02/28/2007
MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
February 28, 2007
Present: Douglas J. Williams Chair
Jay Keyes Vice-Chair
Kelly Wehner Board Member
Richard Avichouser Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
David W. Campbell Board Member
Ronald V. Daniels Board Member
ó
Also Present: Carlos Coln Assistant City Attorney
Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board
Mary K. Diana Secretary for 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 286.0107 requires any
party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings.
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case 72-06 – Contd. from 11/23/06, 1/24/07
North Mandalay Investment Group, Inc.
411 East Shore Drive
Unsafe Notice – Wright
This item was withdrawn by staff.
B. Case 76-06 – Contd. from 11/23/06, 1/24/07
First Fed Trust Service Inc, TRE
1512 S. Missouri Avenue
Exterior Surfaces, Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud
This item was continued by staff to March 28, 2007.
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 1
C. Case 77-06 – Contd. from 11/23/06, 1/24/07
First Fed Trust Service Inc, TRE
1508 S. Missouri Avenue
Exterior Surfaces, Parking Lot Surfaces – Ruud
This item was continued by staff to March 28, 2007.
D. Case 01-07 – Contd. from 1/24/07
Robert Schoeller
630 Drew St.
Fences & Walls, Exterior Surfaces & Exterior Storage – Collins
Cases 01-07 and 02-07 were heard simultaneously. Representative Tim Schoeller did
not admit to the violations.
Inspector Cornelius Collins provided a PowerPoint presentation. He reported the
property owner called staff to discuss receipt of the notices of violations. Violations at 630 and
632 Drew Street relate to exterior storage, exterior surfaces, and fences and walls. The initial
inspection was done on August 9, 2006, and the notice of violation was issued on August 9,
2006. Staff met with the property owner on August 28, 2006, to discuss the violations and
actions needed for compliance. Additional inspections occurred on October 17, 2006 and
February 22, 2007. Photographs taken on the inspection dates indicate exterior storage of
construction materials and debris, including car parts and piles of junk, vines attached to a wall
that needs cleaning and painting, a leaning wooden fence with broken boards, and collapsing
and rusted, chain-link fencing, topped with barbed wire. Inspector Collins recommended the
property be brought into compliance by April 28, 2007, or a $250 per day per violation fine be
imposed.
Development & Neighborhood Services Director Jeff Kronschnabl said construction
permits expired. He indicated his property has been problematic for approximately 15 years.
Tim Schoeller, Robert Schoelle’s son, said the fencing was repaired within two weeks of
meeting with staff, however, subsequent damage has occurred. He said the wall cannot be
painted where vines are attached, but all surfaces had been painted where possible. He said
the car parts had been removed. He said it would be difficult and expensive to remove and
store the steel beams, concrete, and other building materials that will be required once new
permits are obtained. He requested that the wooden fence be permitted to remain until
construction is completed.
Mr. Kronschnabl expressed concern that a large quantity of exterior storage exists. He
felt 60 days was sufficient time for the owner to comply. Tim Schoeller said the vines that
remain on the building soon will become leafy and cover the surface. Inspections Specialist
Alan Ruud said the Code does not address vines, but does require that surfaces be cleaned
and painted with matching paint.
ó
Assistant City Attorney Carlos Coln submitted City composite exhibits.
In response to a question, Building Official Kevin Garriott said the property owner has
worked on and off with staff. Planning Manager Neil Thompson said the DRC (Development
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 2
Review Committee) reviewed the owner’s last permit application in March 2006 and still awaits
response to committee comments. Mr. Kronschnabl expressed frustration with the owner’s
pattern of delays over the years. He said the abandoned building encourages area blight.
Property owner Robert Schoeller said he and staff have gone back and forth regarding
the site plan since last March. He blamed recent delays on a pending sale of the property that
was cancelled. He said the vines cannot be removed and reestablished on the building, where
they should remain as they cool the structure in summer and warm it in winter. He said strong
winds had blown many vines down. He said the outside storage is not visible from the public
right-of-way nor abutting properties.
Tim Schoeller said the chain link fence was repaired after Mr. Collins’ February 22,
2007, inspection. Mr. Ruud said during his February 26, 2007, site visit, he observed that the
fence was too deteriorated to repair and needs replacement. The Code does not allow barbed
wire. Robert Schoeller requested that the fence remain until the abutting hedge is large enough
to protect the property. In response to a question, Mr. Ruud said the Code prohibits exterior
storage, even if it is not visible from beyond the property. Only with active permits is the storage
of construction materials allowed. Robert Schoeller said he had overlooked his active permit
and it expired.
Member Daniels moved this case came before the City of Clearwater Code Enforcement
Board on February 28, 2007, 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 construction materials
and debris need to be removed from the property, exterior surfaces need to be cleaned and
painted and the fencing needs to be repaired or replaced.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 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 April 28, 2007. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 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 Cornelius Collins, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails 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.
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 3
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.
motion carried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
E. Case 02-07 – Contd. from 1/24/07
Robert Schoeller
632 Drew St.
Exterior Surfaces & Exterior Storage – Collins
See pages 2 and 3 for discussion related to this case.
Member Daniels moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code
Enforcement Board on February 28, 2007, 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 construction materials
and debris need to be removed from the property and exterior surfaces need to be cleaned and
painted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 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 April 28, 2007. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 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 Cornelius Collins, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails 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
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 4
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
motion carried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
F. Case 03-07 – Cont. from 1/24/07
Real Global Investments, LLC (Sweetwater’s)
2400 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Signs, Exterior Surfaces, Public Nuisance – Franco
Property owner Falah Tabahi admitted to the violations.
Inspector Peggy Franco said Mr. Tabahi agreed to raze the building. All violations will
cease when the structure and signs are removed. She recommended the property be brought
into compliance by April 18, 2007, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. She expressed concern
regarding security of the property even after compliance is reached. Mr. Tabahi said he has
worked with the City to address the security issue indicating he will be building a new
restaurant.
ó
Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits.
Member Avichouser moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code
Enforcement Board on February 28, 2007, 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, and admission to the violation by the
Respondent, it is evident a building is vacant and the property is not being maintained causing a
public nuisance attracting transients, pests, trash, debris, etc.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 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 April 18, 2007. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 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 Peggy Franco, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of
compliance. If the Respondent(s) fail/fails 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.
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 5
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
motion carried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
G. Case 04-07 – Contd. from 1/24/07
Gulf to Bay Holdings, LLC
2551 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Signs – Weaver
Representative Joseph Tsombanidis did not admit to the violations.
Inspector MaryJo Weaver provided a PowerPoint presentation. She reported
acknowledgement of the violation by certified mail return receipt. Violations at 2551Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard relate to non-permitted signs. The initial inspection was done on May 25, 2006, and
the notice of violation was issued on May 31, 2006. The sign violations still existed at the time
of the last inspection on November 17, 2006. Photographs taken on the inspection dates
indicate attached signs on three sides of the structure and a free-standing sign that were
installed without permits. Inspector Weaver recommended the property be brought into
compliance by April 20, 2007, or a $250 per day fine be imposed. Ms. Weaver said though the
property’s owner originally reported that the signs were permitted, he was unable to produce
evidence. The City has no record of permits. She said signage exceeds what is permitted by
the City’s comprehensive sign program.
Mr. Tsombanidis requested that this case be continued to March 28, 2007, to allow time
to apply to the comprehensive sign program. He said counsel involved with these negotiations
was unable to attend today’s hearing. He hoped to resolve outstanding issues before the
MCEB (Municipal Code Enforcement Board) hears the case. Ms. Weaver opposed a
continuance, as one already had occurred. She felt 90 days was sufficient to comply with City
sign requirements.
motion
Member Keyes moved to deny the request to continue Case 04-07. The was
carried
duly seconded and unanimously.
Mr. Tsombanidis reviewed the property owner’s investment in site improvements. He
said the City has no other issues with the property except for the signs. He requested 120 days
ó
to comply. Attorney Coln said in addition to a lack of permits, the size and number of signs
violate Code. Inspector Scott Kurleman said he worked with the property owner and sign
contractor since February 9, 2007.
ó
Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits.
Member Keyes moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code
Enforcement Board on February 28, 2007, after due notice to the Respondent(s), and having
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 6
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 signs have been erected
without permits.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 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 May 28, 2007. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the time
specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 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 MaryJo Weaver, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If
the Respondent(s) fail/fails 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
motion carried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
H. Case 08-07
PMLHC, Inc. (Peppermill)
1575 S Ft Harrison Ave
Grass Parking – Ruud
Property co-owner Mark Moran admitted to the violation.
Inspector Ruud recommended the property be brought into compliance by March 10,
2007, or a $150 per day fine be imposed.
ó
Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits.
Mr. Moran reviewed his efforts to improve the business since he purchased it in May
2005. He said the restaurant has been challenged by insufficient parking since it opened in
1988. He said previously overflow parking used the compacted stone on the south end of the
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 7
property, the right-of-way, and the abutting vacant lot. He said the owner of the abutting
property recently was cited for grass parking. He said a witness would testify that these
alternatives for overflow parking have existed for 16 years.
He said he had agreements for additional parking at a thrift store across Belleair Road
and at the Diagnostic Clinic offices across Ft. Harrison Avenue during evenings. He requested
additional time to obtain a permit to pave the south end of the property, which may be difficult
due to oak trees. He expressed concern that Ft. Harrison Avenue is too busy for customers to
cross safely at night. He said the adjoining property is for sale but it may not be viable for him to
expend resources for parking there. He said current on-site parking does not affect adjoining
properties. He expressed concern that his customers, mostly elderly, will not patronize his
business if they cannot park there. He expressed concern he would be out of business if he
cannot secure sufficient parking and requested 90 days to consider options.
Mr. Kronschnabl said this business is a welcome neighbor in Clearwater. The City does
not want to assume liability for vehicles parked in the right-of-way and enforces no parking there
for safety reasons. It was suggested that current parking practices could be grandfathered.
Member Campbell moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code
Enforcement Board on February 28, 2007, 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, and an admission to the violation by
Respondent Mark Moran, it is evident grass parking is occurring at the property which is not
allowed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) 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 within 90 calendar days from the date this Board’s Order is sent
certified mail to the Respondent(s). 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 Alan Ruud, who shall inspect the property and notify the Board of compliance. If the
Respondent(s) fail/fails 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 – 2007-02-28 8
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
motion carried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
I. Case 09-07
Luis Acevedo (Yield Development, LLC.)
1749 Drew St.
Exterior Storage, Exterior Surfaces, Inoperative Vehicles, Fences – O’Neil
No one was present to represent the property owner.
Inspector Corey O’Neil provided a PowerPoint presentation. He reported
acknowledgement of the violation by certified mail return receipt. Violations at 1749 Drew Street
relate to exterior storage, exterior surfaces, and an inoperative vehicle. The initial inspection
was done on October 19, 2006, and the notice of violation was issued on December 5, 2006.
Additional inspections occurred on December 1 and 15, 2006, January 10 and February 23,
2007. Photographs taken on the inspection dates indicate debris on the property including a
washing machine, a desk, and automobile parts such as a bumper, radiator, tire, and engine not
specifically associated with the ongoing repair of a vehicle, a dilapidated fence missing a
section, plus damaged fascia, exterior mold, and a hauling trailer without tags. Inspector O’Neil
recommended the property be brought into compliance by March 31, 2007, or a $250 per day
fine be imposed.
ó
Attorney Coln submitted City composite exhibits.
Mr. O’Neil said he has had many discussions with the owner, who last indicated his wish
to change the property’s use from car sales to car rentals. Mr. Kronschnabl reported that the
property owner had complied with previous board action regarding parking on the grass. He
expressed concern the property is beginning to resemble a salvage yard, which presents
environmental concerns and encourages blight.
Member Wehner moved that this case came before the City of Clearwater Code
Enforcement Board on February 28, 2007, 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 the property does not
meet property maintenance requirements and automobile parts and an inoperable trailer are
being stored on the property which is not permitted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent(s) is/are in violation of the City of Clearwater Code Section(s) as
referred in the Affidavit in this case.
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 9
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 March 31, 2007. If Respondent(s) does/do not comply within the
time specified, the Board may order a fine of $250.00 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) fail/fails 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.
motion carried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Case 36-06- Affidavit of Compliance
William D. Rutenbeck
1477 Drew St.
Property Maintenance – Espinosa
AND
B. Case 51-06 Affidavit of Compliance
Anna Logren
115 N. San Remo Ave.
Exterior Surfaces, Landscaping, Lot Clearing – Espinosa
AND
C, Case 52-06 – Affidavit of Compliance
Anna Logren
22 N. Evergreen Ave.
Exterior Surfaces, Landscaping, Windows, Lot Clearing – Espinosa
AND
D. Case 53-06 – Affidavit of Compliance
Anna Logren
28 N. Evergreen Ave.
Exterior Surfaces, Landscaping, Windows, Lot Clearing – Espinosa
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 10
AND
E. Case 54-06 – Affidavit of Compliance
Anna Logren
30 N. Evergreen Ave.
Exterior Surfaces, Landscaping, Windows, Exterior Storage, Lot Clearing – Espinosa
AND
F. Case 75-06 – Affidavit of Compliance
Natalie P. Howard
1366 Tioga Ave.
Residential Grass Parking – Ruud
AND
G. Case 81-06 (1) – Affidavit of Compliance
Chesterman R. Bowes, Laurel-Ann Bowes
215 Orangeview Ave.
Exterior Surfaces, Roof Maintenance, Exterior Storage – Espinosa
AND
H. Case 16-06 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Patricia A. Tucker & Henry D. Tucker
2341 Nash St.
Exterior Surfaces, Roof Maintenance & Exterior Storage - Franco
AND
I. Case 73-06 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Raquel Hetzel
207 N Missouri Ave.
Permits/Inspections – Wright
AND
J. Case 82-06 – Affidavit of Non-Compliance
Frederick Singletary
1349 N. Highland Ave.
Outdoor Display/Storage, Exterior Storage - O’Neil
Member Keyes moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Cases 36-06, 51-06,
52-06, 53-06, 54-06, 75-06, and 81-06(1) and the Affidavits of Non-Compliance for Cases 16-
motion
06, 73-06, and 82-06 and to issue the Orders imposing fines. The was duly seconded.
ó
Attorney Coln requested that Case 82-06 be withdrawn.
Code Enforcement – 2007-02-28 11
.
.
.
Member Keyes amended his motion to withdraw acceptance of the Affidavit of Non-
Compliance for Case 82-06. The seconder concurred and upon the vote being taken, the
motion carried unanimously.
3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION
A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Member Keyes moved to reappoint Douglas Williams as Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Wehner moved to reappoint Jay Keyes as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
4. NEW BUSINESS - None.
5. NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN FILINGS:
Achraf Mhamdi
1864 West Dr.
Clearwater Highlands, Unit B, Blk C, Lot 3
PNU2006-02276
$496.25
Jason Worden
801 Woodside Ave.
Oak Acres Unit No 2, Lot 1 & W Y2 of Lot 2
PNU2006-02481
$465
Thu V Tran
3114 Downing St.
Downing Sub, E 60 Ft of Lot 3
PNU2006-02333
$424.50
Member Keyes moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filing as submitted. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 24,2007
Member Keyes moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 24,
2007, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
~l0~
Chair
Municipal Code Enforcement Board
Attest:
d.l~~
Secre 0 the Board
Code Enforcement - 2007-02-28
12