The board addressed the case of a property owner who was unclear about the village’s driveway requirements. The property owner sought advice, prompting the board to propose a continuance until the March meeting. This would allow the property owner to consult with the Planning and Zoning board. In a related matter, another property owner expressed confusion regarding the driveway specifications, emphasizing their willingness to comply and requesting further guidance. The board discussed the possibility of scheduling the property owners for the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting to address their concerns.

A notable case involved a property on Griffin Boulevard where the owner presented evidence of compliance by showing the placement of trash containers behind the property. The board considered this property to be in compliance but also recommended a fine reduction request process for the owner. In another driveway-related case, the board had been in contact with the property owner Charles and Uris Franois, who were instructed to modify their application to meet the village’s design standards.

The compliance status of properties under scrutiny led to several discussions about the specifics of each case. For instance, the board considered a property that was in partial compliance after a pressure cleaning and the application for a painting permit. The case was tabled until the next meeting for further updates.

The case of the Church of the Resurrection was unique as the board voted to dismiss the violation due to a lack of due process. This dismissal set a precedent for subsequent discussions involving due process in violations and fines.

Regarding fines and enforcement actions, the board dealt with a case where the property owner, Ignasio Third, requested that certain violations be tabled for a new owner to handle, considering an impending property sale. The board decided to assess a $250 fine for the driveway violation and agreed to defer additional actions.

Matters of compliance and financial hardship were also addressed. In one instance, the board deliberated on a case involving Larissa Garzone Garnett, who faced daily fines for working without a permit. She was given a deadline to apply for a reduction of fines or else face an intent to lien. Sandra Patricia Coro’s challenging circumstances, involving a tree and a septic tank, led the board to grant her a deadline to submit a completed permit application, failing which she would incur daily fines.

The board also navigated through the complexities of compliance dates and the imposition of fines. A debate arose over a property owner who had paid a violation fine but did not file an Affidavit of non-compliance. This led to a failed motion to dismiss the violation, followed by a successful motion to table the case and seek guidance from the village attorney.

A fine reduction request due to financial hardship, with the property owner citing being defrauded in the cryptocurrency market, ignited debate over the reduction amount. The board’s split vote left the decision unresolved.

Discussions extended to the practical aspects of board operations, with members debating the use of electronic platforms versus paper agendas for document delivery. This culminated in setting a special meeting to review the Code Compliance Department’s standard operating procedures and policies.