02/10/1988 (2)
_._.~~___~_...---_w
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
o
Meeting of February 10, 1988, 1:00 p.m.
Agenda
PUBLIC BEARINGS
Action
(At the time a case is heard and date set for compliance the Boa~d shall at the same
time set the fee to be assessed in case of non-compliance.)
1- Lot Clearing List BB-02-1
2. Abandoned Property List 88-01-1
3. CASK 110. 101-81 Mark Schleben
(Occupational License)
Continued trom 12/9/67
Complied prior
4. CASE RO. 165-81 Robert Keating
(Land Development)
Continued from 1/13/88
Complied prior
5. CASE RO. 111-81 Robert Smiley d/b/a
(K) Office Furniture Warehouse
""j')
(Occupational License)
Continued froll 12/9/81
Complied prior
6. CASE RO. 112-81 Robert Smiley d/b/a
City Auto Sales Inc.
(Occupational License)
Continued from 12/9/81
7. CASB 110. 185-87 Henry F. Cruise/Beach Bar
(Land Development)
Continued from 1/13/88
8. CASB 110. 1-88 Cinco Marketing
(Occupational License)
Complied prior
9. CASE NO. 2-88 Sam Moss d/b/a Moss Printing
(Occupational License)
@,-"Y""
',' ~..f.
'~:.U"
1 .
MCEB
1. None
2. None
3. Withdrawn
4. Withdrawn
5. Withdrawn
6. Comply within 45 days
7. Comply by 3/9/88
8. Withdrawn
9. Dismissed
2/10/B8
"
'l'...~..I\ti!~tl;.l#-..'t<<Jj~"'~"l"f
10. CASK NO. 3-88 D and W HOldings Inc. 10. Withdrawn
C) (Occupational License)
Complied prior
11 . CASK NO. 4-88 Onorio Carlesimo 11. Withdrawn
(Occupational License)
Complied prior
12. CASE NO. 6-88 J. Michael Rivers 12. Withdrawn
(Occupational License)
Complied prior
13. CASE NO. 1-88 Pinellas County School Board 13. Continued to 3/9/88
Cellular One Bayfone of Tampa
(Building Code)
14. CASE NO. 8-88 Joseph Simonelli 111. Continued to 3/9/88
(Building Code)
15. CASE BO. 9-88 Nostimo, Inc. 15. Comply by 5/10/88
(Building Code)
16. CASE HO. 10-88 Merrill Lynch 16. Withdrawn
(Land Development Code)
COlllplied prior
1) 17. CASE BO. 11-88 One Day Signs U.S.A. 17. Withdrawn
(~, ~', . (Land Development Cede)
Complied prior
lB. CASE BO. 12-88 Mitsubishi 18. Continued to 3/9/88
(Land Development Code)
19. CASE BO. 13-88 E. C. Scott 19. Continued to 3/9/88
(Land Development Code)
20. CASE BO. 111-88 Seven Eleven Food Store 20. Withdrawn
(Land Development Code)
Comp1iecl prior
21- CASE BO. 15-88 Thomas Oakley d/b/a 21. Continued to 3/9/B8
Kite Encounter with direction to obtain
(Occupational License) supplemental information
22. CASE BO. 16-88 First Florida Bank Corp. 22. Withdrawn
(False Alarms Code)
ts~~;':'
~-t;. !: ~..
MCEB
2.
2/10/88
"p
, ~, ':,',', '
." .,
..r-.
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
o
February 10, 1988
Members present:
Robert Aude, Chairman
Phillip N. Elliott, Vice-Chairman
James Angelis
Frank Morris
Bruce Cardinal
John Ehrig
William Murray
Also present:
Leo Schrader, Assistant City Attorney
Shirley A. Corum, Secretary for the Board
The meeting was called to order by
Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined
party may appeal a final administrative order
Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Any
thirty (30) days of the execution of the order to be
Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision
have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal.
the
the
Chairman at 1:05 p.m.
procedures and
of the
such
in the Commission
advised any aggrieved
Municipal Code Enforcement
appeal must be filed within
appealed. He noted that
or this Board to
@
PUBLIC WWlIHGS
CASE NOS. 101-87
Mark Schleben (Occupational License)
165-81
Robert Keating (Development Code)
111-81
Robert Smiley (Occupational License)
1-88
Cinco Marketing (Occupational License)
3-88
D and W Holdings Inc. (Occupational License)
6-88
J. Michael Rivers (Occupational License)
10-88
Merrill Lynch (Development Code)
11-88
One Day Signs U.S.A. (Development Code)
111-88
Seven Eleven Food Stores (Development Code)
The
171-87, 1
Secretary to
3, 6, 10, 11
the
and
Board
14-88
requested withdrawal
as the violations have
of Case Nos. 101
been corrected.
165
and
Mr. Elliott moved to withdraw
seconded and carried unanimously.
the
above
listed
cases.
Motion was
duly
@""
. " , ~'
".,'
1 .
2/10/88
"""-v
r,
~-'; : ,",: '
',.'G
l' ,
71" ','
, ,,'
" ,
',: ,. '.'
.,. "
,. , ""
, ..
, .,,' ,
\' .,
.r-
~
'"
~1?11W~t;t..~.,~:,.1'~~~'-'-"'-'________T
".~.,__..._..,__._____.....,..........,.,.,....,-~f''"lt1.I",,~~\..q..................,~...~_..........__~_.._...___________..___...,........... _ ___~ _______,_~
,
. :
:~
1
1
i
i
o
In order to provide continuity t'or research, the items will be listed in agenda
order althougb not necessarily discussed in that order.
CASE NO. 112-81
Robert Smiley/City Auto Sales Inc.
(Occupational License)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated an application was
filled out for a City of Clearwater occupational license on April 27, 1987. The
application was not approved by the Building Dept. because work had been performed
without permits. To the present time, no fee has been paid and no license issued.
\
,.t
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he inspected the property and found
work had been done without permits. At that time, the owner of the business, Robert
Smiley, was informed he would need to get a contractor to obtain a permit for the
remodeling work being done. On December 8, 1987, Mr. Chaplinsky found the building
in disrepair and issued a notice of unsafe building to the owner of the bUilding,
Larry Dimmitt. Mr. Chaplinsky stated there is severe structural damage to the
building, cracks in the walls, etc. Mr. Dimmitt has informed him he intends to
demolish the building.
()
Robert Smiley, doing business under the name of City Auto Sales Inc., stated
he had been in business at another location for the past ten years. In February,
1987, he leased 833 Cleveland Street and put up a partition wall in the garage
area. When he applied for a City of Clearwater occupational license, he was told
a permit was needed for the wall. He then hired a contractor and put up a fire
wall and metal door. In December, 1987, he was told the building was unsafe. He
feels the City inspector should have informed him at the time of the original
inspection that the building was unsafe. Mr. Smiley stated he has had conversations
with Mr. Dimmitt regarding another location for his auto sales. He thought the
building was in good condition when he leased it.
City submitted composite exhibit #1, eight photographs of the property.
Scott Douglas, attorney representing Mr. Dimmitt, stated they have inspected
the building, and agree it is unsafe and feel it would not be economically feasible
to repair it. They are investigating relocation of the auto sales.
Mr. Cardinal moved that concerning Case No. 172-87 regarding violation of'
Sections 71.01 and 71.02, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony
at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 10th day of February, 1988,
and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions or Law, and Order.
The Findings of Fact are: After hearing testimony of Stu \Hlliams,
Occupational License Inspector, Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, Robert Smiley
and Scott Douglas, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit '1,
photographs of the property, it is evident that a business is in operation without
a current occupational license.
A
l'0
?
....
2/10/88
'.' './
, ill' ,
. .,'
. -' ,-'
'. , ' ' ," ,
" '.' .
,~. , " '
.' , " . ,
" . .", ." " "
, , " : ,
, .'1.
r-
r--.
'- ,
i'
"71'
",' ,.F'
,'.' ',J,".", . f:
: ,:"':\,." :'
',' .
," \
"~
'~.~~~'q~~~i.i~~"!~t~'i:-!:'(:.jl(! ,~~...~.owt"'t!8>>:r,~t<.'lf'lIll.t~___,......_________~._...____.__~._........--.-._.__ ......._._>> .._._...____...-.... ....,. ~.............'..~""_..~...,~...._....._.._.._.......~~'!''tI...r.o1:l~''l1ii'.l.:~~l.
:'i
" .
I
I
10
It is the Order of this Board that Robert W. Smiley d/b/a City Auto Sales,
Inc. shall comply with Sections 71.01 & 71.02 of the Code of the City of Clearwater
v1tbin 115 days. If Robert W. Smiley does not comply within the time specified,
the Board may orde~ him to pay a fine of $10.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. If Robert W. Smiley does not comply within the time speciried,
a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the public
~ecords 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, Robert W. Smiley shall notiry
Stu Williams, 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.
MOtion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The ConC!lus1ons of I.a" are: Robert W. Smiley /Ci ty Auto Sales, Inc. is in
violation of Sections 71.01 & 71.02.
Done and Ordered this 10th day of February, 1988.
CASE NO. 165-87
Henry F. Cruise/Beach Bar
(Development Code)
()
Geri Doherty, Development Code Inspector, requested the affidavit or violation
and request for hearing be amended to include a canopy sign which was also put up
without a sign permit. The consensus of the Board was, as there was no
representative of the violator present at the hearing, the affidavit of violation
should not be amended.
Ms. Doherty stated sh ~ had talked with Mr. Cruise on several occasions. !-Ie
sta ted he would get the permits before the January, 1988 Code Enforcement Board
meeting. The property is still in violation as the signs are still in the window
and no permits have been issued. City submitted composite exhibit' U1, five
photographs of the property.
The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the
applicable Code section.
Mr. Angelis moved that concerning Case No. 185-B7 regarding violation of
Section 134.013(a) of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal
description of Lots 72-77, Clearwater Beach Park, Sec. B-29-15, the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board
hearing held the 10th day of February, 1988, and based on the evidence, the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings or Fact, Conclusions
or Law, and Order.
The Findings or Fact are: After hearing testimony of Geri Doherty, Development
Code Inspector, and Viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit #1,
photographs of the property, it is evident that no permits for the signs have been
issued.
:0
<0
3.
2/10/88
r-
<, \
r-
~
~
~f,;Y;;~tf::~~~~~.t.m~~:~~tl~' -'
._~,____..._....~____.__._~..._~..",~..._,______,__._.......___n.~'W_'lI"ll~~___...._~......<!-..;<:io);'~
o
The Conclusions or Law are: Henry F. Cruise is in violation of Section
134.013(a) .
\ ...., !', , . , ~ :~'
It is the Order of this Board that Henry F. Cruise shall comply with Section
134.013(a) of the Code of the City of Clearwater by March 9, 1988. If Henry F.
Cruise does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay
a fine of $10.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist. If Henry
F. Cruise 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, Henry F. Cruise shall not try 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 fine 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 10th day of February, 1988.
Sam Moss d/b/a Moss Printing
(Occupational License)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated that when the 1986/87
license renewal was filed for Moss Printing, it was noted there was a change of
address. The business was previously located at 415 Laurel St., and had moved to
~ 1155 NE Cleveland. When the renewal application went to the Zoning Division in
~/; December of 1986, it was not approved.
CASE NO.
2-88
Ray Wyland, Zoning Enforcement Officer, stated the business located at 1155
NE Cleveland is in a limited office zoning district which does not permit a print
Shop, either as a permitted use or a conditional use. There is no variance
procedure for approving a print shop in an OL zone. Mr. Wyland stated the zoning
district became OL in October of 1985 with the adoption of the Land Development
Code.
Sam Moss stated he has operated a small printing business since October of
1983. He operated at the 416 Laurel location for two years. When he bought another
printing press, he needed a larger establishment and rented 1155 NE Cleveland.
Mr. Moss does printing work for other printers. He stated he paid his occupational
license fee every year and showed three cancelled checks to the Board endorsed with
the Occupational License Division stamp. Mr. Moss submitted defendant exhibit #1,
a copy of the occupational license application showing the change of address. Mr.
Moss stated he was ignorant of the law when he changed the location of his business,
but maintained the OL zoning was not in effect as it was in July of 1985.
Steve Yandak, owner of the property where the print
he was told by Leo Menendez, of the Zoning Division,
grand fathered in. Mr. Yandak stated he feels it is unfair
business as there are no traffic problems at that location.
shop is located, s ta ted
that the property was
to put Mr. Moss out of
(~;,\
\,. - ':")
i::'_}y
4.
2/10/88
,", '
r
~
.!. '
'( . .r~~k~:>~v;~~{,;:':::'-1l____..._.~..___ ~_________""""""'_t'O\"'#.'-l!.i1.'~''''_''''<';-_'!'~l r.....40""'......-_-.._~4~'..__M______....-.___.._.
CASE NO.
8-88
Joseph Simonelli
(BUilding Code)
o
The Building Inspector requested this case be continued to the meeting of March
9, 1988.
Mr. Ehrig moved to continue Case No. 8 -88 to the mee t ing of March 9, 1988.
Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE NO.
9-88
Nostimo, Inc.
(Building Code)
Tom Chaplinsky, Building Inspector, stated he inspected this property at the
request of the Fire Department. There had been an upstairs apartment fire and the
building was in a state of disrepair. There was stucoo missing, termite damage,
and the building was unsafe. City submitted composite exhibit Ul a-d, phocographs
of the property. Mr. Chaplinsky stated the building is located on the corner of
Kendall and Mandalay Avenues. He has spoken with the owner and the owner plans
to demolish the building. Mr. Chaplinsky issued a notice of unsafe building on
November 24, 1987. City submitted exhibit U2a, the notice of unsafe building and
fJ2b, the original notioe of violation dated November 24,1987. Mr. Chaplinsky
stated the Building Department has reoeived several complaints regarding the
property. The building is still in violation and there has been no improvement.
There is a commercial establishment downstairs, but no one is occupying the second
floor. When questioned by the Board, Mr. Chaplinsky stated there is no imminent
danger of collapse.
c--..
':")
C
Mr. Lambos stated he intends to demolish the building but this is not an easy
procedure to accomplish. He had to get an analysis by a chemist verifying that
there is no asbestos in the building and all the utilities in the building must
be relocated. Mr. Lambos stated he has gotten the asbestos analysis and is in the
process of contacting electricians, plumbers, etc. to relocate the existing
utilities. When questioned by the Board, Mr. Lambos stated he would need at least
three months to complete demolition. Mr. Lambos stated there are no tenants in
the building with the exception of the downstairs commercial establishment, and
they are seven months behind in their rent.
Mr. Ehrig moved that concerning Case No. 9-88 regarding violation of Section
138.02 of the Clearwater City Code on property having a legal description of Lots
8, 9, 10 & 11, Block 8, Clearwater Beach Revised, the Municipal Code Enforcement
Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the
10th day of February, 1988, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code
Enforoement Board enters the fOllowing Findings of' Fact, Conclusions or Law, and
Order.
The Findings of' Fact are: After hearing testimony of Tom Chaplinsky and L.
Lambos, and Viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibits composite f!l
a-d and #2, it is evident that the building located at the above referenced address
(legal description) is in violation as an unsafe building.
The Conolusions or Law are: L. Lambos/Nostimo, Inc. is in violation of
Section 138.02.
60
~~~1O
6.
2/10/88
"
r-.
I
- .'f~:~';~:;~""~f-'dt'~t~
"...... ,_ .._..... ....__,..~~....~a._..._h......._...-__..."'l;.~~')'\'1'......rfl<~ltr.....4!l;{.tJ~~(
(''\
\..j
It is the Order of this Board that L. Lambos/Nostimo, Ino. shall comply with
Section 138.02 of t.he Code of the City of Clearwater by seouring the building,
removing the tenants, obtaining a demolition permit., and beginning demolition by
Ma,. 10, 1988. If L. Lambos does not comply within the time speoified, the Board
may order him to pay a fine of $25.00 per day for each day the violation continues
to exist. If L. Lambos does not comply within the time speoified, a oertified 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 t.he land, and a lien against any ot.her
real or personal property owned by the viola tor pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida
Statutes. Upon complying, L. Lambos shall notify Tom Chaplinsky, the City Official
who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of oomplianoe. Should the
violation recur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that t.ime without
a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise conoerning oomplianoe, either party
may request a further hearing be fore t.he Board. Motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Done and Ordered this 10th day of February, 1988.
CASE NO.
12-88
Mitsubishi (Land Development. Code)
CASE NO.
13-88
E.C. Scott (Land Development Code)
The Land Development Code Inspector requested t.hese cases be continued to t.he
meeting of March 9, 1988.
/~
~.~" . J
...,-....:,1
Mr. Ehrig moved to continue Case Nos. 12-B8 and 13-88 to the meeting of March
9, 1988. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE NO.
15-88
Thomas Oakley d/b/a Kite Encounter
(Ocoupational License)
Stu Williams, Occupational License Inspector, stated a 19B6 occupational
license renewal form was filled out for this business and the fee was paid. The
application showed a change of address from 432 Poinsettia Ave. to 28 Papaya St.
The application was sent for approval t.o the Zoning Division and tllen to Traff'ic
Engineering. Traffic Engineering would not approve the applioat.ion and a letter
was sent informing them that a $200+ tra ff1c impact fee was due prior to tile
occupational license being issued. Mr. Williams stated that, at this time, no
occupational license certificate has been issued; however Mr. Oakley has paid the
occupational license fee for 1986/87 and 1987/88.
The Assistant City Attorney requested the Board take judicial notice of the
applicable sections of the Code.
The Board questioned why Section 71.01 was not included on the affidavit of
violation and request. for hearing. The Assistant City Att.orney requested the
affidavit be amended to inolude Section 71.01. As Mr. Oakley had no objection,
the affidavit was amended to inolude both applicable sections of the Code.
""---0
~~ ! t.: ;
" .'
',,\'t-. -
7.
2/10/8B
" }:
f--
r
~
s
. .1..
. ~~f~f!iJ~~......"...!_~.,..~,~______...__. .._~
"'~.1 .,',~ ....~'n '''__.__'''~'''''''''''''h';ld".}!a'~J..'''11''.~ft..i'~;!l:ii~'-j
,~
J
,r--....
\......)
Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer, stated on June 30, 1986, Pinellas County
passed an ordinance requiring a traffic impact foe for every change of use
generating additional traffic. Mr. Crawford statod an occupational license for
the City cannot be issued without the traffic impaot fee being calculated by Traffic
Engineering and collected by the Building Department. Mr. Crawford stated the prior
use of the business located at 28 Papaya St. was a taxicab office. Traffic
Engineering uses a table listed in the County ordinance for calculating traffic
impact fees. This is a one time fee which is not applied again unless a higher
use for the location is applied for. The use rate, which is included in the table
in the ordinance, is applied countywide. In response to a question from the Board,
Mr. Crawford stated there is no appeal process or waiver of the fee provided for
in the ordinance; the only recourse is for the business to have an independent
traffic analysis done to calculate a new fee. City submitted exhibit (/1, a copy
of Pinellas County Ordinance 86-43.
Thomas Oakley, doing business as Kite Encounter, stated he has operated a kite
store on Clearwater Beach since October of 1985. In April of 1986, when the Beach
Taxi location on Papaya St. became available, he leased the property and opened
his business around the end of June. Mr. Oakley stated he was ignorant of the fact
he needed to file a change of address form with the Occupational License Division
immediately. At the time his license became renewable, he informed them of his
new address.
~
\,:...j
Mr. Oakley stated Beach Taxi, which was listed as an office, had between six
and fifteen cabs sitting on Papaya St. at all times of the day. Since the taxi
office has moved, the City has installed two additional parking meters. He stated
that since the majority of his customers are walk-ins from the beach, there is much
less traffic than previously. Mr. Oakley found out he was required to pay the
traffic impact fee when his occupational license was not issued. Since there is
no appeal process in the ordinance, he requested the Board excuse him from paying
the traffic impact fee.
Don Winner, a neighbor of Mr. Oakley's on Clearwater Beach, stated he was
contacted by Mr. Oakley shortly after October 1, 1996. He has since contacted the
Assistant City Manager and was told there was nothing the City could do for Mr.
Oakley. The County has agreed it seems unfair, but at the present time there is
no appeal board to heal' the case. Mr. Winner stated he feels there is valid basis
for appeal as there is much less traffic being generated with the kite store than
there was when the Beach Taxi occupied 28 Papaya St.
The Assistant City Attorney pointed out the Code Enforcement Board cannot waive
traffic impact fees, and the Board does not have the right to change a County
ordinance.
Discussion ensued regarding what the Board could do to alleviate Mr. Oakley's
situation until such time a County appeal board is established to hear the case.
Various solutions were suggested such as issuing an order with an indefinite
compliance date. It was pointed out the purpose of the ordinance is that businesses
share the County cost of meeting transportation needs. It was also emphasized that
Mr. Oakley has paid his occupational license fees and not been issued his
occupational license certificate.
,~
o
8.
2/10/88
t-~....,~~-~~.
.~...
~
,i
---~
_.-t:......_W..flft\.~~.'n'U'It.W"__~_ ~
______I_ _w ,..........." ~ tA__
_r-~~~:
o
Keith Crawford stated the established rate comes from averages and there is
no latitude to adjust the rate at which the traffic impact fee is computed.
The Board felt that since the current use is less intense than the previous
use, some consideration should be given to Mr. Oakley.
The Assistant
meeting so further
the Board has.
City Attorney suggested
investigation could be
the Board
done to
continue
determine
the case
how much
to the next
discretion
Mr. Ehrig moved to continue Case No. 15-88 to the meeting of March 9, 1988
with the understanding the Assistant City Attorney would develop supplemental
information and acquire new testimony for the Board to review, and with the further
condition that if after researching the surrounding community, the existing use
is determined to be less intensive than the previous use, the issue will be resolved
by giving the City a wider latitude of interpretation of the County ordinance.
Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE NO.
16-88
Pirst Florida Bank Corp.
(False Alarms Code)
The Assistant City Attorney requested this case be withdrawn as the the wrong
party was cited.
Mr. Ehrig moved to withdraw Case No. 16-88.
carried unanimously.
Motion was duly seconded and
C19
uft~J1USBED BUSIR&SS
CASE NO.
99-81
Mark Schleben
Affidavit of Compliance
Mr. Cardinal moved to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case No. 99-87.
Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CASE NO.
1111-81
Joseph Lechowski
Affidavit of Compliance
Mr. Angelis moved to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case No. 174-87.
Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Lot Clearing List 87-01-1
CASE NO.
12
Valentinos Koumoulidis
Sarah McMullen's, Blk. 3, W 1/2 Lot9, Sec. 15-29-15
Affidavit at' Compliance
Mr. Cardinal moved
Clearing List 87-01-1.
to accept the affidavit of compliance in Case No.
Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
12,
Lot
(9--..
J..":
It.;;:;>.:
9.
2/10/88