Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> Mr. DeBlois summarized it was staffs conclusion the photographic evidence <br /> and overall information indicated there were four violations after 9:00 p.m. on the <br /> dates cited in the citation and recommended the Board uphold Citation <br /> #2014100110. <br /> The Respondent's mother, Ms. Sharon Kramer, 3 Royal Palm Pointe, Vero <br /> Beach, testified the photographs dated October 9, 2014 taken at 9:25 and 9:26 p.m. <br /> showed exterior lights and not interior lights because the drapes were pulled at the <br /> time. She stated after the warning notice had been received, blackout shades had <br /> been installed on the windows and instructions posted for anybody renting the home <br /> regarding the need to pull the drapes because of sea turtle actions. <br /> Attorney Bary Segal, representing the Respondent, gave a PowerPoint <br /> presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He pointed out <br /> there was a signification amount of vegetation along the perimeter between the <br /> Respondent's house and the beach and maintained the only thing visible from the <br /> beach within the two foot limit was the roof of the house. He stated there was no <br /> evidence that the photos of the subject property presented in evidence were taken <br /> from the beach; but they could have been taken from other vantage points. <br /> Mr. Herren stated he had not personally observed the alleged violations on the <br /> dates the photographs were taken; however he had looked at the property from the <br /> beach in the past and had seen interior light coming from the third floor windows on <br /> both the east and the north side. He acknowledged the subject property had <br /> vegetation blocking it from certain angles on the beach and if the property was <br /> entirely blocked from all directions it would not be a violation; however the if light <br /> could be seen from one direction it would be a violation and it would depend on <br /> where someone was standing on the beach. <br /> Mr. Petrulak noted Ms. Kramer was no longer present and asked if either she <br /> or Attorney Segal could 100%without a doubt say the drapes were dosed after 9:00 <br /> p.m. when the subject property was occupied. Attorney Segal admitted nobody <br /> could be sure if the drapes were drawn; but it was more an issue of if the lights were <br /> visible since even the vegetation had changed since Mr. Herren conducted his last <br /> site inspection of the area. <br /> Discussion followed about the photographic evidence. <br /> Attorney Segal pointed out the window in question faced north and maintained <br /> the code applied only to windows facing the ocean. <br /> CEB-Unapproved 4 November24,2014 <br /> F:/BCC/All Committees/CODE/2014 Minutes/CODE11.24.14.doc <br /> AtTACHMENT ' <br /> 2331 <br />