CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting October 13, 2015

Transcription

1 CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board Meeting The Code Enforcement, Adjustments and Appeals Board met in formal session at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday,, in the Alcazar Room at City Hall. The meeting was called to order by William Rosenthal, Chairman, and the following were present: 1. ROLL CALL William Rosenthal, Chairman Judi Schuyler, Vice Chairman Andrew Morgan Chad Smith Martha Mickler CeCe Reigle Clyde Taylor Staff Present: Denise May, Esq., Assistant City Attorney David Birchim, Director, Planning & Building Department Noel Mahr, Code Enforcement Inspector Curtis Boles, Code Enforcement Inspector Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator, Recording The City staff was sworn in. was seconded by Mrs. Mickler and Mr. Rosenthal welcomed Mr. Birchim, Planning & Building Director, to the meeting. He acknowledged the loss of the City s Building Official Mr. Wil Franke, and stated that Mr. Franke had been valuable to the Board over the years and that Mr. Franke used to say how great it was to work with this Board. Mr. Rosenthal expressed that he felt the same of Mr. Franke and wished to have that on the record. approved by unanimous voice vote. 3. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS (None). Public hearing was opened, however there was no public comment, so the hearing was closed. 4. VARIANCES/TREE REMOVAL 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (August 11, 2015) MOTION Mr. Rosenthal moved to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion Item 4 (a) Jack Leake/Affordable Tree Service 203 N. Matanzas Boulevard Removal of a Hackberry tree City Code Chapter 25, Section 25-56

2 Mr. Boles reported the following: Applicant was seeking approval to remove a Hackberry and a Cedar tree that had been denied due to size. Both trees were causing damage to the fence, and had mistletoe present. The Hackberry tree was showing signs of decline, and the Cedar tree was in the process of thinning itself out. An arborist report was recommended, however staff had not received. Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Boles to elaborate on why he declared the tree to be in decline because from the photos it was unclear. Ms. Reigle made inquiry on notes to file regarding roots into pool and asked Mr. Boles if he had seen any cracks on the pool. He stated that it was in the application, however he was unable to report on that. Mrs. Schuyler inquired as to why the cedar tree was not mentioned in the arborist report. Mr. Boles responded that he was unsure as to why it had not been mentioned in the arborist report, but noted that the applicant was present for any questions. 2 Michael Delorenzo, 203 N. Matanzas Boulevard and Jack Leake/Affordable Tree Service were present and testified to the following: Mr. Leake stated that he had submitted the application in which he noted that the roots were imposing on the pool and stated that presently there were no cracks in the pool, but it was only a matter of time before that would occur. Mr. Leake stated that the application was for one tree, but their goal was to remove the two trees. He explained that he had inadvertently omitted the cedar from the Board application, and added that the Hackberry was the immediate concern as it was a dangerous tree. Mr. Delorenzo stated that he would like to remove the Cedar as well, but reiterated that the Hackberry was the immediate threat. The applicant was aware of the replacement requirements should the tree removal be approved. Mrs. Mickler confirmed that the Board was only looking at the Hackberry tree. Mr. Taylor asked if the removal was for a new or existing fence. Mr. Delorenzo declared that it was an existing fence, and that there was danger of limbs falling and damaging not only the fence but neighboring property as well.

3 Public hearing was opened, however there was no public comment, so the hearing was closed. The Board and City Staff discussed the benefits of what having a certified arborist on staff could bring. Staff explained the challenges of keeping an arborist because the private sector was more appealing. MOTION Mr. Morgan moved to approve the removal of one Hackberry tree with replacement requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosenthal and approved by unanimous voice vote. Item 4 (b) Jack Leake/Affordable Tree Service 12 Saragossa Street Removal of a 32 Pecan tree City Code Chapter 25, Section Mr. Mahr reported the following: Applicant was requesting to remove one pecan tree measuring 32 diameter breast height. On August 7, 2015 he determined the condition of the tree to be poor, noting that the tree was alive with full canopy, but did show signs of decline with holes in trunk from past years pruning. He also noted that the tree was located close to the house on the northeast side of the property. The applicant, Mr. Leake of Affordable Tree Service was notified that an arborist report would be required and that the CEAAB approval was necessary for the removal of the tree. Arborist Chuck Lippi reported the tree to be in good condition, but stated that the over pruning of the tree had caused its declining health. And with the close proximity of the tree to the home, he recommended the tree should be removed. Mr. Taylor commented that on the photos Mr. Mahr had submitted there was foliage, but on the arborist report there was no canopy. Mr. Mahr acknowledged the difference in photos that he had taken and the photos taken by the arborist, and suggested that perhaps they were taken at different times of the year. Mrs. Mickler added that the photos from arborist show date of March 2. Ms. Reigle commented that from the photos, it seemed to show the tree to be coming straight out from the back of the porch. Mr. Mahr replied that it was a large tree and was located close to the house. 3

4 Larry Lake 12 Saragossa Street, St. Augustine, Florida was present and testified to the following: He confirmed that the photos had been taken at two different times of the year. The tree was not causing problems as far as the proximity to the roof line, however due to the improper pruning 10 years ago, large limbs were falling off and there was concern there would be damage to the home as well as the safety of those whom may visit his home. With the heavy rain this year he had noticed that the decay in the trunk of the tree appeared to have worsened. He was aware of the tree replacement requirements and was willing to replace if approved. Ms. Schuyler asked what the normal life span of the pecan tree was. Mr. Leake stated that 75 years was the average life span. Public hearing was opened, however there was not public comment, so the hearing was closed. Mr. Taylor commented that in the arborist report it declared that the roots would not disturb foundations, but would grow around. He pointed out how this illustrated the Board was in a tricky spot, and having to rely on an arborists. The arborist recommended removal one 4 year ago, and it sounded like the tree was hazardous. MOTION Ms. Reigle moved to approve the removal of one 32 Pecan tree with replacement requirements. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Schuyler and approved by unanimous voice vote. 5. REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY HEARD CASES (None). 6. REVIEW OF NEW CASES Item 6 (a) M. Michael Arin Ciftci 78-A Chapin Street Unsafe building abatement; Permit required; Junk & debris. City Code, Chapter 8, Section City Code, Chapter 8, Section City Code, Chapter 19, Section 19-3 Mr. Mahr reported the following: April 2, 2015 staff received complaint of people living in a recreational vehicle (RV) and tents in the rear yard of 78-A Chapin Street. Upon inspection he had spoken with Ms. Kelsey Luft, who was living in the RV. She reported that the owner was out of town and was expected to return in two

5 weeks, but that he was allowing her to stay there. He explained that the RV and tent were there because the main structure on the property was being remodeled and not in a livable condition. He advised Ms. Luft of the City Code violation, and upon notice she received assistance from her father to remove the RV and tent from the property. During Mr. Mahr s first inspection he noticed the large metal shipping storage container on the property as well as the large amount of metal/wood debris in the yard which consisted of metal drums, coolers, boat motor and trailer, wooden logs, gas cans, and assorted household debris. He explained that this was what had created the unlawful conditions on the property. On April 2, 2015, a Stop Work Order was posted on the house for construction without a building permit. On April 4, 2015 the owner came into the City Planning & Building Department and obtained an interior demo permit. On April 14, 2015, Mr. Mahr met the owner on the property along with the Building Inspector, Randy Hurry, for an interior inspection. At that time the complete interior of the home had been removed to the stud walls, electrical wiring, plumbing fixtures, floors, and interior doors. He noted that a portion of the 5 home had been set up for the property owner to live in the house under unlawful/unsafe conditions. And added that the exterior of the home remained in violation. On June 23, 2015, Mr. Mahr met Randy Hurry and the property owner at the home for another interior inspection. Upon inspection it was noted that construction had begun on the interior of the home and that there was no building permit for that work. During the inspection Mr. Hurry pointed out several building violations i.e., rebuilding the floor joists, installing flooring and wall studs for rooms. Mr. Ciftci was once again asked to stop work. The exterior of the home still remained in violation as well. On August 4 th and 5 th, the Building Official was notified of the conditions of the property at 78-A Chapin Street. He ordered the property and structure to be posted Unsafe for Human Occupancy. On August 5, 2015 the property was posted Unsafe for Human Occupancy. Mr. Ciftci refused to leave the structure and had brought in two additional persons to reside there. On August 6, 2015 an Official Notice of Violation was sent to the property owner via certified mail. The certified mail receipt was returned signed by Mr.

6 Michael Ciftci dated August 8, On August 26, 2015, an interior renovation (electrical, plumbing) and fence permit was issued. On September 16, 2015, an Official Notice of CEAAB Hearing was sent via certified mail to the property owner, and the return receipt was received at the Planning & Building Department on September 21, 2015, signed by Mr. Ciftci. On September 24, 2015, Mr. Hurry performed an inspection of the property and found the electrical wiring to be incomplete and unsafe. He also found the plumbing to be incomplete as well as the weather barriers around doors. He reported holes in and around doors and floors that were open to rodents. The home was in need of great attention to the structural integrity of the walls and roof. On September 28, 2015, the property and the City Clerk s Office was posted with affidavit for the CEAAB hearing. On September 28, 2015 the property was noted to have had a new wooden railroad crosstie fence in the front yard that exceeded the height limitations of the City Building Code. As of that days meeting, the property owner had not called in for an inspection of work performed since the September 24, 2015 inspection. 6 Staff recommended that the Board find the case in violation and issue an order for the immediate vacate of the premises. Staff also recommended allowing the owner until October 28, 2015 to correct the construction safety code violations by the finding of the home to be habitable for occupancy. Staff further recommended that the Board require a permit for metal storage container or removal of the storage container along with the removal of the junk/debris from the property or a maximum fine of $250 per day be imposed beginning October 29, He added that the property owner had failed to comply with the building officials requests to correct safety violations since the beginning of April Mr. Rosenthal asked if the work that had been done, was it by a certified contractor or by the homeowner. What was the reason the owner had not removed himself from the property when requested. And if there were anyone else living at the home. Mr. Mahr stated that the owner was not a certified contractor and that he had done the work thus far. He explained that it was permissible for a homeowner to work on their own property with proper permits and inspections by the building inspector. He added that Mr. Ciftci had obtained some permits but Mr. Hurry had not approved the work at that

7 time. He had not vacated the property because frankly he had nowhere else to go, and he had a girlfriend along with her two year old child residing there as well. Mrs. Schuyler asked what the intent was for the storage container. Mr. Mahr responded that he was unsure of the intent, but the owner was present for questions. Ms. Reigle inquired was it not habitable until there had been a certificate of occupancy and all building permits were closed out and it were considered safe. Mr. Mahr responded that was correct. Michael Arin Ciftci, 78-A Chapin Street, St. Augustine, Florida. Was present and testified to the following: He addressed the Board and City Staff thanking them for their service. He had purchased the property from the neighbors and closed on the property December 31, He stated that it was his intention to repair the home for himself and his future family. He explained that he was performing all of the construction work himself and that it had been a steep learning curve. He stated that he had a major in political sciences at the University of Florida in 2007 and had done campaign for the past decade, all which had not prepared him for the construction trade. Although 7 he did not have any experience with construction, he did appreciate the help and advice from the City. He felt that the Board could not rule on this as Mr. Mahr had not entered the home for some time, and Mr. Hurry had not come for inspection yet. Ms. Reigle commented that she felt that it was quite clear that the applicant only needed to call in for an inspection when ready. She expressed her concerns of having a toddler in the home. Mr. Rosenthal expressed concern of hearing that the home was ready for inspection as he had heard that day that wiring was exposed. Mr. Morgan asked what the interior of the home was currently. Mr. Ciftci reported that the sub floors were in, plumbing was up, but that the studs and wiring were still exposed, as they were planning to use application other than drywall. He added that although the wiring was exposed, it was encased in metal piping. Mr. Rosenthal asked Mr. Mahr when the interior was last looked at, were the things that the property owner had alluded to, found to be complete. Mr. Mahr reported that the home remained in unsafe condition per the building inspection on September 24, 2015 by Mr. Randy Hurry. He explained that he had requested the inspection

8 and stated that typically properties are not occupied during construction. Mr. Smith asked if they were living in the structure during this time. Mr. Ciftci stated that they were living in the structure as they had the plumbing complete, the bathroom floor was tiled. He believed the City took issue where he had taken out the walls and the wiring was exposed. He also stated that the ceiling had been removed and they planned to complete the roof in the next six months. Mr. Rosenthal confirmed with the owner, that since September 24, 2015 when Mr. Hurry inspected the home, in the intervening weeks, you have completed much of the interior work. And added that on the exterior it appeared to be in the same general condition as in April 2015 and noted that a fence in the interim had been erected. He asked why he had not taken a serious effort to clean up the exterior of the property and remove the illegal fence. Mr. Ciftci responded that to characterize it not to be a serious effort was not consistent with the facts. He explained that he had been making effort, and that the exterior back was not the priority when compared to the need for the interior. He expressed that he shared Ms. Reigle s concerns, as did his mother. The focus was on the interior. He was learning the process on the mobility and codes, taking care of a toddler, his fiancé and making a living. It had been a challenge for him and he understood why the City had issue with the yard. His priority concern was to make sure the interior was safe for his family. Then he would take care of the exterior. He had made sure to clear the front and side yard to satisfy the City and had placed potentially hazardous materials up and away. Ms. Reigle commented that the respondent would be able to live in an RV at a campground while renovating. That it was illegal to live in the structure in that condition. And it was not legal in the City to treat your yard like a dump. She noted that they were lucky that the child had not been removed. He commented that he did not own an RV, that it belonged to a friend that was staying on his property while he was out of town working. But he did appreciate her perspective. Mrs. May announced that Mr. Hurry was present to testify. Mr. Randy Hurry was present and testified to the following: He had been to the property twice with the last time being on September 24, 2015, at which time he had inspected the home and found it to be unsafe. He had offered Mr. Ciftci instruction as to what would need to be accomplished for him to declare the home safe for human habitation. He had not been called back for inspection, so he did not know 8

9 the existing condition of the interior. Ms. Reigle, asked Mr. Hurry when you put in electrical upgrade permit, is there a licensed electrician s name on that. Mr. Hurry replied that the contractor was not listed and that owner/builder was permitted by state law to perform their own electrical work. Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Hurry to explain why he had placed in notes that the structural integrity of the walls and roof were in need of attention. Mr. Hurry responded that the roof required double top plates that make it structurally safe, and added that when he was last there, the owner had partially accomplished that. Mr. Rosenthal asked Mr. Hurry of the work that he had done, even though it was not complete, was it done to code. Mr. Hurry confirmed that yes, thus far the work had been done to code. Mrs. Schuyler stated that she had real concerns of the two year old in this environment and asked who was responsible to report this to the proper authorities. Mrs. May stated that upon notice of the situation that day, she was required to report the condition to the state as she now had personal knowledge from testimony received and would be doing so as required by law after this meeting. Mrs. Schuyler asked what the use for the shipping container was and would it be removed when the construction was complete. And did he have a full time job at this time or was the construction his full time job. He responded that he used the container to store tools during construction and that he worked for a real estate company currently but was devoting full time efforts to renovations of the home. Mr. Taylor asked the owner why he would not hire someone to complete work. Mr. Ciftci responded that it was a financial issue, that they are doing the work in stages as they collect funds to do so. And he believed that as of that day, the home was safe. Mr. Taylor asked had he received any estimates from local contractors to make the structure safe. Mr. Ciftci stated that what he felt got them on the radar was the materials he had in the right-of-way. He had spoken with City Staff regarding speed bumps as they are in a cut through area. He commented that he appreciated the Board and Staff concerns, and that he was trying within his means to repair the home and added that until early this year he was single and since being blessed with his family, he had taken steps to renovate the home. 9

10 Mr. Rosenthal asked if there were any reason why he had not called for an inspection prior to that days hearing so that the Board would have a current report of the conditions. Mr. Ciftci responded that there was no specific reason, he knew that he would see Mr. Hurry today. He believed that it was clear that they were improving the site and were complying with safety concerns. And in the spirit of this investigation, he believed that they had definitely made progress. He admitted that at the first part of this year it was just him, and that he had no family at that time. Mr. Rosenthal stated that Mr. Ciftci had placed this Board in an unfortunate situation, that he was unlawfully living in an unsafe structure on the property and that the responsibility and liability was on this Board. Although they did not want to displace him. He may be smart to sell and reinvest in another property that it was livable or could be with little renovation. Unfortunately this Board had to make a decision that day. Ms. Reigle commented that it was a travesty that they did not want to throw someone out of their home, that this was not a home because nowhere in this City is it legal to live in an unsafe structure. And that was not this Boards fault, but that it was the City Code. This Board had no choice but to remove them and this child from the home for their own safety. Mr. Ciftci urged the board to consider a compromise, and although this board does not meet for another month, they do respect Staff and Council. He suggested that they allow for Mr. Hurry to come inspect home the following day. Mr. Morgan asked if the only items remaining to deem the home safe were the roof tie downs. Mr. Ciftci stated that he believed the conditions to be safe. And that within seven days he could meet all safety requirements. Public hearing was opened, however there was no public comment, so the hearing was closed. Mr. Ciftci pleaded with the Board to allow them to remain in the home and work with them in a compromised circumstance, where by everyone would be satisfied. Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Ciftci if he were aware of needing permit for the metal storage container. Mr. Ciftci stated that he was aware of the need for permit but was informed by Mr. Hurry that the container could remain until construction was complete. Mr. Taylor asked if there was any reason the debris could not be stored in the container. Mr. Ciftci stated that he appreciated staffs exhausted documentation of what was and commented that they had 10

11 addressed the front and side of the property and had cleared hazardous/dangerous materials Mrs. Schuyler stated that city code was not personal opinion or tastes, and that her concern was for the safety of the child. Mr. Ciftci responded that their focus was to satisfy safety issues raised by the Board and City Staff, and that he believed they would be compliance within seven days. Ms. Reigle excused herself from the meeting as she had a prior engagement. Mr. Taylor clarified with Staff of whether or not the required permits were in place. Mr. Mahr responded that this case began on April 2, 2015 which the container was placed without a permit, which is why the violation was issued. The junk and debris started coming in. That the request of the building official, inspector had not been followed through and now we are still not compliant from April 2015 to October Neighbors have filed complaints. Mr. Rosenthal asked for clarification on the debris that has been brought in. Mr. Mahr responded that nothing is going out but more is coming in. All the while complaints were being received from the neighbors. Mr. Morgan expressed concern as to Mr. Hurry approving the storage container during construction. Mrs. Schuyler asked if the storage container was full and if it would allow for storage of materials. Mr. Ciftci stated that there was room in the storage container to store additional materials from the yard. Mr. Smith commented that from the photos, there was a rack next to the container that was storing plumbing and wood. And he suggested that the board give applicant seven days to pass inspection before fines being imposed, as he did not believe the fines would help the situation. Mr. Rosenthal asked Mr. Ciftci if the container could hold all of the materials in the yard. Mr. Ciftci replied that it would not. Mr. Rosenthal inquired of Council, whether giving the owner seven days or seven hours, the fact that we have the kinds of conditions that allegedly exist inside the house based upon the fact that we have not had a satisfactory inspection and we allow that family to live there for at least another seven days, what kind of liability for the City did this Board place with allowing owner to remain. Mrs. May responded that upon the property being posted, it was unlawful for any person to reside. Our Code is based upon the Florida Standard 11

12 Building Code, when it was found unsafe by our Building Official and it was posted, it became illegal for anyone to inhabit the structure. The fact is that they have been inhabiting the structure illegally for two or more months and that not having personal knowledge until that day of a child remaining there she must report that to the Department of Children and Families. They never were legal to be there after the posting of the property. Mr. Smith asked if it were legal to camp on your property. Mr. Taylor commented that were getting clouded here. Whether the violation occurred. We re getting to the reasons why it meets violation. You could always put that child somewhere else for the time being until the structure was safe. He commented that Mr. Ciftci had several options. But that this Boards responsibility was to find whether there was violation and what penalty to impose to encourage compliance. We have someone here that is inexperienced but is learning as he goes, and he did have concerns over removing someone from their home when the City had not been there for nearly a month. Mr. Rosenthal posed the question was the City not there because the property owner had not called for an inspection, or did the City abandon the project. As far as the living conditions, that may be another matter. Mr. Morgan stated that he did not believe that this Board had the authority to remove someone from their home. That they find whether or not there is violation and impose a fine. Mr. Rosenthal asked Council to concur. Mrs. May agreed that we do not have judicial authority. We posted the building on August 5, 2015 as unsafe. That was the City s duty and what was done. To find them in violation and under testimony and unto all matters before you. That being the unlawful conditions, permits required and lack thereof, as to unsafe building abatement code as he had not yet completed. She did not believe it was to this Board to find whether they are or are not living there or to order them in or out, which was for another agency. They were ordered out on August 5, It was for this Board to define as to what they knew. Mr. Morgan asked the owner if he had the money to purchase the materials necessary to complete the work. Mr. Ciftci confirmed that he had the materials on hand. He commented that the neighborhood was challenging with regard to material going missing from construction sites, and that he had materials stored in the container. So for Mr. Mahr to report that nothing had been accomplished, he felt it was clear from the photos that things had moved along. And to rely solely on his testimony was a little suspect and raised questions in and of itself. 12

13 Mr. Morgan asked if it would be possible to apply for a temporary permit to allow the metal container to remain on the property. Mr. Mahr responded that the standard procedure was to allow the contractor to place a container on the project and allow them to leave a container on site for thirty days following the expiration of the permit. He further explained that under normal circumstances, they place the container there, they have their permits issued, they have their inspections, and the City allows the container to remain thirty days after the permit expired, because typically the homeowners have personal items in the containers. MOTION Mr. Rosenthal moved to approve Order Finding Violation giving respondent seven days for the interior and up to twenty-one days for the exterior to come into compliance or a fine up to $250 per day be imposed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Morgan and was approved by the following voice vote: Ayes: Rosenthal, Morgan, Schuyler, Mickler. Nays: Smith, Taylor 7. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS (None). 8. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Rosenthal complimented Mr. Birchim on responding to the request that he had made regarding an update on the disposition regarding billboards. Mr. Morgan asked if this board could make a recommendation that the city hire an arborist. Ms. May replied that the Board could make a report to the City Commission on any recommendation that this Board felt appropriate. Mrs. Mickler suggested that if the City could even contract out an arborist that could be on call for cases that could be at the meetings for the Board to ask questions so that they have consistency. Mr. Smith stated that the Board already suggest the applicants get an arborist report. Mrs. May stated that the Board could also come up with a criteria of what you would like to see in an arborist report at a minimum. That type of recommendation could come out and they could direct the City Attorney s office to draft something for the Board. We also have a Street Tree Advisory Committee, and perhaps some of those committee members that may be partnered with for that type of recommendation. Mr. Birchim informed the Board that money had been put into the budget for 13

14 tree canopy conservation and restoration plan. That plan may include recommendation from the Street Tree Advisory Committee or this Board to have an independent third party consulting arborist, not necessarily a staff member, but someone that could be used for as an independent third party if there is a question to the level of detail of an arborist report that you may have to look at. Mr. Taylor added that in the code he finds protected, preserved, shade, invasive, exempt understory and palm tree. He did not understand what all those meant, and how they could be expected to if they are going to have any effect, an arborist would be a great start as it was very confusing. He respected the homeowners as he had personally been there. Mr. Birchim expressed that perhaps it would make more sense for trees not to come before this Board. Mr. Rosenthal asked for confirmation about this Board being charged to look at those issues and if we elect not to how do we arbitrarily send that somewhere else. Mr. Birchim, explained that the staff approves trees to a certain level, so the only time this Board looks at tree removal is when that tree is defined by our code as a preserved tree. So we have a list in our code of trees listed by species and each species of tree has a size associated with it which is the diameter breast height, and once a tree for example a live oak tree becomes 18 in diameter by definition, it becomes a preserved tree. If a property owner wants to remove a preserved tree, staff cannot approve it. It can only be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board (PZB) if the tree removal was in conjunction with site development. If the tree was not in conjunction with site development, then it would be handled by this Board. So we already have a bifurcation of the responsibility, the PZB looks at some of them and your Board looks at the others. The same process occurs at the PZB when someone wants to remove a tree because it s adjacent to a new house they want to build or if it s in the footprint of a building, they require and arborist report. And they get also varying degrees of professionalism based on who the arborist is that writes the report, which he believed was this Boards issue. So they are struggling with the same issue. It has been discussed at the Street Tree Advisory Committee about having an independent third party arborist. When you start talking in that vein you start to wonder if the City has an independent arborist go out, and that report contradicts the arborist obtained by the property owner, where does that leave the Board. So now you are choosing which arborist to believe. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Morgan added that they would rather have conflicting reports rather than reports without enough information, adding that this Boards appeals go to circuit court. 14

15 Mr. Taylor suggested that regulating the trimmers would prevent cases such as todays, where the improper trimming had resulted in the justification of removing of a tree. Ms. Schuyler added that she personally experienced calling a tree trimmer which was recommended. And when they showed up, it was one of the rogue guys that had quit the company that she had called. She explained that she went into this with eyes wide open and nearly screwed up. 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 4:46 P.M. William Rosenthal, Chairperson Sandra Partin, Administrative Coordinator Mr. Birchim explained that there were standards for tree trimming. He added the heaviest volume of complaints of tree trimming are the trimmers that work with the power companies. It was not the individual homeowners tree trimming that come up on the radar, it was more often the trimmers working with the power companies. Council added that the City had no recourse but to fine the homeowner versus the tree companies. Mr. Birchim added that we now have a mature tree measure in which we focus on tree canopy and placement. And many trees in our area are at the end of their lifespan. 9. REVIEW OF CONFLICT STATEMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING None. 15