Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY OF CASSELBERRY <br />CODE ENFORCEivIENT BOARD MEET'ING <br />MAY 08,2008 PAGE 5 <br /> <br />Mr. Henderson asked if Mr. Pieski is doing what was suggested, making a good faith effort to get that accomplishcd <br />then he would not be in violation as tar as Dr. Brock was concemed. At the moment that Mr. Pieski stops doing or <br />never does or is not following the road map so to speak then he would be in violation. <br /> <br />Dr. Brock stated that was correct, however in this road map he providcd, a scparate road map was not made tor if <br />Mr. Pieski gets the variance. A timeline was only made assuming he is not granted the variance. Dr. Brock has not <br />come up with a statT suggestion if he is granted the variance or how to proceed from there. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown stated that from the Code Enforcement standpoint, if in fact Mr. Pieski was granted the variance then <br />the City is basically agrecing to issue him the permit to conduct the work, which satisfies the Code violation and <br />then he would be in compliance. <br /> <br />Ms. Babb-Nutcher stated then it would be in complince, and then Mr. could come back before Board and <br />ask for a reduction of his fine. This would obviously bc the Board's decision, when a fine is running sometimes that <br />gives people greater motivation to do what they are supposed to do. <br /> <br />Mr. Henderson stated that both he and the Board would like to see this come to a conclusion in some way. However <br />at the same time to Mr. Henderson it didn't make any sense to have a fine running, depcnding on what thc City is <br />going to do. Personally Mr. Henderson stated that if the City doesn't then you start the road map, if Mr. <br />doesn't do what he is supposed to then YOll start the tine. Mr. Henderson continued. <br /> <br />Mr. Henderson asked Mr. Brock if the variance is granted could he put together a timeline that would represent that. <br /> <br />Dr. Brock stated that is that casc he would probably meet with all the Code Entorcement officials again and <br />down with Mr. Pieski and discuss how to proceed from that point. <br /> <br />Mr. Flint stated if he is granted the variance then the only issue is that he is imposing onto the other people's <br />property, which is not pmi of the CEB jurisdiction. Mr. Flint continued. <br /> <br />Discussion. <br /> <br />Dr. Brock stated that this is a recommendation to the Board, not something that has been said this is the way it is to <br />Mr. Pieski. This is a staff recommendation to the CEB. <br /> <br />Mr. Henderson asked has Mr. Pieski a,grced upon this. <br /> <br />Dr. Brock stated yes he had. <br /> <br />Ms. Babb-Nutcher stated she was still a little confused. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown stated that the Board's counsel had stated a very valid point, that regardless of the decision this evening <br />the propeliy owner is going to have to come back if the variance is granted. He would come back and ask tor a <br />dismissal or suspcnsion of the fine. Mr. Brown continued. <br /> <br />Ms. Babb-Nutcher asked about the variance he could be bJTanted, is the variance trom his dctcnnination that he is in <br />a paIiicular flood plain and that he has to take these remedial measures. <br /> <br />Dr. Brock stated yes, the variance would not be declaring him outside the flood plain; the City Commission can not <br />do that. The City Commission does have the power to override his decision; this means he would essentially be <br />al10wed to fill within the flood plain as he has done, if granted the variance. <br />