Loading...
03-07-1983 Regular Meeting• CITY OF CLERINONT • CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES March 7, 1983 This special meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was called to order by Chairman Marcus McGowan at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 7, 1983 in the City Council Chambers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited by all in attendance. ROLL CALL. Present: Emma Higgins, Marcus McGowan, Bill McGuire, Kathy Parsell, and Mary Wright. Absent: Glenn Curtis and William McKinney. City staff members in attendance: Code Enforcement Officer Harvey Nagel, City Attorney Leonard Baird and Code Enforcement Clerk Marilyn George. MINUTES of the meeting held on February 15, 1983 were approved as presented. HEARING i~IO. 83-002 City of Clermont vs. ~1r. and Mrs. Robert Newsome. ~?~Ir. Nagel gave a brief review of this case. He stated that on Friday, February 11, 1983, two dogs, believed to be owned by Mr. and Mrs. Newsome, broke into the screened porch of Mrs. Kaye Seymour and attacked her Persian cat. The cat was mutilated to an extent that it can never be shown. He stated that i~ir. and Pairs. Newsome violated Sections 20 Licenses, 21 At-large and Vicious Animals, and 25 (a) Confinement of Certain Animals of Chapter 4 of the Clermont Code of Ordinances. Mr. McGowan asked if there was positive identification of the dogs, and P•Tr. Nagel read a deposition given by Kaye Seymour, stating that a neighbor, Naomi Fortune, had seen the dogs on the porch. Ivir. Baird inquired if the defendants are contesting whether the state- ments are correct. Mr. McGowan called on Mr. Newsome, who stated under oath that the dogs now live in Apopka, and that the neighbor children .may have turned the dogs loose on the date in question. He further stated that the dogs were locked in the utility room when he got home that day. His daughter told him that the dogs had got the neighbor's cat. Naomi Fortune then testified under oath that she has lived at her present location near both the Newsomes and P•~rs. Seymour for three years, and that she has seen the dogs in the past and had also seen them loose on February 11. She stated that she had heard noises and a cat making funny sounds. She investigated and saw one dog leaving the porch and the other inside the porch. She stated that she recognized the dogs as living "down the street" and that they ran in the direction of the Newsome home. She further stated that the dogs were not under voice control at that time, and that she did not see the actual attack. She said that the screen door was open. After a brief discussion, Mr. Baird stated that the Board's deter- mination would have to be based on the testimony of the witnesses, and that the decision to be made concerned whether the dogs were at large. A motion was made by b1rs. Parsell and seconded by Mr. McGuire as follows: BASED ON TESTIMONY PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD AND CONFIRM- ED BY AIRS. FORTUNE'S TESTIMONY, THE BOARD SHOULD IMPOSE A FINE OF $50.00 ON MR. AND MRS. NEWSOP~IE, PAYABLE IAZP~EDIATELY. Following a short discussion, the motion was passed by unanimous vote. HEARING P1O. 83-003 City of Clermont vs. Williams Steel Industries. Mr. Nagel stated that Section 105.1 of the Building Codes concerning failure to obtain a permit, and also Section 103.2 of the same codes concerning violation of a Stop Work order had been violated by the defendant. Mr. John Brown, Vice President of Williams Steel Industries, testified under oath that at first he was unaware that construction had begun without a permit, and was told by Mr. Nagel to apply for a foundation permit. Later the same day Mr. Nagel called back to say that after a consultation with the City Manager it had been determined instead of a foundation permit, a Conditional Use Permit would be required, and at that time an oral Stop Work order was issued. In a meeting later that day with the City Manage r, Mr. Brown and Mr. Williams • CITY OF CLERMONT • CODE ENFORCEMENT BQARD MINUTES .March 7, 1983 Page two presented plans approved by the issuance of a building permit in 1975. They were under the impression that this permit was still valid, in that it showed the building project that they were about to undertake. At this time they learned from Mr. Nagel that permits are good for only one year. Mr.Brown then stated that he had informed P7r. McHenry that the Stop Work order had been issued. Later in the week the City Manager called to say work was progressing in violation of the Stop Work order, and in talking to Mr. McHenry, Mr. Brown stated that he learned that welding was being done on the site of the future ex- pansion which could as well have been done in another location. At this point Mr. Judson McHenry was sworn in. He explained the construction methods involved in making the forms, which was what had been determined to be a violation of the Stop Work order. He further explained that this welding of the forms could have been done at any location. He stated that he didn't consider it to be construction. Mr. Baird stated that the Board must make a determination as to whether there was a violation of the Stop Work order. The problem of the failure to obtain a building permit is a clear violation. After further questioning of Mr. Brown about his knowledge of pro- cedure for obtaining building permits, Mr. Baird suggested that the Board address itself to the matter of the failure to obtain a building permit. If the boxes being welded to make forms are not attached to the real property, T~dilliams Steel probably is not in violation of the Stop Trlork order. After a brief discussion, Mr. McGuire moved and Mrs. Wright seconded as follows: THAT WILLIAMS STEEL INDUSTRIES BE FINED $50.00 FOR BUILDING ~niITHOUT A PERMIT, TO BE PAID WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Nagel announced that there will probably be a meeting called on March 29, 1983. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Marcus McGowan, Chairman ATTEST: Harvey Nagel, Director of Code Enforcement