Loading...
03-29-1983 Regular Meeting• CITY OF CLERMONT • CODE ENFOP.CLMENT BOARD MINUTES March 29, 1983 This regular meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Marcus McGowan on Tuesday, P~Iarch 29, 1983 in the City Council Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was repeated by all present. ROLL CALL. Present: Emma Higgins, Marcus McGowan, Bill McGuire, William McKinney, and Kathleen Parsell. Excused: Glenn Curtis and Mary Wright. MINUTES of the special meeting held ~~arch 7, 1983 were approved as presented. HEARING NO. 83-005 City of Clermont vs. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Crane. Mr. Dlagel explained that the Cranes have been reported as having un- licensed dogs running at large. Several communications had brought no response, so a subpoena was issued for violation of Chapter 4, Section 4-20 (a) of the Clermont Code of Ordinances, concerning lic- ensing of dogs. Mr. Crane was sworn in. He stated that one dog had belonged to a friend who was in the Bahamas and was no longer in the care of the Cranes. Their own dog developed heart vaorm and has been disposed of. A motion was made by Mrs. Parsell and seconded by Rev. T~'lcKinney as follows: SINCE THE DOGS ARE NO LONGER AT THAT RESIDENCE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE MATTER RESOLVED AND TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. TJagel stated that a great deal of time and energy could be saved if dog owners and others would notify City Hall when a viola- tion about which they have been warned is corrected. There will be more of these cases, and considerable time could be wasted. The Board agreed, and suggested such a request might be included in the letter to the owner. HEARING NO. 83-006 City of Clermont vs. Jimmie Lee Jackson. PQr. Nagel gave a brief history of this case, which was heard previous- ly as case No. 82-007. The outcome of that hearing was that Mr. Jack- son was fined, and that he did clean up the property. He did not cLet rid of the business he had been conducting there. Mr. Nagel stated that every Monday morning the Jackson property is ghastly, and that Mr. Jackson is aware of what needs to be done. 1 Mr. Jimmie Lee Jackson was sworn in. Mr. McGowan stated that the property looked a little neater today, but that isn't the usual state. Mr. Jackson claimed that he could produce witnesses who would testify that he keeps the place neat, and that he is doing a good thing by recycling aluminum cans. He stated that he keeps these cans at the back of the property. Mr. McGowan asked if he had applied for a permit to fence in an area to hold the cans, and if he had applied for an Occupational Li- cense and the response was negative. It was suggested that NIr. Jack- son work with City Hall to learn what is necessary in the way if licensing. A motion was made by T~.r. McGowan that MR. JACKSON BE FINED $100.00 AND THAT THE FINE BE DROPPED IF THE PROPERTY IS KEPT CLEAN I'OR THIRTY DAYS. Mrs. Parsell seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. HEARING NO. 83-007 City of Clermont vs. Raymond Pontier. Mr. Pon- tier has built a house as an owner-builder, and had signed an agree- ment that he intended to live in the house. His claim, Mr. Nagel stated, is that he lived in the house for a brief time, but the house now has a tenant living in it. The Florida State Statute which was cited is F.S. 489.103 (7). • CITY OF CLERMONT • CODE ENFORCET1i.NT BOP{RD MINUTES March 29, 1983 T7r. Pontier stated under oath that he understands that his renting the house is considered presumptive evidence that he built the house for speculation. He stated that he did live in it, and transferred the phone to the new house. He built t:ze house for a retirement home in the future, but it is too small to handle the family at present. He further stated that he cannot live in the :House for a year because his work will take him to Africa. He feels that renting on a month to month tenancy is not the same as leasing. He does not want to leave the house standing empty, and wants a tenant to act as caretaker. He and his wife plan to live in the house on their retirement in a few years. In response to questions he stated that he had shown both houses as rental properties, but that it seemed to make more sense to rent the smaller house, since his college-aged children come home from time to time. City Attorney Leonard Baird stated that if the presumptive evidence is rebutted with a reasonable story, then there is no case. If the defendant's claim that he built the house for the purpose of living in is accepted, then the incidental rental is not the issue. It must be determined if r,2r. Pontier was trying to get around the State Statute regulating owner-builders by saying the house was for his use when he actually intended to sell it. It is a matter that could be prosecuted by the State Attorney's office, but a series of such actions would have to be shown before that would happen. It is difficult to prove P~Ir. Pontier's intent. Mr. Nagel stated his concern that a precedent will be set by what- ever action the Board takes. After a brief discussion concerning intent, the following motion was made by Mrs. Parsell and seconded by Mrs Higgins: THAT A FINE OF FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00) BE LEVIED IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE SEE SOME PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE, AND THAT THE FINE BE COLLECTED BY THE CITY. In the ensuing discussion Mr. McGuire stated that he felt the house had been built strictly for rental and that the maximum fine should be imposed. Mrs. Parsell .explained that she felt ~~Ir. Baird's statement concerning presumptive evidence and the extenuating circumstances made the maximum fine appear to be excessively punitive. She felt there had been some violation, hence the recommendation for a fine. The consensus was that each case of this type would have to be considered individually. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. HEARING NO. 83-008 City of Clermont vs. Arthur T. Lowery. Mr. Nagel stated that Mr. Lowery had purchased the property at 1158 Fifth Street and done a large amount of remodeling. In the process of the project he ?laced a number of refrigerated cases and shelves in the yards of this property, thereby violating Sections 11-22 and 11A-16 of the Code of Ordinances, which concern accumulations of trash on private property. A neighboring property owner protested the condition of the site. The property has been partially cleaned up. Mr. Lowery Baas sworn in, and stated that he is a State Certified Contractor. He stated that he doesn't own the building and may not be staying there.. He stated that he had offered the display cases and other fittings to two different individuals, who had not followed through on removing this equipment. At this point he got the Certified letter informing him of the violation and the material was broken up and hauled to the dump. He further stated that the small amount of material left on the site will be used if his deal to purchase the building is favor- able and he proceeds with planned remodeling. He questioned whether salvagable material should be considered trash. After considerable discussion, and an explanation by Mr. Baird of how the Board operates, the following motion was made by Mrs. Parsell and seconded by D!ir. McKinney: IF P~i'2. LO?4ERY REBIOVES THE REMAINING DEBRIS BY THE EPdD OF THIS 6VEEK, T~:E FINE WILL BE WAIVED. IF NOT, THERE IS TO BE A $25.00 FINE. The motion passed by unanimous vote. • Code Enforcement Board `~~inutes March 29, 1983 L11~1 L~1. Harvey Nagel, Director of Code Enforcement