Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Enforcement Board Minutes 2-7-18F Code Enforcement Board Minutes – Final Draft February 7, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commissioners Building and Code Regulation Division Commission Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by Mr. Ralph Fogg. II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag. III. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman……………………………………………………….………..Mr. Ralph Fogg Board Members..………………………………………………………...Mr. Ray Hofmann …………………………………………………………………………...Mr. Wes Taylor …………………………………………………………………………...Mr. Randy Murdock …………………………………………………………………………...Mr. Brad Currie Board Attorney…………………………………………………….…….Mr. Jack Krieger ABSENT: Mrs. Margaret Monahan and Mr. Patrick Campion. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN Chairman Fogg stated at this time we have election of officers for the Chairman and Vice-Chair of the Code Board and he passed the gavel to the Board Secretary. Mr. Krieger stated the Secretary will entertain nominations for Chairman. Mr. Currie made a motion to re-elect Mr. Fogg as Chairman. There were no other nominations. Mr. Hofmann seconded the motion and the motion carried. The Secretary stated she would entertain a motion for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Currie made a motion to re-elect Mrs. Monahan as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. The Secretary asked if there were any other nominations, seeing none all in favor. There were none opposed and the motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 6, 2017 Mr. Currie made a motion to accept the minutes of DECEMBER 6, 2017. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2 V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS STAFF PRESENT Assistant County Attorney……………………………………………....Katherine Barbieri Building and Code Regulation Manager……….…………………….….Monica Graziani Building Official…………………………………………………………Carl Peterson Code Enforcement Supervisor…………………………………………...Danielle Williams Code Enforcement Officer ……………………………………………....Melissa Brubaker ……………………………………………………………………………Bea Goycochea …………………………………………………………………………....Monica Vargas Barrios ……………………………………………………………………………Mirlande Moise Board Secretary.………………………………………………………….Debbie Isenhour Monica Graziani, Carl Peterson, Danielle Williams, Melissa Brubaker, Bea Goycochea, Monica Vargas Barrios, and Mirlande Moise were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Request for Fine Reduction Hearing________________________________________________________ Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Eli and Ayala Nisim – Case No. 90254 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – William B. Ealy – Case No. 91786 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – St. Lucie Plaza – Case No. 91717 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Tint Citi Customz – Case No. 91774 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Khadijeh R. Grace – Case No. 89802 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Yakut Properties LLC – Case No. 91305 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien_____________________________________________________ Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – Majorie C. Clendenin (EST) – Case No. 86117 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – Majorie C. Clendenin (EST) – Case No. 91884 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – Sursatie Hastu – Case No. 72655 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – Thomas L. Sands and Gwendolyn W. Sands – Case No. 38101 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – Lisa A. Dallaire and Kenneth K. Kommer – Case No. 20010095 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – Noam Holdings LLC – Case No. 87532 Rescind Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order ________________________________________ Rescind Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order – Steven M. Trempe – Case No. 91553 Rescind Order Imposing Fine/Lien ________________________________________________________ Rescind Order Imposing Fine/Lien – Susan Gray – Case No. 87666 Revised Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Order (Scrivener’s Error)________________________ Revised Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Order – Sandra C. Alfaro – Case No. 89809 Mr. Currie made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation as presented. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VIII. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were abated, removed, or withdrawn from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name 92516 6003 Fort Pierce Blvd., Fort Pierce Jacqueline L. Hudson and Nicholas King 93400 5610 Spruce Dr., Fort Pierce Sarah A. Grubbs 3 92892 Next to 5704 Sunset Blvd., Fort Pierce Elizabeth Stropole 92784 367 Smallwood Ave., Fort Pierce Tommy J. Fry 92460 111 Gotham Dr., Fort Pierce Spann Holdings LLC 92592 2313 N 41st St., Fort Pierce Assured Properties LLC 92368 110 Essex Dr., Fort Pierce Two Holdings LLC 92219 2705 Spruce Dr., Fort Pierce Alberto Martinez, Rita C. Mena, & Barbara J. Fisher 92390 3010 Dame Rd., Fort Pierce Bernard and Patricia Worley 92326 2504 Kerr St., Fort Pierce Luther E. and Audrey Maxine Barker 92329 2514 Kerr St., Fort Pierce Charles L. and Connie Y. Waters 92410 4594 Edwards Rd., Fort Pierce Evelyn S. Whaley (EST) Case No. 91393 was heard first on the agenda: Case No. 91393, Location of violation, 5802 Hickory Dr., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, John L. and Tracey E. Whigham. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Chairman and Board and stated Mr. Whigham is asking for one more continuation, this will be his second continuation and Staff has no problem if the Board approves. Chairman Fogg asked Staff what was the reason. Officer Vargas Barrios answered the permit is pending and he is just getting paperwork together but was not able to get the permit issued and Staff has no issues if the Board agrees. Chairman Fogg addressed the Board and asked if they had any questions and if not requested a motion. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 91393 that the Code Enforcement Board continue this case to the Code Enforcement Board hearing on March 7, 2018. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 93293, Location of violation, 2501 Iroquois Ave., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Sheppard L. and Celestine J. Baker. Celestine J. Baker, property owner and Lloyd Constant, Andros Roofing and Construction LLC, contractor for the owner were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer DiFrancesco addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting a total of seven (7) photos: three (3) dated November 21, 2017, two (2) dated December 8, 2017 and two (2) dated February 5, 2018. She stated she found 2501 Iroquois Ave. to be in violation of Section 38-26, for outside storage and 13.09.00, Section 303.2, for exterior property maintenance of the fascia and screened porch. She issued a Notice of Violation letter on September 26, 2017 and gave a compliance date of October 10, 2017. She stated in December 2017, the unserviceable vehicle was removed from the property, however the outside storage and exterior property maintenance remained in violation. She stated as a courtesy on February 5, 2018, she left her card at the residence to establish contact regarding remaining violations scheduled for the February Code Board meeting. She stated Mrs. Baker called and she explained ways to remedy the remaining violations. She stated Mrs. Baker stated they are planning to get a new roof and thus the reason they have not repaired the fascia or screens, nor removed the outside storage of items from the porch. She stated Permit #1802-0078 was issued on February 5, 2018 to contractor, Andros Roofing, to replace the shingle roof. She noted Mrs. Baker stated she would be present for the February Code Board meeting to speak to the Code Board. She stated as of February 5, 2018 the property remains in violation. There was discussion among the Board, Staff, Mrs. Baker and Lloyd Constant on the violations. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 93293 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the a lleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by April 4, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been 4 imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 92752, Location of violation, 8505 Fort Walton Ave., Fort Pierce, FL, Donna M. Farmer. Joseph Ryan, representative for the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer DiFrancesco addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting a total of six (6) photos: three (3) dated September 25, 2017, two (2) dated January 29, 2018 and one (1) dated February 5, 2018. She stated she found 8505 Fort Walton Ave. to be in violation of Section 38-26, for outside storage of vegetation debris. She stated she issued a Notice of Violation letter on September 26, 2017 and gave a compliance date of October 10, 2017. She stated she had contact initially with property owner Mrs. Farmer and son-in-law Joe and explained the ways to correct the violation. She stated Joe remained in contact with her regarding possible ways to correct the violation until November 28, 2017 and since then she has had no contact. She stated as of February 5, 2018 the property remains n violation. There was discussion among the Board, Staff, and Joseph Ryan on the violation. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 92752 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by April 4, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 92859, Location of violation, 1998 Copenhaver Rd., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Richard Revels. Richard Revels, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Moise addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting nine (9) photos, three (3) dated October 10, 2017, two (2) dated November 29, 2017, two (2) dated February 5, 2018, and two (2) dated February 6, 2018. She stated during her first inspection she found the property located at 1998 Copenhaver Rd. in violation of Section 38- 26, for outside storage, Section 8.00.03 (F), for the recreational equipment must be on a paved surface to be in the front yard and only two recreational equipment’s are allowed on the property. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of October 25, 2017. She stated on February 6, 2018, she re-inspected the property and the violations have been corrected however, Staff is asking the Board to find the property as to have been because the property has been cited numerous times for the same violations. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Revels so you went ahead and took care of violations and it is all done. Mr. Revels answered in the affirmative. Chairman Fogg addressed the Board and stated we need a motion on to have been. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 92859 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. The violator is hereby ordered to refrain from future violations. Failure to keep the property in compliance may result in enforcement action as a repeat violation, in which case a fine of up to $500.00 per day may be imposed from this date of notice to the violator of the repeat violation. 5 Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 92348, Location of violation, 2350 Old Dixie Hwy., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Danny and Sally Gooch and Gerald Concannon. Gerald Concannon, one of the property owner’s was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Moise addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting twenty-two (22) photos, six (6) dated October 5, 2017, two (2) dated December 14, 2017, four (4) dated January 25, 2018, two (2) dated February 5, 2018 and eight (8) dated February 6, 2018. She stated during her first inspection she found the property located at 2350 N. Old Dixie Hwy. in violation of Section 38-26, for outside storage. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of September 4, 2017. She stated on February 6, 2018, she re-inspected the property and the violation has been corrected, however, Staff is asking the Board to find the property as to have been because the property has been cited numerous times for the same violation. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Mr. Concannon on the violation. Chairman Fogg addressed the Board and stated we are looking for a to have been motion please. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 92348 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. The violator is hereby ordered to refrain from future violations. Failure to keep the property in compliance may result in enforcement action as a repeat violation, in which case a fine of up to $500.00 per day may be imposed from this date of notice to the violator of the repeat violation. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 92479, Location of violation, 122 Dusk Way, Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Henry and Celeste LaFountain. Henry LaFountain, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Moise addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting five (5) photos, three (3) dated August 11, 2017, one (1) dated December 19, 2017 and one (1) dated February 5, 2018. She stated during her first inspection she found the property located at 122 Dusk Way in violation of Section 8.00.00, for the removal of all structures from the property, Section 3.01.03 (B), for the removal of the cargo container which is not allowed in AG–2.5 zoning. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of August 29, 2017. She stated as of February 5, 2018 the property remains in violation. And she has had contact with the owner. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Mr. LaFountain on the violations. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 9 2479 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by December 20, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 91553, Location of violation, 101 Ridge Pl., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Steven M. Trempe. Steven M. Trempe, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting six (6) photos, four (4) dated May 22, 2017 and two (2) dated August 28, 2017. She stated on May 19, 2017 staff received a complaint of work 6 being done without a permit. She stated on May 22, 2017 she went to the property and no one was there. She stated she did notice work was being done, the windows were replaced and the interior was being worked on. She issued a Stop Work Order and a Notice of Violation was sent to Mr. Steven M. Trempe the property owner of 101 Ridge Pl., to please obtain a permit for the interior renovation to include any electrical, plumbing, etc. also to please re-activate Permit 1206-0046 for the roof with a correction date June 9, 2017. She stated she did confirm there was a permit issued for the windows. Officer Vargas Barrios stated on August 25, 2017 she had to issue a new Notice of Violation as the copy of the original letter was not found the new letter had a new correction date of September 8, 2017. She noted the property was also posted the same day. She stated when she posted the property, the property owner was there and she explained the notice. She stated he said he will be coming in to meet with us the following week, so we could discuss the violations and ways to bring them into compliance. She stated the following week we were preparing for Hurricane Irma and we did not get to meet with property owner. She stated on September 29, 2017 after no other communication from the property owner she scheduled the case to the November Code Board. She stated on October 20, 2017 she posted the property and when she posted the property she spoke with the property owner and advised to set up a meeting with Staff to discuss the violations. She stated the property owner did not come in to speak with Staff regarding the violation, therefore this case was brought before the November Board the case was found in default. Officer Vargas Barrios stated after receiving copies of the Board’s order, Mr. Trempe came into the office to state he was not properly notified. She stated based on this, Staff has rescinded the Board’s Findings and rescheduled and re- notified the property owner of today’s meeting. She stated the new Notice to Appear was sent via mail and email to Mr. Trempe on January 11, 2018 and was also posted on January 25, 2018. She stated as of February 7, 2018, the property remains without a permit for the renovation, this is in violation of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits, and the permit for the roof remains expired, this is in violation of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01 A (2) a Time Limitations of Building Permits. Chairman Fogg addressed Mr. Trempe and asked him if his is in violation or not. Mr. Trempe answered no sir. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Trempe to please explain. Mr. Trempe addressed the Chairman and Board and stated the pictures that were shown on the board were way prior to him purchasing the house. He stated he does not know where those pictures came from, the previous owner purchased the house and supposedly this is just what he has been told, there was a carport on the back of the house, when he purchased the house to remodel the house he removed the carport which tore the can off the house. He stated then he was forced to sell the house because it was a rental property. He stated the individual down the street that owns the rest of the houses attempted to buy the house but he did not want to give but $20,000.00 for the house and me being with five (5) children and a single father he thought it was a perfect opportunity to own his first house. He stated he put a bid and bought the house. He stated he then came to the County and pulled a windows and doors permit. He stated he had windows and doors put in and that permit was closed. He stated something very strange happened when he came to pull the windows and doors permit the County told him he cannot pull a windows and doors permit. He stated he did go to Law school he is not a lawyer but he did look up every statute, he did not see one statute that told him he has to have a well permit before he could pull a windows permit it was very odd. He stated so he looked into it and found that a Carl Peterson with the County had put that on the file because he is good friends with the guy that owns the rest of the houses on the road. He stated this is crazy so he came to County and said I cannot put my windows in, my house is getting ruined, there is rain coming in, there are not windows and he cannot put his windows and doors in why. He stated they said you have to pull a permit for your well. He stated so he goes down and hire MPV Well Drilling they pull a permit with the Health Department, they file it with the County, he comes back and they tell him he cannot put his windows and doors in until the well is in place. Mr. Trempe stated he looked in every statute. Chairman Fogg stated excuse me and asked Mr. Trempe you said you put the well in. Mr. Trempe answered MPV Well Drilling put the well in. 7 Chairman Fogg asked it is in place. Mr. Trempe answered yes sir. Mr. Trempe stated then they told he still could not pull a window and door permit because it is not closed. He stated he said he is confused he went to the Health Department and they said everything is done. He stated Carl came by my house a fe w times and said you are never going to live in this house, you need to pull a permit for interior, exterior, everything, remodeling permit. He stated he said sir I am having professionals do the work, each professional will pull the permit for that aspect of the work. He stated an electrician pulled a permit for the can, closed that permit, the well guy pulled a permit for the well closed that permit, every permit was closed. He stated then they come up with this statute that he has done interior renovations without a permit. He stated he looked at the statute, the statute is clear structural integrity. He stated no nothing was done like that, he gave a sworn signed affidavit to the County stating what he did, new floors, new toilet, new kitchen, new appliances, new paint, trim around all the windows that were just reinstalled and a little bit of stucco repair which a permit was pulled for. He stated he is confused they have pictures that are from ten years ago when he only bought the house a year ago, they have nothing correct. He stated the air conditioning person moved the condenser, every company has been licensed and insured and pulled permits . Mr. Trempe stated so he is very confused why he is here except for the other property owner who owns a ll the other property and he has many pictures where he has cordoned off with tape so m y garbage cannot get picked up and my mail cannot get picked up. He stated he has pulled my mailbox from the ground, he had thirty (30) boats on his property, broke down cars and Monica (Officer Vargas Barrios) did come there and he showed her and he also has a video tape of our conversation live where they did not do nothing. He stated six (6) months the County is coming and harassing him and doing nothing about this guy who does not even live in Fort Pierce/St. Lucie County he lives in Jensen Beach and he wanted that house and I am being harassed because he has a relationship with Carl and he is here specifically because he wants one attorney in here he does not know who this County’s attorney is to tell me what statute states that he cannot pull a windows permit to secure his property until he has a well, it is strange he has looked at everything, he cannot understand anything that has happened. He stated and listen he has never remodeled a house, he has never hired people to remodel a house, he has never done anything of this, he has been a school teacher for thirteen (13) years in St. Lucie County here, he does not understand what is going on he really does not. Officer Danielle Williams, Code Enforcement Supervisor addressed the Chairman and Board and stated just to clarify the windows have been finaled it is not the issue before you. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe let her talk. Officer Williams stated the issue before you is the expired permit. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe let her finish. He stated so the permit on the windows has been done. Officer Williams answered that is correct, he is here before you for the renovation that was done with out permits to include the electric and also for the expired permit for the roof. Mr. Trempe stated the electric was pulled by electrical permit by the electrician. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Trempe if they have a permit. Mr. Trempe answered they pulled a permit for the can, they closed the permit for the can, he had nothing to do with it FPL and the electrician did that. Chairman Fogg stated let’s find out and asked Carl Peterson if the permit was pulled can you tell us. Carl Peterson, Building Official answered just to clarify to start out with the gentleman he is speaking about he has spoken to once in my whole life, he is not a good friend, he is not an associate. He stated he has only spoken to him in his office one time. He stated the electrical permit pulled was for the can, and he asked Officer Williams to go back to the picture of all the electrical hanging, it did not cover any of this. 8 Mr. Trempe asked when the photo was taken. Carl Peterson, Building Official answered this photo was taken in 2008. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe the date is on the bottom sir. Officer Williams stated the photo was taken May 15, 2008. Mr. Trempe stated May 15, 2008 ten (10) years before he purchased the house. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe when you purchase the house you purchase the problems. Mr. Trempe stated that was not there, none of this was there when he purchased the house. He stated he has never seen that, nobody has ever seen that. He stated that was fixed in 2008 most likely, they had people living in the house. He stated he called the County before he purchased this house and said he was about to purchase this house can you please tell me what permits are open or anything violated on this house. He stated they told me, please let me speak because this has been very frustrating for me and he just wants to get it out. Chairman Fogg stated he wants to get Carl in here to because you keep telling us all this things. Mr. Trempe stated there is more stuff because these are not accurate, how can you show a picture from 2008. Chairman Fogg stated just a moment let us find out from Mr. Peterson sir and maybe this will help you. Carl Peterson stated when he was out there in May of last year you can see the interior was gutted out of the house and none of that was permitted, the electrical and all that is in the interior was not permitted. He stated no renovation permit was on this house. He stated Florida Building Code covers the interior as well as the exterior of the home. Chairman Fogg stated so he needs a permit for the interior. Carl Peterson answered in the affirmative for the interior renovation and to final the roof permit. Chairman Fogg informed Mr. Trempe that is what you need sir. He asked Mr. Trempe when he bought it. Mr. Trempe answered he bought it last year in 2017. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Trempe prior to May. Mr. Trempe answered he does not remember the month, he is sorry. Chairman Fogg stated evidently we do. Mr. Trempe stated but yes it is right there next to the beginning of the year. He stated so what actually happened now is he then called the County and said are there any permits open on this house, they said the roof permit is open on the house. He stated he has tried to close the roof permit by opening the permit but he cannot open the permit according to the County which he has all the documents here for approval of the material but because it was opened by a contractor prior to him purchasing the house they will not let me clo se it or open it so he is very confused a permit that was opened by someone previous to him purchasing the house, nothing to do with him, way before he bought the house, five (5) years before he bought the house and he is trying to correct the permit to co mply with everything. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Trempe if the Board can look at what he has there, give it to the lady behind you. Mr. Trempe stated he is looking to comply with everything, he has never tried to be adversarial, she (Officer Vargas Barrios) has been wonderful, and all the people in the office have been wonderful. Chairman Fogg stated we are trying to work through this. 9 Mr. Trempe stated Carl Peterson was not, Carl made some misrepresentations. Chairman Fogg stated we have heard you, we have heard about the things you do not like, let us see if we can work through this you just hold tight for a little bit. Mr. Trempe stated okay but he wants to reiterate he did no electrical work that was not permitted, he did no plumbing work that was not permitted. Mr. Currie addressed the Chairman and stated he has a question. Chairman Fogg stated yes. Mr. Currie asked Mr. Peterson is there a reason he cannot close out the roof permit and reopen it under either his name or another name, another contractor. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe to just hold tight. Officer Vargas Barrios answered Mr. Currie and stated she did confirm with the Permitting Department Supervisor Debra Zampetti regarding that aspect, and he is the new owner and he would have been able to reactivate the permit with some paperwork, she did speak to her. Mr. Currie stated to Mr. Trempe so what we are hearing is you could reactivate the permit that the contractor it is not an issue. Mr. Trempe stated he thought he could but because they told him he could not even get a windows permit without a well. Mr. Currie stated to Mr. Trempe sir you are bringing up things that are not the issue today, let us try to stick to what the issue is and one of the issues is the re-permit, so let us try to get that handled. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe so you are here today for the roof permit, you found out about that and the other one is the electrical. Mr. Currie stated it is not just the electrical it is all the permits for the interior renovations. Chairman Fogg stated that is right interior renovations and electrical permits and that is something you are going to have to work out with Staff, believe it or not they do work with people and I am sure they will work with you. Mr. Currie stated he thinks the applicant/violator is suggesting he does not need a permit for the interior renovations. He stated he believes that is what Mr. Trempe is attempting to say. Mr. Trempe stated he is attempting to say that if you read the statute that nothing that he did has anything to do with the statute, it is clear, absolutely clear. He stated he did not do any, if you look at the pictures he is showing you that is exactly how the house looks except for there is a little piece of sheetrock on the back which the sheetrock company did and a little piece of sheetrock on that wall which the sheetrock company did and then there is a kitchen. Mr. Currie stated he does not see any electrical in this plan so you are not putting any elect rical back in the wall. Mr. Trempe answered oh there is electrical in every single wall right here where you are seeing it. Mr. Currie asked and you did not move any of that. Mr. Trempe answered he never touched electrical, the electrician added two lights. Mr. Currie stated you just said you did not touch it. 10 Mr. Trempe stated he did not touch it, an electrician pulled the permit. He stated he never touched nothing, an electrician pulled the permit with Macy Electrical, pulled a permit fixed two (2) wires in the house and he put a new can in. Mr. Currie asked and he pulled a permit for that. Mr. Trempe answered yes sir and closed it and he inspected the whole house. Chairman Fogg asked Staff if we have a copy of that permit. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Officer Vargas Barrios is there any permit pulled. Officer Vargas Barrios answered there was an electrical permit pulled to replace a damaged meter with a new can, so this is for the can and this was issued October 16, 2017. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Officer Vargas Barrios were there any other permits pulled. Officer Vargas Barrios answered no ma’am. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Peterson as Building Officia l can you look at this picture and tell us why you feel an interior renovation permit must be pulled. Mr. Peterson, Building Official answered he believes that the electrical was done, it appears that space was reconfigured, the kitchen apparently was tore out. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked and putting in a new kitchen would require a permit. Mr. Peterson answered yes ma’am you have to put in a sink and there is plumbing involved in that. Mr. Trempe stated he would love to see that statute, Home Depot would be out of business. He stated he has been doing kitchens. Mr. Peterson stated the description on the permit for the electrical was replace damaged meter can with new can and underground service. Mr. Trempe stated and to inspect that FPL required the electrician to get a sign off that all the electricity in the house was qualified for them to reconnect. He stated the electrician went through that house tooth and comb, FPL is very strict with that. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they have any questions. Officer Williams addressed the Chairman and Board and stated the neighbor is also here and would like to speak. Chairman Fogg asked the neighbor to come forward and be sworn in and asked Mr. Trempe to step aside. Mr. Trempe stated sir I never got to show you my evidence regarding this gentleman (neighbor) right here, I have plenty of evidence so before he speaks. Mr. Currie stated if he is not a subject of this case. Chairman Fogg stated let him speak and then you can do the evidence. James H. Coyle, the neighbor was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Chairman Fogg stated and you are here in reference to this case. 11 Mr. Coyle addressed the Board and stated ever since he bought the property he has had nothing but problems. He stated he got calls from his tenants because he owns the middle property, he owns the street in fact it is a dirt driveway on a parcel of land that leads back to his property. He stated he (Mr. Trempe) has come and destroyed my well, he was stealing my electric and water, he has constantly had to call the police but he has not been getting any results. He stated he (Mr. Trempe) did all the work inside since the house was bought in March when he bought it, he did he put the roof on, he did all the interior renovations, he hired an electrical company to come in and fabricate a story which is really strange that an electrical company would put their name on something. He stated you saw the meter can it was tore off back eight (8) years ago, the property sold, then it sold again. He stated he knew there were a lot of problems with the property otherwise he would have bought it as he owns the rest of the houses on that parcel of land/street. He stated he (Mr. Trempe) has done all the work and the other day he went over and broke another water line of mine and my tenants called me and said they were out of power. He stated that yes he did flag, the police told him to. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Coyle out of power or out of water. Mr. Coyle stated they were out of water again. He stated he (Mr. Trempe) destroyed my well last year, he had a well driller come in on my property, told me if I moved my boat he will put up a fence to stay off property because he was stealing my electric and water while he was remodeling his house. He stated he put a lock on his electrical box, he cut the lock, he has tried to do whatever he can to stop him but he cannot. He stated the police said get the property markers so he marked out the property, he put flag and tape up with signs he (Mr. Trempe) tore it all down. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Coyle if he can tell the Board what he knows about the interior renovations that have been done without a permit. Mr. Coyle stated Mr. Trempe has done it all. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Coyle what he has seen specifically. Mr. Coyle answered he did all the work inside. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Coyle like what sir. Mr. Coyle answered all the drywall, the electrical, the plumbing was cut off at the ground and the electrical was taken out of there eight (8) years ago, there was nothing in there, you can go on the listings you can look all over and see all the pictures. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Coyle do you have pictures that you took. Mr. Coyle answered yes ma’am I do. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked and did you give them to Staff. Mr. Coyle answered yes ma’am I did. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney stated she thinks we are showing them right now can you tell us if these fairly and accurately represent what you took and do you know what date you took them. Mr. Coyle answered this was in March. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked 2017. Mr. Coyle answered in the affirmative. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked and he was the owner of the property at that time. Mr. Coyle answered yes he had just bought it and he did all this remodeling without any permits. 12 Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Coyle and there was no licensed contractor on site. Mr. Coyle answered there was no licensed contractor, the well driller wa s a licensed well driller but that was it. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney asked Mr. Coyle and you saw this going on and took these pictures. Mr. Coyle answered yes ma’am. He stated he saw it and so did all the neighbors and all his tenants, so did everybody. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney stated that is what the subject is of today’s hearing is the renovations so if we could stay on that thank you. Mr. Coyle stated every bit of this work he was there doing. He stated he came before you and he guesses perjured himself because he lied about all of this, this house has been sitting like this you can look at all the listings when he bought it and the pictures when he bought it and this is the way it looked except for he tore off this back room that the picture was showing now and he rebuilt that. He stated if you look it is all inadequate, the plywood is all wrong, they stuccoed over it. He stated he tried communicating and having this stopped because when somebody buys this house he has to live with them and with all this shoddy workmanship if a tornado or a hurricane hits this back room or something, you can see none of it is strapped and everything, he wired over it and then stuccoed the whole house, his stucco crew did it, it was not no patches, no pieces of drywall. He said an electrician came in and he pulled a permit to replace the meter can, there has not been a meter can in there in like eight (8) years you saw the pictures. Mr. Currie stated Mr. Chairman. Chairman Fogg stated all right sir just a minute and stated yes sir Mr. Currie. Mr. Currie asked what the status of the house is now. Mr. Coyle answered he finished it all, he is living in there, he says he homesteaded it but everything he says to people has been a lie. He stated the garbage people he has a recording of a supervisor he called and threatened and the other day with the garbage collectors saying they must come down the street. He stated the street is not a street it is a dirt driveway that is a parcel of land that he owns, the tax collector, everybody knows that he owns it and every time he tries to do something like flag him off from destroying his property he tears it down. He stated he illegally has his mailbox on my property and he is like touch it and he will put me in jail so he touched it and he took a picture of me. He stated but he has not torn it down. Mr. Currie asked if he could see the pictures of the property again, the property appraiser map. Mr. Coyle stated he owns Ridge Place it is a parcel of land. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Coyle how many houses do you have on this street. Mr. Coyle answered two (2) the two at the front. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Coyle and Mr. Trempe has access down your dirt driveway. Mr. Coyle answered he has an easement for ingress and egress only. He stated this is what he really came for because he keeps thinking that he has some kind of easement. He stated he has gathered all the information he can and he has gone to his lawyer several times because he is putting up a fence and the Building Department has given him the okay to go ahead and put up a fence, all he has to do is leave access for him. He stated Mr. Trempe constantly keeps tearing up my road and it is my land. He stated he has worked hard for is property and he (Mr. Trempe) does not care about anybody else but himself. Chairman Fogg stated then the easement came with the property. Mr. Coyle stated for ingress and egress only. 13 Chairman Fogg asked for the piece where he is. Mr. Coyle answered in the affirmative on my dirt driveway. Mr. Coyle stated he has a copy of his deed and a copy of the page it says in reference to and it says there is an easement for egress and ingress only, that is for him to come in and out it is not an easement. Mr. Currie stated Mr. Chairman he does not really care about all that we have a roof permit that needs to be reactivated and closed out and we have homeowner that has done a ton of interior renovations without a permit so those are the two issues and that is really all he wants to talk about at this point. Mr. Coyle stated this has been going on for a year now. Chairman Fogg stated thank you sir we appreciate it. Mr. Currie stated to Mr. Trempe we deal with these types of projects all the time and we know that you are supposed to get a building permit. He stated now does he know the exact code language of that law no sir he does not. He stated I can tell you that this County does thousands of permits for interior build -outs so he does not know why we would treat you any different than we do other homeowner in the entire County. Mr. Trempe stated he does not want to be treated differently he wants to be treated the same but he would like to just rebut yes he (Mr. Coyle) has called the police, yes he had a well put in with a licensed well driller from M VP. He stated MVP came out and he was not even there, put a well in, and did all of that. He stated he (Mr. Coyle) comes up to me, threatening me telling me he is going to beat me up because I broke his well, I am just giving you the truth. Mr. Currie stated we do not really care. Mr. Trempe stated but for the record this is recorded and he wants people to know for the record and he wants to speak his piece, that is the first thing and then Sid a well driller comes out to look at his well and told him he broke off a jet at the bottom of the well forty feet down nothing to do with his well. He stated he just wants to finish the road that he says that he owns, a road is an easement by definition you cannot block a road from somebody he looked at the statute you cannot block a road from somebody to have access to their property which is what he did. He stated he strapped around my mailbox and my garbage to prevent garbage pick-up and mail and then he told the garbage people he would sue them if they drove down the road. Chairman Fogg stated sir enough is enough okay. He stated I am telling you now as Chairman enough is enough. He stated Board we are looking for a motion please and asked if there are any questions. He stated we are looking for a motion as Staff has presented on violation. Mr. Hofmann stated Mr. Chairman I will make a motion. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case No. 91553 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by July 6, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notic e that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Trempe okay sir you have until July 6 to get whatever it is you are going to get done and there is a lady back here with her hand in the air you need to see. Mr. Trempe stated he wanted an appeal process. 14 Case No. 92753, Location of violation, 7651 Pelican Pointe Dr., Jensen Beach, FL, Contractor, Joseph B. Holston, Fountain Blue Pool Service Inc. Wilson Lear, Watlee Construction Inc., representative for the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting two (2) photos dated October 20, 2017 and two (2) dated February 6, 2018. She stated on September 26, 2017 a Notice of Violation was sent to Joseph B. Holston with Fountain Blue Pool Service Inc. the contractor who pulled the permit at 7651 Pelican Pointe Dr. to please re-activate Permit 1606-0633 for the pool with a correction date of October 26, 2017. She stated on October 7, 2017 a Notice to Appear was sent. She stated Staff has had communication with the contractor. She noted as of February 7, 2018 the permit remains expired, this is in violation of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01 A (2) a Time Limitations of Building Permits. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Wilson Lear of Watlee Construction Inc. on the violation. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 92753 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 2, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. FINE HEARING Case No. 92100 is a companion case to Case No. 92753 so the Board addressed the case with the Violation Hearing case for the same address. Case No. 92100, Location of violation, 7651 Pelican Pointe Dr., Jensen Beach, FL, Property Owner, Stuart Holding LLC. Wilson Lear, Watlee Construction, representative for the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting two (2) photos dated October 20, 2017 and two (2) dated February 6, 2018. She stated this case was brought before the November 1 2017 Code Enforcement Board and was found in violation by default of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01 A (2)a Time Limitations of Building Permits for having an expired permit for the pool. She stated the Board gave a compliance date of December 8, 2017. She stated the Board gave a compliance date of December 8, 2017. She stated as of February 7, 2018 the permit remains expired. Mr. Currie addressed Chairman Fogg and stated he has a motion. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 92100 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, the testimony, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determinatio n: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting May 2, 2018 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 91141, Location of violation, 2203 N. 51st St., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Derrick and Yvonne Bailey. Yvonne Bailey, property owner and Lloyd Constant, Andros Roofing and Construction LLC, contractor for the owner were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting three (3) photos dated March 24, 2017 taken by Andy the inspector and two (2) dated February 6, 2018 taken by her. She stated on March 27, 2017 a Notice of Violation was sent to Derrick and Yvonne Bailey the property owners for 2203 N. 51st St., to please obtain 15 a permit for the concrete columns with a correction date of April 14, 2017. She stated several extensions were granted and Staff has had communication from the contractor who states they ar e working on getting the design professional to provide the documents needed to be able to obtain the permit. She stated on December 7, 2017 a Notice to Appear was sent. She stated as of February 7, 2018 a permit has not been applied for this is in violation of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01 Building and Sign Permits. There was discussion among the Board, Staff, Yvonne Bailey, and Lloyd Constant, on the violation. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 91141 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 2, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 91028, Location of violation, 6069 N. US Hwy. 1, Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Atlantic Auto Pawn LLC. Cody Danks, the property owner was sworn in b y the Board’s Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting four (4) photos, three (3) dated March 9, 2017 and one (1) dated February 6, 2018. She stated on March 9, 2017 a Stop Work Order was issued for the installation of the mobile home without a permit. She stated a Notice of Violation was sent to Atlantic Auto Pawn LLC the property owner listed for 6069 N US Hwy. 1 to please obtain a permit for the mobile home installation with a correction date of March 23, 2017. She stated Staff has had several communications with the property owner Mr. Cody and granted an extension as there was a discrepancy if this was a mobile home or an RV, also research was done for what is allowed to be on this property. Officer Vargas Barrios stated after further research it was confirmed the property will not be able to have RV’s, it was also confirmed this was a mobile home not an RV and since it is allowed to be at this location it will require a permit for the installation. She stated on December 12, 2017 a Notice to Appear to the February meeting was sent. She stated as of February 7, 2018 the permit has not been applied for this is in violation of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01 Building and Sign Permits. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Cody Danks on the violation. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case No. 91028 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 2, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 91201, Location of violation, 6063 N. US Hwy. 1, Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Atlantic Auto Pawn LLC. Cody Danks, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting five (5) photos, three (3) dated March 9, 2017 and two (2) dated February 6, 2018. She stated on March 21, 2017 a Notice of Violation was sent to Atlantic Auto Pawn LLC the property owner listed for 6063 N US Hwy. 1 to please obtain a permit for the interior renovation with the correction date of April 21, 2017. She stated Staff has had several communications with the property owner Mr. Cody regarding the violation. She stated on December 12, 2017 a Notice to Appear to the February 16 meeting was sent. She stated as of February 7, 2018 the permit has not been applied for this is in violation of St. Lucie County Land Development Code 11.05.01 Building and Sign Permits. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Cody Danks on the violation. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case No. 91201 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, a nd the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 2, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am o r soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 91880, Location of violation, 101 NE Prima Vista Blvd., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, AutoZone Stores Inc. Doug Bolero, representative for the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Goycochea addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting a total of thirty eight (38) photos taken by Aimee Cooper from the Environmental Resource Department. She stated on June 20, 2017, a complaint was submitted to Staff from the Environmental Resource Department and the property located at 101 NE Prima Vista Blvd. was found in violation of Section 7.09.04, General Landscape Requirements, to remove all Category One invasive trees from the property and to replace all plants and trees according to the approved landscape plan. She stated she issued a letter on June 26, 2017 with a complianc e date of July 10, 2017. She stated on July 7, 2017 John from AutoZone contacted Staff and asked for a 30 day extension. She stated on September 1, 2017 John from AutoZone contacted Staff again requesting a copy of the landscaping site plan, She stated she suggested he contact the Environmental Resource Department so they could explain what else might be needed to correct the violation. She stated after receiving no compliance, she issued a certified Notice to Appear letter for the February 7, 2018 Code Board meeting. She stated on January 31, 2018 she was contacted by Aimee Cooper in ERD, and she stated she met with John from AutoZone as well as Kevin, the landscaper who is taking over the job. She stated they are resolving the issue, but it will not be done prior to the Code Board meeting and as of February 6, 2018, the property is still in violation. She stated Aimee Cooper from Environmental Resource is here to answer any questions. She further stated Douglas, the representative for AutoZone is also here to ask for more time. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Doug Bolero on the violation. Chairman Fogg addressed the Board and stated we are looking for a motion. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case No. 91880 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 4, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 92416, Location of violation, 3880 Edwards Rd., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Tonya M. Edenfield. Tonya M. Edenfield, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Goycochea addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting a total of three (3) photos dated august 4, 2017, two (2) photos dated January 4, 2018, three (3) photos dated January 29, 2018 and four (4) photos dated February 5, 2018. She stated on August 4, 2017, she inspected the property at 3880 Edwards Rd. and found it 17 in violation of Section 38-26, to remove or repair any unserviceable vehicles and Section 38-26, for outside storage of items and materials. She stated she issued a letter on August 8, 2017 with a compliance date of August 22, 2017. She stated on August 23, 2017 she spoke with Tonya and she stated most of the vehicles will be removed from the property and also, that the outside storage will be removed. She stated after getting no compliance she issued a certified Notice to Appear letter for the February 7, 2018 Code Board meeting and as of February 6, 2018, the property is still in violation. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Tonya M. Edenfield on the violations. Chairman Fogg addressed the Board and stated we are looking for a motion. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 92 416 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by April 4, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Currie seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 10:39 a.m.: Officer Williams addressed Chairman Fogg and the Board and stated we do have two cases that came late page 2 No. 1 and page 4 No. 4 . Case No. 1 was heard at the end of the Violation Hearing as Pamela E. Smith arrived after the case had been called at the beginning of the meeting so the case was revisited. Case No. 91000 Location of violation, 9015 S. Indian River Dr., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner , Pamela E. Smith and Margot Brennan. Pamela E. Smith, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Goycochea addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting one (1) photo dated March 7, 2017, one (1) photo dated December 4, 2017 and one (1) photo dated January 29, 2018. She stated on March 7, 2017, she inspected the property located at 9015 S. Indian River Dr. and found it in violation of Section 8.00.03, to please remove the cargo container and Section 3.01.03, please remove the cargo container it is not allowed in RE-2 zoning. She issued a letter on March 8, 2017 with a compliance date of March 22, 2017. She stated on March 20, 2017 she spoke with Pamela Smith and she was under the impression she was allowed to have the container on the property. She stated she was going through a financial strain and will need more time to have the container removed, an extension was granted. She stated after getting no compliance, she issued a certified Notice to Appear letter for the December 6, 2017 Code Board meeting. She stated on December 5, 2017, Staff spoke with Pamela and she asked for a continuance for the February Code Board. She stated on February 6, 2018 Pamela contacted Staff and she was given ways to correct the violations, as of February 6, 2018 the property is still in violation. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Pamela Smith on the violations. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 9 1000 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 2, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 18 Case No. 4 – Joe L. and Emma J. Mitchell was heard at the end of the Violation Hearing as Emma J. Mitchell arrived after the case had been called at the beginning of the meeting so the case was revisited . Case No. 92540, Location of violation, 7409 Laguna Rd., Fort Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Joe L. and Emma J. Mitchell. Emma J. Mitchell, the property owner was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer DiFrancisco addressed the Board and stated for the record she is submitting a total of twelve (12) photos, five (5) dated August 17, 2017, two (2) dated October 16, 2017, two (2) dated November 21, 2017, two (2) dated January 29, 2018 and two (2) dated February 5, 2018. She stated she found 7409 Laguna Rd. to be in violation of Section 38- 26, for outside storage and unserviceable vehicles, and Section 32-97, for excessive overgrowth on the property. She stated she issued a Notice of Violation letter on August 8, 2017 and gave a compliance date of September 4t 2017. She stated she had contact initially with Mr. Mitchell and explained the ways to correct the violation. Mr. Mitchell remained in contact with me regarding correcting the violations until November 8, 2017 and since then, she has had no contact. She stated as of February 5, 2018 the property remains in violation. There was discussion among the Board, Staff, and Emma J. Mitchell on the violations. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 9 2540 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by June 6, 2018, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1st Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given compliance date. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Hall was sounded and Mrs. Monahan read the name and number of the case of those not present into the record: Default Cases: Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor/Violator______ 91029 8103 Indian River Dr., Fort Pierce Timothy Derosier (TR) 89809 3112 Sunrise Blvd., Fort Pierce Sandra C. Alfaro 89812 3204 Sunrise Blvd., Fort Pierce Noe R. Gomez 92144 1137 Percival St., Fort Pierce Syed Shafeeq Ur Rahman 92573 3110 Old Edwards Rd., Fort Pierce Hugh R. and Georgia A. Blankenbaker 92803 1008 N 39th St., Fort Pierce Shirley Ellis 90914 13821-13825 S Indian River Dr., Jensen Beach Inner Harbour Properties LLC 89488 4703 Myrtle Dr., Fort Pierce Daniel and Lydia Momany 92208 Lot next to 2005 Avienda Ave., Fort Pierce Alma A. Anglin 92316 Avenue P, Fort Pierce Delores D. Johnson 93141 4000 Avenue L, Fort Pierce Marie Jean Baptiste 92198 337 Melton Dr., Fort Pierce Inez McSween Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to the cases read into the record that the Code Enforcement Board enter an Order of Finding against the violator finding the violator in default and if the violator does not appear to contest the violations against him/her that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as set forth on the agenda. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX. FINE HEARING: 19 Two Board members had to leave for appointments and as there was no quorum the Fine Hearing case s could not be heard and the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. X. REPEAT VIOLATION: None. XI. REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: None. XII. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None. XIII. MOTION FOR REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATON: None. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS: None. XIV. STAFF BUSINESS: None. ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.