08/24/2011
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 24, 2011
Present: Michael Boutzoukas Chair
Duane Schultz Vice-Chair
Sheila Cole Board Member
Donald van Weezel Board Member
James E. Strickland Board Member
Sue A. Johnson Board Member
Absent: Phillip J. Locke Board Member
Also Present: Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board
Camilo Soto Assistant City Attorney
Nicole Sprague Secretary to the Board
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
The Chair outlined the procedures and stated any aggrieved party may appeal a final
administrative order of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas
County within thirty days of the execution of the order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any
party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 Case 46-11 – Continued from June 22/July 27, 2011
Episcopal Church of the Ascension
615 Bay Avenue
Dev. Code Violation/Accessory Struct. Location/Inst. District Intent & Purpose – Schaar
Case 46-11 was withdrawn.
2.2 Case 54-11
Kenneth Ingrassia
1005 Amble Lane
Delinquent Business Tax/Residential Business Tax Receipt – Shawen
Property owner Kenneth Ingrassia admitted to the violation.
Member van Weezel moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 1
Inspector Wadine Shawen recommended compliance in 15 days or a fine of $100 per
day be imposed. Tax receipts have been delinquent for three years.
Mr. Ingrassia said he cannot afford to pay $181.14 now, but could pay it in installments
in the future. He said he had suffered a serious injury, is unemployed, and has had no income
from the property since police evicted his tenants.
Member Schultz moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before October 8, 2012. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $100 per day for each day the violation continues to
exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Assistant City Attorney Camilo Soto submitted composite exhibits.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 24,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the property has
been leased and payment for the business tax/residential business tax is delinquent. The
Respondent(s) was/were present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
29.40(1)
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s)
and 3-2302
, as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by October 8, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within
the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $100.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall
notify Inspector Wadine Shawen, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 real property owned by the Respondent(s),
pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 2
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 24th day of August 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
2.3 Case 55-11
Kenneth Ingrassia
1005-1007 Amble Lane
Lot Clearing/Exterior Storage/Exterior Surfaces/Roof Maintenance – Phillips
Property owner Kenneth Ingrassia did not admit to the violation.
Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was
issued on July 12, 2011, following the first inspection. Violations at 1005-1007 Amble Lane
relate to overgrown grass, yard debris, outdoor storage, mold and mildew on soffits, siding, and
doors, and peeling paint, mold, and mildew on the roof. Property photographs on July 12, 2011
showed yard debris, trash, and a stack of molds in the back yard. Property photographs on July
12, and August 23, 2011 showed discolored siding, mold and mildew on outside walls, doors,
soffits, and the roof, and peeling paint on outside floor surfaces and the roof. August 23, 2011
photographs show violations still exist but do not show the back yard as newly installed wood
fencing blocks the view.
Mr. Ingrassia said he had cut the grass and cleaned the backyard. He said the 40-year
old roof cannot support his weight and he cannot afford professional repairs. He said he had
not pressure washed the siding because of constant rain.
Inspector Phillips said the grass was cut and the abandoned vehicle removed. Mr.
Iglessia did not contact her regarding the backyard cleanup. It was stated the lot clearing issue
had been resolved.
Member Schultz moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case, with the exception of
lot clearing which had been cured. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Attorney Soto objected, stating the City recommends declarations of violation when
violations are corrected prior to hearings so that subject properties can be cited for repeat
violations should they occur.
Inspector Phillips recommended compliance in 60 days or a fine of $100 per day per
violation be imposed.
Mr. Ingrassia said the roof would crack and leak if anyone walks on it and he would hold
the City responsible for resulting damages. He said the two mirrors in the backyard are
necessary for his safety. He did not request additional time.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 3
Member van Weezel moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violations on or before October 23, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $100 per day per violation for each day violations
continue to exist. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 24,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident there is peeling paint on
the floor at the entrance, peeling paint and visible mold and mildew on the structure’s roof,
mildew evident on the door to the garage, fascia, and walls, and storage of wood, molds, and
other materials in the back yard. The Respondent(s) was/were present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s)
3-1503.B.7, 3-1502.G.1, 3-1502.G.2, 3-1502.B, 3-1502.D.4, 3-1502.D.3, and 3-1502.D.1
, as
referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by October 23, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within
the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $100.00 per day per violation for each day the
violation(s) continue(s) to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the
Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Julie Phillips, who shall inspect the property and notify the
Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 real property owned by
the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 4
DONE AND ORDERED
this 24th day of August 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
2.4 Case 56-11
Kevin Duvall
1487 Cleveland Street
Exterior Surfaces – Phillips
No one was present to represent the owner.
Inspector Julie Phillips provided a PowerPoint presentation. A notice of violation was
issued on May 31, 2011, following the first inspection. Violations at 1487 Cleveland Street
relate to peeling paint, rotted wood, and mildew. Property photographs on June 28 and July 14,
2011 showed while the front wall of the house had been painted, the remainder of the house
had declining paint, mold, and mildew on soffits, a boarded window, and rotted wood, mold,
mildew and a hole in the carport ceiling. The Respondent did not contact the City regarding the
violation.
Member Schultz moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Inspector Phillips recommended compliance in 30 days or a fine of $100 per day be
imposed. She first contacted the owner regarding violations in April 2011.
Member Cole moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the violation
on or before September 23, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time specified,
the Board may order a fine of $100 per day for each day violations continue to exist. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 24,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the house’s walls and
fascia have declining paint, mold, and mildew and the carport roof has mildew and rotten wood.
The Respondent(s) was/were not present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3-
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s)
1503.B.7
, as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 5
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by September 23, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply
within the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $100.00 per day per violation for each
day violation(s) continue(s) to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the
Respondent(s) shall notify Inspector Julie Phillips, who shall inspect the property and notify the
Board of compliance. If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 real property owned by
the Respondent(s), pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 24th day of August 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
2.5 Case 57-11
East Shore International Enterprises, LLC
405 East Shore Drive
Repairs of Existing Docks and Seawalls – O’Neil
Huijun Yang, managing director of East Shore International Enterprises, LLC, admitted
to the violation.
Inspector Corey O’Neil showed photographs from the PowerPoint presentation.
Property photographs on February 2, July 20, and August 24, 2011 showed the dock is not safe
and has significant damage, including a decrepit gate and missing railings. The dock cannot be
used in its current condition. The only fence on this vacant lot is the gate at the dock.
Member Schultz moved to find that the Respondent(s) was in violation of the City of
Clearwater Code of Ordinances as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Inspector O’Neil recommended compliance in 30 days or a fine of $150 per day be
imposed.
Mr. Yang said he owns a motel across the street and reviewed problems he has had
with the dock. He requested 3 months to determine if he should repair or demolish it. Attorney
Soto expressed concern that people can access the dock by climbing over the gate.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 6
Discussion ensued regarding time necessary to make repairs.
A resident supported providing the Respondent sufficient time.
Member Strickland moved to enter an order requiring the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before November 22, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to
exist. The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed that the hazardous conditions should not continue for another
three months.
Member Strickland moved to amend the order and require the Respondent to correct the
violation on or before October 23, 2011. If the Respondent does not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $150 per day for each day the violation continues to
exist. The seconder agreed. The motion carried unanimously.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
This case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement Board on August 24,
2011, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having heard testimony under oath and
received evidence, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony and evidence received, it is evident that the dock is damaged
and needs repairs. A representative of the Respondent(s) was present.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3-601.D.2
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section ,
as referred in the Affidavit in this case.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent(s) shall comply with said Section(s) of
the City of Clearwater Code by October 23, 2011. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within
the time specified, the Board may order a fine of $150.00 per day for each day the violation
continues to exist. Upon complying with said Section(s) of the Code, the Respondent(s) shall
notify Inspector Corey O’Neil, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance.
If the Respondent(s) fails/fail to 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 real property owned by the Respondent(s), pursuant
to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes.
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
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 7
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.
Any aggrieved party may appeal a final administrative Order of the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board to the Circuit Court of Pinellas County within thirty (30) days of the
execution of the Order. Florida Statute 286.0105 requires any party appealing a decision of this
Board to have a record of the proceedings.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 24th day of August 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3.1 Case 13-11 Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Krista Leigh Lipe
907 Plaza Street
Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance – Franco
3.2 Case 49-11 Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Moana & Rey Jakosalem
1317 Byron Drive
Exterior Surfaces – Wilson
3.3 Case 31-10 Affidavit of Compliance
Church of Hope and Faith
307 Leeward Island
Exterior Surfaces/Dev. Code Violation/IENCOD/Outdoor Display – Franco
3.4 Case 03-11 Affidavit of Compliance
Philip J Matonte
307 Leeward Island
Building Permit Required/Permit Required/Flexibility Criteria – Franco
3.5 Case 13-11 Affidavit of Compliance
Krista Leigh Lipe
907 Plaza Street
Exterior Storage/Public Health, Safety or Welfare Nuisance – Franco
3.6 Case 38-11 Affidavit of Compliance
Mary M. Jones
2021 Oakdale Way
Developmental Code Violation – Franco
Member van Weezel moved to accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance and issue the
Orders imposing fines for Cases 13-11 and 49-11 and to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for
Cases 31-10, 03-11, 13-11, and 38-11. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 8
4. NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Case 11-06 – Request for Fine Reduction
Church of Scientology
215 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue
Fees/Required Inspections - Garriott
Attorney for the Board Andy Salzman reviewed board rules and regulations.
Attorney Ed Armstrong, representative for the property owner, apologized for the site’s
expired permit and disrepair that negatively impacted the community. He said the Flag Building
is Scientology’s cathedral and cathedral construction takes significant time. He said
construction was halted in 2004 when it was decided to redesign the interior and hire a new
contractor. He said the City cited the property in 2006. He said the property owner is willing to
pay $45,250 for the $250/day fine during the time the property was out of compliance, less the
City’s 4.5 month development order process.
Attorney Armstrong said the site received a new permit in January 2007, and all work
related to the previous permit had been completed. He said other Clearwater projects were
completed before the Flag Building’s interior. He showed photographs of the site taken on April
30, 2007, when he said the site met functional compliance. He said the City sent a thank-you
letter for cleaning the site.
Cyndi Tarapani, representative for the property owner, discussed her study of 11.5 years
of City Code enforcement practices, indicating of 1,870 sites with expired permits and stop work
orders, only this one was sent to the MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board). She said the
outcome for the Flag Building was highly unusual. She said 43 cases remain active
It was felt as only 2% of cited cases remain active, the statistics are inconsequential.
Discussion ensued with comments that none of the other cases relate to sites that occupy a
square downtown block, the MCEB does not determine which cases it hears, and the board
considers each case on its own merits. Information regarding the property owner’s conduct and
how it warrants consideration was requested.
Ms. Tarapani reviewed MCEB fine reductions since 2006, indicating the board typically
reduces fines by 93%. She said the $45,250 offer is reasonable and within this range.
It was commented that fines are not punitive but punish those who do not follow City
rules and regulations. It was noted that most fine reductions are linked to hardship. It was
stated fines are reduced when property owners make honest efforts to come into compliance as
best they can and present compelling reasons for a reduction.
Attorney Soto provided a PowerPoint presentation. Photographs of 215 S. Ft. Harrison
Avenue taken in 2006 showed the property was overgrown, littered with debris, surrounded by a
dilapidated fence, and appeared to be an abandoned construction site. At the March 22, 2006
MCEB meeting, the property owner’s representative testified that work would be completed on
time. Attorney Soto said the MCEB issued an order finding the property to be in violation of
Code with the clear intent to require reactivation of the permit in 90 days and for the site to
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 9
comply with Code within 180 days or a fine of $250 would be imposed. He said construction
delays were self-inflicted as the property owner chose to redesign the interior, hire a new
contractor, and not complete the shell as mandated.
Attorney Soto reviewed the project’s permitting history, which rolled files from permits
one and two into a master permit three. The City mailed the property owner quarterly
statements reporting on increases to the fine. The Flag Building received its CO (Certificate of
Occupancy) in June 2011. The City is willing to modify the fine to $413,500 due to the 4.5
month development order process related to structural wind loading and smoke evaluation
changes to the Code.
Attorney Soto said since 1998, the property owner worked on eight other construction
projects in Clearwater rather than completing the Flag Building. He said the property owner
never informed the MCEB regarding difficulties in achieving compliance nor called staff for
required inspections. He said Code does not provide for “functional compliance.”
In response to questions, Building Official Kevin Garriott said property owner
representatives meet with staff on a regular basis. Representatives never asserted to him that
compliance had been achieved but did acknowledge that fines continued to accrue. He said
representatives indicated they would deal with the fines at completion of the project and did
inquire about the fines in June 2011. Permits are valid for six months or for six months after the
last inspection; Code does not require construction to be completed by a specific time. He said
the interior was a separate issue; the property owner could have obtained a shell permit to meet
the board’s order. A conditional CO for a completed shell would have been sufficient.
In response to a question, Attorney Katie Cole, representing the property owner, said
permits two and three were substantially similar and reviewed the permitting process. She said
the Master Permit included the final site plan, interior build-out, landscaping, and hardscaping.
In response to a question, she said temporary landscaping complied with permit two.
A resident recommended that the Board fine the property owner $413,500 as no
hardship exists.
In response to a question, Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said staff
typically calculates administrative costs. However, this complex case continued for many years.
Discussion ensued with comments that the property owner should have been more
attentive to permit issues instead of allowing fines to accrue and had not contacted the City for a
required inspection when claiming the property met Code. It was felt the board’s order had not
been taken seriously. It was indicated that a good faith effort had not been made and
“functional compliance” does not meet Code criteria. The board acknowledged that the
applicant had not made a case for hardship. It was stated the increase in fines was self
imposed by property owner action. It was felt that administration costs are not an issue as
mitigation of the fine is not appropriate. It was stated it was incumbent on the property owner to
address the issue earlier.
Attorney Soto submitted composite exhibits.
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 10
Member Schultz moved to enter an order reducing the fine for Case 11-06 to $413,500
payable within 30 days or the lien will revert to its original amount. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
The Municipal Code Enforcement Board has considered the Respondent’s request for
reconsideration of fine at a hearing held on August 24, 2011, and based upon the evidence
presented, enters the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
After considering the request for reduction of fine filed by the Respondent(s) and
considering that the property is now in compliance, it is evident that a reduction in fine is
appropriate in the above-referenced case.
It is the Order of this Board that the fine previously imposed in the Order of the Board
dated October 25, 2006, as recorded in O.R. Book 15456, Pages 1021-1026, of the public
records of Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby reduced to $413,500 payable to the Petitioner
within 30 days of the date of this Order. If the reduced fine is not paid within the time specified
in this Order, a lien in the original amount of $451,500 shall be recorded in the public records of
Pinellas County, Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED
this 24th day of August 2011, at Clearwater, Pinellas County,
Florida.
5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS:
Stephan M. Deitz Est. PNU2011-00685
1570 S Betty Lane
22-29-15-11916-004-0170 $507.37
Wrobel Industries, Inc Tre PNU2011-00961
Ferruggia Family Trust #1927
1927 N. Highland Avenue
02-29-15-87714-000-0513 $440.00
Yvonne & Joe F. Piumelli III PNU2011-00945
1833 Lombardy Drive
02-29-15-98964-000-0860 $352.28
Theresa Robinette PNU2011-00860
1576 Logan Street
02-29-15-39186-045-0060 $334.07
Tarpon IV LLC PNU2011-00878
1122 LaSalle Street
10-29-15-33552-005-0440 $265.52
Corporate Midwest Investments LLC PNU2011-00901
904 Seminole Street
10-29-15-69138-005-0150 $402.80
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 11
Gilbert & Gro Miller PNU2011-00543
1724 Thomas Drive
05-29-16-94356-005-0070 $394.70
Daniel L. & Monica Rogers PNU2011-00897
1518 S. Hillcrest Avenue
22-29-15-12042-008-0180 $435.20
Member Cole moved to accept the Nuisance Abatement Lien filings. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —July 27, 2011
Member Schultz moved to approve the minutes of the regular Municipal Code
Enforcement Board meeting of July 27, 2011, as submitted in written summation to each board
member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Secretary to the Board Nicole Sprague reported future meetings will start at 1:30 p.m.
7. ADJOURN:
The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
2445,
Chair
Municipal Code Enforc- ent Board
Attest:
,. OF THE�� ��+�
,�. . , -� �.�.:... ��,, � '
Secre a t+ the Board a 'R-e• :� .
'`�`�gRWAI
Code Enforcement 2011-08-24 12