9/23/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b0,0K 0,..� PaCE k� �C9 At the conclusion of Mrs. Gates' remarks, Chairman Eggert understood that the Board need not consider the limousine -ambulance issue as it will be appealed and heard on October 23, 1997. Chairman Eggert then turned to County Attorney Vitunac with a few questions. County Attorney Vitunac advised that Code Enforcement could look at this for new violations since the last case. The problem with most of the issues is apparently the Code Enforcement Board heard the case in 1991 and found there was not a violation at the time. He then explained what needs to be done is for staff to go back and review the file and find out exactly what was charged and presented to the Code Enforcement Board, and see if there were any violations since that date which could be brought to the Code Enforcement Board and proved. There are allegations of false testimony to the Code Enforcement Board; there were no witnesses to disprove it. The Code Enforcement Board found the testimony to be true, or at least uncontroverted. County Attorney Vitunac suggested in the future Mrs. Gates, and people like her, can be notified. If they are interested in a case, they can attend. Mrs. Gates always has private remedies in Court with nuisance actions and things like that. Commissioner Ginn was not sure staff had done enough background checking before determining the grandfathering of the property. She wondered if anyone had spoken with the previous owner. She had spoken with him (Mr. Schwartz) just recently. Commissioner Macht thought Mrs. Gates was looking for some relief from 1991 and he guessed it could be obtained through the Code Enforcement Board. Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II advised that at the time, the attorney for the Code Enforcement Board was former Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan. He thought perhaps some of the information Commissioner Ginn had received from Mr. Schwartz might have been helpful in leading to a different outcome in 1991. He had reviewed the Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board from 1991. A review of the Deeds on the property led him to believe there was an Agreement for Deed between Mr. Conde and Mr. Schwartz, which was assigned to Mr. Jordan in August of 1990. He believed that because there was an Agreement for Deed and Mr. Schwartz was in possession of the property, he was considered the equitable owner of that property, but he never took legal title to it. His Agreement for Deed was assigned to Mr. Jordan and Mr. Conde executed a Deed to Mr. Jordan December 4, 1990. The case was brought later in 1991, by the staff arguing that the garage was a non -conforming use. They failed to prove the case to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Board and the Code Enforcement Board determined that the garage 36 SEPTEMBER 23, 1997