Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois was confident that <br /> the notification procedures were followed, and conveyed that Mr. Williams had signed for the <br /> Notice of Hearing early in the process, but thereafter the notices were left unclaimed. He said <br /> that even though the structures were demolished in November, property maintenance still has not <br /> been resolved. He also divulged that in addition to the Code Enforcement Order, which is still <br /> unresolved, there has been a $ 100 per day fine accruing since September 26, 2009 , which totals <br /> about $ 116, 500. <br /> In response to Commissioner Solari, Director Keating disclosed that the lien and <br /> associated costs for the demolition are $4,660. 86 for each property, and the assessed value for <br /> the vacant land is about $ 7,000 on one, and $ 6, 800 on the other. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding Code Enforcement fines, the incorrect address, and the costs <br /> associated with administration and demolition. <br /> Mr. Williams said he had never signed anything. <br /> Ann Marie (surname inaudible) told the Board that she was with Mr. Williams, in <br /> March, when he went to the Property Appraiser' s office to update the address because he was not <br /> receiving his tax notices, then again a couple weeks later when the manager said they did an <br /> update in their computer system in April . She reported that the Property Appraiser' s office <br /> acknowledged that they had made a mistake on several properties, which included Mr. Williams ' <br /> two parcels . She also conveyed that the County Attorney' s office provided her copies showing <br /> where the Post Office crossed off "2295 " and annotated the correct address on the return request <br /> receipt, which she believed to be a communication error. She requested the demolition fees be <br /> reversed for Mr. Williams . <br /> December 4, 2012 17 <br /> i4 P6 226 <br />