Loading...
06/25/1997MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER June 25, 1997 Present: Helen Kerwin, Acting Chair Dennis Henegar, Member David Albritton, Member (arrived 3:15 p.m.) Stephen D. Swanberg, Member Lawrence Tieman, Member Frank Huffman, Member Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Mark Connolly, Attorney for the Board Mary K. Diana, Secretary for the Board Brenda Moses, Board Reporter Absent: Louise C. Riley, Chair The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Kerwin at 3:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. In order to provide continuity for research, the items will be listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The Chair 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. She 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. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. (Cont’d. 5/28/97) Case 27-97 Leroy Touchstone, Jr. TRE. 603 Cedar St. (Housing) - Hinson In a memo dated June 25, 1997, Building Inspector, Fred Hinson, withdrew Case 27-97 due to a change in ownership. B. (Cont’d. 5/28/97) Case 31-97 Johnie Blunt 907 Carlton St. (Housing) - Hinson Ms. Dougall-Sides noted that Case 31-97 had been continued last month because of the possibility of the property being sold to Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services. Inspector Fred Hinson has informed the City that contractual negotiations are currently underway to acquire the property. The City requested a second continuance. Member Henegar moved to continue Case 31-97 for 30 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. (Cont’d. 5/28/97) Case 32-97 Jenny J. Harriger d/b/a Mambo Bay 490 Mandalay Ave. (Occupational License) - Sexsmith Ms. Dougall-Sides stated Case 32-97 had been continued last month in order that City staff could contact the State’s Division of Cosmetology regarding the applicability of the Statutes. Secretary for the Board read the Affidavit of Violation. The dates of official notice of violation were March 20, 1997 and April 3, 1997. The facts behind the violation involved operating a business without a City of Clearwater Occupational License. No occupational license has been obtained for hairwrapping or hairbraiding. City Inspector Barbara Sexsmith stated she had faxed to her by the State Board of Cosmetology the salon requirements for hairbraiding. She reviewed the requirements necessary for compliance, which included sanitary and safety issues. A minimum of 100 square feet must be designated for braiding within the business. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the intent of the regulation was to allow the business to operate with minimal facilities, such as a restroom within 100 feet of the business. The business would still require a license for hairwrapping and hairbraiding. It was noted this business could operate the hairwrapping and hairbraiding in their current location upon compliance with the State’s regulations, and the City’s occupational license requirement. Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl stated he had contacted Mr. Baker at the Department of Professional and Regulation in detail about this case. Mr. Baker indicated a license would be required. Mr. Harriger stated in 1996, the Clearwater Code Enforcement Board called the Department of Business and Professional and Regulation (DBPR) stating there was cosmetology activity taking place. He read from a letter dated March of 1996 regarding Mambo Bay, which stated since no compensation was involved no violation of Statute 477 existed. He stated this year the City had no contact with the DBPR and there has been some miscommunication between all parties. He felt since there was no compensation for manipulation of the hair, the Cosmetology Board has no jurisdiction in this case. Mrs. Harriger stated the instructor offering the 16-hour licensing course would not enroll her in the course since it was not applicable for her situation. In response to a question, Mr. Harriger stated he was willing to apply for a City of Clearwater occupational license, but was not receptive to taking the 16-hour course. It was noted this business could be in compliance with State laws but not necessarily City laws. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case 32-97 (Jenny J. Harriger d.b.a. Mambo Bay) the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meetings held on May 28, 1997, and June 25, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Barbara Sexsmith, Code Inspector, Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl, Community Response Team, and Ken and Jenny J. Harriger, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-13 (Ex. 1 - cited code sections; Ex. 2 - notice of violation (Mambo Bay); Ex. 3 - notice of violation (Jenny Harriger d/b/a Mambo Bay); Ex. 4 - memo dated 3/27/97 from Barbara Sexsmith re hair wraps; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 - letter from Ms. Harriger dated 4/20/97; Ex. 7 - notice of hearing; Ex. 8 - affidavit of service; Ex. 9 - memo from Lt. Kronschnabl dated 5/23/97 re violation; Ex. 10 - F. S. chapter 477 re cosmetology; Ex. 11 - Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) laws and rules re cosmetology profession; Ex. 12 - 61G5-20.002 salon regulations; Ex. 13 - DBPR re hair braiding; Ex. 14 - fax dated 5/25/97 from DBPR re hair braiding salons; composite photographs of storefront advertising hair wraps and Defendant Exhibit 1 - letter dated 5/30/97 from Division of Regulation Bureau of Investigative and Consumer), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a business is being operated without a City of Clearwater occupational license; no occupational license has been obtained for hair wrapping/braiding. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 29.30(1), (4), (5) and 29.28 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by within 90 days (9/23/97). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before September 23, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond September 23, 1997. If Respondent does 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 real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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. D. Case 34-97 Imperial Gardens Co. c/o Frank Fini 2100 Nursery Rd. Unit A-9 (Building) - Scott Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. She noted the City did obtain service. The date of official notice of violation was January 9, 1997. The facts behind the violation involved enclosing a porch to make a bedroom without a permit or inspections. In response to questions, City Inspector Scott stated he inspected this property in response to an anonymous complaint received on December 4, 1996. Upon inspection, it was discovered the tenant had enclosed the porch with block walls and windows. Upon questioning the tenant, Inspector Scott found the tenant’s son was using the room as a bedroom. A stop work order was issued, however the work had already been completed. A contractor is required to pull a permit since this is rental property. An electrical contractor is also required. Inspector Scott spoke to the property manager, who has been pursuing this situation. She told Inspector Scott she was having difficulty getting a contractor to obtain an after-the-fact permit on the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s exhibits 1-6, including photographs taken of the property on April 27, 1997. Mr. Scott noted he obtained the owner’s name through the Secretary of State. Mr. Fini is listed as the registered agent. Mr. Scott recommended 45 days for compliance since the Property Manager is having difficulty finding a contractor to remedy the situation. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 34-97 (Imperial Gardens Co. c/o Frank Fini) the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Robert Scott, Code Inspector, (no one was present to represent the Respondent) and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation and order to stop work; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - property ownership verification; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation and request for rehearing; Ex. 5 - code sections cited and Ex. 6 - composite photographs of closed in porch), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a porch was enclosed to make a bedroom without a permit or inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Chapter 47, Article III, Section 47.051 and 47.083(2) and Article V, Section 47.111 of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation within 60 days (8/24/97). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before August 24, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of one hundred and no/100 dollars ($100.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond August 24, 1997. If Respondent does 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 real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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. E. Case 35-97 Barry Shane 04 Engman St. (Building) - Clarke In a memo dated June 18, 1997, Inspector Greg Clarke withdrew Case 35-97 as a permit has been issued bringing the property into compliance. F. Case 36-97 Mead Corporation d.b.a. Press Stock 2100 Palmetto St. #D (Occupational License) - Sexsmith Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was April 2, 1997. The facts behind the violation involved operating a business without a City of Clearwater occupational license. The occupational license renewal is delinquent. In response to questions, Inspector Barbara Sexsmith stated Press Stock had paid a fee for an occupational license, but did not file a fictitious name with the State. Prior to this licensing year, Press Stock had an occupational license. As of the 1995/96 licensing year, the City instituted fictitious name compliance before issuing occupational licenses. A notice of violation was issued on that basis. Inspector Sexsmith stated the Mead Corporation’s Tax Department, did not feel they were in violation. Mead Corporation stated the name Zellerbach is used in conjunction with the registered corporate name of Mead Corporation. On the application, Zellerbach was listed d.b.a. Press Stock. The Clearwater telephone book shows Press Stock, not Mead Corporation. Inspector Sexsmith recommended Press Stock register their fictitious name with the State of Florida. Ms. Dougall-Sides read the Florida Statute requiring compliance under fictitious names. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1-7. Mr. Edward Herzog, representing Mead Corporation, explained the business’ sign on the exterior of the building reads Press Stock/Zellerbach a Mead Company. He also noted the company’s business cards, current promotional information, invoices, State of Florida sales tax registration and other documents lists Press Stock as a Mead Company. He submitted these papers to the Board (Defendant’s Exhibit 1). Mr. Herzog stated the company is trying to comply with City codes. He noted only the City of Clearwater has indicated the company was in violation of the fictitious name requirement. Discussion ensued in regard to all the documents submitted by Mr. Herzog showing the entire name. Mr. Herzog stated Press Stock is a division of the Mead Corporation. The City requested to continue the case for 30 days in order to research this matter further. Member Tieman moved to continue Case 36-97 for 30 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 4:55 p.m. and reconvened at 5:05 p.m. G. Case 37-97 Chris Drake dba Coronado Restaurant 217 Coronado Dr. (Occupational License) - Sexsmith Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was April 2, 1997. The facts behind the violation involved operating a business without a City of Clearwater occupational license. There was no one present to represent the Coronado Restaurant. In response to questions, City Inspector Barbara Sexsmith stated the Coronado Restaurant has been operating without an occupational license. The restaurant has been previously licensed. An application for renewal had been mailed to the restaurant but not returned. A notice of violation was issued April 2, 1997. Inspector Sexsmith said she spoke to Mr. Drake yesterday and he stated he would obtain the license today. As of 2:30 p.m. today, the license fee had not been paid. She recommended compliance within 30 days. Ms. Dougall-Sides introduced City’s Exhibits 1-4. Lt. Jeff Kronschnabl noted Inspector Sexsmith was more than generous in her attempts to obtain compliance. He recommended 7 days for compliance. Member Swanberg moved that concerning Case 37-97 (Chris Drake d.b.a. Coronado Restaurant) the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Barbara Sexsmith, Code Inspector, (no one was present to represent the Respondent), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-4 (Ex. 1 - notice of violation; Ex. 2 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 3 - notice of hearing; and Ex. 4 - cited code sections), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a business is being operated without a City of Clearwater occupational license; occupational license renewal is delinquent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 29.28 and 29.30(1) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation within 7 days (7/2/97). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before July 2, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond July 2, 1997. If Respondent does 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 real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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. H. Case 38-97 Colette C. Pizzarella 712 Edenville Building) - Wright Ms. Dougall-Sides noted due to lack of service being obtained on Case 38-97, the case be continued. Attorney for the Board, Mark Connolly, stated no action by the Board was necessary. I. Case 39-97 Shell Oil Company c/o J. M. Hays 1502 South Belcher Rd. (Land Development) - King Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The facts behind the violation involved vehicles being parked on a parking lot to display them for sale, when the lot is not approved for vehicle sales. In response to questions, City Inspector Janice King stated she first observed vehicles for sale parked at this property on October 30, 1995. Inspector King said she received numerous complaints about vehicles for sale. Mr. McCarthy, the owner/operator of this station owns a car lot. It was explained to the owner that he could not sell vehicles at this location. Ms. King said she has visited the property on 6 different occasions for the same violation. He has also parked a boat for sale on the property. Ms. King noted the owner stops sales activities upon notification, then begins again when a period of time passes. She recommended the Board take action today for future occurrences. In response to questions, Inspector King stated Mr. McCarthy indicates he is the owner/operator, but property records indicate Shell Oil owns the property. Ms. King noted Mr. McCarthy has been before this Board in a previous case to represent Shell Oil Company. Attorney Connolly noted the City has obtained service for the notice of hearing sent to Shell Oil Company in Houston, Texas. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1-6. Inspector King recommended the Board impose a $100 a day fine for any recurring violations. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 39-97 (Shell Oil Company c/o J.M. Hays) the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Janice King, Code Inspector, (no one was present to represent the Respondent), and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-6 (Ex. 1 - cited code sections; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - affidavit of violation & request for hearing; Ex. 4 - notice of hearing; Ex. 5 - photographs dated 3/30/97 and 5/14/97; and Ex. 6 - property ownership verification), it is evident that vehicles have been displayed for sale in a parking lot that is not approved for vehicle sales, that this condition was corrected and recurred. It is further evident the condition was corrected prior to this hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing was in violation of Section 42.35(2) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida. ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent shall continue compliance with said section of the Code of the City of Clearwater. If Respondent repeats the violation, the Board may order the Respondent to pay a fine of two hundred and no/100 dollars ($200.00) per day for each day the violation exists after the Respondent 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. 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. J. Case 40-97 Imperial Cove Condo Association, Inc. 19029 U. S. Hwy. 19 N. (Land Development) - King Ms. Diana read the Affidavit of Violation. The date of the official notice of violation was April 25, 1997. The facts behind the violation related to outdoor lighting and its effect on adjacent properties. In response to questions, City Inspector Janice King stated this complaint was brought to her attention by other residents of Imperial Cove Condominiums. The initial inspection was February 7, 1995, and the most recent inspection was done on April 10, 1997. On several different occasions, the City has tried to resolve the problem for Buildings 9 and 7A. One particular light fixture shines across the parking lot onto Building 7A, disturbing the residents. In February of 1995, the light had been aimed down towards the parking lot. In March of 1995, the problem arose again. The matter was thought to have been resolved, then surfaced again in October of 1995. A lower wattage bulb or a different type of bulb had been installed. Ms. King noted one of the residents in Building 7A has devised a shield to place over the light fixture. He is willing to have it specially made, and pay for it himself, however residents do not want to pay for installation of the shield. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City’s Exhibits 1 - 8. Mr. Rudy Therriault, President of the Condominium Association for Building 9, explained this complex consists of 26 buildings and 447 units. He noted in 1994, 21 cars were vandalized. Crimewatch strongly recommended placing security lights on the buildings. Lights with 150 watts were installed by a contractor as recommended. Imperial Cove Condominiums had numerous meetings, almost monthly, to attempt to resolve the current situation. The bulb wattage was lowered, the lights were aimed downward, and duct tape partially shielded the light, but the complaints never ceased. At one point the light was lowered to such a degree that it provided no security coverage whatsoever. In response to questions, Mr. Therriault stated that Imperial Cove has 14 associations that control the complex. He stated it is approximately a quarter of a mile from Building 9 to Building 7A. He noted that he did not want to pay for installation of the shield on the light. Discussion ensued regarding the Board having the obligation to determine whether or not a violation exists, not who shall pay for the shield or the desired solution to the situation. The Board is to determine if the light shining on the adjacent property is creating a violation. Mr. Hank Bell, a resident from Building 7A offered a video tape to show the brightness of the light and how it shines into his unit. He noted that Building 9 is higher than Building 7A, which adds to the problem. Mr. Bell stated the lights attempt to illuminate the excess parking areas which are only used during busy seasonal times of the year. Board discussion ensued and it was felt that Building 9 could position the lights to shine them towards their own building as a solution to the problem. Member Tieman moved that concerning Case 40-97 (Imperial Cove Condo Association, Inc.) the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on June 25, 1997, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Janice King, Code Inspector, R. Therriault, President Condo Association, Building 9, and Hank Bell, Vice-President Building 7A, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 - code sections cited; Ex. 2 - notice of violation; Ex. 3 - verification of ownership; Ex. 4 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 - letter dated 3/29/97 from residents in Building 7A; Ex. 6 - letter dated 4/11/97 from Janice King; Ex. 7 - photographs taken 2/8/95 and 4/11/97; and Ex. 8 - chronology of events),it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that outdoor lighting has not been arranged in such a way as to deflect light away from adjacent properties. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Section 42.34(4)(i) of the Code of the City of Clearwater, Florida, in that the Respondent has failed to remedy the cited violation(s). ORDER It is the Order of the Board that the Respondent is to correct the aforesaid violation by within 30 days (7/25/97). The burden shall rest upon the Respondent to request a reinspection by the Code Inspector to verify compliance with this Order. In the event the aforesaid violation is found, in subsequent proceedings by this Board, not to have been corrected on or before July 25, 1997, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of fifty and no/100 dollars ($50.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond July 25, 1997. If Respondent does 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 real or personal property owned by the Respondent pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes. Should the violation reoccur, the Board has the authority to impose the fine at that time without a subsequent hearing. 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. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Case 09-88 Address Board re Fine Nostimo, Inc. c/o L. Lambos 32 Bay Esplanade (Building) - Chaplinsky Ms. Dougall-Sides noted this is a request for fine reduction. Attorney Hamden Baskin, representing Athena Mincieli, addressed the Board. He stated in 1988 there was a problem with the building. Ms. Mincieli’s family had experienced some physical and emotional difficulties. Her brother was unable to resolve some issues in the final stages of his life. Another attorney was retained and it was thought that all matters related to this property were resolved. That attorney died and Ms. Mincieli became the personal representative for the estate. She had no knowledge of any liens on the property. Mr. Baskin was appointed as an inventory attorney for Ms. Mincieli. Ms. Mincieli stated she was unaware of the situation and would like to comply. Ms. Diana noted the fine is $8,100, and the City has incurred approximately $255 in administrative charges. Member Henegar moved to reduce the fine from $8,100 to $350 to be paid within 7 days of today’s date. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Case 22-97 - Affidavit of Compliance Jesse & Yvonne Dawsey 1001 Fairmont St. (Land Development) - Niemiller Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 33-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Case 33-97 - Affidavit of Compliance Tom M. Sehlhorst 611 Palm Bluff St. (Land Development) - Packer Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 33-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Case 12-97 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance John C. Gardner 1024 & 1026 N. Missouri Av. (Housing) - Rosa Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 12-97, and issue the Order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Case 23-97 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Ronald A. Hadley 2614 Cyprus Dr. (Building) - Scott Member Swanberg moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance for Case 12-97, and issue the Order imposing the fine. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. Case 29-97 - Request for Re-Hearing John & Emily Izzo 1604 & 1604 1/2 N. Osceola Ave. (Building) - Scott Ms. Diana stated she had spoken to Mr. Izzo’s attorney and since an Affidavit of Compliance has been issued, he withdrew his request for a rehearing as the property is now in compliance. Ms. Diana stated she received a letter from Mr. Ficken, who spoke at a previous meeting regarding this issue, requesting a rehearing. Late today, Mr. Izzo left a telephone message at the City Clerk’s office requesting the rehearing to recover the costs of obtaining a permit. Member Swanberg moved to deny the request for rehearing in Case 29-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. G. Case 29-97 - Affidavit of Compliance John and Emily Izzo 1604 & 1604 1/2 N. Osceola Ave. (Building) - Scott Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Compliance for Case 29-97. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. OTHER BOARD ACTION/DISCUSSION In response to a previous request by Member Henegar, Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the properties on which fines were reduced for Yvonne Irle were sold to Religious Services, Inc. as indicated would be. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 28, 1997 Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each Board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.