Loading...
08/22/2001MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER August 22, 2001 Present: Helen Kerwin Chair Lawrence Tieman Vice-Chair Sheila Cole Member Franke Huffman Member Joyce Martin Member Peter Caffentzis Member – departed at 4:36 p.m. Absent: David Allbritton Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Andy Salzman Attorney for the Board Sue 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. 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 (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. ITEM #1 - Public Hearings 1A) Case 06-01 - (Cont’d from 02/28/01) Pablo Sanz 2403 Flint Lock Drive (Public Nuisance) – Phillips Per Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, as the violation was corrected prior to February 28, 2001, the item was continued automatically to this meeting. As no recurrence of the violation has occurred, the item is withdrawn. 1B) Case 42-00 - See Item #2 – Unfinished Business – Page 10. 1C) Case 26-01 - (Cont’d from 07/25/01) Irfan & Advije Ismaili 620 S. Betty Lane (Stairs and Railings) – Wright Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail. In response to questions from Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, Building Construction Inspector Bill Wright said he initially inspected 620 S. Betty Lane on November 29, 2000 following a complaint. He observed the stairs were deteriorated, the support beam appeared to be sinking into the ground, and the stair structure was pulling away from the second story walkways. The second floor balcony railing was loose and rusted. He said the structure was unsafe but he did not think life safety was an issue. Nothing had been done when he reinspected the property 20 days later. Mr. Wright said he initially inspected 622 S. Betty Lane on January 19, 2001 following a complaint and found similar problems. The stairs were cracking and separating. He issued a Notice of Violation on February 28, 2001 for 620 S. Betty Lane and a Notice of Violation on April 5, 2001 for 622 S. Betty Lane. He has been in constant contact with the owner and his representatives. Mr. Wright visited the properties this morning and stated new stair structures have been installed. The owner sunk pilings 30 feet for the stairs. However, the properties remain in violation because the sidewalks between the parking lot and stairways have not been replaced and construction debris has not been removed. Permits for the stairs and rails were issued 60 days ago. Residents must walk through dirt and mud unless they use the buildings’ rear stairs. He said the owner’s attorney has indicated a settlement problem may exist and the insurance company has been notified. Broken footers and four to six-inch gaps between the footers and underlying ground were not visible before the sidewalks were removed for this project. He said both buildings appear to be in good condition although he had observed a minor stress crack at 622 S. Betty Lane. In response to a question, he said occupancy is permitted as long as the owner is working on repairs to the sidewalk. Mr. Wright identified photographs he had taken of 620 S. Betty Lane on November 29, 2000 and today and photographs he had taken of 622 S. Betty Lane on January 19, 2001 and today. The photographs are an accurate representation of current conditions. He recommended 30 days to comply or a $150 per day per building fine be imposed. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -8 for 620 S. Betty Lane and City Exhibits 1 - 8 for 622 S. Betty Lane and displayed photographs of the sites. Jafar Rubaii, representative, said Irfan Ismaili, the owner, had submitted a claim to his insurance company in December 2000 and hired a registered engineer, who is a sinkhole expert. He said the cause of the stairways’ sinking under investigation. He said the engineer-designed stairways cost $29,000 due to the need to sink pilings. The owner now is working with his insurance company regarding gaps under the structures visible now that the sidewalks have been removed. He said the dirt piles will be removed by Monday. He requested a 60-day extension to install the sidewalks. He said the owner did not want to have to remove freshly laid sidewalks for the insurance company to survey the problem. Discussion ensued regarding interim solutions and related costs. Concern was expressed problems have existed since November. In response to a question, Mr. Ismaili estimated less than 100 feet of sidewalk needs to be laid. Concern was expressed regarding liability issues. Member Tieman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 22, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Code Inspector William Wright for City and Jofar Rupaii, for the Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8 (Ex. 1 – inspector’s structure report dated 11/29/00; Ex. 2 – notice of violation and return receipt; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – correspondence from R. C. Kannan & Associates, Inc.; Ex. 5 - affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 6 - notice of hearing; Ex. 7 - composite photographs dated 11/27/00 and 8/22/01; and Ex. 8 – code section), it is evident the property is in violation of Ch. 47, Standard Building Code & Chapter 49, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Section 49.01 of the Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Standard Building Code & Chapter 49, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Section 49.01 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 October 15, 2001. 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 October 15, 2001, 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 October 15, 2001. 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. 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. 1D) Case 27-01 - (Cont’d from 07/25/01) Irfan & Advije Ismaili 622 S. Betty Lane (Stairs and Railings) – Wright Board Secretary Sue Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service was obtained by certified mail. Discussion related to this item was reported above, Item #1C, Case 26-01. Member Tieman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 22, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Code Inspector William Wright for City and Attorney Jafar Rubaii for Respondent, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-7 (Ex. 1 – inspector’s structure report dated 1/9/01; Ex. 2 – notice of violation; Ex. 3 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 4 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 5 - notice of hearing; Ex. 6 – correspondence from R. C. Kannan & Associates, Inc.; Ex. 7 - composite photographs dated 1/16/01 and 8/22/01; and Ex. 8 – code section, it is evident the property is in violation of Ch. 47, Standard Building Code & Chapter 49, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Section 49.01 of the Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Ch. 47, Standard Building Code & Chapter 49, Standard Housing Code, as adopted by Section 49.01 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 October 15, 2001. 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 October 15, 2001, 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 October 15, 2001. 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. 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. 1E) Case 33-01 Melvin Spinoza 1632 Drew Street (Carport to Dwelling and Septic without Permit/Inspection) – Coccia Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service of the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property on August 10, 2001. Property owner Melvin Spinoza requested the hearing be continued and for Building Construction Inspector Rick Rosa to be sequestered during Building Construction Inspector Mike Coccia’s testimony. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City objected to both requests. Mr. Rosa voluntarily left the chambers. In response to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Mr. Coccia said the property had come to his attention on February 12, 2001, following a complaint. When no one was home upon his initial visit to the property on February 13, 2001, he left a tag on the front door requesting a return call. Upon his return to the property on February 14, 2001, a tenant allowed him to enter her home. He observed two adults and several children in a substandard dwelling unit, which had been converted from a garage and carport. The living room was sectioned off from a bedroom in the main house. The toilet was installed on an outside slab and enclosed by lattice. The shower was connected illegally to the main water line. A bathroom/kitchen sink had been installed under the electrical panel, which had several visible wires. The “kitchen,” in the garage area, had kitchen cabinetry and a small refrigerator. He did not recall seeing a stove. The outdoor washing machine drained onto the ground. A water heater, designed for inside a garage, was installed outdoors. Mr. Coccia said the main part of the single-family residence also was rented. Each dwelling unit had a window air-conditioner unit. He determined work to enclose the carport, and install the kitchen, sink, toilet, and shower had been done without permit or inspection. He said kitchens and bathrooms cannot be added and removed without permits or inspections. There is evidence a 10-12 foot wide circle and sewer line trench had been dug recently in the rear yard. He said it appears the new toilet had been connected to an abandoned septic tank. The City prohibits septic tank use when sewer service is accessible. He said the complaint had indicated the area had been pumped out after the smell of sewage had become evident. City records indicate the one set of utility accounts assigned to the property is connected to the main house. Mr. Coccia said the CRT (Community Response Team) has an active case on this property related to the septic tank issue. Mr. Coccia issued a Stop Work order on March 14, 2001. He issued a Notice of Violation on May 11, 2001 by certified mail and by posting the property. The certified letter was returned unclaimed. He reinspected the property on May 26, 2001, but was unable to access the property and could not observe any change in condition or determine if the septic tank had been removed. Mr. Wright posted the property on August 10, 2001, with a notice of this hearing. Mr. Coccia identified City Exhibit 10 as photographs he had taken of the interior of the property on March 7, 2001. The photographs are an accurate representation of conditions he last observed. He recommended 30 – 45 days to obtain a permit and to disconnect and cap the septic tank or a $100 per day fine be imposed. He said no cars were parked in front of the property today and he does not know if the house is occupied. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted City Exhibits 1 -10 and displayed photographs of the site. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia said an open air bathroom is considered a health and safety violation. He said it is unlikely the new toilet had been connected to the City’s sewage system and expressed concern effluent from the toilet probably had not been properly eliminated. He said construction work to convert the property into a multi-family dwelling did not appear professional. Ms. Dougall-Sides said though possible zoning violations exist, the board is addressing permitting and inspection issues. In response to questions from property owner Melvin Spinoza, Mr. Coccia said he had not entered the property’s back yard after his initial visit due to the posted “No Trespassing” sign. He did not knock on the door or enter the property during today’s visit. Mr. Spinoza said there is no evidence the backyard septic tank was reconnected. He said the subject sink was removed and the toilet was capped in March. In response to a question, Mr. Coccia said Mr. Spinoza had never contacted the City requesting an inspection to verify that work had been completed. Mr. Coccia had telephoned Mr. Spinoza on April 16, 2001, and advised him the carport structure had to be removed. Concern was expressed the illegal dwelling had been constructed without proper permits or fees. Mr. Spinoza said the carport and sun porch were enclosed when he purchased the property three years ago. Ms. Dougall-Sides said a 1998 survey lists the sunporch as a concrete porch. Mr. Rosa did not recall seeing the toilet during his last visit to the property on March 13, 2001, when the police were present. His notes indicate the tenant had contacted Clearwater Police on that date because she was having difficulty collecting her belongings. In response to a question from Mr. Spinoza, Mr. Rosa said he had not observed effluent on the ground. He said the Police Department had issued a letter to the Clearwater Housing Authority on behalf of the tenant, stating she was living in an unfit dwelling unit and had to vacate the premises within 30 days. He said the woman had been occupying the illegal addition. Mr. Spinoza said the woman was a squatter, not a tenant. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 22, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Inspectors Mike Coccia and Rick Rosa for City and Respondent Melvin Spinoza, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-10 (Ex. – notice of violation and stop work order dated 3/14/01; Ex. 2 – affidavit of posting dated 5/1/01; Ex. 3 – code sections; Ex. 4 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 – activity log; Ex. 6 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; Ex. 7 – notice of hearing; Ex. 8 – affidavit of service/posting dated 8/10/01; Ex. 9 – SFG Tecdhnologies, Inc. inquiry; and Ex. 10 – composite photos dated 3/7/01] and Defendant Exhibit 1 – survey dated 9/24/98, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code in that a carport was converted into dwelling unit without permits and inspections. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Article IV, Chapter 47, Section 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 by September 10, 2001. 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 10, 2001, the Respondent may be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty and no/100 dollars ($250.00) per day for each day the violation continues beyond September 10, 2001. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1F) Case 34-01 Valerie Hofmeister & Merle Blasjo 1265 Lakeview Road (Lot Clearing and Outdoor Strorage) - Doherty Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by certified mail service. Dave Whitehead, representative, stated the owners admit to the violation, stating a tenant had caused the problems. Inspections Specialist Geri Doherty said some items remained outdoors and a trailer was in the driveway when she last inspected the property on August 20, 2001. She recommended the property owner be given 10 days to comply or be fined $100 per day if debris is not removed from the property and the lot is not cleared now or in the future. Member Cole moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 22, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Inspector Geri Doherty for City, and Property Manager Dave Whitehead for Respondent, it is evident the property is in violation of the City code regarding outdoor storage and excessive growth or accumulation of weeds, grass, etc. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-1503.B.7 and 3-1502.G 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 September 10, 2001. 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 10, 2001, 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 September 10, 2001. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1G) Case 35-01 Lloyd & Kim Lehan 909 Bruce Avenue (Fence) – Phillips Board Secretary Diana read the Affidavit of Violation & Request for Hearing. Service on the notice of hearing was obtained by posting the property on August 10, 2001. Code Enforcement Inspector Julie Phillips said she had not checked the permit status. Property owner Lloyd Lehan said he had hired a contractor on August 16, 2001, and work should begin on September 5, 2001. Ms. Phillips recommended the property owner be given 30 days to comply or be fined $100 per day. She said the case has been open since April 2001. It was suggested the fee be lowered as the violation does not affect health or safety. Member Huffman moved that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has heard testimony at its regular meeting held on August 22, 2001, and based on the evidence issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT After hearing testimony of Inspector Julie Phillips for City and Respondent Lloyd Lehan III, and viewing the evidence, City Exhibits 1-8, (Ex. 1 - notice of violation; Ex. 2 – code section; Ex. 3 – affidavit of posting dated 7/16/01; Ex. 4 – property appraiser printout; Ex. 5 – complaint form dated 4/20/01; Ex. 6 – fence proposal; Ex. 7 – affidavit of violation and request for hearing; and Ex. 8 – composite photos dated 7/10/01 and 7/16/01), it is evident the property is in violation of the City code regarding fence maintenance. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Respondent by reason of the foregoing is in violation of Sections 3-808, 3-808.A.2, 3-808.A.3, 3-808.A.4, 3-808.A.5 and 3-808.A.6 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 September 30, 2001. 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 30, 2001 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 September 30, 2001. 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. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #2 – Unfinished Business Case 42-00 - (Cont’d from 07/25/01) William, Michael & Assoc., Inc. (Philip J. Matonte, RA) 307 Leeward Island (Building) - Chaplinsky Building Official Kevin Garriott reviewed the background of the property. The City had cited the project when construction did not match submitted drawings. Revised drawings, submitted one week before the September 2000 MCEB meeting, were forwarded to a City consultant. Both staff and the property owner requested continuances. By January 2001, the project complied with Code. Per Sec. 7-102(C) of the Community Development Code, as the violation was corrected prior to January 2001, the item was continued. As no recurrence of the violation occurred within six months, the item was withdrawn. 2A) Case 01-97 - Affidavit of Compliance Duane & Marian Jung) 2140 Calumet Street (Fire Code) - Colbert AND 2B) Case 09-01 - Affidavit of Compliance Robert Amy McGregor 2477 Chaucer Street (Traffic Related to Home Occupation; Trailer in Setback) - Doherty Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavits of Compliance for Case 01-97 and Case 09-01. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2C) Case 13-01 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance Donn McKnight 508 S. Greenwood Avenue (Building Code) – Coccia AND 2D) Case 22-01 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance re Part II of Order John S. Lynn C/O Jeralne C. Burt 1109 Tangerine Street (Housing) – Rosa AND 2E) Case 24-01 - Affidavit of Non-Compliance re Part II of Order Jeralne C. Burt & Errol J. Kidd 1113 Tangerine Street (Housing) – Rosa Member Tieman moved to accept the Affidavit of Non-Compliance and issue the order imposing the fine for Case 13-01 and accept the Affidavits of Non-Compliance regarding Part II of the Orders and issue the orders imposing the fines for Cases 22-01 and 24-01. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item # 3 – Other Board Action/Discussion 3A) Case 19-95 - Addressing Board re Reduction in Fine Larry Bunting 804 & 804 ½ Pennsylvania Avenue CNHS (Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Association) Executive Director Isiah Gulley said her organization has acquired the subject property for in-fill housing. She requested forgiveness of the property’s past liens, totaling $49,750. She reviewed the history of the property, noting its previous use as a junkyard was inappropriate for a residential neighborhood. Ms. Diana reported administration costs related to the liens total $1,180. Board Attorney Andy Salzman said the board cannot reduce the lien below administration costs. Support of CNHS efforts was stated. Member Tieman moved to reduce the amount of the lien for Case 19-95, 804 & 804 ½ Pennsylvania Avenue, to $1,180. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item # 4 – New Business Ms. Diana stated the board will consider rule revisions in September. Ms. Dougall-Sides requested members forward to her recommendations for changes to the Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides distributed drafted changes to rules related to lien waivers and requested member comments at the next meeting. It was recommended time limits be imposed on staff and applicant presentations. Item #5 – Nuisance Abatement Lien Filings Robert Hall COD2001-02481 1844 Overbrook Avenue $ 254.60 Sunset Point 1st Addition, Blk D, Lot 8 V. Kennedy COD2001-01237 21557 US 19N $ 250.00 Section 08-29-16, M&B 33/06 Edward Lewis COD2001-01283 800 North Pennsylvania Avenue $ 418.00 Pine Crest, Blk 5, Lot 6 Pinellas Habitat Humanity COD2001-01284 917 Seminole Street $ 250.00 Pine Crest, Blk 8, W50' of E97' Lot 1 Helene Mercier COD2001-03429 3201 Drew Street $ 576.99 Section 16-29-16, M&B 12/02 Manuel Kastrenakes, Tre COD2001-03535 Evangeline Kastrenakes $250.00 19206 US 19N Section 19-29-16, M&B 14/06 Vincent Piccolo COD2001-00961 C/O Catherine Natale POA $ 250.00 1468 South Prescott Avenue Sall's 1st Addition, Bk C, Lot 14 Concern was expressed the City is filing a lien against Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Diana stated the lien represents actual costs to the City. Staff will review the item. Member Tieman moved to accept the nuisance abatement lien filings. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #6 – Approval of Minutes Member Tieman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 25, 2001, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item #7 – Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.