My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/11/2006
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
04/11/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2018 1:23:46 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:01:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
04/11/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3098
Book and Page
130, 527-559
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
300
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />2. REQUESTTOSPEAKFROMLESWALLERREGARDING <br /> <br />DISCUSSIONANDCONSIDERATIONRELATEDTOCODE <br /> <br />ENFORCEMENTCASE#2003090137 <br /> <br /> <br />th <br />Les Waller, <br />owner of Indian River MRI located on 37 Street,advised of asituation in <br />which his business amassed a $4,400 fine imposed by the Code Enforcement Board. He asked if <br />there was some way the Board could reduce the fine to the actual cost for overseeing the violations. <br />He explained that a company hired to install the required landscaping did not perform according to <br />their contract. That company went out of business and another company had to be hired. There <br />was also a problem in obtaining large trees. He has since rectified the violations and the County <br />has signed off on the landscaping. <br />Mr. Waller <br />In the Board’s consideration of reducing the fine, wished to bring up a Utilities <br />Department issue. He advised that he has been paying for two water and sewer meters for the past <br />5 years and the services were not available. There was supposed to be only one water meter and <br />one sewer connection for the project. When he inquired about it, he was told there were two water <br />meters and two sewer connections. When he asked to have someone from the Department show <br />him how it was determined there was only one, they offered to refund the impact fees but, he <br />reminded the Commission, he had been paying for unused services for 5 years. He asked the <br />Commissioners to take into consideration the dollars already spent when they make their decision <br />regarding the $4,400 fine. <br />County Administrator Baird noted that the Utilities Department matter is separate from the <br />code enforcement violation and they should be treated separately. He wanted to meet with Mr. <br />Waller to make sure he was treated properly. <br />Commissioner Lowther quoted several portions of the chronological list concerning this <br />code enforcement case. He had a problem with extensions as well as lowering the fine. He <br />thought Mr. Waller should pay the fine. <br />Chairman Neuberger noted that Mr. Waller did not appear for some of the hearings. <br />April 11, 2006 19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.