06/03/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

questions pertaining to city officials personal opinions about his clients business was relevant or not. Mr. Mitchell again reviewed what is required for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Hartnett questioned if there was a fax or copy machine at the facility and Mr. Mitchell said he did not know as he had not view the site. A discussion pertaining to the number of bathrooms at the time of occupancy inspection ensued and whether or not Fast Cash drawings showed two or one bathroom. Mr. Hartnett asked how the total occupancy was determined to be 15 and Mr. Mitchell said Mr. Thorne stated on his application the occupancy for the space would be 15 for his business 5 employees and 10 patrons. Sections of chapter 1139 of the codified codes were reviewed between Mr. Hartnett and Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Hartnett asked which use the building official would relate to his clients business and Mr. Mitchell said assembly which requires a conditional use permit to be within the general retail district. Mr. Hartnett asked if violations to building codes were looked for during occupancy inspection and Mr. Mitchell said as the inspector noted they make sure there is running water, electricity, heating and cooling at the site but a building inspection is not conducted. At the time the occupancy permit was issued the site had no visible apparent building violations. Mr. Hartnett asked if Mr. Mitchell agreed with the OBC on its interpretation of up to 49 people being allowed in the space as a business and Mr. Mitchell said as a business use the site can hole up to 49 people but the this use is assembly. Mr. Hartnett presented his closing argument as being simple as his client asked for a certificate of occupancy a sketch of what the building looked like was submitted and the inspector approved the occupancy and there were no health or safety code violations and as the property stands today it meets building codes. What they are really dealing with is a pretext to drive the business out of town and he thinks everyone knows that. When the Mayor has publicly stated he does not want the business in his city and then Council places a moratorium on the business and a re- inspection of the site is called for and the inspection finds issues. That is clearly selective enforcement and the city is just trying to find any reason to close down the business. The business clearly complies with OBC and has the appropriate number of occupants following the OBC. His client has done everything correctly and the city has made mistakes and is now trying to loolc back to change things and that is how you get in trouble. They received an occupancy permit and nothing has changed since it was issued. He asked that the board allow his client to remain in business. Mr. Mitchell concluded that the matter is a zoning issue and the fact that interior modifications were made without permits and the use not being business but in fact an assembly use. The work completed to the interior building was not submitted for review nor were there any building inspections made or called for. It wasn't until he was asked to check the number of occupants were the other issues/violations noted. Mr. Lopez asked if there were electrical changes made inside the unit since the last tenant and if plans were ever submitted for the changes. Mr. Mitchell said that there was never a permit or drawings submitted to the building to allow inspections to be scheduled. Mr. Lopez asked if there was any documents submitted showing any and all electrical work which was installed to ensure it meets OBC codes. Mr. Mitchell said no and no permits were pulled so there is no way of lcnowing whether or not the electrical work meets codes. Mr. Lopez said then in fact there could be fire safety hazards if the electrical worlc was not installed to code and Mr. Mitchell agreed. Mr. Lopez aslced Mr. Hawk if he also checlced to make sure the NEC (National