2022-01-07 EMC special meeting draft minutes

Home

FULTON: Yes. Thank you, Georjean. I think it's important to note, and I want to confirm this with our counselthat we are given three items, and it appears that if any one of these items is applicable, then we should modify or reverse it. So there are “ors” between those things. It's not a combination, the way I'm reading it, WONG: That's correct. FULTON: The decision is in violation of the code or applicable law, or clearly erroneous in view of the evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Any one of those three are grounds for reversing or modifying WONG: That's correct. Any one of those three, or even a combination thereof. FULTON: Thank you. ADAMS: Did you have an opinion on which way to go and why? FULTON: Well, to continue, I don't have to think beyond the second one. Clearly erroneous. It's pretty clear that an error was made in assessing a fee on the unoccupied unit. I think it's very clear that the unoccupied unit is not a residential unit addressed in our oft-quoted (Section) 21- 31. So I think a mistake was made, and did the inspector made the mistake? Was there a clerical mistake? I don't know, but it very clearly looks like an error, and it looks unjust. As Mr. Henderson pointed out, he's paying more than his fair share. Simply put, more than his fair share. I don't think that the argument that this was ignored for 20-some years is relevant. For me, it's a matter of justice. Thank you. ADAMS: Other comments, discussion from other commissioners, John or Lee? Lee McIntosh. McINTOSH: This is Commissioner McIntosh, this is kind of confusing. All the definitions and everything that they're putting out and trying to – from my understanding, laws complement each other, they don't have to necessarily all be contained in one point or spot. Then you also have layers, County, State, Federal. But from what I can see in the closing arguments of the Appellant, according to what he's saying for the storage building that he's calling it, technically, he wouldn't have to pay a sewer bill, period, because that property doesn't have a water meter. It's the property next to it, although for whatever reason. So I understand now why the DEM just says in the rules that (it) has to receive a water bill or in their case, they open the tap and water comes out. That means that they are paying a water bill and they have sewer fixtures. So my reading and understanding that this building would be indeed considered an unoccupied unit because it doesn't necessarily say that someone has to be able to live in it, it just needs to have accessibility to the sewer, have plumbing fixtures, and then it receives a water bill. So it has water from the County coming in and it meets those requirements. It doesn't say someone has to be able to live there, it has to have a bed. That doesn't matter. And the other thing is that by law, we couldn't return all the money if we wanted to refund it, because as our lawyer has stated, they can only seek up to maybe two years back pay. That just brought up concern 36