HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-01-2009
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING
April 1, 2009 - 9:00 am
HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS
ROGER POITRAS ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT
Chairman..................................................................................................................Dr. Dale Ingersoll
Vice Chairman ......................................................................................................Phillip Stickles
Board Members ....................................................................................................Ray Hofmann
Mitchell Williford
Ralph Fogg
* (Arrived at 9:15 am) William Oquendo
Board Attorney .....................................................................................................Jack Krieger
ABSENT
Board Members Excused.........................................................................................Margaret Monahan
STAFF PRESENT
Assistant County Attorney .....................................................................................Katherine Mackenzie-Smith
Code Compliance Manager ..................................................................................Chris Lestrange
Code Enforcement Supervisor ..............................................................................Dennis Bunt
Contractor Licensing Supervisor ...........................................................................Swendy Ariyanayagam
Contractor Licensing Investigator ..........................................................................Monica Barrios
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Melissa Brubaker
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Carl Brome
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Chris Counsellor
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Mark Fowler
Zoning Compliance Officer ...................................................................................Danielle Williams
Board Secretary ...................................................................................................Shirley Walls
Board Recorder ....................................................................................................Mary Holleran
* Indicates a motion ** Indicates a vote
*** For the record comment
A. CALL TO ORDER
The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by Dr. Ingersoll.
B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag.
C. ROLL CALL
The roll was called and everyone was present except Margaret Monahan. Mr. Oquendo arrived after Roll Call at
9:15 a.m.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 4, 2009
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion to accept the minutes of March 4, 2009 as presented
.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
E. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
Chris Lestrange, Dennis Bunt, Swendy Ariyanayagam, Carl Brome, Mark Fowler, Monica Barrios, Melissa
Brubaker, Chris Counsellor, and Danielle Williams were sworn in.
F. CONSENT AGENDA
No files were pulled for discussion.
* Mr. Fogg made a motion to approve and accept the cases on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff
unless there is an exception.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Rescind Findings of Fact Case No.
Robert E. and Denise Y. Nettles 60277
Rescind Findings of Fact and Imposing Fine/Lien Case No.
David Dumesle 54107
Rescind Order Imposing Fine/Lien Case No.
Artistic Design & Renovations 27025
Rescind Order Imposing Fine Case No.
Donna Crittenden-Schmidt & Michelle Brison 54190
Satisfaction of Lien Case No.
Clover L. Ganary (EST) 57427
Partial Release of Lien Case No.
Hanna Contracting LLC 34884
Request for Fine Reduction Case No.
Thomas M. Mee 47396
G. VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name____________
54616 21306 Glades Cut off Rd., Port St. Lucie Basmati Niranjan, S/A
58667 8945 S. Indian River Drive, Ft. Pierce Oris Nelson, S/A
59443 5204 Ft. Pierce Blvd., Ft. Pierce Clifton & Marie Lloyd, S/A
59609 Lot Next to 4605 Avienda, Ft. Pierce Alpheus Forbes, PO Box 1284, Ft. Pierce
60506 7133 S. US #1, Port St. Lucie Port St. Lucie Plaza, I, LLC and
Port St. Lucie Plaza, II, LLC
112 Phylis Ct., Elmont, NY 11003
60507 7133 S. US #1, Port St. Lucie Coco Leisure, Inc, D/B/A Southern Comfort
61441 1718 Edgevale Rd. Ft. Pierce Pamela L. Hess, S/A
61452 13607 S. Indian River Dr., Jensen Beach Timothy & Marcia Jorgensen, S/A
Page 2 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
61890 Next to 13607 S. Indian River Dr., Jensen Bch. Water Tower HOA, RT #1, Box 134J, Montauk, NY
61528 116 Harris St. Ft. Pierce Harpsi, Inc., Imad Qubain, 522 SW Pt. St. Lucie
Blvd., PSL
st
61375 3113 S. 21 St. Ft. Pierce Lisa M. Powell, S/A
th
61516 2407 S. 38 St., Ft. Pierce Vipers Home Mgmt., PO Box 880776, PSL
61537 2850 S. Jenkins Rd., Ft. Pierce Kronos, LLC, 2400 S. Ocean Dr., Ft. Pierce
60921 104 Camino St., Port St. Lucie Maria Diaz, S/A
VIOLATION CASES HEARD:
Case #60723, Location of violation, 21 Sovereign Way, Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Eric May, S/A, PO Box
13343, Fort Pierce. Eric May was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Ms. Barrios provided five photos dated 5/31/06 through 7/23/08. On 10/9/08 a NOV was issued to Mr. May for
two expired permits for enclosing a patio (permit #0608-0258) and a fence (permit #0172-0444). The property is in
violation of Section 11-05-01A (2)a. time limitations of Building Permits. The expired permits were to be
reactivated and receive a final inspection. A compliance date of 11/10/08 was issued. On 1/7/09 a notice to
appear before the March 4, 2009 CEB was issued. On 1/20/09 Mr. May reactivated the fence permit. On 2/23/09
a final inspection was scheduled and the inspection failed. The permit for enclosing the patio expired. Staff had
contact and numerous conversations with the homeowner about the violations and how to bring them into
compliance. On 3/3/09 staff noted a typo on the violation letter and removed that item from the agenda. A
corrected Notice to Appear was sent on 3/20/09 and the property was posted. On 3/26/09 Mr. May came in and
met with staff. As of 4/1/09 the property remains in violation. Staff recommended a specific date of 8/23/09 in
order for the permits to be reactivated and receive final inspections.
Mr. May agreed he was in violation. He explained engineering plans and architects drawings were required for
the inspections and he requested an additional 60 days to comply, and agreed that August 23rd would be better.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #60723 that the Code Enforcement Board make 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 August 23, 2009 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 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. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #61360, Location of violation, 7017 Gullotti, Port St. Lucie, Property Owner, Dianne Soldevilla, 1336
Whiteside Hill Rd., Wartrace, TN, 37183. Ms. Dianne Soldevilla was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Patricia Von Erfft a
neighbor at 7001 Gullotti, PSL and Ms. Soldevillas’ realtor was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Ms. Brubaker submitted four photos dated 12/12/08 through 3/30/09. During her first inspection on 12/12/08 the
above property was found in violation of Section 3.01.03(E), AG-1, Agricultural-Residential, remove all accessory
structures. Section 7.10.03, animals in residential districts was abated. A compliance date of 1/13/09 was issued.
Ms. Brubaker met with the owner on her property. As of 3/31/09 the property remains in violation.
Ms. Soldevilla disagreed she was in violation, that the horses were allowed in Agricultural. Dr. Ingersoll advised
there was no permanent structure for the horses, and the accessory structures were in violation. After discussion
about Ms. Soldevilla’s plans to build a home there the Board agreed to give her more time.
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #61360 that the Code Enforcement Board make 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 1, 2009 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 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.
Page 3 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #60643, Location of violation, 107 Soneta Court, Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Vesta Brifil, S/A. Ms. Brifil
was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Ms. Brubaker submitted two photos dated 10/8/08 through 3/30/09. During her first inspection on 10/8/08 she
found the above property in violation of Section 13.09.00 Article 303.2, Exterior property maintenance, protective
treatment, paint the bare concrete on the back of the property. A compliance date of 11/10/08 was issued. She
had contact with the owner to discuss the violations. As of 3/31/09 the property remains in violation.
Ms. Brifil agreed she was in violation and explained she was getting help to do it. Dr. Ingersoll noted there was
little sq. footage to paint, it would only take a gallon or so to do it, and it was a very small violation to correct. Mr.
Fogg commented that after a five months time frame it should be taken care of.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60643 that the Code Enforcement Board make 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 2, 2009 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. Please
st
take notice that on the 1 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 #61791, Location of violation 5402 Shannon, Fort Pierce, property owner Doyle T. Volin, S/A. Mr. Ty Volin
and Mrs. Karin Vallone-Volin were sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Mr. Counselor provided five photos dated 11/12/08 through 3/31/09. During his first inspection on 11/12/09 he
found the above property to be in violation of 8.00.04, Fences, walls, hedges- (the bamboo screening in front can
only be 4 ft. high, please cut the fence to meet the 4 ft. requirement or remove). A compliance date of 3/18/09 was
issued. He has had contact with Mr. and Mrs. Volin to discuss and correct the violation. On 3/19/09 the property
was posted. As of 3/31/09 the property remains in violation.
*** Mr. Fogg recused himself as Mr. Volin stated that Mr. Fogg's ex-wife lived next door.
Mr. Volin agreed he was in violation and that he had spoken with Mr. Bunt about others in the neighborhood who
were also in violation.
Dr. Ingersoll advised the Board was unable to cite others and he explained the scope of the Board’s authority
and their ability to focus on the case before them. Mr. Counsellor commented that they were cited because of the
violation of the fence exceeding the 4 ft. height in the front setback on the property. Mr. Bunt provided a history of
the neighbor’s complaints, that today’s setback violation is the issue. That it would be easy for them to come
into compliance and cut the fence to the 4 ft. height to meet the Code. The Board agreed all other issues with
their neighbors were a civil matter, and not before this Board.
Page 4 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
Mrs. Volin asked for six months to comply. Discussion ensued on the project not requiring a six month time
frame. If the property owners required additional information about others in the neighborhood they could contact
staff and view the records.
?
Mr. Oquendo made a motion in reference to Case #61791 that the Code Enforcement Board make 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 3, 2009 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. Please
st
take notice that on the 1 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. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fogg was recused and did not vote.
Case #60547, Location of Violation, 421 Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie, Property Owner(s) Michelle Harry and
Maurene Hussman, 486 NW Reading Lane, PSL. Wahid Hussman and Maureen Hussman were sworn in by Ms.
Walls.
This case was continued from the January 7, 2009 CEB. Ms. Brubaker reviewed the citation and said she has
had contact with the property owners who have no access to the inside of the house because the bank put a lock
box on the property. As of 3/31/09 the property remains in violation.
Mr. Hussman agreed they were in violation, and said the house is in foreclosure. Mr. Bunt said the bank hasn’t
filed foreclosure yet and it could be tied up for months. Discussion ensued on why there has been no paperwork
or information from the Bank – Countrywide on the lockbox. Continuing the case was discussed and it was
recommended the property owners seek an attorney.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60547 that the Code Enforcement Board make 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 September 2, 2009 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 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. Stickels seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The Hall was sounded and Mr. Stickles read the names and numbers of the cases of those not present
into the record:
Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor Violator
59839 1001 Enders Rd., Ft. Pierce Rick L & Karen L Neal, 124 Carriage Dr., Englewood, OH
54331 7328 Commercial Cir., Ft. Pierce Joey Miller, 5500 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce
44790 7901 Sebastian Rd., Ft. Pierce Wellington Homes of Indian River, PO Box 7189, Vero Bch.
61501 561 Angle Rd., Ft. Pierce Incom Properties 2006 Inc., 855 S. Kings Hwy. Ft. Pierce
61515 561 Angle Rd., Ft. Pierce Incom Properties 2006 Inc., 855 S. Kings Hwy. Ft. Pierce
61049 6055 S. US #1, Lot #5, Ft. Pierce S & H Business, Inc., 5903 NW Favian Ave., PSL
61141 6055 S. US #1, Lot #5, Ft. Pierce Veronica Serrano, S/A
Page 5 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
After the Hall was sounded no one appeared to represent the above cases.
?
Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to the cases read into the record that the Code Enforcement
Board enter an Order of Finding against these violators finding the violators in default and if they do not
appear to contest the violations against them and that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as
set forth on the agenda.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
H. FINE HEARING:
Case #57066, Location of Violation, 8500 Marlberry Court, PSL, Property Owner Laura J. Nicholson, S/A. No one
was present to represent Ms. Nicholson.
Ms. Barrios provided five photos. This case was brought before the 2/4/09 Code Enforcement Board and found in
violation of Section 11.05.01, Time limitations of Building Permits – reactivate permit #0505-1770 and obtain a
final inspection for the composite roof over the screen room. A compliance date of 3/25/08 was issued. As of
4/1/09 the permit remains expired.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #57066 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the
violation still exists, and after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the
violator to correct the violation and any previous violation, we make the following determination: A fine of
$250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting March 7, 2009 with the
maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting
this case.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
th
Case #60494, Location of violation, 1803 N. 45 St., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, J. Cherry & Sons, Inc.,
2212 SW. Racquet Club Rd., Palm City, Fl 34490.
No one was present to represent the property owner.
Mr. Counsellor provided four photos dated 9/15/08 through 3/30/09. This case was brought before the February,
2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in violation of Section 1-9-17 – Junk, trash, and debris in the Right of
Way, and Section1-9-19, Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles, and Section 1-9-32(D), Public Nuisance,
excessive overgrowth. The Board gave until 3/6/09 to come into compliance. Ms. Swartzel has had some contact
with the property owners. As of 3/31/09 the property remains in violation.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60494 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, 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 violation, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00
per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting March 7, 2009, with the maximum fine
not to exceed $10,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #60040, Location of violation, 12035 S. Indian River Drive, Jensen Beach, Fl., Property Owner, Lianne
Lehrman, 420 NE Olive Way, Boca Raton, Fl. 33542. Ms. Lehrman was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Mr. Fowler submitted five photos dated 8/11/08 through 3/31/09. This case came before December 3, 2008 CEB
and found in violation of Section 13.00.01 Adopting standard building code, Article 305.3, repair the roof and
Section 13.09.01, Exterior property maintenance, Article 303.2, remove mold and paint the exterior siding. The
case was continued to allow for the sale of the home, and that did not occur. As of yesterday a friend of Ms.
Lehrman was there to help her repair the roof.
Page 6 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
Ms. Lehrman said she made arrangements to have repairs to the roof, no permit was required because the repair
was under 100 sq. ft. The siding was pressure cleaned yesterday. She will have a 5-year warranty on the roof
from Rooftop Roofing. Discussion ensued on how much of the roof needed to be repaired. Ms. Lehrman said the
home is on the water and is still for sale and priced way under value.
Mr. Oquendo remembered the case from December, and noted that Ms. Lehrman was trying to come into
compliance, has made an effort and is in financial straits. He recalled last time she came in with a realtor, there
was a potential sale and he was inclined to give her more time.
Mr. Lestrange will verify the validity of the violations. Mr. Bunt said Ms. Lehrman has been in constant contact
with staff, and a building inspector will go out and look at the roof to determine the extent of repair required.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60040 to continue this case to the meeting of May 6, 2009.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #60618, Location of violation, 102 Germani Dr., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Harold Meyer, 33 Ashdale
Cres, Bowmanville, ON LIC 3M8. Matt Toeniskoetter, 1910 Cypress Ave., Fort Pierce, with a contract to buy the
property, was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Dr. Ingersoll commented that the owner, Mr. Meyer, is now deceased, and he questioned the citation.
Ms. Walls said the attorney handling the probate for the Meyer’s estate spoke with her and Mr. Fowler and asked
the buyer of the property to be here today to let the Board know he is trying to clean it up and of their intent to
purchase the property.
Dr. Ingersoll reiterated his earlier question and asked how we noticed the property. Mr. Fowler said they worked
from the Property Appraiser’s card. There were tenants on the property, cars were there, and he had no way to
know that the property owner died. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith advised the green cards came back and they found out
there is a probate.
Mr. Toeniskoetter said he does not own the property yet, he provided a copy of the contract, he did a probate and
expects to close in two weeks. The attorney called about the violations. He said the property is going to be torn
down.
Dr. Ingersoll recommended continuing the case until the property is sold. He advised Mr. Toeniskoetter to notify
the County, and notify Mr. Fowler when they close on the property. He noted the grass is being cut.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #60618 to continue this case to the Code Enforcement
Meeting of May 6, 2009.
?
Mr. Oquendo seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #60710, Location of violation 6401 S. Indian River Dr., Fort Pierce, Fl. – was removed.
Case #60632, Location of violation, 5612 Winter Garden Parkway, Fort Pierce Fl., Property Owner, Debra A. Hall,
S/A. No one was present to represent the property owner.
Mr. Counsellor said this case was found in default at the February 4, 2009 CEB meeting. He submitted four
photos dated 1/23/09 through 3/30/09. The property was found in default in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) Public
Nuisance, excessive overgrowth, remove all yard debris. A compliance date of 3/6/09 was issued. As of 3/31/09
the property remains in violation.
?
Mr. Hoffman made a motion in reference to Case #60632 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, 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 violation, we make the following determination: A fine of $100.00
per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting March 7, 2009, with the maximum fine
not to exceed $10,000.00. A cost of $150.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case.
Page 7 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
** Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hoffman explained the fine reduction was made because the nature of the violation was just grass
cutting and it might encourage the property owner to correct it sooner, rather than paying a higher fine.
Case # 57668, location of violation, 701 Hidden River Drive, Port St. Lucie, Fl. – was abated.
I. REPEAT VIOLATION:
*** Dr. Ingersoll recused himself from this case and left the meeting. He confirmed that no other business
was on the agenda after this case.
Case #56388, Location of violation, 3098 Dame Rd., Fort Pierce, Fl., 34950, Property Owner – Plant Haven
Landscape, Inc., 4610 Selvitz Rd., Fort Pierce, Fl. 34947. Representing Plant Haven: Attorney Mack McCarty.
John Fagarass, 3098 Dame Rd., Fort Pierce, Fl. Was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Ms. Williams provided seven photos dated 1/27/09 through 2/20/09 and a copy of a 2008-2009 Yellow Pages ad.
The case was brought before the Board on March 5, 2008 and found in violation of Section 3.01.03 (E) AR-1,
Agricultural Residential District, for running a landscaping business from the property. After receiving complaints
again, she went out there on January 27, 2009 and she saw commercial vehicles coming and going from the
property. On 2/16/09 another inspection was made and again she saw a pick up truck, and other trucks leaving
the property. On 2/20/09 she saw trucks again leaving the property. On 2/27/09 a Notice of Violation of Section
3.01.03(E) AR-1, Agricultural-Residential District, (a landscaping business not a home occupational business is
not a permitted use in AR-1 Agricultural-Residential zoning – cease having employees and commercial vehicles
coming and going from the property. To continue operation a conditional use permit is needed. A Repeat
Violation was issued.
Mr. McCarty said they were not in violation, that Plant Haven has a right to have equipment coming and going out
of the property. They are not running a landscape business out of that property.
Mr. McCarty referred to the photos provided by Ms. Williams.
*** Recorder’s Note – the following is summarized from the testimony, and is not verbatim:
Mr. McCarty questioned Ms. Williams as to who was in the trucks, what the purpose was, if she was
questioning the right of a citizen to bring landscape equipment on to the property to maintain their land, other
landscape functions, or to maintain or service the nursery and bring the product out.
Ms. Williams: one is an Hispanic gentleman who left in one of the vehicles. She did not know the purpose. Yes,
you can maintain your land, landscape functions, that is correct.
Ms. Mackenzie-Smith asked Ms. Williams to explain the timeframe that she saw the trucks coming and going.
Ms. Williams: From 7:10 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. - three days on 1/27/09, 2/16/09 and 2/20/09. Ms. Williams explained
the zoning district requirements and what type of business was not allowed on the property.
Mr. Oquendo said if they were not running a business out of this property, at what location was the business
being run. Mr. McCarty to provide evidence of that. Mr. Oquendo confirmed that he stated the traffic is for
maintenance of the property. Mr. McCarty concurred. Ms. Williams confirmed she had only been there in the
morning, not in the afternoon. Discussion ensued on the photographs, and the size of the authorized nursery
being one acre on the six acre property.
Neighbors Testimony:
Patricia Moran, 3115 Dame Road, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Moran lives with Ms. Pauley at 3107 Dame,
directly in front of the property. This has been going on for three years with vehicles coming and going,
continuous traffic and bigger trucks (18 wheelers) could not be accommodated on the size of the road, they were
damaging it, tore a mail box down and it had to be replaced. They drove into the property and tore it up. A piece
of the concrete wall was destroyed. Photos were displayed. She explained the size of the trucks and daily traffic
picking up and unloading throughout the week. Ms. Moran identified other neighbors who had complained and
said their names were given to staff. Various time frames were noted, and she didn’t know if they were the same
faces or new ones.
Page 8 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
John Fagarass, 3098 Dame Road, Landscape nursery owner, landscaping for three years, nursery for two years.
He purchased the Dame Rd. property about 18 months/2 yrs ago and it was used for his residence and a
landscape business. Employees were dispatched from there and equipment was kept there. CEB cited him for a
violation and he resolved those issues. After the last CEB meeting Mr. Fagarass applied for a license from the
Exhibit 1
City of Fort Pierce and the City of Fort Pierce Business Tax Receipt was displayed (). He advertised his
Exhibit 2
business (displayed – ) for Plant Haven Landscape Inc., City of Fort Pierce. The address was noted at
3115 Dame Road. He explained the series of addresses – 3111 One Ave. D is the address on the license, 3115
Exhibit 3).
is the building location. He identified trucks parked at 3115 Avenue D as our trucks ( He conducted his
Home Occupation Services from Dame Road from the beginning, and continued to operate from the home with
his existing license, St. Lucie County. He applied for a Conditional Use license to allow the landscape business to
operate from that property and he appeared before the Development Review Board, who said there was no
chance to get it. He discussed his plans for putting a nursery on the property and the DR Board said he would
never get the exemption. He went ahead and submitted his application and showed the Property Appraiser what
was going on the property, as a result they got one acre as an Agricultural Exemption and also one acre for resale
market. He received a Certificate of Nursery Registration with the State of Florida, for Buzz the Blossoms, Inc.,
(Exhibit 4).
registered for nursery product A Certificate of Stock Dealer Registration allows for him to buy and sell
stock plant items, to buy from another nursery and sell to another nursery or buy plants for landscape use or
(Exhibit 5).
directly for nursery delivery Equipment is brought on the property to maintain the nursery and move
agricultural products to and from the premises. One 18 wheeler has come on the property since the last meeting
to deliver a holder to landscape and build a waterfall and pond, for personal use.
Mr. Fagarass confirmed that since the last CEB hearing he has not used his company’s property to run the day to
day operations and equipment for employees for the landscape maintenance business that he owns. He has 12
to 15 employees and handles the assignments the day before.
Photos were displayed about the parking of his equipment. Ms. William’s photos were discussed. Mr. Fagarass
explained the reasons for a dump truck, front end loader, pick up truck and trailer on the property.
A photo of the ad from the Yellow Pages was displayed. Mr. Fagarass said the ad was renewed, the address was
incorrect, he did not review it, and it was a mistake.
A list of neighbors (28 to 30) was submitted the last time who supported the operation and said it was not a
problem.
Ms. Mackenzie Smith questioned the photo of The Love Center. Mr. Fagarass said it was a not-for-profit drug
rehabilitation training center. He does not have an office in the Center. Photos showing vehicles parked there
included tractors, trucks, mowers and a loader. He originally placed the ad for the Yellow Pages and asked for a
renewal, that it didn’t have an address on it, he didn’t proof read it, and had no idea how the address was one
digit off. He confirmed that two employees did come to the property on 2/20/09 with equipment used for the
landscape business and at home, and he chewed them out.
Mr. Stickles noted photos showed equipment at that address and the photos were not dated and all registration is
dated February and March, 2009. Discussion ensued on what certificates were issued and the dates, and when
Mr. Fagarass applied for the Conditional Use exemption.
Mr. Oquendo confirmed the nursery business has been operated the entire time since Mr. Fagarass bought the
property. The landscape business was stopped when they found out they couldn’t operate it. With regard to both
businesses, they were operating without any type of licensing and had no license until Sept. 24, 2008. Mr.
Fagarass confirmed this was correct, that they had a license to operate a Home Office business. On the ad, it ran
for a year and renewal was about $200.00 a month. The photos submitted by staff with vehicles coming on and
off were for personal property reasons, no business applications, for picking up plant material, and no traffic for
business.
Mr. Fogg said the daily activity is still the same, traffic coming to the property is the same. Mr. Fagarass
confirmed his office is at his home, calls go to his home under the Home Occupational License but the telephone
number is for everything including the landscaping business. The landscaping business is located at 3115 Ave.
D, as indicated in the photo showing the parked trucks and the sign.
Mr. Oquendo confirmed there is a landscaping business, a nursery business and the Love Center occupies the
property the N-F-P is on. There are seven commercial vehicles owned for the business.
Page 9 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
Mr. Fagarass was unsure of the address for the seven commercial vehicles registration. Mr. Fogg was very
interested in knowing the address of the registration. Mr. Fagarass said the trucks used in the business are
registered to the business, the trucks used personally are registered personally, and he was unsure of the
address. Ms. Williams confirmed for the Home Occupational License one commercial vehicle was allowed.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Bunt confirmed under the Home Occupational License one commercial vehicle was allowed and the rest of
the vehicles would have to be somewhere else, and no one knows what the addresses are, and that should be
checked.
Mr. McCarty advised that other properties use the ingress egress strip to get to Dame Road, and that neighbors
own two SUVs.
Ms. Mackenzie Smith confirmed that 1 acre was used for the nursery, the zoning compliance for the property was
Exhibit A)
displayed ( and it indicated that “No Traffic is allowed on that zoning.”
Mr. Fogg understood the Code Board was refused access to the property. Mr. Fagarass said Ms. Williams took a
number of photos and he did not want his children and personal on-goings being photographed. The difference
between the nursery and landscape was explained. Ms. Williams explained that she saw vehicles coming and
going from the photos taken, the last date she was out there was 2/20/09, and she can’t access the property.
Nancy Machiel, (Sp) 3124 Dame Rd. her house is one apart from the property, lived there almost a year, she can
see the traffic coming and going, and the business traffic, it was not a bother, they are beautiful people. She goes
back and forth to Miami, lives there now full time.
Ms. Williams explained the amount of traffic allowed for a nursery and landscaping business, that this traffic has
exceeded the minimum traffic.
Ms. Mackenzie Smith explained the citation was for landscaping traffic, not the nursery traffic. The minimum
traffic was discussed. That they were cited for a violation for running a landscaping business in an improper
zoning and running a business that is not allowed there, the photos show that vehicles used for landscaping are
still being run out of 3098 Dame Rd., and is the address used for the landscaping business. He has a home
occupational license there and the landscaping business has been run out of the 3098 Dame Rd. address. The
City of Fort Pierce Business Tax Receipt, where he says he is storing his vehicles, it is issued as a landscape
accessory use for Love Center vocational facility only. It is the County’s position that Mr. Fagarass is running a
landscaping business at 3098 Dame Rd. and would like him to be found in violation.
Mr. McCarty said there is no evidence that the landscaping business is being run from that location. Mr. Fagarass
and Plant Haven have a right under County Code to have an office use there. They have a City of Fort Pierce
Business Occupational License and he’s sure this Board’s won’t put itself into the City of Fort Piece’s shoes to
decide if this is an appropriate use. Under the St. Lucie Co. Code license they are allowed to have an office,
phone, get mail, do their books and that’s what they are doing. The only testimony presented is that there are
employees coming and going to support the landscape business, work on the nursery, work on the personal yard,
pick up plant product and everyone of those is allowed under the Code. He provided a history of the case and Mr.
Fagarass’s working with County, getting his licenses, and that he proved to the Board he is not operating a
landscaping business on that property.
Mr. McCarty discussed what was allowable to support the accessory use under current Land Development
Code(LDC) of SLC; the Agricultural Exemption, under Chapter 193; the Right to Farm Act under Florida Statute
823.14 – he has a right to bring equipment in there and leave it there. This Board does not have jurisdiction to
rule on a Right to Farm Act case and the Fl. Statute trumps the SLC LDC on nursery operation on agricultural
land that is exempt under 193.461 and protected by 823.14 Fl. There were no good guidelines.
Mr. McCarty recommended that because of the lack of clarity in the LDC for reasonable use for accessory use on
that property, because of the interplay of the LDC and Florida Statute’s Right to Farm Act and to avoid a costly
appeal, is that the Board’s attorney, Mr. Krieger, Ms. Mackenzie Smith and Mr. McCarty sit down to work through
the regulations and attempt to come up with a reasonable use agreement that would be submitted to the Board at
it’s next regular scheduled meeting. Making sure that the neighbor’s concerns about the property, and Ms.
Williams concerns are addressed. That the three attorneys try to come up with a reconciliation of the gray areas
and come back with a proposal for the Board’s next meeting, on what is reasonable use.
Page 10 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
Mr. Stickles thought it was a good suggestion. Mr. Krieger advised the Board to look at the evidence presented
today and decide if there has been a violation. As to Mr. McCarty’s recommendation that the two adversarial
parties could work something out and bring it to the Board it could be considered. As the Board’s attorney Mr.
Krieger would be reluctant to get involved in those discussions because of his responsibility to the Board to afford
everyone due process and that the Board is fair and impartial, and this would be stepping outside of his purview
to get involved. This is between Ms. Mackenzie Smith and Mr. McCarty to try to work out an agreement. It’s up
to the Board if they want to rule today.
Mr. Oquendo commented on weighing the evidence and the need for clear understanding of the Statute being
applied, that the areas were vague. Ms. Mackenzie Smith said it was clear that Plant Haven could not run a
landscaping business from their residence, there are issues because of the nursery there and while the County is
always willing to talk to resolve the issues, it’s difficult because they want clear numbers on exactly how many
trucks are involved and the County does not have the authority to do that.
Mr. Stickles advised this was a repeat violation and the Board is to determine if this issue has been repeated from
1/27/09 and if they are still doing it. He was concerned that with the multiple vehicles on the road, there’s no way
to tell who is accessing the roads, they have a license to have traffic for the nursery, and you can’t tell if they
operating a landscaping business.
Mr. Fogg thought there was a possibility that it’s a repeat violation, it wasn’t clear on the right of way what was
commercial traffic coming and going, and if the roads were not adequate for the trucks turning radius, some areas
are unclear and he would want to make sure it didn’t happen again.
Mr. Krieger advised the burden of proof was on the County. Was the Board convinced that a violation did indeed
occur, not a possibility of a violation, and did the County meet that burden.
Mr. Fogg said the clarification from staff made it difficult to determine. Mr. Oquendo concurred that it was difficult
to determine based on convincing argument and he thought the Board needed to have a clear understanding of
the Statute, which they haven’t seen. The owner of the property has admitted he ran a business out of that
property for a long time before applying for a license.
Discussion ensued on the licenses, the nursery and landscaping business. Mr. Stickles asked the Board to
consider a motion as to whether they were for or against staff’s recommendation, and to give the reason why.
Mr. Krieger explained they could make their motion affirmative or negative, call for a second and explain to the
other Board members the reason why they support that motion.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #56388, that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the
violation previously committed has been repeated, having considered the gravity of the violation, the
actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violation, we make the
following determination: A fine of $500.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists,
starting April 15, 2009, with the maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be
imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case.
** The motion failed for lack of a second.
?
Mr. Oquendo made a motion in reference to Case #56388, that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, the testimony, and the report of staff
regarding the existence of a violation, that we determine the violation has been abated and no fine is
imposed.
** Mr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
Mr. Krieger suggested the motion could be restated to indicate “after hearing testimony in this particular matter
and facts brought forward by all parties that we make a determination that no violation has been repeated.” Mr.
Oquendo agreed and restated his motion.
?
Mr. Oquendo made a motion in reference to Case #56388, that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, the testimony in this particular matter and
facts brought forward by all parties that we make a determination that no continuing violations are
occurring.
Page 11 of 12
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD April 1, 2009
Mr. Oquendo based his motion on the fact that he was not convinced about deciding yes or no that the violation
was continuing.
** Mr. Hoffman seconded. A roll call vote was taken: Mr. Fogg-no; Mr. Hoffman-yes; Mr. Oquendo-yes; Mr.
Stickles-yes; Mr. Williford -yes; The motion carried 4-1. Mr. Fogg opposed. Dr. Ingersoll was not present
to vote.
Mr. McCarty said Mr. Fagarass was ready to sit down with the County, the CEB, and the neighbors to try and
work out a resolution for the amount of traffic coming in and out.
J. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None.
K. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: - None
L. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Oquendo thanked the Board and staff and explained he relocated to another County
this was his last meeting, and he enjoyed his time here.
On behalf of the Board members, Mr. Stickles said they appreciated his service on the Board and they were sorry
to see Mr. Oquendo leave.
M. STAFF BUSINESS: None
N. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
ADJOURN:
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
_____________________________ ______________________
Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date
Philip Stickles, Vice Chair
_____________________________ _______________________
Mary F. Holleran, Specialist Consultant Date
Page 12 of 12