My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/20/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
10/20/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:34 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:21:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/20/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
OCT 2 ®1992 <br />POCK 8 / F.'•.,F. 8 a' 7 <br />Mr. DeBlois reported that building inspectors are the ones <br />most likely to be issuing the citations. Also, clear cut cases of <br />blatant violation would be more likely to be pursued. He stressed <br />that staff really needs to be conservative and go in with good <br />evidence, especially when the citation is first issued. Further, <br />proper authorization would be required before issuance of the <br />citation. Cases would go back to the Code Board if they are <br />challenged. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked whether individuals placing bids <br />on county projects are required to have an occupational license. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that all contractors must have both <br />a license as well as a competency card. <br />Commissioner Scurlock then asked if County employees must <br />exhibit competency in a particular type of work if that work is <br />done in-house. <br />Building Director Ester Rymer conveyed that the County is <br />exempt from state requirements on licensing. <br />Commissioner Scurlock questioned whether the County should not <br />come up to the same standards as the private sector. <br />Commissioner Tippin expressed the concern that if we"have a <br />law on the books, we need to have the means to enforce it. For <br />example, a lawn maintenance licensed contractor is not allowed to <br />replace broken sprinkler heads. They are lawn contractors, not <br />irrigation system contractors. If someone complains, then staff is <br />required to do something about it. In most instances, it is an <br />irrigation system contractor who has registered the complaint. <br />Chairman Eggert specified that, if routine repair is being <br />done, this is not the same as expansion. <br />Director Keating pointed out that this is one of the most <br />difficult issues in code enforcement - the gray areas - such as <br />just replacing sprinkler heads as opposed to replacing pipe, or <br />expanding the system. <br />Commissioner Tippin recommended that human reason be practiced <br />in all of these cases. <br />Chairman Eggert stressed that not enough has been done to <br />inform the public as to when a licensed contractor is needed. <br />Director Rymer mentioned that staff has been doing this all <br />along, and mostly have a good track record. The only difference <br />now is that violators will be fined. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt that if we are going to fine someone <br />$500.00, we have to tell the people in the community what they <br />cannot do in order to avoid a fine. <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.