Laserfiche WebLink
Cont'd-Code Enf. Board-8,85 <br /> HEARINGS OF STATEMENTS OF VIOLATION PURSUANT TO IJY1<ICES OF MARINO <br /> next meeting in September in order to get a correct reading on the name of <br /> the property owner. This recommendation was seconded and the motion carried. <br /> Next case was called 85-20 City of Ocoee vs. Randy Cleever. Ken Griffin informed <br /> the board that Randy Cleever had called the city hall about 4:30 that afternoon <br /> and said that he had to work and could not attend the meeting at this time, <br /> but he is still in violation which Bill Hager can testify. Randy Cleever was <br /> cited for a red ford, expired tag, by police on June 17, 1985. Mr. Cleever <br /> had signed the police service report on July 19, 1985. It was noted that the <br /> car was originally in the street in front of the house but now it has been <br /> pulled up onto the driveway. <br /> Mr. Carlsson moved to enter an order against Mr. Cleever for proper registra- <br /> tion and to have the vegicle in operating condition or remove the same within <br /> ten days from August 12, 1985, failure to do so would result in a $25.00 a <br /> day fine until the violation has been complied. Bob Sorenson seconded the <br /> motion, motion was carried unanimously. <br /> Next case 85-23 City of Ocoee vs. Randy Tinney. Mr Tinney was not in the <br /> audience. Proof of service was signed by officer Steve Caples. Officer Caples <br /> went to Mr. Tinney's home to give the notice of hearing to him, but he would <br /> not take the notice, so officer Caples just layed the notice downon the ground <br /> about two feet away from Mr. Tinney. <br /> The violation is that there is a vehicle not in operating condition, grass has <br /> grown up around the vehicle. <br /> Frank Carlsson motioned that Mr. Tinney was not in compliance, he shall put <br /> the said vehicle in operating condition, register the vehicle or remove it, <br /> failure to do so will result in a $25.00 a day fine until said vehicle is in <br /> compliance. Joe Marbais seconded the motion, motion was carried unanimously. <br /> Deputy Clerk Nordstrom was introduced to the Board Members. <br /> PROPOSED ORDINANCES <br /> The first Proposed ordinance was just introduced at the last commission meeting, <br /> it was proposed by the City Attorney. In John Hatcher's opinion the City <br /> Attorney's proposal is not consistant as to what the board is doing. The <br /> inconsistancies that Mr Hatcher brings up are: if you do not comply it is a <br /> misdemeanor, but this board does not enforce misdemeanors, it is not a criminal <br /> action that pends before this board, and also this proposal does not explain <br /> that the non-compliance is going to come up before the Code Enforcement Board. <br /> There is a rule that you have to remove property in violation within seventy <br /> two hours, in this proposal it states that you have to remove the property <br /> in violation within fifteen days; it is unlawful to keep property in violation <br /> on public property more than seventy two hours. <br /> This proposal does not address the substantial problems that the board has <br /> been having concerning vehicles without current tags. <br /> After much discussion, Mr. Hatcher said that the new proposal has the effect <br /> of saying that the enforcement officer is right, unless the owner of the vehicle <br /> comes before the comission and complains. This proposal is going to put a lot <br /> of cases up before the commission meeting when they should be put before the <br /> Code Enforcement Board. Also, this would not give the board any more authority <br /> but an alternate route that really doesn't solve anything. <br /> Page 2 <br />