Loading...
11/04/1992 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Work Session November 4, 1992 Members 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 City's 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 (ie. property setback, how much encroaching). 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 presented, the case should be continued or dismissed. The Board should not have to ask questions to get 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 the 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.