11-04/1992
~'~:-.l;.:".ol..I...~~."::. :':'/'''~;:~:.-/~i;~':",.:,,:. ~;'.::::;o+";~~,::': ~;""':"."';"~~'~'~:':~:"""~""~.'!O'~':,.,:",,;:,:t::..~t,'.:....}. ..~ ...:.-:....~....; .~.~~.......:.'.'I.J (...".,.." .' -"'. .
CEB
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ,
DATE
/ /jc;lh/LJ
. .
c2-7
-
I'
I
....~.-
~,
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Work Session
November 4, 1992
Memb~rs present:
William Murray, Chairman
William A. Zinzow
D. Wayne Wyatt
e, J. Robinson
Thomasine Fontana.Smith
Absent:
Stephen D. Swanberg
Louise C. Riley
Also present:
Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Board
Cynthia E. Goudeau, Secretary for the Board/City Clerk
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
Holly M. Ausanio, Staff Assistant III
The meeting was called to order by the Secretary at 3:00 p.m, in the Large Conference
Room in City Hall.
Andy Salzman, Attorney for the Municipal Code Enforcement Board, stated the purpose
of the work session is to review the Board's powers, authority and purpose, and to firmly
establish guidelines for procedures regarding what the Board needs and wants presented to them
in order to make a fair and accurate assessment of the situation,
Mr, Salzman reviewed powers of the Board. He informed them that they have the
authority to continue or dismiss a case if it feels the evidence is insufficient. He stated there are
cases where, although it is clear a violation exists, the Board can determine a remedy is not
necessary, (ie, if the violation occurred unintentionally, or the cost to correct it would cause an
unnecessary hardship.) In addition, they are to determine its order on a case by case basis
whether or not the cases are similar since extenuating circumstances can exist,
A concern was expressed regarding how the cases are presented by the City. and it was
felt the City1s attorney should be presenting the cases, not the inspector. The inspector was
there to answer questions of the Board and submit exhibits, It was also felt if the violator is
present and admits to the violation, additional testimony is not necessary. It was requested more
detailed information be given on the affidavit of violation tie, property setback, how much
encroaching). .
mincbwal.192
1114/92
1
.
.", ~.
I
......-.< J
Mr. Salzman reviewed the Sunshine Law stating all meetings of two or more members are
public meetings and notice of said meetings must be given, He also expressed concern that
Board members should not have discussions with any city staff except the Board's supporting
staff. He felt it would be appropriate for a member to visit the site of a violation. In response
to a question, it was stated no specifics of the violations are given prior to the hearing.
In cases of public health and safety concerns, almost immediate compliance can be
required. In other cases, a minimum of ten days must be given, In response to a question, Mr.
Salzman stated it is preferred notification of the violation be given to the property owner, since
the city would have more leverage due to a pending lien being placed on the property.
Mr, Salzman stated what is needed by the Board to pursue a case are 1) an affidavit noting
the specific violation, 2) proper service of the notice of violation and notice of hearing, which
would consist of certified mail and posting, and 3) that the case is presented showing without
question that the violation exists. If these three items are not prest3nted, the case should be
continued or dismissed. The Board should not have to ask questions to gat information that
should have been presented,
Regarding recurring violations, it was stated the initial violation must be proven showing
notification sent and a photograph.
In summary: 1) more specific information in the "facts behind the violation" was
requested; 2) a more formal presentation by the City Attorney was preferred with the inspectors
as witnesses for the City; and 3) exhibits to include diagrams and maps, when appropriate, in
addition to photographs, as a form of visual evidence.
It was reiterated that the Board has the authority to continue or dismiss a case if it feels
tho information presented was not specific enough, or not enough information was provided, It
was stated the purpose is to get compliance.
ADJOURN - The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p,m.
mincbwsl.192
2
, , J4J92