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