Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-01-2010 September 1, 2010 - 9:00 am HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS ROGER POITRAS ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA PRESENT Chairman……………………………………………………………………..Dr. Dale Ingersol Board Members……………………………………………………………...Ray Hofmann …………………………………………………………………………………Wes Taylor …………………………………………………………………………………Mitchell Williford …………………………………………………………………………………Phillip Stickles …………………………………………………………………………………Margaret Monahan …………………………………………………………………………………Ralph Fogg Board Attorney……………………………………………………………….Jack Krieger STAFF PRESENT Assistant County Attorney………………………………………………..Katherine Mackenzie-Smith Building Supervisor………………………………………………………..Ken Arnold Code Enforcement Supervisor………………………………….…….….Dennis Bunt Code Enforcement Officer ………………………………………………..Melissa Brubaker Code Enforcement Officer………………………………………………...Lynn Swartzel Code Enforcement Officer…………………………………………..…….Danielle Williams Contractor License………………………………………………….…..….Monica Vargas-Barrios Board Secretary…………………………………………………………….Debbie Isenhour I. CALL TO ORDER The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by Dr. Ingersoll. II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag. III. ROLL CALL The Board Secretary called the roll and everyone was present. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 4, 2010 Mr. Stickles made a motion to accept the minutes of August 4, 2010 as presented . Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Danielle Williams, and Monica Vargas Barrios were sworn in. 1 VI. CONSENT AGENDA Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien Case No. John and Staci Dunn #55480 Mrs. Monahan asked if the date on the background information should be 2008 or 2010 Mrs. Williams answered that it was a scribner’s error and it should be 2008. Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Case No. Alexander Pitts #97110029 Alexander Pitts #20251 Alexander Pitts #42316 Rescind of Findings of Facts Case No. SS South Fort Pierce, LLC #65137 Mr. Stickles made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation as presented. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VII. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name th 65488 408 N. 40 St., Ft. Pierce, FL Williams T. Dramble 64643 441 Sunrise Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Sandra S. Henry 62284 3119 S. Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Kaisa Lind 64518 6502 Ft. Pierce Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL Thomas R. and Linda M. Jenkins VIOLATION CASES HEARD: Case #4 was heard first on the agenda: Case #65794, Location of violation, 3107 Kingsley Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owners, Thelma Pettigrew and Thelma M. Grimes. Thelma M. Grimes, 3109 Ave T, Apt A, Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board Secretary. Officer Swartzel submitted four photos dated August 30, 2010. She noted that during her first inspection on May 20, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 7.05.09(B), House and Building Numbers and Section 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Article 304.2, Protective Treatments to clean the mold and mildew and paint the house if needed. She gave a compliance date of June 30, 2010. She had no contact with the property owners and as of August 31, 2010 the property remains in violation. Mrs. Grimes stated she was in violation. She noted that she did not receive the first notice and when she received this one, she took care of the violation. 2 The Chairman explained to Mrs. Grimes that Staff sends out notices to the address on record. He suggested that if she is the owner, she should go to Property Appraisal to change the address to her address. He asked if the house numbers have been installed. Mrs. Grimes answered in the affirmative. She stated that they are up, but they were painted the same color as the trim. The Chairman asked about the mold and mildew. Mrs. Grimes answered that she will be pressure washing the house. The Chairman suggested that she gets with Officer Swartzel to make sure that it is in compliance. Mr. Fogg asked if there is a picture showing the house numbers because he cannot see them. The Chairman stated that the house numbers need to be facing the street and visible from the street. Mrs. Monahan Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #65794 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by October 8, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. st Please take notice that on the 1 Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #63284, Location of violation, 8456 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owner, Once Plan B LLC. Jose Alanis, 8400 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, was sworn in by the Board Secretary. The Chairman asked Mr. Alanis what was his interest with the company. Mr. Alanis answered that he was the owner. Officer Williams submitted four photos dated August 27, 2010. She noted that on June 2, 2008, a permit for a mobile office handicap ramp and landscaping was applied for. The permit was voided on June 22, 2009 due to an incomplete permit application. On August 19, 2009, Officer Brome inspected the property to see if the work was complete or not and it was. On August 20, 2009, Officer Brome cited the property for Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits for not having a permit for the entry deck, ramp, stairs, and the gated fence. He gave a compliance date of December 20, 2009. After getting no compliance, a notice to appear was issued on August 10, 2010. As of today, September 1, 2010, no permits have been applied for or issued. The Chairman noted that he needed some clarification. He asked when the permit was issued. Officer Williams answered the permit for a handicap ramp was issued on June 2, 2008. The Chairman asked if the permit was voided on June 22 and why. Officer Williams answered that it was voided on June 22 for an incomplete permit application due to reviews that were not met. She noted that the permit was applied for but not issued. 3 Mr. Alanis stated that he was in violation. He noted that he had a contractor who completed the work but did not follow through. He will be hiring a company by the name of Ladical Design Groups to help restore the permits and correct the violation. He noted that Code Enforcement keeps sending the notices to 8455 Orange Ave, which is across the street. He noted that they have not been at that address for three to four years. He noted that the tax record shows the correct address. The Chairman asked if he already had a drawing. Mr. Alanis answered no. He noted that the previous contractor took everything. Ladical Design would have to start over. The Chairman asked Mr. Arnold if the county kept copies of the plans. Mr. Arnold answered that once a permit is voided, the application and plans are returned. Mrs. Monahan asked what the nature of his business was. Mr. Alanis answered that it is used for citrus hauling. Mr. Bunt explained to the Board that there is no occupational license for a business there. Mr. Alanis stated that he is working on that. He noted that he does have an occupational license but it is for another location. The Chairman noted that the Board needed to determine a time frame. He stated that he needed a survey and then turn it over to an engineer. Mr. Alanis noted that he needed an elevation. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #63284 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by January 17, 2011 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been st imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1 Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Hall was sounded and Mr. Stickles read the names and numbers of the cases of those not present into the record: Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor Violator 65636 366 Smallwood Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Deutsche Bank Nat TR Co (TR) 66121 5211 Sunset Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL Jeffrey R. Young 65878 204 SE Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie Ramon E. and Teresa Conde 65969 2708 Walker Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Alice C. Owens (Est.) 65682 Lot next to 1815 N. 50h St, Ft. Pierce, FL Johnny J. Johnson 4 65641 3008 Ave R, Ft. Pierce, FL Jerome Rhyant and Chris Fogal 64643 441 Sunrise Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Sandra S. Henry 65587 954 Fra Mar Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Eric C. Smith and Rose A. Stevens 61423 4032 Greenwood Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Steven H. and Helen D. Marshall Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to the case read into the record that the Code Enforcement Board enter an Order of Finding against the violator finding the violator in default and if the violator does not appear to contest the violation against him/her that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as set forth on the agenda. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VIII FINE HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name 64518 6502 Ft. Pierce Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL Thomas R. and Linda M. Jenkins Case #65098, Location of violation, 3307 Delaware Ave., Fort, Pierce, FL., Property Owner, Gregory Glafenhein. No one was present to represent the property owner. Officer Williams resubmitted two photos dated March 18, 2010, which were taken by Officer Fowler and two photos dated July 6, 2010. She submitted two photos dated August 31, 2010. She noted that this case was brought before the Board on July 7, 2010, and the Board found the property in violation of Section 1-9-19, Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles, Etc for having outside storage. The Board gave until August 6, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. As of yesterday, August 31, 2010, the property remains in violation. There are still items stored outside and behind the privacy fence. She noted that there are neighbors present to speak before the Board. Karen Emerson, 3503 Fontaneda Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. She stated that the last time she was here she promised the Board that she would be back with the neighbors. She noted that Mr. Glafenehein has attempted to hide the debris by putting a pile of boards together to form a fence which he does not have a permit for. She has asked Staff about this and was not thrilled with the answer she was given. She stated that Mr. Glafenhein spent all of July and August dragging things behind the fence. She noted that she does not understand why Code Enforcement did not cite him to remove the fence. She wanted to see him cited to remove the fence. Mr. Bunt stated that he told Mrs. Emerson that since the boards were lying there, they are considered part of the junk, trash, and debris. It does not matter that he stood them up to make a fence in order to hide the violation. Since there is no permit for the fence, the county does not recognize it as a fence. He noted that since Staff has gotten no response for the other violations, he decided to bring him before the Board instead of citing him again. Mrs. Emerson stated that she hoped Staff followed through with it. She stated that they are having a very hard time with the neighborhood. There is another violation on Menendez that has never been cited. She noted that there are people in the community who are struggling to maintain their property values. She has watched this go on for more than a year in silence and she can no longer remain in silence. 5 Gladys King, 3407 Delaware Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. She stated that it is an abomination to have this place at the entrance of one of our premier high school. She stated that the first thing people see when they come to the school is the abomination. Mrs. Monahan asked why the Board could not send this to the County Commissioners. Mr. Bunt answered that it would be their next step, but he wanted a fine to be imposed first. Once that happens, he would present it to the Attorney’s Office under the House Bill. Osmond Peterson, 611 Juan Ortiz, Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. He noted that he has lived here since 1946. He stated he went to the county three times and the first two times he was told that the property was not in the county. The third time he was told that the property is in the county and they would send someone out. He asked how an open air flea market could be there without a building for seven days a week. He stated that three weeks ago there was an open flea market. He asked the Board for a solution. Hector Arias, 603 Ribaut Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. He noted that the flea market is five to six blocks away from his home. He works for the City of Ft. Pierce for twenty-two and a half years. He asked if the owner is responsible for this. He lives in a nice area and he wanted to keep it Mr. Bunt noted that Mr. Glafenhein is the owner. Mr. Peterson stated that a few weeks ago, a tree in the city was blown down in a storm and within a week the city placed a sign stating it was a nuisance. The owner had the tree removed within one week. He asked if the city and county have different ordinances. Mr. Bunt stated that he use to work for the city and what Mr. Peterson is referring to is an ordinance the city has for public nuisance for overgrowth and tree debris only. The city would post the sign and the owner has ten days to remove it or the city would remove it. He noted that the county does not have an ordinance like that. They do not go out and cut grass or remove tree. He stated that it is easier for the city because they have their own solid waste department. Mrs. Monahan asked why some of the houses on Delaware were in the city or county. Mr. Bunt answered that he does not know how the annexation process works. Mr. Peterson stated that there are still a few houses that are in the county. The Chairman stated that government cannot walk in and take over someone’s property because a code officer was upset. He noted that Mr. Glafenhein has been cited and he had full due process. He explained that the Board could only establish a fine and levy a lien. He noted that a fine will be accessed at the maximum. He stated that any other actions are in the hands of the attorney’s office. He told the neighbors that they should not expect that something is going to happen next week because if the property is homesteaded, Mr. Glafenhein could sit on the lien forever. He stated that this should go to the County’s Commissioners to look at Mrs. Monahan stated that she is going to make a motion to send this to the Board. Mrs. Emerson stated that she would like to request that this case be sent to the Board. She noted that she would like to address Mr. Bunt comment. She noted that the nuisance ordinance is 6 not only for lot clearing. If a house if burnt and ready to fall down, the city will post it, and then hire a contractor. She noted that Public Works does not do that nor store lot clearing. A lien is placed on the property for the cost of the removal. Mrs. Monahan stated that she thought the county did the same thing. Mr. Bunt stated that the county does it under condemnation. The city takes it a step further by having a nuisance abatement ordinance. The Chairman suggested that Mrs. Emerson should take a copy of the ordinance with her to the Board meeting. Mr. Fogg stated that he believes this is a health issue and the Health Department should be notified. Mr. Bunt explained that it is Code Enforcement job to go out and cite people and generate cases. He stated that a lot of people believe that Staff does not do anything. He noted that the agenda is thin because his Staff is thin. They have given cases to the Health Department but now they just refer them back to Staff. He explained that if Staff took this case before the County Commissioners before taking it to the Board, they would want to know if Mr. Glafenhein was given due process and given reasonable time to correct the violation. He noted that Staff next step is to bring this case before the Board of County Commissioners under the House Bill to allow Staff to go to court and have an order granted to go in and clean the property up. Phyllis Castro, 3405 Delaware Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. She noted that for the past two years she has notice around fifty garage sales with many items hung on the fence for display. Trucks would be going into the yard to drop off their goods. There are indoor, outdoor, and wooden furniture in the yard. They are tons of outdoor items set up in the yard ready to be sold. She stated that in an event of a hurricane, this could be a danger to the neighbors. Property values have been impacted negatively due to this property. She stated that they needed the Board’s help. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65098 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting August 7, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65098 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendation of Staff with regard to the existence of a violation, we make the following determination: The condition caused the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and Staff is directed to notify the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners of the conditions. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Emerson asked if the county’s code require a five thousand dollars cap. 7 The Chairman answered in the affirmative. He noted that they have to show that they treat all citizens the same. Mrs. Emerson asked if the fine does not run until the violation is corrected. She noted that she was not aware that the county had a cap. The Chairman stated that it is five thousand for residential and ten thousand for commercial properties. Mr. Krieger stated that he wanted to clarify that this is a policy based on legal consideration. He noted that statutorily there is no cap. Mrs. Emerson stated that the city does not have a cap. The Chairman explained that the Board did not want to have to pick and chose so they placed a cap. Mrs. Emerson stated that the alternative would be not to cap anyone. The Chairman noted that if a person was not motivated by five thousand they will not be motivated by ten or twenty thousand. He stated that Mr. Glafenhein already has a lien of five thousand dollars on his property which did not motivate him and now there is ten thousand dollars on his property. Mrs. Emerson stated that the motivation would be when they want to sell the house. In the city, a fine could only be reduced if they can prove that the property has been brought into compliance. Mr. Bunt explained that the reason the Board reduced it is because when cases are presented before the judge, the judge finds a fine excessive when there is a fine of three hundred thousand dollars on a property that is worth eighty thousand dollars. Case #65472, Location of violation, 1107 W. Joy Lane, Fort, Pierce, FL., Property Owner, th Alejandro Calderon. Alejandro Calderon and Alejandro Calderon, Jr., 2916 S. 10 St., Ft. Pierce, FL, were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. The Chairman asked why the addresses were different. Mr. Calderon, Jr. stated that the mobile home is a rental. Officer Swartzel submitted one photo dated August 30, 2010. This case was brought before the July 7, 2010 Board meeting and found in default of Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits to obtain a permit or remove the storage/screen enclosure. The Board gave until August 6, 2010 to correct the violation. On August 23, 2010, the property owner’s wife informed her that the tenant just gave her all the paper work that was mailed to them. They are here today to ask for more time because the tenants did not give them the paperwork. As of today, the property remains in violation. The Chairman asked if the property is in violation. Mr. Calderon answered in the affirmative. The Chairman asked what they are trying to do to resolve this. Mr. Calderon, Jr., translated that his father wanted to know what he needed to do to get a permit. 8 The Chairman stated that there are two things that can be done to get this resolved. The easiest one to do is to just tear it down and remove it. The second thing he could do is to hire an engineer to approve what is already there. He stated that he will be wasting his time because the engineer will have to redesign it. A survey is needed to locate the septic and water system. A design drawing is needed on how it is connected to the building. He noted that he could tell that it is not built to code. The process could be expensive and lengthy. Mr. Calderon, Jr. asked how long he has to tear it down. The Chairman asked how long he could tear it down. Mr. Calderon answered in two weeks. The Chairman asked Mr. Arnold if a permit is required to tear the structure down. Mr. Arnold answered that someone would have to check to see if it is removed. Mr. Bunt answered that Staff would check to see if it is down based on the Board’s order. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65472 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting November 1, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Chairman explained that the structure would have to be removed and approved by Officer Swartzel by November 1 and there would still be a one hundred and twenty-five dollar charge for prosecuting the case. Mrs. Monahan suggested that they go down to Property Appraisal to change the address so that they will receive all notices. The Chairman explained that if they do not get it down there will be a five thousand dollars fine. IX. REPEAT VIOLATION : None X. FINE REDUCTION HEARING : Case #64356, Location of violation, 5575 Altman Rd., Fort, Pierce, FL., Property Owner, Raul th Macias, Mr. Macias, 2613 S. 29 St., Ft. Pierce, FL were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Williams resubmitted three photos dated February 2, 2010 taken by Officer Fowler and one photo dated June 1, 2010. She noted that the case was brought before the Board on February 3, 2010 and the Board found the property in violation of Section 3.01.03(I), RS-3, Residential, Single Family and Section 7.10.14(A), Commercial Vehicles and Semi Trailers for parking and storing commercial vehicles in a residential zone. She noted that the property owner was present at the meeting. The Board gave until May 5, 2010 to correct the violation. At the fine hearing on June 2, 2010, the property owner was not present. A fine of two hundred and fifty 9 dollars per day not to exceed five thousand dollars was imposed starting May 6, 2010 with a hundred and twenty five dollars for the cost of prosecuting the case. On June 3, 2010, the property owner came to the county to find out why he was being fined because the semi-trailers were removed. She informed him he was still in violation because the semi-trailers were still there. On June 11, 2010, Mr. Macias removed the semi-trailers and the property was in compliance. Mrs. Monahan asked if Staff was referring to the black trailer. Officer Williams answered that he removed the trucks but left the trailers. Mr. Macias stated he had until May 5 to remove the commercial vehicles and trailers but he left the boxes. The boxes were sitting on two commercial vehicles he had on the property. He did know they were creating problems. He called Officer Williams on June 2 and she told him he was still in violation. He removed them as soon as he could. The Chairman asked Officer Williams if the trailers were gone within a couple of days of Mr. Macias calling her. Officer Williams answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Monahan asked if the reason he did not appear for the second meeting was because he thought it was abated. Mr. Macias answered in the affirmative. He did not know there was a second meeting. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64356 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: The fine of $5000.00 imposed by the Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bunt asked if the reduction included the prosecution cost. Mrs. Monahan stated that the prosecution cost should remain. The Chairman asked Mrs. Monahan to read the motion again so that there is clarity. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64356 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: The fine of $5000.00 imposed by the Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. However, the prosecution cost of $150.00 must stay in affect. Mr. Stickles asked if he had to pay it within a certain amount of time. Mr. Krieger suggested to the Board that they could say that the prosecution cost must be paid within x amount of days or the fine could revert back to the original fine. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64356 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: The fine of $5000.00 imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. The prosecution cost of $150.00 that was imposed remains imposed. The cost of prosecution must be paid within ten days of this hearing or the fine amount will revert back to the original cost of $5000.00 plus the cost of prosecution. Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion was passed. Mr. Fogg voted no. 10 Case #54331, Location of violation, 7328 Commercial Cir., Fort, Pierce, FL., Property Owner, Joseph G. Miller, 5500 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Mr. Stickles rescued himself from this case. Mr. Bunt stated that Mr. Miller was found in violation because his tenant did construction on the building without a permit. Mr. Miller appeared before the Board twice in order to correct the violation. Since the tenant did not obtain the permit, Mr. Miller had to evict him which took time. Mr. Miller obtained he permit and is asking for a fine reduction. The Chairman asked why Staff wanted to deny the fine reduction since Mr. Miller took care of the violation. Mr. Bunt answered that Staff keeps everything the same as long as Staff follows procedure and the violator did not bring up anything different. He noted that it is up to the Board to reduce the fine. Mr. Miller stated that he wanted to apologize to the Board. When he received notice of the fine, he evicted his tenant. He noted that it cost him $18,000 to correct the problem. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #54331 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: The fine of $10,000.00 imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. The prosecution cost of $125.00 that was imposed remains imposed. The cost of prosecution must be paid within ten days of this hearing or the fine amount will revert back to the original cost of $10,125.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VII. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: None VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: None IX. STAFF BUSINESS: Mr. Bunt stated he would like to introduce Michelle Prestridge who is the new temporary Code Officer who will be filling in for Officer Counsellor while he is away in Texas. . IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:23 a.m. _________________________ ______________________ Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date __________________________ _______________________ Danielle Williams Date 11