04/12/2011 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OWN rescind his fine , the Code Enforcement Board on February 28 , 2011 had agreed to reduce the fine amount from $ 18 , 600 to $ 3 , 000 , to cover administrative costs . He clarified that the fine pertained only to the dock, as the other violations had been resolved, and provided staff' s recommendation that the Board deny Mr. Gilliams ' request to rescind the Code Enforcement Board ' s $ 3 , 000 fine assessment . Damien Gilliams , 1623 US 1 Sebastian, provided a synopsis of the events prior to , and subsequent to, the Code Enforcement Board ' s fine . He relayed that he had begun reconstructing his dock in accordance with a building permit issued on February 21 , 2007 , but in August 2007 , the dock had not yet been repaired and the Code Enforcement Board began imposing a $ 100 per day fine . Mr. Gilliams had on February 28 , 2011 , addressed the Code Enforcement Board with his request to rescind the fine, as he had received a partial CO for constructing part of the dock . He acknowledged that the Code Enforcement Board had reduced his $ 18 , 600 fine to $ 3 , 000 , but asked the Commissioners to rescind the remaining fine and release the lien on his home . An extensive and broad-ranging discussion ensued, as the Board sought and received additional information on this matter from staff and Mr. Gilliams . Mr. Gilliams objected to picking up the costs for Code Enforcement ' s administrative fees, as he believed it had been unnecessary for him to continually reappear before that body, when he had gotten a permit from the Building Department allowing him to build his dock, which process he had begun . Chief DeBlois provided the Code Enforcement Board ' s rationale for imposing the fine . Attorney Polackwich noted that the original Code Enforcement Board Order (page 199 of the Agenda Packet) had given Mr. Gilliams a deadline of November 27 , 2006 for the dock to either be repaired in accordance with the building permit, or removed . April 12 , 2011 17