My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CEB 10/11/2012 Minutes
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
Advisory Board Minutes
>
Code Enforcement Hearing Minutes
>
CEB Minutes Archives
>
2012 CEB Minutes
>
CEB 10/11/2012 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2013 9:43:34 AM
Creation date
1/11/2013 9:43:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Meeting Type
Regular
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
10/11/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
® CE -12 -01608 104 Marl-, David Blvd <br />Justin Leonard, Code Compliance Officer, gave testimony for the above case. <br />MOTION: Mr. Henson moved to find Respondents in this case in violation of the City Code as charged and <br />that Respondents correct the violation before 1:00 p.m. on 10/25/2012. In the event Respondent does not <br />comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation <br />continues past the aforestated date. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the Code Compliance <br />Officer to verify compliance with this Order. I find that the violations constitute a serious threat to the <br />public health, safety and welfare and in the event the Respondents do not correct the violation by the date <br />set in this order, the city commission shall be notified and appropriate action should be taken by the City to <br />bring the property into compliance. The City is entitled to recover its reasonable costs of such services. Mr. <br />Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. <br />Overgrown property, ULDR Section 3 -10.3 <br />® CE -12 -01619 441 Jasmine Rd <br />Luis Rivera, Code Compliance Officer, gave testimony for the above case. <br />MOTION: Mr. Herron moved to find Respondents in this case in violation of the City Code as charged and <br />that Respondents correct the violation before 1:00 p.m. on 10/25/2012. In the event Respondent does not <br />comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation <br />continues past the aforestated date. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the Code Compliance <br />Officer to verify compliance with this Order. I find that the violations constitute a serious threat to the <br />public health, safety and welfare and in the event the Respondents do not correct the violation by the date <br />set in this order, the city commission shall be notified and appropriate action should be taken by the City to <br />bring the property into compliance. The City is entitled to recover its reasonable costs of such services. Mr. <br />Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. <br />Roof maintenance ULDR Section 3-10.3 <br />® CE -12 -01644 1350 Quintuplet Dr <br />Justin Leonard, Code Compliance Officer, gave testimony for the above case. <br />MOTION: Mr. Henson moved to find Respondents in this case in violation of the City Code as charged and <br />that Respondent(s) correct the violation before 1:00 p.m. on 10/25/2012. In the event Respondent does not <br />comply by this date, a fine in the amount of $25.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation <br />continues past the aforestated date. The Respondents are further ordered to contact the Code Compliance <br />Officer to verify compliance with this Order. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed <br />unanimously. <br />Overgrown property, ULDR Section 3 -10.3 Repeat violation <br />® CE -12 -01680 1207 Quintuplet Ct <br />Justin Leonard, Code Compliance Officer, gave testimony for the above case. This property was in violation <br />for 25 days. <br />MOTION: Mr. Henson moved to find Respondents in this case were in repeat violation of City Code as <br />charged based on the Board's prior order entered against the same Respondent for the same violation. The <br />6 1 P a g e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.