[00:00:02]
>> THIS IS THE MAY 6TH, 2021, CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD HEARING.
>> WE HAVE A QUARRY UM. CAN WE ALL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALIEGEANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REBUB LICK FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDISABLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>>> ANY ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2021?
>> NO. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
ACCEPT THE MINUTES. >> SO MOVED.
[Items 4.1 - 4.3]
>> UNDER OLD BUSINESS, WE HAVE THREE CASES.
JASMINE SCARVER, 1010 SOUTH TENTH STREET.
BROWN FAMILY LIVING TRUST, 823 SOUTH 13TH STREET CASE NUMBER 20200284. AND NETHERLAND WILSON, CASE NUMBER 0200285. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR TASK HERE TONIGHT IS ONLY TO SET FINES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
WE FOUND THEM NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND THEY WERE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 4TH. THERE WAS A CERTIFIED LETTER SENT TO THEM. THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED AT THIS POINT. AND SO OUR TASK HERE IS TO SET FINES IN THESE CASES.
>> DOES STAFF HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO FINES?
>> STAFF RECOMMENDS -- LET'S SEE.
ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BE PAID TO DATE AND THAT A FINE OF $200 PER DAY FOR THE VIOLATION TO BEGIN ON MAY 4TH, 2021, AND TO FILE A LIEN ON EACH OF THE PROPERTIES ON JULY 2ND WHICH WOULD BE 60 DAYS FROM MAY 4TH. THIS DATE IS THE FRIDAY AFTER THE SCHEDULED JULY 1ST CODE ENFORCEMENT AND APPEALS BOARD
HEARING. >> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF IS $200 PER CASE PER DAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES IN EACH OF THOSE CASES.
>> YES, SIR. >> ANY DISCUSSION BY MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD? >> NONE OF THESE RESIDENTS ARE PRIVATE RESIDENTS, SO A LIEN COULD RESULT IN A FORE CLOSURE.
>> PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION?
>> EVIDENTLY THESE THREE CASES WERE IN MOTION BEFORE I JOINED THE BOARD. CAN I GET JUST A BRIEF HISTORY OF WHAT'S BEEN DONE SO FAR?
>> AS I INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, DO YOU WANT A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF
THE ACTUAL CASE ITSELF? >> WHAT ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
[00:05:01]
THESE CASES CAME BEFORE THE BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 12020.
AT THAT TIME, THIS BOARD GAVE 180 DAYS FROM THAT DATE FOR EACH ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
LET'S SEE. INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET IS THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING, THE STAFF REPORTS FROM THAT MEETING, THE FINDINGS OF FACTS FROM THIS MEETING.
ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2020, I SENT MR. GREEN AND MR. BLITHE WHO WAS ALSO ANOTHER INTERESTED PARTY AT THE TIME REQUESTING A STATUS UPDATE ON THIS AND THE OTHER TWO, ALL THREE OF THE PROPERTIES. ON JULY 7TH, MR. GREEN APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD WITH DOCUMENTATION FOR THE BOARD BUT THE BOARD TOLD MR. GREEN THAT THIS WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR THAT AND THAT HE NEEDED TO REACH OUT TO ME WITH ANY DOCUMENTATION OR UPDATES. I NEVER HEARD FROM HIM.
ON APRIL 20TH, 2021, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD COURTESY TO GO AHEAD AND REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS IS COMING UP.
I EMAILED MR. GREEN THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT CERTIFIED AND WE GOT THE CARDS BACK FROM EVERYBODY.
BUT MS. NETHERLAND. WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT.
EVERYBODY ELSE RECEIVED THE LETTERS.
STILL HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MR. GREEN AT ALL.
>> AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE
AS OF THIS DATE. >> THAT IS CORRECT.
I HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
>> WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AND I CAN BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE, IS TO SHOW A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT I DID FROM THE HEARING.
AND JUST MAKE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS IS NOT A REHEARING OF THE CASE. BUT JUST A REMINDER OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS ALREADY PUT INTO THE RECORD AND WHY THERE ARE
VIOLATIONS. >> OKAY. LET'S TRY TO BE BRIEF
ON THIS. >>LY BE AS BRIEF -- YES.
I THINK WE HAVE TO LOG INTO THIS.
SO I'LL TALK WHILE WE GET READY HERE.
WHAT WE HAVE ARE THREE HOMES THAT ARE IN THE R2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE THAN FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS LIVING IN EACH HOME. IN OUR CITY, IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS LIVING IN A HOME WITHOUT ANY LICENSING OR SPECIAL PERMITTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING AND WHY WE MENTION MR. GREEN IS BECAUSE MR. GREEN IF YOU WILL HELPS TO HAVE RESIDENTS PUT INTO THESE HOMES AND THEY ARE UNRELATED AS FAR AS WE KNOW AND THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR IN EACH AND MR. GREEN HAS NEVER AND NOBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER HAS EVER PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS NOT TRUE, THAT THERE WERE NOT MORE THAN FOUR PEOPLE. SO THE BOARD TOOK IT AS TRUE BACK IN NOVEMBER THAT THERE WERE AND FOUND VIOLATIONS.
AND SO THE CITY HAS TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES THAT WE ACCOMMODATE IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.
ONE IS CALLED GROUP HOMES AND THE OTHER IS GROUP RESIDENTIAL.
AND I HOPE THAT THIS POWERPOINT WILL HELP SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT.
# SO WE HAVE DEFINITIONS OF GROUP HOME AND GROUP RESIDENTIAL. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOU WITH A GROUP HOME FACILITY AGAIN, AT LEAST FOUR RESIDENTS BUT NOT MORE THAN 15 AND SUPERVISION AND CARE ARE NECESSARY FOR THE RESIDENTS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. GROUP RESIDENTIAL AND SO FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN NOVEMBER, THESE THREE HOMES THAT ARE IN VIOLATION ARE NOT CONSIDERED GROUP HOMES BECAUSE
[00:10:01]
OF THE ED THAT WAS PRESENTED. THERE IS NO SUPERVISION AND CARE NECESSARY FOR TRENTS TO MEET THEIR BASIC NEEDS.SO WE GO TO GROUP RESIDENTIAL, GROUP RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT THEY SEEM TO FIT INTO AND THIS MEANS A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY OCCUPIED BY FIVE OR MORE UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS ON A MONTHLY OR LONGER BASIS. THEY MAY BE OPERATED BY A SEPARATE ENTITY AND THEY MAY OPERATE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THOSE THAT OCCUPY THE RESIDENCE. GROUP HOMES, AGAIN, THESE ARE UNDER SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS CHAPTER 6 AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR GROUP HOMES, THEY'RE LICENSED AS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SO THERE IS A LICENSE THAT'S TIED TO THAT HOME AND THAT USE AND WE HAVE THE CATEGORY OF SIX OR FEWER AND THERE'S A TYPE OF LICENSE FOR THAT THROUGH THE STATE AND THEN SEVEN TO 14. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY DCF LICENSING FOR ANY OF THESE HOMES OR FOR MR. GREEN. HERE ON THIS SLIDE, I SHOW I SHOW THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT YOU CAN HAVE, LET'S SEE IF IT SAYS IT HERE, YEAH. LET ME GO BACK TO THE TOP.
AND THE MAP SHOWS THE COLORS SO GROUP HOMES ARE ALLOWED ALL OVER THE CITY. JUST ABOUT BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LICENSE AND THE GROUP HOME IS DEFINED BY THE RESIDENTS NEEDING CARE FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS.
IT'S ALLOWED IN R1 AND R2, R3, M1, C3, ALL OVER THE CITY.
SO THE CITY'S CODE IS MAKING ALLOWANCES FOR THESE SITUATIONS AS LONG AS THERE'S A LICENSE. SO ALL THE YELLOW SHADING THERE IS ALL TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY.
SO ALL OVER THE CITY SO WE DO MAKE ROOM FOR THESE TYPES OF USES. NOW, GROUP RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THESE THREE HOMES FALL INTO ARE ONLY ALLOWED ON R3, MU1, AND C3. ALL THREE HOMES ARE IN R2.
HERE WE HAVE HOUSING FOR RESIDENTS NOT NEEDING PERSONAL CARE AND THE GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FIRE MARSHAL'S INSPECTION WHICH WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO, HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO DO AND THEN THERE'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THERE HAS TO BE A TYPE OF DCF LICENSING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TWO UNDER OUR CODE AND THERE'S NO LICENSE TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF HOME.
THERE WAS EVIDENCE PUT ON THAT THAT'S SOMETHING REQUIRED FOR THE CITY AND I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WE FOLLOW THAT BY ALLOWING FOR GROUP HOMES AND THEN IN SOME AREAS ALLOWING FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
DOES THAT HELP? >> THAT HELPS A LOT.
THAT WAS DURING THE TIME WE WENT THROUGH THAT WHEN I WAS SICK,
>> SO I HAVE A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING.
>> LET ME SUGGEST THIS. WE SPENT EXTENSIVE TIME AND GAVE THE PARTIES THAT CAME HERE LICENSE TO GO PROBABLY FURTHER THAN SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE BUT WE SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME LISTENING TO ALL THE PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE EFFORT THAT'S BEING MADE THERE. BUT THAT STILL DIDN'T SWAY THE BOARD OF FINDING THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE.
>> ARE THEY STILL OCCUPIED AS OF TODAY?
>> AS FAR AS WE KNOW. THE BOARD FOUND THE VIOLATIONS IN NOVEMBER AND EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM HEARD INCLUDING MR. GREEN YOU HAVE 180 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING EVEN THOUGH MICHELLE HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH MR. GREEN AND THERE'S BEEN NO RESPONSE.
THE COURTESY NOTICES OF THIS HEARING FOR FINES.
>> IN FACT, THERE WAS THAT NOTICE AND PRIOR TO THE MAY 4G9 DEADLINE AND PEOPLE RECEIVE THAT AS FAR AS WE KNOW AND THERE'S
[00:15:04]
BEEN NO RESPONSE. WE ARE NOT TAKING TESTIMONY ON THIS. THE DECISION HERE IS A NINE.AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN LAST HEARING AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO MAY 4TH OR TO COMMUNICATE WITH THIS BOARD PRIOR TO THAT DATE. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO REVISIT THOSE ARGUMENTS AGAIN. CITY SUGGESTS A $200 FINE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES IN EACH OF THOSE CASES.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. AND SECONDED.
>> WE HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. MICHELLE MADE THE RECORD FOR MAY 4TH. ARE WE
>> IN TERMS OF THE PENALTY? TESTIMONY INDIVIDUAL AND THE OWNERS WERE -- THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WAS TO HAVE THEM COME INTO COMPLIANCE AS OF MAY 4TH. AS OF MAY 4TH.
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE PART OF THE BOARD?
SO NONACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
SHE WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER THERE'S SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR US TO ACT BECAUSE WE ARE NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE FOUPD NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.
>> IS THIS SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THAT WE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AT THE PRESENT MOMENT?
>> AND TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT CONFUSING, MR. POOL IS REPRESENTING THE BOARD AS HE DID IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE I'VE BEEN REPRESENTING STAFF AND SO I HAVE A CONFLICT SO I'LL LET HIM
>> RIGHT. SO WHEN WE WERE HERE IN NOVEMBER THERE WAS ALREADY THAT FINDING IN VIOLATION AND THAT WAS GIVEN A TIME AND THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON WAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE INCLUDING SEEKING AN AMENDMENT OF THE LDC, SHOWING PROOF THEY'VE REDUCED A FEW OR RESIDENTS PER HOME OR OBTAINED A LICENSE. AND BASICALLY YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FROM STAFF OR YOU'VE HEARD FROM STAFF WHO REPORT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING OF ANY COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THOSE THREE CONDITIONS BROUGHT TO STAFF OR TO THE BOARD.
SO YOU DO HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS NOW BASED ON THE FINDINGS FROM THE NOVEMBER MEETING TO FIND THEM IN VIOLATION.
>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. POOL.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. JUST BECAUSE THIS IS DIFFERENT, NORMALLY DO WE NOT NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR EACH CASE? WE'RE DOING IT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE NORMALLY DO.
>> RIGHT. AND I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. IT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A SEPARATE MOTION FOR THE FINDING FOR THE FINE FOR EACH CASE.
>> HAS THE OWNERS HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING TO MITIGATE THEIR DEGREE OF VIOLATIONS THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT HERE AS OF THIS TIME?
>> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I'M HERE TO ADVISE THE BOARD BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THOSE COMMUNICATIONS.
>> AS I STATED EARLIER, AFTER A FEW REQUESTS, ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO STAFF THAT COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN OBTAINED ON EITHER OR ANY OF THE PROPERTIES.
>> WELL THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION.
>> OKAY. I'M SORRY. >> THE QUESTION WAS HAS ANYTHING
BEEN DONE -- >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO, SIR.
>> OKAY. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. >> I HAD CONTACT WITH THE OWNERS BACK BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 5TH HEAR ARING.
WASN'T A LOT BUT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT.
I'VE HEARD NOTHING FROM ANYBODY. >> MR. POWE WANT TO CHANGE IT S WE HAVE SEPARATE NOTICES FOR EACH OF THE QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. CAN WE CLOSE THEM DOWN?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. >> I MEAN, REALLY.
>> SO THAT WOULD BE ULTIMATELY A DECISION FOR THE CITY ON HOW TO
[00:20:03]
ENFORCE GOING FORWARD. YOU HAVE THIS -- THIS BOARD HAS THAT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THOSE FINES AND IF THEY'RE NOT PAID TO THEN ULTIMATELY DIRECT IT TOWARDS FORE CLOSURE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. BEYOND THAT THERE COULD BE SOME LEGAL ACTION BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE FILING A SUIT IN CIRCUIT COURT, SEEKING A MANDATORY INJUNCTION OR A COURT ORDER TO CEASE FROM VIOLATING THE CODE. IT COULD THEN BE PUNISHABLE BY THE COURTS. THAT'S ULTIMATELY A DECISION FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE POWERS THAT BE.>> I WOULD LIKE ONE OTHER COMMENT THOUGH BECAUSE THIS DOES HAVE A PRETTY DRASTIC CONSEQUENCE AND THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT IF IT'S THE BOARD'S WILL IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO GIVE MR. GREEN THE OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE BOARD KNOWING THAT WE'RE NOT REOPENING ANY EVIDENCE BUT PERHAPS SHED SOME LIGHT IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> IF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MR. GREEN, WE EXPECT SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME WITH MR. GREEN AT THAT LAST MEETING AND IF WE'RE GOING TO REITERATE WHAT WE HEARD BEFORE, IT'S NOT MINE BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD WANTS TO HEAR MR. GREEN. IS IN A MAJORITY OF THE GREEN
THAT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HIM? >> I WOULD SAY HAD THERE'S A TIME LIMIT. THE TIME LIMIT IS FINE.
I THINK -- WE NEED AN UPDATE NOW BUT WE'RE NOT REHASHING.
>> THERE'S A TIMER THERE ON THE TABLE.
>> THREE MINUTES? >> THREE MINUTES.
MR. GREEN WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
>> -- THESE GROUP HOMES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND ON THE 13TH STREET HOUSE, THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE IN THAT HOUSE.
AND THE TENTH STREET HOUSE, WHAT I'VE DONE -- BOARD OF COMPLIANCE CONSULTANT BECAUSE -- I DON'T HAVE A GROUP HOME.
I DON'T HAVE GROUP RESIDENCE SO I TRIED AND COULDN'T GET IT SO THE OTHER THING I DID WAS I HIRED A CONSULTANT TO ALSO GET A DESIGNEE CERTIFICATION, RECOVERY RESIDENT ADMINISTRATOR CERTIFICATION BOARD. THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES APPROVED FOR THE CERTIFICATION I'M GETTING NOW.
ALL WE NEED NOW IS A SITE VISIT AND WE GOT THE CERTIFICATION THAT YOU NEED TO OPERATE A RECOVERY RESIDENCE.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE WAITING ON. AND THAT'S DCF APPROVED LAWYERS AND THAT'S RECOVERY RESIDENCE. SO I HAVE THAT IN ONE PLACE.
IT'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE PUT TOGETHER IN THE PACKAGE. A CODE OF ETHICS, A NEIGHBOR POLICY, HAZARDOUS POLICY, DIFFERENT POLICY WE HAD TO PUT TOGETHER.
WE GOT ALL THAT SUBMITTED. RESUBMITTED.
WAITING ON THEM TO COME IN AND DO THE SITE VISIT AND THAT'S WHEN THEY COME AND DO THE FIRE INSPECTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> MR. GREEN, ARE YOU ABLE TO TAKE YOUR RESIDENCES NOW TO FOUR PEOPLE OR LESS UNTIL YOU CAN BE
FULLY COMPLIANT? >> I CAN DO THAT BUT I HAVE TO FIND A PLACE FOR QUITE A FEW OF THEM TO GO BUT I THINK I CAN DO THAT IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WANT ME TO DO.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I'M IN THE -- WHILE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE GROUP RESIDENTS AND THE GROUP HOME CERTIFICATION. DCF DID NOT DO THAT.
WE DISCUSSED THAT LAST TIME. SO I WENT TO -- RECOGNIZED BY
[00:25:01]
DCF AND IT TOOK QUITE A BIT OF TIME TO PUT THOSE PACKAGES TOGETHER. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT DONE YET.ALL WE'RE WAITING ON NOW SINCE IT'S DONE IS TO COME TO THE PROPERTIES AND DO A VISIT AND THEN WE GET THE LICENSE.
>> MR. GREEN, AS OF TODAY, ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER
OF THE BOARD? >> ALL EXCEPT FOR TWO OF THEM.
>> ANSWER IS YES OR NO. >> THEY'RE SEPARATE CASES.
>> IS IN COMPLIANCE. >> RIGHT.
>> AND THAT CONCLUDES -- GET SOME PEOPLE OUT TO MAKE IT THAT WAY. THAT'S WHAT I GOT TO DO.
>>> SINCE THE LAST MEETING, I'VE DONE THE BEST I COULD.
>> AND IF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER GOES TO THOSE HOMES TOMORROW, THEY WILL FIND YOU IN COMPLIANCE?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO GET RID OF THE ONES IN AUDIO]. I CAN KICK THEM OUT IN THE STREET. OR IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME TIME TO FIND A PLACE, I CAN GET THIS LICENSE AND I'M WILLING TO DO THAT TOO.
>> YOU HAD 180 DAYS. >> THIS WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING.
IT'S NOT LIKE I'VE BEEN DOING NOTHING.
I'VE DONE EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE THAT I CAN DO TO GET THESE HOUSES IN KLEINS. I'VE NOT BEEN SITTING AROUND DOING NOTHING. A LOT OF STUFF TO GET FROM THEM SHE WAS ASKING ME ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE AT, MY MIND WAS THINKING THAT SHE'S HARASSING ME BY ASKING ME THAT.
YOU KNOW. BECAUSE I HAD 180 DAYS TO GET IN COMPLIANCE AND I WAS THINKING TODAY I WOULD HAVE THAT AND I WOULD ASK FOR THE TWO WEEKS THAT I CAN GET THE CERTIFICATION BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO PUT THEM IN THE STREET, I'LL PUT THEM IN THE STREET BECAUSE WHAT I'M DOING IS TRYING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T WANT TO PAY A FINE TRYING TO DO THAT.
NOW IF YOU WANT TO PUT THEM IN THE STREET, I'LL DO THAT.
COME BABBLING TOMORROW AND IT WILL BE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU WANT IN EACH HOUSE. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.
I THINK THAT'S KIND OF CRUEL AND INHUMANE TO DO THAT BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, I'LL DO IT.
I MEAN, REALISTICALLY, THE CITY DON'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP ME WITH THESE PEOPLE. I'M TAKING PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS, GETTING THEM JOBS AND A FOUNDATION FOR A NEW LIFE BUT I GOT TO GO THROUGH THIS TO DO IT AND I'M DOING EVERYTHING HUMANLY POSSIBLE THAT I CAN DO. I'M NOT A PERSON THAT'S FAMILIAR WITH THE LAW TO GO DOWN THERE AND TAKE A -- EVERY TIME I GO TO DCF THEY SAID WE DON'T LICENSE THOSE HOUSES.
YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH FOUR. FOUR IS MORE THAN 180 DAYS TO PUT THOSE PACKETS TOGETHER. YOU HAVE SEVEN STEPS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ON THAT CERTIFICATION.
IT'S ONLY -- NOBODY IN NASSAU COUNTY IS CERTIFIED.
>> YOU KNOW THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT YOU CAME TO DO --
>> YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU'RE TELLING ME WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO DO. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TAKES TO GET A LICENSE. GET A CERTIFICATION.
>> THIS IS WHAT TROUBLES ME. ON APRIL 20TH, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER AND IN PART IT SAID THE HEARING IS MAY 12TH.
IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. RIGHT.
CODE ENFORCEMENT SAYS RIGHT THERE.
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND THERE'S NO RESPONSE AS OF
[00:30:05]
APRIL 20TH. YOU REMEMBER SENDING THATLETTER? >> I REMEMBER SEEING THE LETTER BUT IT TOOK IT AS TODAY WHEN I COME DOWN HERE I CAN SHOW Y'ALL WHERE I'M AT. I RECEIVED THE LETTER.
>> IT SAYS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT MUST RECEIVE PROOF --
>> IF I WOULD HAVE CONTACTED HER, WOULD IT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY?
>> IT JUST SAYS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT MUST RECEIVE --
>> PLEASE. I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT MUST RECEIVE PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN SHIED BY MAY 4TH BY ONE OF THE ABOVE MEANS.
>> SO MR. GREEN YOU ALSO CAME TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS -- YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC RECORD.
>> RIGHT. >> AND THE CASE IS ACTUALLY WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE AND THEY'RE THE UNONES WHO DO THE FOLLOW UP. THE BOARD ONLY RULES ON THINGS THAT DO NOT GET ACTION TAKEN. AND SO WE ARE NOW RULING ON THE INACTION THAT WAS NOT TAKEN BY MAY 4TH, TWO DAYS AGO.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW -- I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT, MA'AM.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS SAYING PUT ANYBODY IN THE STREET BUT IF THINGS TAKE LONGER -- THE WAY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE IS TO GET THE APPROPRIATE LICENSE TO OPERATE THAT TYPE OF HOUSE, TO MOVE THAT HOUSE TO ANOTHER LOCATION WHERE IT IS ALLOWED, OR TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS TO FOUR OR LESS.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THAT, MA'AM.
THE ZONING AREA -- FLETCHER IS THE ZONING AREA.
I DON'T HAVE THE NOUN FIGHT THEM OR TO DO IT NOR TO TAKE -- PUT THEM THERE. THAT'S WHY I WENT THROUGH AND GOT THIS THROUGH DCF TO GET THIS LICENSE HERE AND THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO.
>> WHEN IS THAT PROCESS GOING TO BE COMPLETED.
>> I GOT THE CONSULTANT HERE. >> HI.
>> I'M SHELLY ANDERSON AND I AM IN CLOSE CONDUCT WITH FAR.
HENRY ASKED ME TO COME ON TO HELP HIM GET IN COMPLIANCE.
WHAT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN LOCAL LAW AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. MY BACKGROUND IS IN HEALTHCARE LAW, STATE AND FEDERAL. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND NOW I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M SPEAKING WITH WHITNEY AT FAR. SHE IS VERY INTERESTED AND SHE'S IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH ME. AND SHE'S SETTING UP A PHONE INTERVIEW WHICH IS THE LAST ONE AT THIS TIME JUST NEED TO TURN IN THE MANUALS FOR THE POLICIES AND THEN WE HAVE A SITE VISIT AND THAT'S IT.
>> BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITIVE TIMELINE ON HOW LONG THAT WOULD
TAKE. >> IT'S TOMORROW IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PHONE CONVERSATION. I CAN GIVE YOU THAT DEADLINE TOMORROW.
>> IS THAT FOR ALL THREE HOUSES? MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S NOT FOR
ALL THREE. >> RIGHT NOW WE'RE FOCUSING ON
THE WOMENS. >> BUT WE ONLY HAVE TO --
>> YOU WERE REFERRING ON THIS 13TH AND 10TH.
>> WHICH IS THE WOMENS. >> 10TH IS THE WOMENS?
>> DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT? >> I DO.
WE WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE WITH REGARD TO RECOVERY RESIDENTS.
-- RESIDENCES. WE ALL RESPECT WHAT MR. GREEN HAS DONE AND WANTS TO DO. MR. GREEN HAS A CHURCH THAT IS LICENSED AND A NONPROFIT IS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION AND A CHURCH WHICH ALLOWS HIM TO BE SOME THINGS WITH THE STATE WAIVED WITH REGARD TO A RECOVERY RESIDENCE LICENSE.
THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD. THE WAY THAT THESE HOMES ARE SET UP WITH THE RESIDENTS BEING ABLE TO CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND NO 24-HOUR ON SITE SUPERVISION, THEY ARE STILL GOING TO BE
[00:35:01]
CONSIDERED BY OUR CITY AS GROUP RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT.PERIOD. HE CAN GET ALL OF THE STATE RECOVERY RESIDENTS LICENSING HE WISHES BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BRING THESE HOMES, ANY OF THEM, INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
WE WE WANT THROUGH THE CHURCH AND THE RECOVERY RESIDENCE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE STATE LAW AND THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE I KNOW FROM REPRESENTATIVES FROM MR. GREEN THAT THE STATE ALLOWS IT, WE CAN'T DISALLOW IT BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE.
WE HAVE OUR ZONING LAWS AND THEY'RE IN PLACE HERE AND RECOVERY RESIDENTS ARE NOT -- RESIDENCES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN OUR TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. THEY'RE ALLOWED WHERE GROUP HOMES ARE ALLOWED.
>> SO NOT WITHSTANDING THIS APPLICATION AND NOT WITHSTANDING WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED ON THE TELEPHONE CALL TOMORROW, IT'S STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
>> MR. GREEN, I THINK YOU STATED THAT TWO OF THEM ARE IN COMPLIANCE RIGHT NOW WITH THE -- OR ONLY ONE?
>> TWO IN COMPLIANCE. TWO NOT.
>> WE HAVE I CAN DOIT ONE OR TWO WAYS. THROW THEM ON THE STREETS WHICH I CAN DO TONIGHT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.
>> YOU CAN'T PUT THAT BURDEN ON US.
>> BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO RULE ON HOW PEOPLE ARE TAKEN CARE OF.
ALL WE'RE GOING TO RULE ON IS WHETHER THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT. SO MY THINKING IS YOU NEED A DAY OR TWO TO GET THE OTHER ONE IN COMPLIANCE SO YOU'RE NOT PAYING FINES, THEN AS A BOARD WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT BUT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BE DEFIANT ON NOT BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE AND WAITING ON A LICENSE MEANING YOU'RE STILL NOT IN COMPLIANCE BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE, THEN WE NEED TO GIVE YOU A DEADLINE OR YOU'RE GOING TO START PAYING FINES.
IT'S NOT REALLY THAT COMPLICATED IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THOSE TWO
DIRECTIONS. >> WE CAN DO THAT.
I WOULD RATHER DO THAT INSTEAD OF PUTTING THEM ON THE STREET.
>> I MEAN, I THINK THE BOARD IS TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU.
WE TOLD THAT YOU LAST TIME. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE FOR YOUR BEST INTEREST TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY DAYS YOU NEED TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE SO YOU'RE NOT PAYING FINES.
>> I THINK IT'S WEEKS. >> WELL, LET ME SUGGEST SOMETHING ALONG WITH WHAT HE SAID.
WE CAN PROBABLY FIND THEM NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS OF MAY 4TH SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
AND THE FINES WILL ONLY START IF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FINDS THEM NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS OF THE DATE CERTIFIED.
>> THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS ONE DAY THEY COULD BE IN COMPLIANCE AND THEN THREE DAYS LATER THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
THAT'S THE ISSUE. >> AND IT'S A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION.
>> SO WE HAVE YOUR WORD AT THIS POINT THAT TWO OF THE HOMES ARE IN COMPLIANCE. THE OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN OUT THERE YET. IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THOSE TWO HOMES ARE IN COMPLIANCE?
>> THERE'S A PRELATE OF CONFUSION.
WHEN THIS ALL STARTED THERE WERE FOUR HOMES.
OKAY. ONE WAS UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MS. KENT.
SHE CALLED ME AND SAID WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? FOR THIS CASE NOT TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
I SAID FOUR OR LESS PEOPLE. SHE SAID UNRELATED PEOPLE? I SAID YES. SHE HAD FOUR UNRELATED IN ONE THAT TWO PEOPLE WERE RELATED. THE REST OF THEM WERE NOT.
SO SHE HAD A TOTAL OF FIVE SO THAT'S COMPLIANT.
SO THAT CASE WAS CLOSED. SO THEN THE THREE CAME BEFORE YOU AND MR. GREEN JUST TOLD YOU THAT ONE OF THE THREE IS IN COMPLIANCE. THEY HAVE FIVE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. THAT'S NOT -- IT HAS TO BE FOUR.
[00:40:02]
>> SO TWO PEOPLE THERE -- >> LET'S -- AUDIO] SO WE DON'T GET CONFUSED. WHAT ADDRESS IS THIS?
SO THAT'S THE BROWN -- THAT'S 2 BROWN FAMILY 13G9 STREET CASE.
>> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. NOBODY HAS CONTACTED THE OFFICE.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST I'M HEARING ABOUT IT.
>> OKAY. >> AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT GOT
THE GOT DOWNSIZED. >> I GOT TO DOWNSIZE THAT HOUSE AND ONE ON TENTH STREET, DOWNSIZE.
>> SO THAT ONE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS OF THE MOMENT.
RIGHT. AND TENTH STREET IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS OF THE MOMENT. SO THEY'RE BOTH NOT IN COMPLIANCE. AND THERE WAS 180 DAYS TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. AND YOU WERE NOTIFIED ON APRIL 20TH THAT THEY SHOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 4TH.
>> WHAT I TOLD YOU, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT -- WHEN I WAS HERE LAST TIME IT WAS ABOUT HAVING A LICENSE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. TRY TO GET A LICENSE.
AND RIGHT NOW TODAY I'M KNOWING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT A LICENSE WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND I'M WASTING MY
TIME GETTING A LICENSE. >> AT THAT HEARING, WE HAD THAT
SAME CONVERSATION. >> NO, WE DIDN'T.
>> I'M GETTING OLDER BUT I THINK I REMEMBER THAT.
I HAVE THE MINUTES. >> I HAD 1830 DAYS TO GET IN COMPLIANCE IF I COULD GET ONE AND THAT'S WHAT I DID.
GOT OUT TO GET A LICENSE. IT WASN'T ABOUT DOWNSIZING.
IT WAS DOWN SIDING IF TICKED NOT GET THE LICENSE.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD AND FINE ALL THREE PROPERTIES, A MOTION FOR EACH PROPERTY, FIND THEM IN COMPLIANCE AS OF TODAY AND THEN SET A DATE FOR THEM TO BE VERIFIED IN COMPLIANCE AND OUR FINES START RUNNING FROM THERE.
>> AT LEAST TWO OF THEM ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
>> AND AS TO -- I WOULD SAY EVEN -- ON THE STATEMENT THAT ONE IS IN COMPLIANCE BUT SOCIAL SECURITY NOT VERIFIED.
>> JUST -- JUST A PROPERLY QUESTION.
IN THE NEXT -- CODE ENFORCEMENT IN HAVE THE ABILITY TO INSPECT THOSE THREE HOMES TOMORROW.
>> I'M FLYING SOLO TOMORROW. HARRIET IS GONE AND CHIP IS OFF ON FRIDAY. I CAN TRY.
BUT IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE HARD. >> THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS I DON'T THINK IT'S ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
LET'S FIND HIM IN VIOLATION. GIVE HIM A DATE TO BRING
VIOLATION OR THE FINES START. >> OKAY.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> WE'VE ALREADY FOUND THEM IN VIOLATION. THESE THREE PROPERTIES.
AND THEY WERE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BY MAY 4TH OR WE WOULD ASSESS FINES.
>> OKAY. SO WE NEED TO GIVE HIM AN EXTENSIN.
>> WE CAN DO THE OTHER THING, ASSESS THE FINES AND THEY ARE NOT PAYABLE UNTIL -- THEY CAN BE RESCINDED BY ACTION WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OFFICER WHO FINDS THEM IN COMPLIANCE.
SO WE CAN FIND THEM OUT -- OFFICER FINDS THEM IN COMPLIANCE. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> IS THE FIRST MOTION OFF THE TABLE NOW?
[00:45:20]
WOULD IT -- IF WE WERE TO GIVE THE TWO-WEEK EXTENSION TO ALLOW THE OTHER TWO NONCOMPLIANT HOUSES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE FOR OR FEWER NONRELATED RESIDENTS, WOULD THAT BE EASIER TO GIVE YOU A TWO-WEEK WINDOW TO CHECK THEM ALL THEN OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO -- NOT NECESSARILY TOMORROW.>> I WON'T BE IN TOWN. I'M GOING TO BE ON VACATION.
>> OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO WORK FOR ME.
AT ALL. >> THE MOST SIMPLE WAY IS FOR US TO GIVE A DATE CERTAIN AND LET THE FINES START IF NOT IN
COMPLIANCE. >> BUT THE CITY NEEDS TO CHECK THAT SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHEN.
>> MR. GREEN SAID HE NEEDS 14 DAYS, GIVE HIM 14 DAYS FROM TODAY TO BRING HIM INTO COMPLIANCE OR HE STARTS PAYING
$200 A DAY PER PROPERTY. >> AS I SAID, I WON'T BE HERE.
>> IS THERE SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE NEXT 14 DAYS?
>> YES BUT IT'S MY CASE. >> OKAY. WHEN WILL YOU BE HERE?
>> I WON'T BE BACK UNTIL JULY.
JUNE. >> TUESDAY AFTER MEMORIAL DAY.
-- >> IT WILL BE OFFICER WELLS BUT THIS IS MY CASE. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO TWO DIFFERENT -- IT'S FINE. WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT.
>> YOU GOT TO BE THERE TO VERIFY?
>> I SHOULD BE SINCE IT'S MY CASE BUT HE CAN HANDLE IT.
THES FINE. >> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH
WAITING UNTIL JUNE? >> WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T PREFER ANY OF THIS. I THINK THAT THE DATE CERTAIN HAS ALREADY COME AND PASSED, YOU KNOW, COME AND GONE.
AND HERE WE ARE. SO NOW AFTER 180 DAYS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM MORE TIME. GIVE HIM THIS INSPECTION ISSUE
AT THIS POINT. >> AND I CAN INSPECT TOMORROW.
IF WE FIND HIM NOT IN COMPLIANCE AS OF TODAY AND ASSESS THE FINES AS OF TODAY BUT THOSE FINES CAN BE WAIVED WITHIN TWO WEEKS AFTER AN INSPECTION BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SO THE DECISION WILL BE IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE THEN YOU CAN WAIVE THOSE FEES AND IF THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THE FINES WILL BE ASSESSED. BECAUSE OTHER THAN THAT THE VAGARIES OF THE STAFFING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHEN THE FINES COME.
>> I'LL WORK IT OUT. THAT'S FINE.
>> OKAY. SO EACH OF THESE CASES.
>> LET'S TAKE IT MAYBE ONE STEP AT A TIME.
LET'S VOTE ON IF THEY'RE IN VIOLATION AS OF TODAY.
>> SECOND MOTION IS TO DETERMINE TIME PERIOD FOR HIM TO COME INTO
VIOLATION OR BE FINED. >> OKAY.
WOULD THAT BE EASIER? >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU'VE ALREADY FOUND THEM IN VIOLATION SO REALLY TODAY'S PURPOSE IS TO ASSESS A PENALTY OR FINE.
YOU CAN DO THAT STARTING AT WHATEVER THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE IS WHEN TO START IT, WHIT IS COLLECTIBLE OR WAIVABLE CONTINGENT UPON REINSPECTION AS IT WERE.
>> YOU DON'T NEED TO FIND THEM IN VIOLATION AS OF TODAY.
IT'S JUST WHEN DO YOU START THE FINING AND HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU GIVE.
>> THE STATEMENT YOU MADE, I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF Y'ALL ARE --
>> WHERE ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. POOLE, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS RECORD SINCE IT'S BEEN 180 DAYS AND SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD HAVE -- WERE NOT HERE 180 DAYS IF THE MOTION COULD BE WE FIND HIM IN VIOLATION AS OF
THIS DAY, MAY 4TH. >> I WAS THINKING A MOTION NEEDED TO BE MADE TO -- AS TO WHEN THE FINES WOULD START RUNNING. WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT?
[00:50:02]
>> WE NEED A MOTION. IF WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND HIM NOT IN COMPLIANCE. IF YOU WANT TO FIND HIM AS OF TODAY ALSO FIND THAT THEY HAVE NOT COMPLIED AND THE FINES WILL START ON X DAY. SO JUST TAKE A DAY.
>> I WOULD BE IN FAVOR. HE SAID HE NEEDED 14 DAYS FROM
>> OKAY. SO THE MOTION FOR EACH ONE OF THESE CASES IS THE FINDING OF NOT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE THAT A FINE OF $200 A DAY AND SHALL BEGIN IN 14 DAYS AND HE STILL BE SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THAT MOTION WILL BE MADE FOR EACH OF THE CASES.
>> WE ARE ACCEPTING THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE $200 A DAY
THAT'S THE MOTION. SO THE MOTION WILL BE WE FIND
THEM IN VIOLATION AS OF TODAY. >> IN CONTINUED VIOLATION.
>> IN CONTINUED VIOLATION AS OF TODAY.
FINES BEGIN ON MAY 19TH. MAY 19TH.
AND EACH PROPERTY STILL SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINE -- ADMINISTRATIVE FINES FEES THAT ARE DUE.
SO THAT'S A MOTION FOR EACH ONE. >> IT'S GOING TO BE ON EACH ONE OF THEM.
>> EXCUSE ME, MR. -- YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED. AND YOU'VE HAD COUNSEL AND ASSISTANCE AND PEOPLE HERE AND IT'S WE GAVE YOU WIDE DISCRETION AT THE LAST MEETING AND WE GAVE YOU 180 DAYS AND IF THERE WAS DIFFICULTY IN COMING INTO COMPLIANCE IN 180 DAYS, THERE WERE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR EACH ONE OF THESE CASES.
>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT.
I'M SAYING ONE IS ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE.
>> WELL, IF YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL TELL US THAT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
SO AS OF CASE NUMBER 4.1. SCARBORO 1014 SOUTH 10TH STREET CASE NUMBER 2020 AH 28729 THERE'S A MOTION TO FIND HIM IN -- TO FINED $200 A DAY BEGINNING MAY 19TH AND TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
IS THERE A SECOND? >> MR. CHAIRMAN WAS THAT A MOTION TO FIND THEM IN CONTINUED VIOLATION OR CONTINUED
COMPLIANCE. >> CONTINUED VIOLATION.
DID I SAY COMPLIANCE? >> YES, SIR.
>> SECOND. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SECOND.
THERE'S A SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AS TO CASE 4.1.
ALSO A MOTION FOR 4.2. CASE NUMBER 20200284.
STILT IN VIOLATION AS OF MAY 4G9, $200 A DAY BEGINNING MAY 19TH AND THE PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION?
>> SECOND. >> CASE NUMBER 4.3. 816 VERNON STREET.
FINDING THAT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AS OF THAT DATE.
FINES BEGINNING MAY 19TH AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TO BE PAID.
[00:55:15]
SO WE HAVE FOUND ALL THE PROPERTIES IN NONCOMPLIANCE AS OF TWO DAYS AGO. YOU HAVE UNTIL THE 19TH OF THIS MONTH TO WORK WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM TO CONFIRM THAT ALL THREE PROPERTIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE BEFORE YOU ARE STARTING TO ACCRUE $200 A DAY PER HOUSE IN FEES.YOU WILL BE ASSESSED THE FINES. >> THE FEES, ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. EXCUSE ME.
SO YOU HAVE THE TWO-WEEK WINDOW TO GET ALL THE HOUSES INTO COMPLIANCE BUT FOR THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE YOU NEED TO WORK WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY INSPECT AND CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
IF YOU DO NOT WORK WITH THEM WILL YOU BE ASSESSED FINES 2 # HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY FOR EACH RESIDENCE.
>> UNTIL THEY COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
[5.1 FAYE RICHARDSON, 730 DIVISION STREET, CASE 2021-0069]
>> THAT CASE HAS BEEN EXTENDED SO IT IS OFF THE AGENDA.
>> THAT CASE HAS RECEIVED AN EXTENSION SO IT IS NOT -- IT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE ASTAIN.
A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING. [LAUGHTER].
>> YOU SAID THAT AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS?>> MAY I GIVE AN UPDATE? >> SO JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON SOME OF THE RESOLUTION SOLUTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.
WE'VE HAD ONGOING MEETINGS WITH THE COUNCIL ON ANALING, REV RAND THOMPSON HAS WORKED WITH THE ELM STREETS SPORTSMAN CLUB SO WE ARE PROGRESSING WITH POTENTIAL LOCAL SOLUTIONS FOR THE CASES THAT ARE KIND OF SPECIAL NEEDS CASES. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM AND THESE ORGANIZATIONS TO TRY TO CONTINUE FORMALIZING THIS AVENUE FOR RESOLUTION OF CASES THAT ARE ACTUAL NEED CASES. ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD,
SIR? >> NO BUT NICOLE HAS BEEN DOING IN PERSON WORK ON THIS.
>> AND WE'RE LOOKING AT PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE EITHER THE ABILITY OR IF FINANCIAL SUPPORT OR THE MEANS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND TRY TO FIND THIS COMMUNITY AGENCIES THAT WILL ASSIST THEM AND TO COMING INTO COMPLIANCE. NICOLE HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING WORK ON THAT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> TO ADJOURN.
>> OKAY. MOTION TO ADJOURN. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED. THE ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.