road be excavated to contour to swale at the west boundary of the
property and 3.) two swales running north and south across the
property be constructed.
Mr. McAllister informed the Board that the defendant did meet
the completion deadline of December 18, 1987. However
Resolution No. 574 allowed the defendant sixty (60) days from
December 8, 1987 to reclaim the site in accordance with the
revised site plan submitted and approved as part of that
ordinance. Upon inspection by the City Staff on February 19,
1988, the reclamation work was not completed according to the
approved reclamation plan. The swales, ditch block's drainage
appurtenances and sodding were either not completed or not
completed according to the revised reclamation plan.
This case was presented to the Code Enforcement Board on February
16, 1988 and at that meeting the Board granted the defendant
thirty (30) days to comply with the requirements setforth in
Resolution No. 574 as of this date staff has not received a site
plan showing the required reclamation.
Mr. Wade was sworn in and stated required reclamation would be
completed by April 30, 1988 and at that time his engineer will
meet with Mr. John Springstead, City Engineer to confirm
compliance.
Mr. McAllister recommended that the Code Enforcement Board
require Mr. Wade to submit to the City a site plan showing the
required completed reclamation by May 16, 1988.
A motion was made by Mr. Ivey to grant Mr. Wade an extention to
May 16, 1988 to obtain documentation that a reclamation plan has
been completed in accordance with conditions set forth in
Resolution No. # 574 and approved by City Engineer Springstead,
seconded by Mr. Wiebush and approved by unanimous vote.
1
• •
Mr. Whitehead introduced Case No. 88-07
CITY OF CLERMONT
vs.
JIMMY LEE JACKSON
The defendant is in violation of City Code, Chapter 11, Section
5, which prohibits the accumulation of filth, trash, weeds, dirt,
leaves and the excessive growth of grass, weeds and noxious
plants.
Mr. Whitehead asked for staff's recommendations.
Mr. McAllister advised the Board that the site is now in
compliance with City Code and recommended dismissal of the case.
A motion was made by Mrs. Higgins to dismiss the case, seconded
by Mr. Ivey and approved by unanimous vote.
Mr. Whitehead introduced Cases No. 88-05
No. 88-06
CITY OF CLERMONT
vs.
AMOS THOMAS
Mr. Whitehead asked for staff's findings and recommendations.
Case No. 88-05
The defendant is in violation of City Code ChapterllA- Section
16 - Prohibition of Storage within Residential Areas.
Mr. McAllister advised the Board that the site is now in
compliance with City Code and recommended dismissal of the case.
A motion was made by Mr. Jones to dismiss the case, seconded by
Mr. Ivey and approved by unanimous vote.
Mr. Whitehead introduced Case No. 88-06.
The defendant is in violation of Chapter 11, Section 5 -
Preservation of Public Health and General Welfare.
Mr. McAllister advised the Board the the site is now in
compliance with City Code and recommends dismissal of the case.
A motion was made by Mr. Jones to dismiss the case, seconded by
Mr. Ivey and approved by unanimous vote.
Mr. Whitehead introduced Case No. 88-15
CITY OF CLERMONT
vs.
TWEEDLE OIL
Tweedle Oil is in violation of Chapter 11A Section 16,
Prohibition of Storage within Residential Areas.
No person shall keep, store, or allow to remain on any property
within any residential section of the city, any dismantled,
partially dismantled, non operative, or discarded machinery,
appliances, vehicles, boats, or parts thereof, scrap metal or
junk.
2
•
Mr. McAllister advised the Commission
Phillips 66 Station. Mr. McAllister
several dismantled and junk vehicles
McAllister recommended that any vehicle
immediate repair be removed immediately.
•
that the site is the
stated that there are
on the premises. Mr.
that is not there for
Mr. Bill Tweedle from Tweedle Oil was present and stated he was
aware of the problem and was in agreement with the City as far as
this property being an eyesore as well as an embarrassment to
the community. Mr. Tweedle stated, his only choice was to evict
Mr. Foerg if he did not correct the violation.
Mr. Foerg owner and manager of the Phillips 66 Station was sworn
in.
Mr. Foerg stated that many of the vehicles were there for repair
or they were race cars that were be built my his son. Mr. Foerg
said many of the vehicles were operable but he was waiting for
payment from the owners.
Mr. McAllister advised Mr. Foerg any vehicle on the premises for
more the seventy-two (72) would have to be stored in an enclosed
area, and also that any outside storage of tires or batteries is
not permitted.
Mr. McAllister recommended that Mr. Foerg be give fifteen (15)
days to comply with the violation.
After a brief discussion a motion was made by Mr. Ivey to allow
Mr. Foerg fifteen (15) days to comply with violation, if at this
time the violation is not cleared then a fine will be imposed
retroactive from this date.
Mr. Whitehead introduced Case No. 88-16
CITY OF CLERMONT
vs.
MR. JOHN R. JONES
Mr. Jones is in violation of Chapter 11A Section 16,
Prohibition of Storage within Residential Areas.
No person shall keep, store, or allow to remain on any property
within any residential section of the city, any dismantled,
partially dismantled, non operative, or discarded machinery,
appliances, vehicles, boats, or parts thereof, scrap metal or
junk.
Mr. McAllister advised the Board that the site had been inspected
by staff on March 31, and Mr. Jones was given three (3) days to
comply. Mr. McAllister expressed concern in regard to several
abandoned refridgerators on the site.
Mr. Jones was presented and stated he was in the process of
cleaning the complex and felt he would be able to bring the site
in compliance within short period of time.
Mr. Jones was advised by Mr. McFatter that there were several
tenants who were not using garbage cans and that there were also
several abandoned vehicles on the site which were a part of this
violation.
3
r:
Mr. Jones advised the Board that the vehicles belonged to two of
the tenants and he was in the process of evicting, and at that
time if the vehicles were not removed he would have the vehicles
towed away.
After a brief discussion a motion was made by Mr. Ivey to allow
Mr. Jones 15 days to bring the site into compliance, seconded by
Mr. Jones approved by unanimous vote
Mr. Whitehead introduced Case No. 88-17
CITY OF CLERMONT
vs.
MIKE HOSKINSON
Mr. Hoskinson is in violation of the Sign Ordinance Chapter 26,
Section 51, PERMITS: APPLICATION AND ISSUANCE.
Application for a sign permit shall be made by the owner of the
premises or his agent to the City Manager on a form or forms
provided by the City Manager, prior to the erection or placing of
any sign proposed; and upon it being made to appear that the sign
will be erected or placed in accordance with this article, the
City Manager shall issue a permit for said sign to the applicant
after the required fee or fees have been paid to the City and
after all preliminary requirements have been met.
In addition to not obtaining a Sign Permit Mr. McAllister also
advised the Board that Mr. Hoskinson's sign is non-conforming.
Mr. McAllister informed Mr. Hoskinson that the sign in it's
present state could not be permitted and suggested that M.r.
Hoskinson consult with the City staff in order to make this a
conforming sign.
Mr. Hoskinson stated he was willing to do what was ever necessary
to compy with the violation, but stated that he did not own the
sign, but that it belong to a barber who was employed by him.
Mr. Hoskinson stated the owner of the sign was opposed to
obtaining a permit because of the sign being non-conforming and
therefore he would be unable to obtain a permit.
Mr. Baird advised Mr. Hoskinson that since he was leasing the
property from the City it is his responsibility to make sure that
all City Codes are complied with. Mr. Baird informed Mr.
Hoskinson if the violation was not cleared the City Council could
revoke his lease.
After a brief discussion a motion was made by Mrs. Higgins to
allow Mr. Hoskinson 15 days to apply for a permit and to bring
the exisitng sign into compliance with the Sign Ordinance,
seconded by Mr. Jones and approved by unanimous vote.
Edward Whitehead, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jane Warren
Planning & Zoning Technician
4