11/12/1986
.P-.
F
,:;~~~~~:l'tI~~, ,\ '_., ' , '_".
. '~::v<<1.":'....\4:.r\::"~'!$1~i...,t~J;!'i.~~~f':lL~~)nb'~..~~fl',.:-~~t{if:"'=':.'Vl>.,""""t~.,,,";lAJrl4"<<,,*_~...-.___
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Meeting of November 12, 1986, 1:00 p.m.
o
Agenda
Action
1.
PlIb11c Hearings
1.
(At the time a case
for compliance the Board shall at
time set the fee to be assessed
non-compliance. )
is heard and date set
the same
in case of
...._--~,........., ':"l.:.:..t;;~
a. Case No. 84-86
Vincent Kostreba
(Land Development Code)
a. 1) Apply for permit by 12/10/86;
2) Complete work by 2/14/87.
b. Case No. 88-86
Johnie Blunt
(Building Code)
b. Continued to 12/10/86.
c. Case No. 89-86
Wilson Gorsage
(Land Development)
c. Continued to 12/10/86.
d. Case No. 91-86
Rutenberg
(Land Development)
d. Withdrawn.
e. Case No. 92-86
Johnie E. Card
(Fire Code)
e. Comply by 12/10/86.
2. Ont'1nisbed B11s1nesa
2.
o
a. Case No. 58-83 Charles Robinson
ANidayit of Compliance
a. Accepted Affidavit.
b. Case No. 173-85 Charles Robinson
At'tidaYit or Compliance
b. Accepted Affidavit.
c. Case No. 47-86 St. Andrews Cove II
Atf'ida.'Yit of Bon-ca.pliance
c. Accepted Affidavit; issued order
imposing fine.
d. Case No. 52-86 Patricia Snelson
At'tidavU; or C<Bpliance
d. Accepted Affidavit.
e. Case No. 77-86
David Chilcote
Request fer extension
e. Request denied.
f. Case No. 80-86
Network Video Inc.
Request fer Rehearing
f. Reheard case; ordered compliance
by 2/01/87.
g, Case No. 81-86 ~instein Boykins
At'tidaYlts ot Hon-CCllllpl1ance
g. Accepted Affidavits; issued
order imposing fines.
3. Otber Board AatiCXl
3.
a. Lien Status Report
a. Reviewed.
". Rev Bus1neas
4. Discussion re: investigating
zoning when issuing sign
permits.
~
'.::.iI
5. Minutes of October 8, 1986 meeting
5. Approved as submitted.
6. Adjo1ll"DDlent
6. 5:38 p.m.
'F'-'
..
.,' ,
~
.' ,
': :'1~*i~r~tf;t1~~J.o>~~~~V""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''i'~'''''Il<=.<\''''''''''''':.''''''~'''~~-_____..:._._:...._,__, --. .,_:__.~.-:..._-------:.._~.,'--_.-\
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
\0
t
t
I
November 12, 1986
Members present:
Robert Aude, Chairman
Robert Hostetler, Vice-Chairman
James Angelis
Tim Amburgy
Phillip Elliott
Bruce Cardinal
Absent:
Frank Morris (excused)
Also present:
A1an Zimmet, Assistant City Attorney
Cyndie Goudeau, Secretary for the Board
CD
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:02 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised
anr aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative order of the Municipal
Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any such appeal
must be filed within thirty (30) days of the execution of the order to be
appealed. He noted that Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing
a decision of this Board to have a verbatim record of the proceedings to support
such an appeal.
PUBLXC BEARDGS
CASE HO. 8J&-86
Vincent Kostreba (Land Development Code)
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director, stated this case is the
result of a complaint received by the Traffic Engineering Dept. The initial
inspection took place in January, 1986. At that ttme, it was evident the
parking lot had been paved and no permit had been issued. Previously, the
parking lot was a shell surface lot. On January 20, 1986, a letter was sent
to Mr. Kostreba infonning him of the violation. As of 10:30 a.m. the day of
the hearing the same condition exists.
City submitted Composite Exhibit b1a-c, three photographs of the property
taken October 2, 1986; Exhibit b2, a sample of the pavementj Exhibits U3 & n~,
plans for the parking lot dated 1983 and 1985 respectively; Exhibit b5,
additional samples of the pavement; and Exhibit b6, the Building Dept. record
of permits issued for 1474 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.
,~
~
Mr. Crawford stated two plans had been submitted to the Building Dept. but
no permits were issued and the parking lot, as it exists today, is not in
conformity with either plan. In addition to the parking lot being paved, the
adjaoent right-of-way is also paved, which is not permitted by Code. The
aspha1t paving does not allow for proper drainage; and there are no definitions
of stalls, no striping, no oirculation aisle, no landscaping, no retention ponds
and no wheel stops,
1.
.r-
~.
-'
r-
-1
"'~.m5i:':~'~~:7~;~~y..~IIIlk~~~~_~_~___...._:o.to...,....._.._w~...~.~,,~t~"r!..':':-~~,~J."2.1:~?";:."~~..~::;~A":I~ll_)..""-"~...:;Wl".W"':oo..~,",,,,,,_'*~It':'''n.,J<jw.:I"~~~oD'I'~.~____"'-______'~~_',
;\
:,1
,J
':~
.j
, 't
10
1
William Baker, Public Works Director, stated the paving as it exists is
approximately 1/4 inch thick and impermeable material which precludes drainage.
Phil Bennis, Chief of Permits for the Building Inspection Dept., stated
he reviews plans for parking lots. On August 8, 1983, a permit was issued and
on January 20, 1984, an extension of time was granted. However, no work was
done and the permit expired on September 6, 1984.
Vince Kostreba, the alleged violator, stated he has owned the property
since August, 1985. The tenant of the restaurant wanted to seal the lot to
keep the dust down. He submitted Exhibit #1, his agreement with the tenant
regarding the propertyj Exhibit #2, a letter from Attorney David Schackner and
Exhibit #3, a bill from the paving company for sealing of the parking lot.
Mr. Kostreba stated he was not trying to circumvent the Code. He was attempting
to improve the condition of the parking lot and he trusted his tenant to take
care of the situation.
Discussion ensued regarding the fact that the bill from the paving company
states the work contracted for was asphalt, not sealing material.
The Assistant City Attorney stated according to Code Section 136.022(c)(1),
the parking lot is subject to all Code standards. The asphalt paving is
impermeable material, no permit was issued, and no plans were submitted for
the parking lot as it exists today.
Q
Mr. Hostetler moved that concerning Case No. 84-86 re: violation of
sections 136.022 (b)(4), (c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(B),
(d)(11), (e)(1), (f)(2), (h); 136.023 (e)(1), (e)(3); and 112.02 (a) & (b)(1)
of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Lots 15,
16 and portions of 17, Block G, Boulevard Heights, the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
hearing held the 12th day of November, 1986, and based on the evidence, the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following FindiDga or Faot,
Conolusions or Law, and Order.
The Findings of Faot are: After hearing testimony of the Traffic
Engineer, the Public Works Director, the Chief of Inspections and Vincent
Kostreba and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City Exhibits #1-6 and
Defendant Exhibits #1-3, it is evident that the parking lot has been paved with
asphalt material without a permit.
The Conolusions or Law are: Vincent Kostreba is in violation of Sections
136.022 (b)(4), (c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(B), (d)(11), (e)(1),
(f)(2), (h)j 136.023 (c)(1), (c)(3)j and 112.02 (a) & (b)(1).
~
'V
r
"
r-.
I
, ~~~~~r:::;~~.!~f:~~:;~5'1:::;~';~ l:fl'c""w-A':~"'";"-__,,...~~__._~~_____
__...'6.'t.,.:t:lf.;.'~:....'~...... J'"~":'~~ ~~/,~~~:~I:";~~~f.:t'~~'~'1tf"'!:'I'>:~.):l"'r: P'\:'," 1..!~~r-:..f't'J.J~~,:I~If.<u"''''''_M......,..~f...;t~''':''!:~~f'::'J";:' ~:~:'.:.:...~".t!S'$tt.:.~::,~.tte.t>....x.,r...."..t~~"'V..-,..~.,-.,__ .
il
';1
J
'~11
,
.~l
" 'l'~
..
, '~
:~
tl
~~
, ,~
~
, :j
'~
' '
"
',.
Amended*
o
It is the Order of this Board that Vincent Kostreba shall comply with
Sections 136.022 (b){4), (c){n, (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(8),
(d)(11), (e)(1), (f)(2), (h); 136.023 (c)(1), (c)(3); and 112.02 (a) & (b)(1)
of the Code of the City of Clearwater by 1) applying for a permit or removing
the asphalt material by 12/10/86 and 2) completing the work by 2/14/87.
If Vincent Kostreba does not comply within the tUne specified, the Board may
order hUn to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues
to exist. If Vincent Kostreba does not comply within the time specified, a
certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the pUblic
records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien
against the land on which the violation exists if the violator owns the land,
and a lien against any other real or personal property owned by the violator
pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon complying, Vincent Kostreba
shall notify Keith Crawford, the City Official who shall inspect the property
and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation recur, the Board has
the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing.
Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further
hearing before the Board. Mot~OD was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Dooe and Ordered this 12th day of November, 1986.
CASK 110. 88-86
Johnie Blunt (Building Code)
Tom Chaplilwky, Building Inspector, requested the case be continued as
the alleged violator is attempting to correct the violations.
o
Mr. Elliott moved to continue Case No. 88-86 to the meeting of December
10, 1986. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASK 10. 89-86
Wilson Gorsage (Land Development Code)
The Secretary to the Board stated no proof of service had been obtained
in this case.
Mr. Hostetler moved to continue Case No. 89-86 to the meeting of December
10, 1986. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASK 110. 91-86
Rutenberg Management (Land Development Code)
*
The Assistant City Attorney requested the case be withdrawn.
Mr. Cardinal moved to withdraw Case No. 91-86. Motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
CASK 110. 92-86
Johnie E. Card (Fire Code)
John Chester, Fire Inspector, stated he first inspected this property on
October 7, 1986. As of 12:30 p.m. the day of the hea~ing, the hood and
extinguishing system had not been inspected or brought up to date. The exit
sign on the back door has been installed and one is ready for installation on
the front door. The opening in the electrical distribution panel still exists.
o
r-
l " "
"
r~
:':~~[~,t?lj~~-~?.r~~\~.,>.f,:^,"""""___"
. __tt.4~?1i~,"i,~t,"">;"I"7.'",~~~,,,';>'/!.111'1o>~"'_"',_.___________ ..,_ ..__._.._._-....___"'-""____~__
,~.:
:t
,
, "
o
Johnie Card, owner of Jonathan's Restaurant, stated, as of October 24,
1986, he has a proposal from a fire equipment company ror a new system to be
installed. The shut-off valve will be taken care of by the gas company. The
fire extinguisher will be mounted on the wall and the opening in the electrical
distribution panel will be corrected.
r
Mr. Amburgy moved concerning Case No. 92-86 re: violation of Sections
96-2-2; 17 2-11.3.1; 96 7-2.1.2.1; 1019-2.10; and 70 110-17.A.2,3 &4, NPPA
of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Maryland
Block B-4, Lot 9, N ! of Lot 8, the E 10' of the N ~ or Lot 7 and the S 50.25'
of the vacated North Pine St., the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard
testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 12th day
of November, 1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement
Board enters the following F1ndlDg8 or Paot, Conclusions or Law, and ~der.
The Findings or Faot are: After hearing testimony of John Chester, Pire
Inspector, and Johnie Card, it is evident that Johnie Card does not have the
proper hood system and exit signs, and the fire extinguisher is out of date
and not properly installed.
The CoDoluslons or Law are: Johnie Card is in violation of Sections
96-2-2; 17 2-11.3.1; 96 7-2.1.2.1; 101 9-2.10; and 70 110-17.A.2,3 & 4, NPPA.
o
It is the ~der of this Board that Johnie Card shall comply with Sections
96-2-2; 17 2-11.3.1; 96 7-2.1.2.1; 101 9-2.10; and 70 110-17.A.2,3 & 4, NPPA
of the Code of the City of Clearwater by December 10, 1986. If Johnie Card
does not comply within the time speciried, the Board may order him to pay a
fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If
Johnie Card does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the
Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the public records of Pinellas
County, Plorida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against the land
on which the violation exists if the violator owns the 1and, and a lien against
any other real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter
162, Plorida Statutes. Upon complying, Johnie Card shall notify John Chester,
the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. Should the violation recur, the Board has the authority to impose
the rine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise
concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the
Board. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Done and Ordered this 12th day of November, 1986.
1JBFIlfISBED BUSIIIBSS
CASE NO. 58-83
Charles Robinson (Building Code)
If'r1davit. or eo.pl:lance
Mr. Hostetler moved to accept the ~fridavit of Compliance in Case No.
58-83. The Mot.ion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
~
~
I
{,
F
" .
r--
I '
'~,.
,I
J '~
"',1
i.
.'
:l1?"?(,~~~~,<:-u:>""'~", .
........~..,..;...l<..,(,Ki~J. ....:~.;:.V.E...,~.~~~___
_ _. ___~==""~~~J""'~"~'___'___'__-'---_'__I
'~~
CASK HO. 113-85
Charles Robinson (Building Code)
Aft'ldart t ot' COIIpl1ance
o
Tom Chaplinsky, BUilding Inspector, stated the house on this property has
been demolished. The buyer of the property from the Sheriff's tax sale has
stated he will be donating the land to Co~unity Housing Services. Mr.
Chaplinsky informed the Board they will be receiving a request from Clearwater
~eighborhood Housing Services to forgive the lien on the property.
Mr. Amburgy moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No,
173-85. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE HO. 41-86
St. Andrews Cove II (Life Safety Code)
Affidavit ot' Hon-Caapliance
Harry Mattheus, Life Hazard Safety Inspector, stated St. Andrews Cove II
is not at fault for being in non-compliance. The contractor doing the
installation of the fire alarm system was not doing what he was hired to do
and the Condominium Association has dismissed him.
Mr. Amburgy moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the
Order imposing the fine in Case No. 47-B6. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
CASK HO. 52-86
Patricia Snelson (Building Code)
Affidavit of Compliance
o
Tom Chaplinsky, BUilding Inspector, stated this property is now in
compliance. The demolition contractor did not complete the demolition work
and Ms. Snelson had to get another contractor to complete the work.
Mr. Hostetler moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance in Case No.
52-86. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE HO. 11-86
David Chilcote (Land Development Code)
Reql1est rOC" Extension
The Secretary to the Board read a letter from Mr. Chilcote stating he was
unable to remain for the balance of the meeting, but is requesting an extension
of time due to a proposed ordinance which will Change the requirement for the
fence installation.
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated even with the proposed change
to the Code, part of the fence will still need to be turned around. The posts
will be able to remain on the outside, but the stringers must be turned to the
inside.
Mr. Hostetler moved to deny the request for the extension of time in Case
No. 17-86. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was
the consensus of the Board to issue a letter to Mr. Chilcote informing him of
their decision.
CZ>
F
-'
r-
.\,
,',; ,
l" "
"~.~'&~!re:;~.~~~:\:~~~~;.~{'J"i~~~~f~\~'~~""1N___~. .
. . _.______..._--..-.....--..~..,..,.(<:'".'IX':""~.."':,.fti<):~\;~j....'.":J.,'.;.t;'~..~,'!~~.t"'">"~n~......'".._.._~1..,.1"7..........____ _.... _. ...w,_______...vt'lM11~\>ft'ln.__.__.._..__
1
Amended*
CASE RO. 80-86
Network Video, Inc. (Land Development Code)
Request t'or Rehearing
o
I
t
I
,
As Mr. Cardinal was not a member of the Board at the t~e of the original
hearing of this case, he will not participate in the rehearing.
James Denhardt, Attorney for Network Video, Ino., ~quested the case be
reheard on December 10, 1986. Alan Zimmet, Assistant City Attorney, stated
the Board should rehear Case No. 80-86 at this meetin~.
Mr. Amburgy moved to rehear Case No. 80-86 at this meeting. The IIOtion
was duly seconded and carried 5-0; Mr. Cardinal abstaining.
The meeting recessed from 3:00 to 3:25 p.m. due to a power failure.
*
The Assistant City Attorney stated this case was originally heard on
September 10, 1986. He stated Network Video is not in disagreement regarding
the OL (Limited Office) zoning. The disagreement arises regarding whether the
use was grand fathered in when the Land Development Code was adopted in October,
1985. Network Video filed suit against the City and the Judge stayed the law-
suit pending rehearing by the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Zimmet stated notice
was proper and it is not necessary to rehear the City's presentation of the
case. The consensus of the Board was to hear Network Video's case only.
o
Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, stated the basis of the violation
is that the retail use is not a permitted or a conditional use in an OL zone.
The zoning was CG (General Commercial) until May, 1984, then Professional
Services and in October, 1985, when the Land Development Code was adopted, was
changed to Limited Office.
City submitted additional Exhibits R8, a copy of the application for
the sign permit; #9, a copy of the City's Land Use Plan; #10, a copy of a letter
to Mr. Galbraith, City Attorney, from Mr. Denhardt and 011, a copy of a letter
to Mr. Denhardt from the City Attorney. Exhibit R9 was not admitted into
evidence.
Defendant's submitted Exhibits #1, a picture of the front of the building;
R2, a copy of the sign permit issued by Geri Doherty and U3a-f, photographs
of the subject and surrounding properties. Composite Exhibit 03 was not
admitted into evidence.
Mr. Denhardt questioned whether the City was aware of the type of business
of Network Video at the time the sign permit was issued.
Discussion ensued regarding whether standard procedure is to have staff
investigate the use when a sign permit is issued.
~
\.:J
Mark PUllman, Comptroller for Wilson's Liquors, stated Wilson's Liquor
store has been there for ten years. The building is one unit and the interior
walls are freestanding. The building has been used continuously by Wilson's
for retail sales, has not been altered or structurally Changed in the past two
years. The portion leased to Network Video had only exterior treatment and
no major renovations. Prior to Network Video leasing half of the building,
it was leased by a chiropractic office.
~
"
'G
' .
. '. . .
" ,
I ."
, ,
'" . . " '.
, ' ,
" '
, '
r-
l' .,.,
. , ..,'
~..
,. ,
r-
~
. ~'. ~
~ '.i .
I r
, ..
::~~ilir~~~~in:~\I~':;:"'~;'1::;~~!,t,r.""".j''''_''-''':'-'A'''''''''''''''''''''''''''~;\i''~>>~'i''\,~,~.....',!'5c:'7.,~,m"~:'''''''~I''j';7~'''''','T#....-,_._"~~............_~._____~_......; .."'..""""","""'____'-, ,
:. .
. ~ ~,
, "
<,
'.'\
"'"
.-....'
"
.,
Amended*
",I
',"" "
y
, '.
o
Mr. Denhardt stated Network Video maintains the grand fathered use applies
to the entire building and not just the portion of the building occupied by
Wilson's Liquors,
>\:
Edward Herder, Vice President of Network Video, stated Network Video, Inc.
has 23 directly owned and 20 not directly owned stores in Pine lIas County.
The location at 1463 Sunset Point Rd. was opened around the 1st of JUly, 1986.
They were not aware of any problem until they went to get their occupational
license. They were told at that time the use was non-conforming. He stated
the receptionist at the Sa~sota office who signed for the certified letter
notifying Network Video of the previous hearing and for the order issued at
the meeting of September 10, 1986 did not notify Network Video officials of
the hearing in September.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue in this case is the
grandfathering in of the retail use. He stated this would constitute an
expansion of a non-con fanning use.
Mr. Denhardt stated the grandfathering concept speaks to the land and the
entire structure, not just a portion of it. This structure was intended for
retail use and is a continuation of the present non-conforming use by Wilson's
Liquor store.
Discussion ensu~d regarding whether the intent of the City Code is to
inhibit growth and expansion of non-conforming uses.
o
Mr. Elliott left the meeting at 4:59 p.m.
Mr. Amburgy moved concerning Case No. 80-86 re: violation of Section
135.004(b), Land Development Code of the Clearwater City Code on property havLng
a legal description of M&B 32.03 in Sec. 2-29-15; a/k/a 1463 Sunset Point Rd.,
Clea~ater, Florida, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony
at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 12th day of November,
1986, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters
the following FlndiDgs or Fact, Conolusl00a or Law, and Order.
The Findings or Fact are: After hearing testimony of Geri DOherty, Mark
Pohlman and Edward Herder and Viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City
* Exhibits H1-8, 10&11 and Defendant Exhibits #1&2, it is evident that Network
Video is a retail sales operation located in an OL (Limited Office) zone and
does not qualify for grandfathering of use, particularly as the previous use
from 1981 - 1985 was a chiropractic office, a use pennitted in an OL zone,
The Cooolusloas or Law are: Network Video, Inc. is in violation or
Section 135.004(b), Land Development Code.
Q
.'
r
'""1
' ,
, ,
. ':',
, ' .' ~
'r-'
~
" ,
,,' ,. . ,
. ~ttLt~~t~~~~~";~~!-~~~~~~~W1':Il~~.\t~I~~~~:~r:~:~~t,'~~r~~_~,:'::..;~1ft'.~::;'~{'f;r:t,'f'~~~'''''"L,l,4.~___-.__......__..
j
,,\ 0
It is the Order of this Board that Network Video, Inc. shall comply with
Section 135.004(b) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by Feb~uary 1, 1987.
If Network Video, Inc. does not comply within the time specified, the Boa~d
may order them to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. If Network Video, Inc. does not comply within the time
specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in
the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall
constitute a lien against the land on which the violation exists ir the violator
owns the land, and a lien against any other real or personal property owned
by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Upon complying,
Network Video, Inc. shall notify Geri Doherty, the City Official who shall
inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation
recur, the Board has the authority to impose the ~ine at that time without a
subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise conce~ning compliance, either party
may request a further hearing before the Board. The motion was duly seconded
and carried 4-0; Mr. Cardinal abstaining.
DaDe and Ordered this 12th day of November, 1986.
CASE RO. 81-86
Einstein Boykins (Building Code)
Ut'idavits or Ron-Complianoe
Mr. Amburgy moved to accept both Affidavits or Non-Compliance and issue
the Orders imposing the fines. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
o
OTHER BOARD ACTIOII
The Lien Status Report was reviewed.
IIKV BUSIIIBSS
Mr. Amburgy requested staff check the existing zoning when issuing sign
permits. It was the consensus of the Board to send a letter to the department
responsible for issuing sign permits.
MIHUrBS
The Chairman presented the minutes of the meeting o~ October 8, 1986 for
consideration. Mr. Hostetler moved to approve the minutes as submitted. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m.
Attest:
~
"(J
~'tl~?' ~.....
City Clerk""'" ---.,
8.
11 /12/86