06/03/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for occupancy was the way the building looked. He interoperated the city web site to say he could add receptacles without permits. Mrs. Sergi asked why the electrical additions were not shown on the plan and Mr. Thorne said it was not required to be shown on the plan. When he was at the building department to pull an occupancy permit he asked what was needed and was told he could draw the plan himself and that is what he did. Ms. Rudolph aslced if the horizontal line in Mr. Thorne's drawing was the existing wall and door which was removed and Mr. Thorne said it was a counter which was not structural. Mr. Gareau said the board should not give consideration to the argument or pretext pertaining to administrative comments which may or may not have been said. The board should treat all comments made by the Appellant and Apelles based upon the preponderance of the substantial reliable probative evidence presented on record. Any discussions pertaining to gambling or gaming is not an issue before the board nor should it be addressed by the board in any manor. The bottom line is did the use and interior layout change after the occupancy permit was issued. Ms. Rudolph said the adjudication order dated April 15, 2010 pertaining to section 1119.01(a) the evidence presented for the interior worlc done i.e. items removed and installed supports the Commissioners ruling. Mr. Gareau said section 1119.01(b) addressing property taxes; the applicant submitted evidence confirming an agreement with the County for the taxes to be paid is in place therefore the Building Official withdraws his violation order of section 1119.01(b). Ms. Rudolph said section 1119.01(a) certificate of occupancy she sees both sides although the commissioner has clearly pointed out that the use is now more of a social nature with the pop machines, appliances and snaclc area which warrants a closer loolc. The Surf Shop stated there would be 15 occupants in the facility and then 35 computer stations were installed which is an obvious misrepresentation by the applicant. Mrs. Bellido said the owner who is a businessman knows if you state there will be 15 occupants in the facility you can't just double the occupancy without checking with the city. The business shouldn't have opened until the occupancy permit was received and posted which she believes to be required by law. Mr. Lopez said saying you did not receive the occupancy permit is not an acceptable excuse the owner lcnew there was going to be more than 15 occupants and should have stated so to begin with and using excuses is not acceptable. Section 1119.01(a) considerable amount of interior work was performed no permits were applied for, issued or questioned which again is the applicant's responsibility. The excuse of misinterpretation of the online codes is unacceptable. Any responsible adult lcnows any commercial worlc being performed requires permits. Mrs. Diver said Mr. Thorne stated he is a restaurant owner so he is clearly aware of being required to apply for multiple types of permits and having inspections. Furthermore he led the building department to believe that there would be a maximum of 15 occupants then pleads ignorance of the law which as a businessman he knows ignorance of the law does not excuse you from it. Mr. Thorne stated himself that he hired many exports to research the establishment including an attorney, an architect, and other professionals but didn't think to ask if permits were required for the interior changes being made. The use which was applied for has changed to say there will be 15 occupants then install 35 stations not counting employees was blatant. If Mr. Thorne was not aware of what he needed to know to open his establishment he should have conferred with his paid staff to find out what was required. Mrs. Sergi said this appears to be asking for forgiveness rather than permission. The building department was misled as to the nature of what the space 9