03-19-1991 Regular Meeting. •
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
MARCH 19, 1991
The regular scheduled meeting of the Code Enforcement Board was
called to order on March 19,,1991 at 7:30 p.m. Members attending
were Edward Whitehead, Martin Wright, Joseph Janusiak, Emma Higgins
and George Wood. Member William McKinney was absent. Also
attending were Leonard Baird City Attorney, Richard Bowman Code
Enforcement Officer, Lanny Harker Director of Planning and Mimi
Hauch Planning Technician.
MINUTES of the meeting held August 21, 1990 were approved as
presented.'
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Emma Higgins nominated Ed Whitehead for Chairman and Joseph
Janusiak for Vice-chairman, seconded by Martin Wright and approved
by a unanimous vote.
NEW BUSYNESS
CASE NO. 91-01
CITY OF CLERMONT
A Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
Oak Ridge Apartments
c/o Cardinal Industries, Inc.
2255 Kimberley Pkwy.
Columbus, OH 43232
Defendant (s)
VIOLATION:
Conditional Use Permit, Resolution Na. 468, Section 1, Condition
No. 7.
7) A six-foot wood screening fence will be required along the
west and south property lines. This fence shall be of cypress with
basket weave panels and be properly maintained by the owner. As
many existing trees as possible should be left undisturbed by this
development.
LOCATION: 1600 S. Highway 27
After being sworn in Mr. Bowman informed the Board that the fence
at Oak Ridge Apartments had been repaired.
A motion was made by George Wood to dismiss the case, seconded by
Emma Higgins, approved by a unanimous vote.
1
•
CASE NO. 91-02
CITY OF CLERMONT
A Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff,
vs.
Julian M. Fogle
951 Parkside Drive
Richmond, CA 94803
Defendant (s).
VIOLATION:
•
standard Existing Building Code, Chapter 2, section 202, Unsafe
Buildings.
10) Any building, structure or portion thereof, including service
equipment, that is unsafe, unsanitary or not provided with adequate
egress, or which constitutes a fire hazard, or is otherwise
dangerous to human life, or, which in relation to existing use,
constitutes a hazard to safety or health by reason of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or abandonment.
LOCATION: 596 W. Highway 50
Mr. Bowman informed the Board that the violation still existed.
Mr. Bowman asked Mr. Fogle if he had any objections to the
introduction of the pictures.
After reviewing the pictures, Mr. Albert Fogle stated he did not
object.
Mr. Bowman submitted the pk~otographs taken March 12, 1991 as
composite exhibit #1.. He informed the Board that the structure was
in a very dilapidated condition. A Conditional Use Permit was
issued on July 14, 1987 to allow the repair of the home, however,
as of this date nothing has been done.
After being sworn in, Mr. Albert Fogle stated that he was the
defendants brother and he was at this meeting on behalf of his
brother.
Mr. Fogle stated that his brother did not own the property in 1987.
The CUP was issued to the property owner at that time who was Mrs.
Brown. The property was then sold to someone else.. His brother
just purchased the property a few months ago. Mr. Fogle stated
that they have been cleaning the property, quite a bit of money has
been invested in this project and they do wish to renovate the
property. However, they were told at one time by Mr. James
McAllister that there was not enough land to allow the previous
owners to renovate the property. At that time his brother owned
the adjoining parcel to the east and when this parcel became
available he purchased it. Mr. Fogle stated that he felt the house
was structurally sound and just needed to be finished off. His
brother would like to request enough time to finish the repairs
rather than demolishing the structure.
Mr. Baird asked Mr. Fogle how long he anticipated this would take.
Mr. Fogle stated that the money was now available for the repairs
to be done.
Mr. Baird asked if he had a permit for the renovations that have
been done.
2
• •
Mr. Fogle stated that they have not done any renovations, the
repairs were made previously by Mrs. Brown. They had no knowledge
that they wanted the structure to be demolished until they began
cleaning up the property at which time he was informed by Mr.
Bowman that they were doing a good job of cleaning up the site,
however, something would need to be done with the house.
Further. discussion followed regarding the proper procedure to be
followed to obtain a permit to finish the repairs to the house.
Mr. Harker informed the Board that the existing CUP to repair a
non-conforming structure had expired as of July 14, 1988.
Therefore, the defendant would need to apply for a new CUP for the
renovation of this structure.
Mr. Baird suggested that Mr. Fogle should submit his application
for a conditional use permit to repair the non-conforming use prior
to the next scheduled meeting of the Board.
A motion was made by George Wood that the defendant shall have
submitted the application for a CUP to repair the structure by the
next regular meeting, being April 16, 1991, and by the May 21, 1991
meeting shall have obtained a permit, seconded by Joseph Janusiak,
approved by a unanimous vote.
CASE NO. 91-03
CITY OF CLERMONT
A Municipal Corporation
vs.
Plaintiff,
William H. Stone
P.O. Drawer 520
Clermont, FL 34712
VIOLATION:
Defendant (s).
Standard Existing Building Code, Chapter 2, Section 202, Unsafe
Building.
4) The building, structure or portion thereof has been damaged
by fire, flood, earthquake, wind or other cause to the extent that
the structural integrity of the building or structure is less than
it was prior to the damage and is less than the minimum requirement
established by the Standard Building Code for new buildings.
5) Any exterior appendage or portion of the building or structure
is not securely fastened, attached or anchored such that it is
capable of resisting wind, seismic or similar loads as required by
the Standard Building Code for new buildings.
6) If for any reason the building, structure or portion thereof
is manifestly unsafe or unsanitary for the purpose for which it is
being used.
7) The building, structure or portion thereof as a result of
decay, deterioration or dilapidation is likely to fully or
partially collapse.
9) Any building, structure or portion thereof that is in such a
condition as to constitute a public nuisance.
LOCATION: 798 W. Montrose Street
3
• •
Mr. Bowman submitted photographs taken February 12 and March 19,
1991 as composite exhibit #2. This structure was damaged January
21, 1991 by a delivery truck. Mr. Stone has been in contact with
a contractor to repair this structure, however as of this date the
repairs have not begun.
The property owner was not present.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Martin Wright to
allow the defendant ten (10) days to repair or remove the awning.
If the property is not in compliance within ten (10') days a fine
of $100.00 per day be imposed. Seconded by Emma Higgins and
approved by a unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS
The Board was informed by Mr. Bowman that a follow up was being
done on the Richard Brunson case, being case no. 90-04. An
inspection of the site as of March 19, 1991 showed no sign of
reconstruction or repair of the structure. The structure is
boarded up and the trash has been removed. He stated he would be
sending a letter to the defendant the next day.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
1 ~-
i L
Edwa W 'ehead, Chairman
ATTEST: ~
Mimi Hauch
Planning Technician
4