Loading...
08/26/1992 (2) , , t. , CEB . ~~NICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DATE Og/Z~/9:b . ~ 627 - 35/ . " ',:l.~.:" '1.,; t~,~'r'\ ~.'~'/":."""li'....?t:..;-..~~."..,,; ....... "':. .>~ .....\ J'.':~~~:-I'~_'J,.,~:'J'(:.~.'::..:,~,"l ""::::'~"""- :',<;" "I';.' '\..:!,;...:\".I.,~,~:.:,~ :.'~, I,' l."/;.l!~'..::.:::":::'~~""'"'' ....., ':..-i'I"~~.I~,'..:. MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Meeting of August 26, 1992,3:00 p.m. Agenda Action PUBLIC HEARINGS (At the time a case is heard and date set for compliance the Board shall, at the same time, set the fee to be assessed in case of non~compliance.) Case No. 50~92 Case No. 59~92 Case No. 60-92 Case No. 61-92 (".~~Case No. 62-92 Case No. 63-92 Case No. 64-92 Case No. 26-92 Case No. 41-92 \. ~, CBABB.92 Tom M. Sehlhorst 611 Palm Bluff Street (Land Development Code~ Corrected prior; if repeats violation, may be fined $50/day for each day of the repeat violation William L. Robinsun 1410 Taft Avenue (Building Code) Comply withIn 30 days (9/27/92) David Legault/James P. Knight 803 Railroad Avenue (Building Code) Comply within 10 days (9/7/92) James A. and Mary L, Wooding 601 N. Garden Avenue (Building Code) Comply within 45 days (10/12/92) Pine lias Vertical Supply Inc, 22123 North U.S. 19 (Occupational License Code) Complied Prior Withdrawn Tom M. Sehlhorst 611 Palm Bluff Street (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Withdrawn Peter J. Sapourn, Trustee 415 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Code) Comply within 14 days of issuance of order (9/14/92) UNFINISHED BUSINESS Leslie & Margaret Duttry 1866 Drew Street Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit Arthur and Irene Passias 1378 Milton Street Affidavit of Non-Compliance Accepted Affidavit; issued order imposing fine 8/26/92 1 , , .' . . i', . " . . '.. . ... , ; . I If....' I.'. .. .~. 'ot "'.\" . ."""~" . I~.':" I.:, ,~.::.~'.~'~...::-.:.~:.: ,1,""'t'J':'/+l' ..'~. ~::."":'''I'',~~. ......~. ."Io""~,~~,:,:~,,,,,~.,t'.:'.:.' :'_' .... ~. .':~''-I''~~ ..:~. '. :.....:[..:...~:.:..~.. . J:..~';,;..~~.'I~..J: Unfinished Business continued......... f' Case No. 52-92 Werner.Donaldson Moving Services, Inc. 11 25 Eldridge Street Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit Case No. 54-92 New Zion MB Church 1182 Brownell Street Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit Case No. 58-92 Joe and Clara Barroso 1470 Rogers Street Affidavit of Compliance Accepted Affidavit OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Discussion ro City's authority to condemn properties if a concern re public health/safety exists 1,1 > MINUTES - Meetings of July 22 and August 12, 1992 Accepted as submitted ADJOURN, 4:57 p.m. ,,-\t't..- ~'J) G C8A88.92 BJ26/92 2 . . . ..' . I' ' '. t" 1. . .'. . { '.. .... '~. -..~.'. .' . . (-., ('. ': ~~...'t- \-,: MUNICIPAL CODe ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 26, 1992 Members present: Bruce Cardinal, Vice-Chairman William A. ZinzQw Louise C. Riley D. Wayne Wyatt Stephen D. Swanberg Stephen Gerlach Absent: William Murray, Chairman (excused) Also present: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board Mary Kathryn Diana, Secretory for the Board Holly M. Ausanio, Staff Assistant 11\ In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in thnt order. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room in City Hall. He outlined the procedures and advised any 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 record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 50-92 Tom M. Sehlhorst 611' Palm Bluff Street (Land Development Code) Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated she first inspected the property on June 3rd. She found a violation regarding zoning, sent notice by certified mail and the signed receipt was returned, The Inspector stated a sign advertising skate rentals was displayed at the retail business located at the referenced address. The notice of violation gave until June 17th for compliance, and on June 18th the violation still existed. As of this morning, the sign was gone and Mr. Sehlhorst's mother stated they were no longer renting skates. mlncbBb.92 1 8/26/92 " ..... , \'''~' Tom Sehlhorst submitted defendant's exhibits A & B - copies of zoning maps for 1972, 1984 and 1985 and business cards. Mr. Sehlhorst stated he purchased the property in 1976 at which time the zoning allowed the rental of cars and other items, but did not allow the rental of recreational items such as skates and bikes. He submilled exhibit C - a copy of a newspaper article regarding property owners. rights. In response to questions, Mr. Sehlhorst stated he was notified of zoning changes and was told it would not affect his business. He started renting skates when the Pinellas Trail was constructed, which was after the last zoning change, He has had a rental/retail license since 1976. In response to questions, the Inspector stated a complaint was received after Mr. Sehlhorst spoke with Steve Doherty and was told skate rentals are not allowed in Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning, which his property is zoned, The sale of skates is a permitted use in the CN zone; the rental of skates is not a permitted use or allowed as a conditional use in this zoning, Skate rentals would be allowed as a conditional use' in the Goneral Commtnclal (CG) zone. The automobile business is a grandfathered use. Skate rentals fall under the City code definition of outdoor commercial recreation/entertainment. where the customers pay for using facilities or equipment in a locatlon other than an enclosed building. She stated Mr. Sehlhorst is currently in compliance. John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, stated a distinction botween vehicle rental and skate rental is parking. The rental and/or use of recreational equipment from one site could result in a parking problem, Mr. Sehlhorst can request rezoning or changes to the zoning regulations. Mr. Sehlhorst stated he has eight lots on the other side of the trail for parking, but was told he would need eleven variances to use it for this purpose. He provides water, a place to rest, allows use of restroom facilities and posts police information for users of the trail. In response to a question, he stated City staff is not supportive of a rezoning, If the zoning code is changed, there cOllld still be a parking problem. If business is slow at this location and someone wants to rent this property from him, he will move his store to another location, In response to a questions, it was stated there were about 20 cars parked in the area one Saturday. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No, 50-92 regarding violation of Sections 135.004(c)( 1), 135,097 and 135.098 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 611 Palm Bluff Street a/k/a Palm Bluff 1 st Addn" Lots 28 & 30, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of August, 1992, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. mincb8b.92 2 8/26/92 ~- ( "'\ '.')(;1"" .....-"' The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, and Tom M. Sehlhorst and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: Defendant's exhibits A~C, copies of zoning maps, business cards, and a newspaper article, it is evident that skates were being rented at 611 Palm Bluff Street. It is further evident that the condition was corrected prior to this hearing, The Conclusions of law are: Tom M. Sehlhorst was in violation of Sections 135.004{cH1), 135.097 and 135.098. It is the Order of this Board that Tom M. Sehlhorst shall continue compliance with Sections 135.004(c){1), 135.097 and 135.098 of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Tom M. Sehlhorst repeats the violation, the Board may order them to pay a tine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation exists after Tom M. Sehlhorst is notified of the repeat violation. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning compliance, either porty may request a further hearing be foro the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear ami argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 59-92 William L. Robinson 1410 Taft Avemle (Building Codel No one was present to represent the violator. Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, stated this violation was noticed during a door to door survey in the North Greenwood area for standard housing violations. This is an unoccupied duplex that is unsecured and overgrown; there is no electric or water, and the exterior doors have been removed, Notice of the violation was sent by certified mall on May 26th and was returned; a second attempt at mailing was made which also came back unclaimed. The property was originally cited in August, 1988 and no improvements have been made. City submitted composite exhibit A - photographs of the property. In response to questions, the Inspector stated the property was posted, and the signed certified mail receipt for the Notice of Hearing was returned. He stated the entire structure could not be viewed as debris; it is a cement block building and still has a roof, The back of the building is open, the windows are broken. It attracts undesirable persons at night and kids play in it. The placard posted on the building states the building is unsafe, does not meet the housing code, and can not be occupied. He did not know who posted the "no trespassing" sign. minc;b8b.92 3 8/26/92 "..,,-<f ......~ - Discussion ensued regarding the process for condemning the building, and it was stated more serious conditions need to be shown, Mr, Wyatt moved that concerning Case No, 59.92 regarding violation of Section 138.34 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 1410 Taft Avenue a/k/a Lincoln Place Sub., Block 2, Lots 2 & 3, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of August, 1992, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of law, and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vern Packer, Housing Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property, it is evident that the structure at 1410 Taft Avenue is in an unsafe, unsanitary condition and is a serious hazard to the health and safety of occupants and the public. The Conclusions of Law are: William L. Robinson is in violation of Section 13B,34, It is the Order of this Board that William Robinson shall comply with Section 138.34 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 30 days (9/27/92). If William L. Robinson does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If William L. Robinson does not comply within the time specified, a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pine lias County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, William L. Robinson shall notify Vern Packer, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, 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. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case, The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motiQll was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 60-92 David Legault/James P. Knight 803 Railroad Avenue (Building Code) No one was present to represent the violators. m; n~b8b.?2 4 8/26/92 Varn Packer. Housing Inspector. stated a complaint was received regarding the dwelling at 803 Railroad Avenue on Fobruary 4, 1991. The tenant complained about roof leaks. bad plumbing, no hot water and other problems, He verified property ownership through the Property Appraiser's Office and sent a housing report to the owners on February 19. 1991. He spoke with Mr. Legault on March 12. 1991 and other occasions regarding the condition of the property. The tenant phoned several times stating no repairs had been done. Mr. Legault requested the Fire Department use the structure for controlled burn training. and was told a satisfaction of mortgage was required. The Inspector sent a letter to Mr. Legault on September 17, 1991 regarding the violations; Mr. Legault phoned and was informed what was needed for either repair or demolition. Paperwork for demolition was sent to him with a waiver of the fee. A Notice of Violation was sent October 4, 1991 with October 14th as the deadline to pull permits for repairs or demolition completed by November 30th. After several months. verbal contact was made with Mr. Legault who stated he is still.working with the Fire Department to do the controlled burn. On April 24. 1992, the Inspector sent a Notice of Violation to Mr. Leoault citing the condition of the structure on the property as unsafe; on April 28th, another letter was sent. A demolition permit was applied for May 21 st. but not picked up; the house has not been torn down nor is it secured. City submitted composite exhibit A. photographs of the property. In response to questions. the Inspector stated no one occupies the building. He has had verbal contact with one owner who indicated he is having problems coming to an agreement with his partner. Mr, Knight. With time and money, the building could be repaired: however, it is currently unsafe. He has been on this case for over a year trying to get compliance. Mr. Wyatt moved that concerning Case No. 60-92 regarding violation of Section 138.34 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 803 Railroad AVe. a/k/s Ira E. Nicholsons Addn. to Clearwater. Block 1, Lot 14. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of August, 1992. and based on the evidence. the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of law. and Order. mlncbBb.92 5 8/26/92 The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vern Packer, Housing Inspector. and viewing the evidence, exhi bits submitted: City composite exhibit A - photographs of the property / it is evident that the structure at 803 Railroad Avenue is in an unsafe, unsanitary condition and is a serious health hazard to occupants and the general public. The Conclusions of law are: David Legault/James P. Knight are in violation of Section 138.34. It is the Order of this Board that David Legault/James p, Knight shall comply with Section 138.34 of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 10 days (917/92). If David Legault/James P. Knight do not comply within the time specified. the Board may order them to pay a fine of $250.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date. If David Legault/James P. Knight do 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 any renl or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162. Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, David Legault/James P. Knight shall notify Vern Packer, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute arise concerning complianco, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt ot the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 61-92 James A. and Mary L. Wooding 601 N. Garden Avenue (Building Code) Dixie Walker.Ouncan, Housing Inspector, stated she inspected the property April 2, 1992. There was no electrical power, heat or hot water, the roof and structural system deteriorated. The electric has been off since March, 1987. She sent a Notice of Unsafe Building which was returned. She spoke with Mr. Wooding on April 23rd, and received a letter from him on May 22nd. Notice of the violation was sent June 12th, and the signed receipt was returned June 15th. Mr. Wooding phoned on June 25th stating he would be in town July 4th. With no change in the condition of the property, the Affidavit and Request for Hearing was issued. A caretaker was living there, but was served an eviction notice by the City. There have been no '....., improvements to date. City submitted composite exhibit A . photographs of the property, a copy of the letter from Mr. Wooding and a signed certified mail receipt. Mr. Edward Henry, representing Mr. Wooding, stated Mr. Wooding spoke to contractors and received two estimates. In response to questions. Mr, Henry stated he saw the violation and agrees it neods to be corrected. He is to call Mr. Wooding with the outcome of the hearing, and expects his intentions are to remedy the situation. The Inspector stated Mr. Wooding wishes to repair the structure, She is requesting it be completely vacated within five days, with plans for permits submitted within 10 days and 30 days additional for completion of repairs. In response to questions, the Inspector stated it was occupied, but may now be vacant. Upon inspection this morning, she stated it was secured. Discussion ensued regarding a reasonable time frame to acquire permits and complete the work. In response to a question, Mr, Henry stated it would be difficult to get a contractor for this large of a job and apply for permits within 10 days. It was agreed by both parties that 45 days would be acceptable. Mrs. Riley moved that concerning Case No. 61-92 regarding violation of Section 309.1, Standard Housing Code and Section 138.34 of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 601 N, Garden Avenue a/k/a Bidwell Oakwood Sub., Lot 31, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of August. 1992, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Filct, Conclusions of low. nnd Order. mincbBb.92 6 8/26/92 .....,- I. J ....,.1-1'.,:. " ....., The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Dixie Walker-Duncan, Housing Inspector, and Edward Henry, Real Estate Agent representing Mr. Wooding, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City composite exhibit A, photographs of the property and a copy of a letter from Mr, Wooding, it is evident that the building at 601 North Garden Avenue is in a serious state of needing repair. The Conclusions of law are: James A, Wooding and Mary L. Wooding are in violation of Section 309.1, Standard Housing Code and Section 138.34, Clearwater Code. It is the Order of this Board that James A. Wooding and Mary L. Wooding shall comply with Sections 309.', Standard Housing Code and 138.34, Code of the City of Clearwater within 45 days (10/12/921. If James L. Wooding and Mary L. Wooding do not comply within the time specified, the Board may order them to pay a fine of $200.00 per day for each day the violation continues to exist past the compliance due date, If James A. and Mary l. Wooding do not comply within the time specified, a certitied copy of the Order imposing the fine may be recorded in the Public Records of Pinel/as County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by tho violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, James A. and Mary L. Wooding shall notify Dixie Walker-Duncan, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, 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. Any aggrieved partY may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly soconded and carried unanimously. Case No. 62.92 Pinellas Vertical Supply Inc. 22123 North U.S. 19 (Occupational License Code) Complied Prior Mrs. Riley moved to withdraw Case No, 62M92. The motion was duly seconded and garried unanimously. Case No. 63-92 Tom M. Sehlhorst 611 Palm Blurf Street (Land Development Code) Complied Prior Mr. Wyatt moved to withdraw Case No. 63-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mlncbab.92 7 8/26/92 \ "'*.J-" Case No. 64-92 Peter J, SapoLJrn, Trustee 41 5 Mandalay Avenue (Land Development Codel No aile was present to represent the violator. Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, stated a canopy sign was erected without a permit at 415 Mandalay Avenue. Ownership was verified through the Property Appraiser's Office, and notice was sent to the property and business owners July 20th with compliance due July 24th. The signed certified mail receipt was returned, Upon reinspection July 25th, no permit had been J,lulled. On July 28th, the Inspector spoke to the owner's daughter and was assured tha problem would be corrected, As of the morning of the hearing, the violation still exists. City submitted exhibit A, a photograph of the property. The violator is aware of the hearing and the need for a permit, She stated she believes the sign conforms to code; a 48 square foot sign is allowed. Mr. Zinzow moved that concerning Case No. 64.92 regarding violation of Section 134.013(a) of the Clearwater City Code on property located at 415 Mandalay Avenue alkla Barbour Morrow Sub" Block A, Lots 11 & 12, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at the Municipal Code Enforcement Board hearing held the 26th day of August, 1992, and based on the evidence, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The Findings of Fact are: after hearing testimony of Vicki Niemiller, Code Enforcement Inspector, and viewing the evidence, exhibits submitted: City exhibit A . a photograph of the proporty, it is evident that a sign was erected without a permit. The Conclusions of Law are: Peter J. Sapourn is in violation of Section 134,013(a). It is the Order of this Board that Peter J. Sapourn shall comply with Section 134.013Ia) of the Code of the City of Clearwater within 14 days after issuance of notice (9/14/92). If Peter J. Sapourn does not comply within the time specified, the Board may order him to pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day ths violation continuos to exist past the compliance due date. If Peter J. Sapourn does not comply within the time specified. a certified copy of the Order imposing the fine moy be recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and once recorded shall constitute a lien against any real or personal property owned by the violator pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. If the violation concerns real property, the recording of a certified copy of this Order shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest or assigns of the violation and the findings in this Order shall be binding upon any subsequent purchasers, successors in interost or assigns of the real property where the violation exists. Upon complying, Peter J, Sapourn shall notify Vicki Niemiller, the City Official who shall inspect the property and notify U,e Board of compliance. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the outhority to frnpose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. Should a dispute mlncbBb.92 8 8/26/92 (-"*-, { , ',",." ,.- ~.- arise concerning compliance, either party may request a further hearing before the Board. Any aggrieved party may petition the Board to reconsider or rehear any Board order resulting from a Public Hearing. A Petition for Rehearing must be made in writing and filed with the Board Secretary no later than thirty days after the execution of the order and prior to the filing of any appeal. Upon receipt of the Petition, the Board will consider whether or not to reconsider or rehear the case. The Board will not hear oral argument or evidence in determining whether to grant the Petition to Reconsider or Rehear. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 26~92 Leslie & Margarot Duttry 1866 Drew Streot Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 41.92 Arthur and Irene Passias 1378 Milton Street Affidavit of Non.Compliance Case No. 52-92 Werner-Donaldson Moving Services. Inc. 11 25 Eldridge Street Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 54-92 New Zion MB Church 1182 Brownell Street Affidavit of Compliance Case No. 58-92 Joe and Clara Barroso 1470 Rogers Street Affidavit of Compliance Mr. Wyatt moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance in Case Nos. 26-92. 52-92. 54-92 and 58.92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Duttry was present regarding Case No. 26-92 and questioned the amount of the fine. He stated he was told by his tenant that he would take care of the problem. In resnonse to questions. it was stated Mr. Duttry can pay the fine to close on the sale of the property and still request reconsideration by the Board of the accrued fine. He was informed he can write a letter requesting to addre,ss the Board regarding the fine. Mr. Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine in Case No. 41-92. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. mincb8b.92 9 8/26/92 r;-, OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION Discussion ensued regarding the City's authority to condemn properties when a public health/safety concern exists. It was stated there are emergency procedures for serioLls conditions. MINUTES - Meetings of July 22 and August 12, 1992 Mrs. Riley moved to accept the minutes of the meetings of July 22 and August 12, 1992. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m. a::t~ J7J~ CHAIR~fAJ~ ATTEST: 0' .. nN-~r. 1d-.J1-<>-- '1"..,,.; SRC~'TARY mlncbBb.92 10 ' 8/26/92 , .' \ . .~~/