Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 12-2-2003 / f-EC7-(KCI< / • '. - / . I& ti:bA\thi....111 t i ' "Ci of Cape Canavera wb, ,-., Fr.eliv`i " t'oll'' S • ,.• _ • 0 „'; CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS 1vAGENDA :;. 111 POLK AVENUE • 1 DECEMBER 2, 2003 2:00 P.M. ' ,! 111 Call �< atciwr064/Vt�Roll CCall Order \/ 430\�� " NEW BUSINESS \\16V\;(1 1. Motion Re: Approval of Meeting Minutes May 8, 1997 2. Administrative Appeal of the Building Official's Decision Relating to the Denial of the Issuance of a After-the-Fact Building Permit for the Construction of a Deck located at (8517 Canaveral Boulevard) - James and Sandi Adamsa Detitioners. ord „ ale w 4P. BUT Lk n " ecidan, OD Tom fal • 4 • , Pi , 4 , ,,t .,, aindcaa_ Gt.c nb+ nd y norm 2 ,.. 61. eoc6.. Vio lc r, , Pursuant to Section 286.1015, F.S., the City hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any matter rendered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record 0A(1 r includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not V constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise 0. 1 inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise 1 ' allowed by law. This meeting may include the attendance of one or more members of the Cape .fie `, Canaveral City Council, Board of Adjustment, Code Enforcement and/or Community Appears ce y,� l� Board who may or may not participate in Board discussions held at this public meeting. Persons (i19' with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the ` City Clerk's office at 868-1221, 48 hours in advance of the meeting. O` • UJ la'1 1 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-0326 Telephone: (321) 868-1222 • SUNCOM: 982-1222 • FAX: (321) 868-1247 www.myflorida.com/cape • email:ccapecanaveral@cfl.rr.com • CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES MAY 8, 1997 A meeting of the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida,was held on May 8,1997 at the City Hall Annex,111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 P.M. by Chairperson Bowman. The Secretary called the roll. MEMBERS PRESENT Walter Bowman Chairperson Dave Kalm Vice Chairperson Norman Boucher Randall Byrd Thomas Quinn OTHERS PRESENT Burt Bruns Council Member Bennett Boucher City Manager Kohn Bennett City Attorney t. G.J. Moran Building Official Susan Chapman Board Secretary Chairperson Bowman introduced the Board members. He explained that their individual qualifications stretched through various levels of the construction industry. He advised that the Board's purpose was to rule and assist in the application of the codes adopted by the City of Cape Canaveral. NEW BUSINESS 1. Administrative Appeal of the Building Official's Decision Relating to the Issuance of a"Notice of Unsafe Structure" Located at (615 Washington Avenue) - Petitioner was Don W. Applegate,Trustee. Mr. Bennett,City Attorney explained that the Board was quasi judicial. He advised that he would swear in any witnesses that wished to give testimony and evidence regarding the agenda item. The following individuals were sworn in by Attorney Bennett: G.J. Moran, Building Official;Joe Belcher,JDB Code Services;John Soileau, Attorney Representing the Appellant; Down Applegate,Trustee;Val Villanyi Hausner, P.E. Consulting Structural Engineer;Robert Carney,Resident at 340 Chandler Street. I CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 2 Mr. Moran, Building Official, gave an opening statement. He stated that it was the city's position that the building located on lots 11 &12, Block 6,Section 23, Township 24 South, Range 37 East, Avon by the Sea Subdivision, (615 Washington Avenue), Brevard County, Florida, met the criteria of an unsafe building as outlined in Section 202,Definitions,of the Standard Building Abatement Code, 1985 Edition;as referenced in Chapter 1 of the Standard Building Code,1994 Edition; and Chapter 3 of the Standard Housing Code,1991 Edition;all of which had been adopted by the City of Cape Canaveral as mandated in Chapter 553, Part 7 of the Florida Statutes and had been appropriately cited as such,by the city's Building Official. Mr.Soileau, Attorney Representing the Appellant, gave an opening statement. He stated that this was an appeal from the Notice of Unsafe Structure,issued by the City of Cape Canaveral on February 21, 1997. He further stated that the respondent's position that the determination regarding the condition of the building was in error;and over broad, relating to property not owned by the respondent, and went beyond the circumstances supported by the actual evidence. More specifically, the issues contested which were whether or not any of the alleged nuisances referred to in the Notice, lied upon the real property owned by the appellant;whether or to what extent any structure on the subject property was unsafe;whether the structure itself or any portion thereof, was in fact,likely to fall or partially collapse as alleged in the Notice;whether the fencing and non-occupancy of the structure was,in fact,manifestly unsafe or unsanitary for the purpose for which it was being used;whether stresses and any material on site, in fact,exceeded the stresses allowe'd in the building code; and whether any nuisance existed on the subject property. Mr. Applegate,Trustee and Appellant, testified that he was the owner of 615 Washington Avenue,since 1981; and his family had owned the property since 1959;he had personal knowledge that there had been changes to the terrain since 1981; more specifically, he—had observed that there was erosion to the dune area,caused by the Jetty's at Port Canaveral;on the south side of the structure, the dune line had moved beyond the westerly edge of the house;on the north side, the dune line was close to the east corner of the structure; the property owner had not performed any activity to contribute to the erosion. Mr. Applegate reviewed photographs of the structure which he had taken (entered as composite #1), and a photograph of the three concrete buttresses that supported the main structure of the house (entered as composite #2). Mr. Applegate further testified that he had visited the structure to observe the extent of which the tides reached the property. He explained that the photographs were taken two years prior and the tide now reached further to the west from what was depicted on the photos. He stated that debris and concrete rubble,alleged as a nuisance in the Notice,issued by the City,were located to the east and south of the house and lied within the area that was covered by high tides;at the peak of high tide, the water reached a few feet upon the eastern edge of the house;he had been requested by Mr. Moran to remove the rubble and debris which lied east of the high tide water mark. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 3 Mr. Applegate continued to testify that in 1974,an addition (which was permitted by the city) was constructed east of the main structure,which did not share a connected foundation with the main structure;constructed of concrete and reinforced steel which two-thirds of it had fallen into the ocean due to erosion in 1974;he had not witnessed any collapsed concrete on the main structure; there existed three (16 X 26) concrete supporting beams below the main structure,which only extended through the main structure,and were located on the westerly portion of the area covered by the structure; the main structure was two-story,which lied above the three supporting beams;the addition was one-story,with a poured concrete slab,which acted as a roof and sun deck;the addition had not become disconnected from the main structure;when the addition was constructed, the only modification made to the main structure when the addition was built, was that the portion underneath the second floor was enclosed with concrete block walls, running from the ground up, the walls had created unusable space,a garage door was installed on the south side and an apartment on the north side. He further explained that the building was supporting itself by the three buttresses prior to the block walls being installed. He noted that Mr. Moran s notice had indicated that the main structure was likely to collapse. Mr. Applegate continued his testimony and explained that there were wood structural members (as described in the Notice) located on the south side of the second floor which had been installed to support a roof area over a porch; the members ran from the floor of the porch through the extension of the roof,and extended beyond the main structure to the south;he had witnessed decay on the wood members,however,he did not believe it was termite damage. Mr. Applegate further testified that the unoccupied property was secured with a chain- link perimeter fence,with a locked gate; the fence had been installed for approximately three years; he entered the property daily to ensure that it was not broken into;he was unaware of any unsanitary conditions; the property was unoccupied because Mr. Morgan(the former Building Official),had designated the structure unsafe due to deterioration of the structure and severe beach erosion. Mr. Applegate advised that Mr. Morgan had issued a building permit to repair the structure,and two weeks later,on October 20,1993,he had issued an"Unsafe to Occupy Notice",based on Section 102.5 of the 1991 Edition of the Standard Building Code,which had stated that the structure could not be occupied,and he had been told by Mr. Morgan that he would be arrested if he tried to secure the structure, and therefore,he did not continue to reside at the property. He added that if Mr. Morgan let him utilize the permits that he had paid for the house would be repaired and occupied. He stated that it was his intention to meet all the code requirements and move back into the house. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 4 Discussion followed regarding the rubble and debris located east of the structure. Mr. Applegate testified that for his family's benefit and at their request,pilings had been placed by Brevard County, and concrete had been donated by a local construction company. These items had been placed east of the high tide mark. He added that both installations were permitted. He explained that the concrete had been located on lots 11 &12 prior to the beach erosion,which was now considered state property. Mr. Applegate clarified that the state had informed him that anything east of the high tide was considered state property. Mr.Soileau further clarified that if the property was submerged by gradual erosion, the property then changed title to the State of Florida. If the property was submerged by the ocean by rapid and violent tides, then the property owner would continue to hold title. Discussion was held regarding the properties eastern boundary. Attorney Soileau explained that in order to determine property lines,a surveyor would have to locate the high tide line on the eastern extent of the property, and the survey would depict that point as the eastern property boundary. Mr. Applegate testified that the water actually came in west of all of the rubble at high tide. The Board members asked various questions for clarification. City Attorney Bennett reminded the Board members that the issue before the Board was the notice that was issued by the Building Official and if it was appropriate. Val Villanyi Hausner, P.E., Consulting Structural Engineer testified that he had been a structural engineer since 1948;he had reviewed the structure; it was possible to determine the structural condition of the structure with no testing;his opinion was based solely the basis of his visual inspection;on January 23, 1997 he sent Mr. Moran a letter regarding the condition of the structure; he spent approximately 2 hours. inspecting the site with Mr. Moran;he was compensated by the city for this inspection; he had observed the three concrete buttresses under the structure which,in his professional opinion, in good condition;he did not know the structural means of the buttresses;he was unable to determine where the addition started. Mr. Hausner reviewed a photograph of the structure (Exhibit 1-A). He further testified that most of the addition had collapsed;he could not determine if the addition had any structural connection with the main building;he had observed the building as one structure; the buttresses remained in good structural condition; the exterior perimeter block walls had evidence of cracks from settlement away from the buttresses,which was correctable; the front of the structure (the addition) was unacceptable condition; there were structural deficiencies of concern with the addition,and to some settlement to the block wall of the main building, and the condition of the wooden members which had either termite damage or dry rotted;he normally analyzed each and every element,not the structure as a whole; this structure was analyzed as one structure;it was his opinion that he would not live in the structure and would not consider it safe. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 5 Mr. Hausner answered various questions for the Board members. He added to his testimony that it was not known what type of foundation had existed under the buttresses; it was his professional opinion that it was possible for the roof to lift off in a hurricane because of the condition of the fasteners;the second floor of the existing structure was timber;and the perimeter block wall was supporting both stories. He further testified that he interpreted building codes regularly and occasionally interpreted the Cape Canaveral building codes, approximately seven times,and up to five-story structures. He agreed that the building, structure,or portion thereof,had been damaged by fire, flood, earthquake,wind or other cause to the extent that the structurally integrity of the building/structure is less than it was prior to the damage and less that the requirements established by the Standard Building Code;he agreed that the building structure,or portion thereof, as a result of decay, deterioration,or dilapidation was liking to fully or partially collapse; there presently existing are partial collapse of the structure; he agreed that any exterior appendage or portion of the building or structure was not securely fastened, attached or anchored such that it was capable of resisting wind, seismic or similar loads as required by the Standard Building Code for new buildings;he agreed that the stress in any material, member or portion thereof,due to all imposed loads including dead load exceeds the stresses allowed in the Standard Building Code for new buildings;he clarified that all of buildings along the beach front that were built in the 1950s and 1960s did not meet today's building code requirements. Chairman Bowman called a ten minute break at 2:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 2:50 P.M. Mr. Moran,CBO, Building Official for the City of Cape Canaveral stated for the record that his credentials included but were not limited to state licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation as a Building Codes Administrator,Building Plans Examiner in three categories,and a Certified Inspector in four categories;he held Building Official Minr certifications by the Council of American Building Officials,Southern Building Code Congress International, Building Officials Association of Florida, and by the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs; technical certifications through the Southern Building Code Congress International as a Chief Codes Analyst in building, mechanical, plumbing,fire prevention;various plans examiner certifications;various inspector certifications;Certified by the Council of American Building Officials as a one and two-family dwelling inspector;and by the State of Florida,State Fire Marshal as a municipal fire inspector. He also had 30 years experience in building construction. He entered into the record the following exhibits: 1985 edition of the Unsafe Building Abatement Code (Exhibit 1) 1994 edition of the Standard Building Code,Chapter 1 (Exhibit 2) CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 6 1991 edition of the Standard Housing Code,Chapter 3 (Exhibit 3) City of Cape Canaveral,Code of Ordinances adopting exhibits 1-3 (Exhibit 4) Florida Statute,Chapter 553,Part 7(Exhibit 5) Mr. Moran testified that the action initiated by himself,as the Building Official for the City of Cape Canaveral,was established by the requirements of the Standard Building Code, 1994 edition, as adopted by the City of Cape Canaveral,under Section 103.5 of the aforementioned code stated that"all unsafe buildings,structures,or service systems are hereby declared illegal and shall be abated by repair and rehabilitation or by demolition in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code. Mr. Moran continued that it also stated in Section 108.4.1 of the 1994 Standard Building Code (Exhibit 6) That an owner or his duly authorized agent,may appeal a decision of the building official to the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals whenever any one of the following conditions are claimed to exist: 1) The building official rejected or refused to approve the mode or manner of construction proposed to be followed or materials to be used in the installation or alteration of a building, structure or service system. He advised that none had been presented. 2) The provisions of this code do not apply to this specific case. 3) That an equally good or more desirable form of installation can be employed in any specific case. He advised that none had been offered by the appellant. 4) The true intent and meaning of this code or any of the regulations thereunder have been misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted. He advised that this is the only issue that is relevant to this hearing. He clarified that it will be at the Board's descretion to determine if in fact,he had misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the requirements of the codes in question of which he believed he did not. He advised a "Notice of Unsafe Building", dated February 21, 1997,signed and received by Gayle Wagner on February 22, 1997 (Exhibit 8); the original appeal from Mr. Applegate and his attorney,received on March 21,1997(Exhibit 9). Mr. Moran voiced his professional opinion that even though that the structure was unoccupied and had a fence around tI1e perimeter of the property, that did not change the fact that its use was designed as a residential dwelling or that its present condition prohibited its use for that purpose. He quoted various sections of the current City code (Composite 10); Mr. Val Hausner's report was submitted (Exhibit 11); Mr. Moran s entered his inspection report (Exhibit 12). Mr.Soileau objected to Exhibit 12 due to the fact the contents of the report were hearsay and the party forming the opinions what at the meeting to testify orally. Mr. Moran read the report,in its entirety for the record. Mr. Belcher stated for the record, that he was an Independent Code Consultant,retained by the City to review procedures used by the city and to give an opinion as far as the interpretation of the building code. He stated for the record that he had over 20 years experience in code enforcement; 10 years in the public sector as Building Official for the City of Gainsville;he was manager of the codes and standards for eight years for the Florida Concrete& Products Assoc. ;since July, 1993 he has been an independent consultant;he is a Certified Building Official by the Department of Community Affairs; CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 7 SBCCI certifications as Chief Building Code Analyst; Plans Examiner;Building Inspector;one&two-family Building Inspector;he was also a certified general contractor. Mr. Belcher advised that he had the opportunity to visually inspect the structure on two different occasions. Based on his professional experience and knowledge,it was his opinion that the building was an unsafe structure as defined by code. He agreed that the procedures that the city had followed in this action,had met all the requirements of the Standard Building Code and the Standard Unsafe Building Code. Mr. Belcher voiced his professional opinion and concern that the roof overhang construction was a large wing waiting for a storm to come along to uplift it back into someone else's property,and perhaps,create serious damage. He agreed that sixty days was an adequate length of time to obtain necessary permits. Mr. Moran advised that a submitted building permit application is the beginning of the permitting process, however, none had been received from the appellant. Discussion followed regarding the regulatory agencies who would require permits. Mr. Moran advised that repairing a structure did not require a Variance unless the cost of the repairs exceeds,in that particular area, the valuation of the structure prior to damage. He reminded the Board that the only issue at this hearing, was whether or not the Notice of Unsafe Structure was in compliance with the code,and was the structure an unsafe structure. Mr. Moran introduced a video as (Exhibit 12) which he considered, as the Building Official, a life safety issue and he was mandated by law to take action when in his opinion, a safety issue exists. The Board members viewed the video of the unsafe structure and beach front property to the east of the building. Mr. Carney, resident of 340 Chandler Street since 1987,entered a petition from (83) individuals describing the property as an"attractive nuisance". Attorney Soileau objected to the petition as being entered as an exhibit due to the facts that it was considered hearsay and Mr. Carney was not considered an expert witness. Mr. Carney voiced his concern that the debris on the beach, in front of the house, needed to be removed before someone gets hurt. He entered photos taken of the debris taken in 1995 by Mr. Carney. Attorney Soileau objected to entering the photos as an exhibit. The Board members reviewed the photos. Mr.Soileau gave his closing statement. He questioned why there was an appeal of the determination of the Building Official to this Board. It was not to add amongst to the proceedings, it is to gain an understanding of just what the owner is responsible to do. Which had been a problem for Mr. Applegate for many years under prior City officials. Mr. Applegate had testified that he was given a permit and then he was told no, the building was not allowed to be occupied,even with the permit. He has been frustrated by the process. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 8 Mr.Soileau continued his closing stated by stated that the Notice of Unsafe Structure, the delineation that is needed, and the reason for this appeal,is that Mr. Applegate should not be before this Board or before the Building Official to address matters that are on property that he does not own. The code applies to the owner to the extent that any action is demanded or required by the zoning official beyond the mean high tide line, they felt that any such demand would be an error,and they would want clarification that that in fact is not what the city is seeking. The building itself, Mr. Applegate feels that the main structure is not a lost cause, not about to fall down,is not deteriorating into the ocean. There was an addition to that structure. Mr. Applegate is willing to remove the addition in its entirety. He hoped that his statement addressed the structural issues as discussed in Mr. Hausner's letter, as well as perhaps in the Notice of Unsafe Structure. The beams on the second floor which were mentioned in the notice,if in fact they are deteriorating and the straps and ties associated with them can be replaced, then Mr. Applegate has no difficulty in doing that. What the owner needs is to have a defined set of things to do which will result in the property being deemed habitable again. He has not to date had that. There is no ability to go forward and do things until what needs to be done is defined. He questioned specifically,what structural deficiencies exist based upon the testimony that the Board heard. They did not disagree that the addition has essentially disintegrated and obviously can be removed is what was the owner's intention. As to the perimeter block wall, there has been opinions forwarded that those had to be replaced for structural purposes the owner disagreed. He asked the Board to give direction to the owner as to how he is to proceed. He clarified,what was the property that the owner is required to take action and what specific actions are appropriate to take. The evidence, in his opinion, supports a determination by the Board that the owner do no more than he feels is appropriate'to do and is willing to do. Mr. Moran gave his closing statement. He stated that the Board heard expert testimony from the City and from the City's witnesses that this structure is in fact unsafe. He reminded that the Board's action as related to number four of the mandated requirements, that the true intent and meaning of this code or any regulations thereunder,have been misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted by the Building Official. I felt he had submitted sufficient evidence and testimony to ascertain that this structure is in fact an unsafe structure. That he had not misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the requirements of the codes in question. I he did feel that the appellant has substantiated his Appeal and therefore,he requested that the Board deny the Appeal. Mr. Bennett reminded the Board members the there rendered decision should solely be based on whether or not the Building Official erred. Chairperson Bowman advised that the appellants options were clear in the code, in that, the appellant could seek recourse to repair or demolish the structure. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 8,1997 PAGE 9 Chairperson Bowman added that the nuisance was the debris which must be taken care of. He stated that the Board was not in the position to recite options to the appellant. Discussion followed. Motion by Mr. Boucher,seconded by Mr. Quinn to deny the appeal. Vote on the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. Approved on this day of , 1997. Walter Bowman,Chairperson Susan L. Chapman, Board Secretary conoinuiibn fccocb 4 -11Anleth ,4Js D6214121,r 2, zoO 3 �`ovrn , Catt 2• gyp Order :oo frn ern 1 " ad1/14 ` Rileahrt leiddcluafeiegidi Pektewil1oJLbnd<14o 8a-5b ! ', , ,ticiu .d Ncra e. rnturfr LAQ, I honi tO —rocts Ado,' cak. Cortz wks al-m(1 wocct Cs loci114- Es. - 104- role- 32" 44.071 Mai' ion 1in2 P - 10 a.+Ai Toad orad R. ds c&9- . fit.- .,��r-1 qiittn - tae- d6ZtYwdlilub 600 7os . t, 5 .2 is 4 pawls, cleric u, cutbu,►i-%iee. fric .Qcit n kfiit`Q, c V A. fdon?oi -Iv U Ia Natal iv a z-kour 1 4rOfn CC. FOGLIIC.f(Ala/ t,c) erYtk-Q-AL. ACLeAt (os i 1Q.Q.sL. o ccct5/ { gym C-W-e- flapyri.a, Com. dim end t• Li.,_ . , fir , , 756,) 4obb 'had - , iwcirctivir9 'Gadd ) rte-#-fiex}ce. --- Co E Sian cikeze .fiN 704.5. 1 .2. rjoaf .q.1 Why kd'� c14 `2` deck. is Vi* t4enS on of r�`h .. l( d - is no c tf-e-re/iI max? saw pezcJi es AU around fh� c447( W - 7 • 4lbarare covy o - 4-!1iwiderfns -Pne 0.015 don- wait}- pr-ch Thr. Pa4V1 s $v(o� �'t a• -enqingared circuotily no th.L-e-ifikioyi -{7) haw- Q c aor-' on -F deck- err' _ zagi -613ce. Ar6 Oars 4z 415441 "- (a& an e. deck- -IMPcans wv..rL4- Tow) 1196 cfa Rid oaf- azina4 sefickcks- -� 5-{a/ P to v c Ltcnq u /c d cperi2z4 e nen'41.oc cq( 1 Ifta.5 f 23 "Kara t I -- j j[a01.s (n a cv s a- dam'", rnC. 4%446 6 -C(id -41A-17 ry41 ?Om? -� hope, a.dd6eq, nu. Mains - n o In CLQ 1?s !3 rz - 44-1 jroe.h2-. vArtirej 4•01/2._ C cafe . 11� -- Q,r ct City -t' -417 e.r1F5r ---l-ftA614 cock . 11:11- nL) -the. t e5vc ' / 1 ,(-�,w4441J= 7 - ee. ` � �h�- t c. - - r�hs� n f?o+c,cer , e, 4.1,4_, 124c or wa.tt 5 are_. or arm nd4. ca m b Ly Tam_ oi 407742. FAOp2,4 tv-tte. A. Tawe (ico- could m o Lk. doh iro n Al S bn k) 3` whit wall tA4Cul /5141" mrs• "Ins- LOOLIA lead a. hardy Lp 4 mod/ EVAL-C412)06 t5- -tr. reasole 50 }k )7W,Yhv�l�c.�C rn o-vnier`p t cos„ o�. Todd - 43i is is na f a. +/11 hod- ctn ot,claidian its , a l 4-era5on(r-qr. � Chapter 3/ i • ' ) Vo" Cnera sa area 6 u2- 60 n44-ahatzzot.4 Fl a 614. c_ocilsz, ram aoiavruo )4e_ wotal gaz a. Wta bwf--hiz hso-Qr e( - fxtnla - s db r dF aQ of-atxrif Randall- *e. c14_aiapa cam. U co 1 •n '� u ), a-cii-Metot4- dz6tia. CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REVISED 6/10/05 Board Meets On As Needed 5 Member Board Serving Three (3) Year Basis Terms per City Code 2-171(f) Two Alternate Vacancie! i MEMBER NAME/ADDRESS TELEPHONE APPT DATE TERM EXPIRES THOMAS QUINN (H) 784-4817 12-02-03 12-15-06 303 E CENTRAL BLVD (W) 784-4817 07-17-01 Qandw1@aol.com NORMAN BOUCHER (H) 452-0552 12-02-03 12-15-05 419 JACKSON AVE (W) 452-3040 07-17-01 nbouc@bellsouth.net (C) 863-9695 RANDALL BYRD (H) 453-6564 12-07-04 12-15-07 2325 JASON ST 12-02-03 MERRITT ISLAND, FL 32952 07-17-01 DON BERGHERM 5800 N. Banana River Blvd #127 (H) 784-5017 donbergherm@yahoo.com (C) 480-0433 05-03-05 12-15-08 Harry Pearson (H) 868-1814 06-07-05 (Reg) 12-15-08 8703 Camelia Court hpearson(c�palmnet.net