►
From YouTube: Code Enforcement Board 2-24-2021
Description
Code Enforcement Board 2-24-2021
A
A
A
A
C
F
A
Okay,
under
new
business,
we
have
no
new
business
under
unfinished
business.
We
have
one
case:
it's
a
hearing
imposing
penalty
case
number
20-76382
code;
compliance
officer,
nick
faulconer
respondents,
clara
s;
flack
dr
responsible
party;
raymond
salisbury,
address
of
violation,
517
wood
street
violation
of
chapter
26,
section
8.11,
parent
e,
one;
two,
three:
four
dead
trees,
violation
of
chapter
9,
section;
9-2,
parent,
a
and
violation
of
chapter
26,
section
8.14,
b,
outside
storage,
violation
of
chapter
9,
section,
9-2,
parent
h,
tall
grass
and
or
weeds,
because
this
is
a
hearing
imposing
penalty.
A
G
For
the
record,
nick
faulkner,
co-compliance
officer
for
the
city
of
punta
corda-
and
I
have
been
sworn
this
matter-
was
before
the
board
on
october
28
2020.
At
which
time
the
board
heard
testimony
received
evidence
and
entered
its
compliance
order,
which
I
posted
on
the
property
and
at
city
hall
on
october
28
2020
and
which
was
returned
undelivered
via
certified
return
receipt
mail
on
november
3rd
2020..
G
The
compliance
order
required
the
respondent
and
responsible
party
to
remove
the
unlicensed
black
vehicle,
a
black
lincoln
vehicle
from
the
property,
or
to
be
licensed.
With
a
valid
tag
displayed
on
the
vehicle
within
30
days
of
receipt
of
the
notice
I
received
the
order
and
the
dead
palm
trees
be
removed
from
the
property
and
any
stump
be
cut
below
grade
or
removed,
and
all
exposed
soil
areas
be
covered
with
sod
or
an
approved
ground
cover
within
30
days.
Overseated.
G
The
order
and
the
plastic
containers,
plastic,
jugs
plastic
buckets,
be
removed
from
the
property
or
stored
inside
within
30
days
overseas.
The
order
and
the
tall
grass
in
our
weeds
being
mowed,
trimmed
and
maintained
within
30
days
of
receipt
of
the
order
and
two
cease
and
desist
from
any
future
violations
of
the
pontic
order.
Code:
chapter
26,
section
8.11,
1,
chapter
9,
section
9-2-a,
chapter
26,
section
8.14,
b
and
chapter
9,
section
9-2-h.
G
G
An
affidavit
of
non-compliance
and
notice
of
hearing
opposing
penalty
was
mailed
to
the
respondent
and
responsible
party
on
january
29
2021
via
certified
return
receipt
mail
which
was
received
by
the
responsible
party
on
january
30th,
2021
and
the
affidavit
of
non-compliance
and
notes.
Hearing
opposing
penalty
addressed
to
the
respondent
was
returned
undelivered
on
february
3rd
2021..
A
B
G
G
B
I
mean
usually
maybe
the
attorney
would
but
anytime.
I
was
involved
with
something
like
that.
You
did
two
things.
You
sent
one
certified
letter
and
then
you
sent
a
cert
a
regular
letter
which
was
delivered
so
then
you
had,
if
both
were
there
and
it
came
back,
you
had
noticed
that
they
did
receive
the
mail.
I'm
just
curious
to
make
sure
that
yeah.
E
B
F
This
has
gone
on
too
long
and
they
they've
made
no
attempt,
I
mean
you
could
take
the
gas
can
away
for
god's
sakes.
They've
made
no
attempt
to
clean
up
the
house,
and
god
knows
what
the
neighbors
think.
So
I'm
not
going
to
reduce
it
we'll
get
their
attention
if
they
want
to
come
in
and
ask
for
reduction,
that's
fine,
but
we'll
get
their
attention.
This
way.
B
Well,
I
would
agree
with
miss
suckalotto,
it's
excessive,
but
I
also
agree
with
mr
weiner
that
I
do
want
to
get
their
attention
and
if
they
do
come
in
and
ask
for
a
reduction,
that's
another
opportunity
for
us
to
show
some
leniency
in
this
matter.
But,
right
now
this
person
seems
to
be
just
disregarding
the
issues
that
make
him
responsible
for
this.
A
E
For
record
dave,
mccarty
cook's
my
supervisor,
I
had
terry
hand
out
the
list
of
the
fines
that
the
board
has
issued.
Now
you
have
five
years
worth
of
data
there.
I
did
a
little
check
on
this.
The
board
in
five
years
issued
126
fines
and
if
you
take
that
into
consideration
that
10
of
them
were
for
the
gas
pump,
violations
at
the
mobile
station
and
28
of
them
were
for
the
sign
thing
that
we
did.
E
E
C
A
E
F
A
F
C
E
A
I
agree
that
we
should
re
reduce
them
in
some
cases,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
just
a
precedent
that
I
feel
it
sets
that
people
can
go
ahead
and
neglect
city
staff
in
doing
their
job
and
then
neglect
us
by
avoidance
behavior,
and
that
that's
not
my
term.
That
was
a
former
board
member's
term
that
then
they
can
come
in
for
a
fine
reduction
and
we
drop
it
down
to
zero.
A
F
I
I
don't
pretend
to
know
what
goes
on
in
and
be
behind
the
scenes
in
the
in
the
courts
and
and
what
have
you.
But
I
I'm
I'm
a
little
upset
that
that
a
piece
of
property
that
we
spent
countless
years
on
trying
to
get
into
compliance
the
property
owner
came
in
offered
the
city
council
an
amount
they
turned
it
down
came
into
this
board
turned
it
offered
us
an
amount.
F
F
D
As
you
recall,
due
to
a
conflict
of
interest
with
our
firm,
we
had
to
retain
that
the
city
had
to
retain
outside
con
council,
and
that
council
was,
I
mean
they
represent.
Other
cities
as
well,
so
they're
familiar
with
code
enforcement
and
and
some
relatively
recent
case
law
has
come
out
at
the
appellate
level,
focusing
in
on
the
provision
in
162
that
talks
about
the
fines
that
may
be
assessed
and
a
provision
in
there.
That
said
that
the
fines
should
not
be
excessive
or
it
should
be
reasonable.
D
Explained
to
the
city
council
when
they
were
given
consideration
of
the
settlement
proposal
took
to
heart,
and
there
was
also
laid
in
the
game
by
their
new.
My
partner's
newest
attorneys
that
made
what's
called
demand
for
judgment
and
a
demand
for
judgment
says:
look
we're
gonna,
we'll
settle
this
case
for
x
number
of
dollars
and
and
if,
if,
if
the
city
was
to
lose,
the
result
was
an
award
substantially
less
than
what
the
offer
was.
D
The
city
would
be
responsible
for
paying
the
attorney's
fees
for
the
opposing
council.
So
so
there
were
a
number
of
different
factors
that
the
city
council
I
mean.
I
wasn't
party
to
that-
to
the
cliched
meeting.
But
from
what
I
understand,
there
were
a
number
of
factors
like
that
that
were
presented
to
them
by
the
the
outside
council
and
and
the
ultimate
settlement
was
more
than
what
the
previous
offers
had
been.
F
Somebody
comes
in
that
door
and
or
doesn't
come
in
that
door
ignores
us
over
and
over
again
we
finally
put
a
penalty
on
the
person
they
relent
and
clean
up
or
paint
up
or
do
whatever
they're
supposed
to
be
doing
to
their
property
come
back
in,
and
we
said
well,
okay,
as
long
as
it's
done,
we'll
reduce
it
to
zero.
Now,
that's
because
we
thought
it
was
excessive.
I
assume
that's
the
reason
the
court
said
it
was
excessive
because
they
ignored
us.
F
C
D
You
know
the
court
doesn't
sit
in
the
same
position
as
the
code
enforcement
board,
so
you
know
their
their
consideration
is
with
a
different
viewpoint.
At
some
point
in
time,
though,
reasonable
people
make
may
conclude
that
a
fine
that
runs
into
you
know
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
something
like
palm
fronds.
D
You
know,
may
be
excessive,
and-
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that
you
should
adopt
a
policy
that
if
somebody
has
a
fine
and
they
come
into
compliance,
that
they
automatically
get
a
reduction
to
zero.
You
do
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and-
and
there
have
been
many
instances
when
people
would
come
in
for
a
fine
reduction
and
it
wasn't
reduced
to
zero.
I
think,
in
the
cases
that
where
you
did
reduce
it
to
zero,
that
the
respondent
had
some
legitimate
reasons
why
it
might
have
been
inappropriate
to
give
them
an
excessive
fine.
A
The
respondent
spent
I'm
sure
an
enormous
amount
of
money,
just
defending
his
position
in
the
case
and
ultimately,
it
went
to
city
council
and
it
was
ultimately
their
decision
to
to
settle
the
case
and-
and
I
have
no
problem
with
city
council-
doing
their
job,
which
I
think
they
did
in
a
further
thing-
that
the
respondent
kind
of
learned,
a
lesson
here.
He
didn't
get
off
scot-free.