CEB Minutes 05-08-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF CASSELBERRY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MAY 08, 2008 PAGE 2 SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS CE-08-02311 No Building pennit 1-4.3 945 Brydie Com-t Pieski, David & Cori Ketron Brown, Codc Enforcement Supervisor read the case history to the Code Enforcement Board members. Mr. Brown continued. Richard L. Henderson, Chairperson addressed Dr. Brock in reference to this case # 07-02311. Dr. Kelly Brock, City Engineer, City ofCasselbelTY addresscd the CEB. Dr. Brock stated that the main issue is flood plain encroachment. As City Engineer one of Dr. Brock's duties is flood plain administrator and also required to enforce the code that is contained in chapter 46 of our Code of Ordinances which has to do with tlood plain regulations. Dr. Brock advised that Mr. Pieski received a permit from DEP for the seawall specifically, but this does not trump what the City of CasselbelTY requires and FD EP does not look at flood plain encroachment whenevcr they are doing those pemlits to the best of his knowledge. It is up to the City to enforce any flood plain regulations. Dr. Brock stated that thc main issue he has with Mr. Pieski's wall is that a significant portion of his property because he is on North Lake Triplet, and N0I1h Lake Triplet is a flood zone, the 100 year tlood plain essentially and portions, of the shore most of the units there a p0l1ion of them lie in that flood zone. So now when you go and construct this wall and you bring 60 cubic yards offill, you are essentially filling within that flood plain. Why this is prohibited in out City Code is, you bring fill in you are reducing the amount that lake can store which means your flood elevations would be slightly higher if you have a 100 year flood plain event. Dr. Brock continucd. Dr. Brock stated that last year Mr. Pieski had applied with Public Works for a construction pennit that had to do with the seawall, 'when he applied for that permit it did not show almost any fill, what he actually constructed had a lot of fill. The main issue was he did not construct what was pennitted. Dr. Brock apologized for the delay in his coming to a decision on this issue, this was such a grave matter that he felt he had to talk to the Director and it took a while for them to get down to the three options that he outlined in the letter. Dr. Brock then read over the three options that were included in the lctter. Dr. Brock stated the best option would be take out half of the wall and revegetate the area being taken out, remove the fill and revegetate. They have been working with a different division ofDEP that has to do with shoreline restoration and aquatic plant management, a representative from DEP was present at the meeting on 04/18/2008 with Mr. Pieski. Dr. Brock stated that as part of chapter 46, the floods chapter there is an appeals process in there specifically for flood related events. This would be a separated appeal from the Code Enforcement side, an actual separate process. Debra Babb-Nutcher asked Dr. Brock would this be appealing his decision. Dr. Brock stated this was correct. There is an appeals process where anybody can appeal the decision of the flood plain administrator and as City Engineer he is the tlood plain administrator and the language stated the appeal would go directly to City Commission there is no Board of Adjustment in that process. Ms. Babb-Nuteher asked if Mr. Pieski had done that. Dr. Brock stated that when they had met at Mr. Pieski' s home on 04/18/2008, actual date of the meeting at Mr. Pieski's home was 04/29/2008 he though that asking him to take out part of the wall and reconstruct another wing wan was a significant hardship. Dr. Brock told Mr. Pieski he would research the variance process. . Brock continued.