HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-01-2009
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING
July 1, 2009 - 9:00 am
HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS
ROGER POITRAS ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT
Chairman..................................................................................................................Dr. Dale Ingersoll
Board Members........................................................................................................Ray Hofmann
Margaret Monahan
Phillip Stickles
Wes Taylor
Mitchell Williford
Board Attorney .....................................................................................................Jack Krieger
ABSENT
Board Members (excused).........................................................................................Ralph Fogg
STAFF PRESENT
Assistant County Attorney .....................................................................................Katherine Mackenzie-Smith
Code Compliance Manager ..................................................................................Chris Lestrange
Code Enforcement Supervisor ..............................................................................Dennis Bunt
Contractor Licensing Supervisor ...........................................................................Swendy Ariyanayagam
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Melissa Brubaker
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Carl Brome
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Chris Counsellor
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Lynn Swartzel
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 9:01 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 Ralph Fogg (excused) .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 3, 2009
D.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion to accept the minutes of June 3, 2009 as presented
.
** Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
E. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Chris Lestrange, Dennis Bunt, Swendy Ariyanayagam, Carl Brome, Chris Counselor, Carl Brome, Melissa
Brubaker, Mark Fowler, Lynn Swartzel, and Danielle Smith were sworn in.
F. CONSENT AGENDA
* Mr. Stickles made a motion to approve and accept the cases on the Consent Agenda as presented by
staff unless there is an exception, or lifted for discussion.
** Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Rescind Findings of Fact & Order Imposing Fine/Lien Case No.
Clarence & Peggy Marsden 60482
Correct Order Imposing Fine/Lien
Lloyd and Ann Bell (Scrivener’s Error) 56777
Request for Fine Reduction:
Cases Lifted and Pulled for Discussion:
Lianne Lehrman 34333
Lifted by Mr. Stickles – he questioned Ms. Lehrman being in violation for 23 days, and that she came in often to
discuss the progress made to come into compliance. A letter from Ms. Lehrman (attached) explained the time
lapse with the notice provided to her tenant, which did not come directly to her, and another notice which was
returned to Code Enforcement. Mr. Counselor explained the mailing address was not updated. Discussion
ensued. Mr. Stickles was not in favor of a fine in the amount of $5,750.00 considering the amount of effort Ms.
Lehrman showed to clear up the violations.
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #34333, that the Code Enforcement Board rescind the
fineto zero (“0”) and rescind the cost for prosecution to zero (“0”).
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Bobbie & Willie Lampkin Case #58823
Pulled for Discussion by Dr. Ingersoll – this was a repair to the roof which didn’t cost that much, and with a fine of
$9,600.00, at $500.00 per day for 30 days, it was disproportionate to the violation. A letter (attached) from Mrs.
Lampkin explained the lapse in time was due to her being out of state. Dr. Ingersoll thought this was a case
which the County could keep fining forever, he was not in favor of the current fine or reducing it to zero, but that
they could reduce it to $500.00 and give 30 days to pay, or it goes back to $9,600.00.
Ms. Monahan confirmed the violation had been abated and final inspection made. Mr. Fowler explained the mix
up with the mail, that notices were not being handled when Mrs. Lampkin was out of State.
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #58823that the Code EnforcementBoard make the
following determination: the fine of $9,600.00 imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby
reduced to $500.00 and the cost of $150.00 imposed for prosecuting the case shall not be reduced and
the fine must be paid in full within 30 days of this hearing or it reverts back to the original fine of
$9,600.00.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Joe & Catherine Simmons Cases #5932 and #44997
Dr. Ingersoll commented on the value of the property, that it was a foreclosure, that $15,000.00 in fines were
accrued, that if a buyer was to come forth, it was in the County’s best interest to have the fines cleared for a
potential owner. Discussion ensued on the age and lowering of the fines, foreclosures, and clearing the liens.
Page 2 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
?
Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #5932 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: the fine of $5,000.00 imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced
to $2,500.00, and there are no costs for prosecuting the case. This reduced fine must be paid in full
within 30 days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of $5,000.00.
** Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried 5-1. Dr. Ingersoll opposed.
?
Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #44997 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: the fine of $10,000.00 imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby
reduced to $2,500.00, with the cost of $150.00 for prosecuting the case. This reduced fine must be paid in
full within 30 days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of $10,000.00.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried 5-1. Dr. Ingersoll opposed.
G. VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name____________
th
60286 3409 Sloan Road, Fort Pierce Maurice Shazier, 2513 S. 17 St. Bldg. #2, Fort
Pierce
62107 Vacant Lot next to 3505 Ave. F, Juan Alcantar, 1808 Havana Ave., Fort Pierce
Fort Pierce
62375 3407 Ave. O, Fort Pierce Dean Bryan, 2730 Devonwood Ave., Miramar
62979 2800 N. A1A, Fort Pierce Barclay Beach Club, S/A
62981 3100 N. A1A, Fort Pierce Sands on the Ocean, S/A
62994 4400 N. A1A, Fort Pierce Paragon, S/A
63003 5151 N. A1A, Fort Pierce Ocean Harbor Condo Assn., S/A
62996 5047 N. A1A, Fort Pierce Atlantic View, S/A
62950 11000 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach Villa Del Sol Condo Assn., SEM Business Mgmt.
LTD, S/A
62953 10900 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach Rottie’s Restaurant, Property Mgr., S/A
62965 Vistana Resort Dev., Inc., GM, Christopher Egan, 13500 State Rd. #535
Jensen Beach Orlando, Fl
62970 10410 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach Hutchinson Island Club Condo Assn., S/A
63006 9600 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach Empress Condo Assn., Property Mgr., S/A
63013 7420 S. Ocean Dr., #C, 115, Jensen Bch. Sand Dollar Shores Condo, Prop. Mgr., S/A
FINE HEARING ABATED OR REMOVED:
rd
61427 2215 N. 53 St., Fort Pierce US Bank, NA (TR) ASC, 3476 Stateview Blvd.
Fort Mill, SC 29715
61729 806 N. Lake Dr., Fort Pierce LaSalle Bank, Property Preservation Dept.
2780 Lake Vista Dr., Lewisville, TX 75067
61777 3241 West Lake Dr., Fort Pierce National City Bank, Property Preservation Dept.
3232 Newark Dr., Miamisburg, OH, 45342
60689 709 Skylark Dr., Fort Pierce Countrywide Home Loans, Armando Lopez
7105 Corporate Dr., MS PTX-C-3, Plano, TX
62009 709 Skylark Dr., Fort Pierce Countrywide Home Loans, Armando Lopez
7105 Corporate Dr., MS PTX-C-3, Plano, TX
VIOLATION CASES HEARD:
The following three cases are companion cases which were continued from January 7, 2009.
Case #56110, Hutchinson Island Beach Club, Condominium Association, Don Finh
Case #56199, Wolfgang F. Baere,
Case #56111, Farchant, Inc.
Page 3 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Location of violation, 9800 South Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, Fl.
Representing Hutchinson Island Beach Club Condominium Association, James N. Krivok, Esq., referred to a letter
from David Steinfeld, Esq., attorney representing Wolfgang F. Baere. The letter stated that Mr. Baere was ill and
undergoing medical testing at the University of Miami and unable to attend the meeting, and requested an
extension.
Dr. Ingersoll recalled the case, had hoped that the civil case was heard, confirmed it was not heard, and asked
the Board to consider an extension. There was no public safety issue connected to the violations. The Board
deliberated and agreed to six months.
?
Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #56110 to continue this case to the Code Enforcement
Board Hearing of January 6, 2010.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
?
Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #56199 to continue this case to the Code Enforcement
Board Hearing of January 6, 2010.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
?
Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #56111 to continue this case to the Code Enforcement
Board Hearing of January 6, 2010.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #62376, Location of violation, 340 Hosbine St., Fort Pierce, Fl. Property Owner, Levena L. Schreier, S/A,
was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Ms. Brubaker provided seven photos dated 3/17/09 through 6/29/09. During an inspection she found the property
in violation of Section 1-9-19, outside storage of items, materials, dead vegetation, etc., and 1-9-32(D)
overgrowth. A compliance date of 5/10/09 was issued. She has met with and spoke with the owners about
bringing the property into compliance. As of June 30, 2009 it is being maintained but still remains in violation.
Ms. Schreier agreed she was in violation. They have been working on it, she is getting some help and asked for
additional time.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #62376 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 October 9, 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 #61823, Location of violation, 2406 North 53 St. Fort Pierce, Fl. Property Owner, Harrel and Sharri Baker.
rd
Harrel Baker, S/A, was sworn in by Ms. Walls.
Ms. Swartzel provided five photos dated 2/05/09 through 6/29/09. During her first inspection she found the
property in violation of 1-9-19, Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles, and Section 3.01.03(J) cease running
a business from the property, it is not permitted in RS-4 zoning. A compliance date of 2/27/09 was issued. Ms.
Swartzel has had contact with the property owner and explained the issues to be corrected to bring the property
into compliance. As of 6/30/09 the property remains in violation.
Page 4 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Mr. Baker agreed he was in violation and explained why the debris and vehicles were there, and that he was
working on cleaning it up.
Dr. Ingersoll explained the work that Mr. Baker was doing outdoors had to be in an enclosed structure. What
vehicles were allowed to remain on the property was explained. The Board agreed to give Mr. Baker some time,
but that a fine would be assessed if the property was not brought into compliance. Ms. Monahan advised that
staff would help and he needed to meet with them.
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #61823 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 15, 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. Hofmann 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
61596 5710 Myrtle Dr., Fort Pierce Gerard L. Andrews, S/A
61752 6008 Citrus Ave., Fort Pierce Geoffroy P. Hilaire, S/A
61982 710 Camino St., Port St. Lucie Martin & Irene Mijares, S/A
62578 6007 Tangelo Dr., Fort Pierce National City Bank, 3232 Newark Dr., Miamisburg, OH
60987 3404 Ave. S., Fort Pierce William & Barbara J. Copeland, S/A
61939 4804 San Diego Ave., Fort Pierce William & Barbara J. Copeland, S/A
?
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.
Mr. Stickles commented on the fine reductions and agreed with the discussion that was had.
H. FINE HEARING:
Case #61919, Location of Violation, 151 Castana Court, Port St. Lucie, Property Owner Tammy L. Gonzalez, S/A.
No one was present to represent the homeowners.
Ms. Brubaker provided three photos dated 2/23/09 through 6/29/09. During an inspection on 2/23/09 she found
the above property in violation of Section 1-9-32(D), public nuisance, excessive overgrowth. A compliance date of
3-10-09 was issued. She has not had any contact with the owner and as of June 30, 2009 the property remains in
violation.
Ms. Brubaker explained the owner is in jail, her son was maintaining the property and staff doesn’t know how to
contact him.
Page 5 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Dr. Ingersoll said this case is an example of the fine not proportionate to the violation; the Board has no power to
go beyond their scope, increasing fines to $10,000 and $20,000 on properties worth $60,000 and $70,000, where
we have collected nothing, gives the illusion we are doing things when nothing is accomplished; if we gave them
fines they could actually pay for yard care, that would accomplish something. This is creating a secondary blight,
and harming the County more than helping. It’s a travesty creating fines that will sit there for many years and if a
buyer comes along willing to improve the property –they aren’t going to with these large fines. This homeowner is
in jail, if we fine her $100,000 it isn’t going to get done. When she gets out of jail she will be unemployed, and if
the Board sets a $5,000 fine….what’s the incentive to fix the property. He thought the fine should be reasonable
and payable.
Discussion ensued. Ms. Monahan asked how the yard gets cleaned up, that the value of the neighborhood was
being lowered, and asked what they should do. Mr. Hofmann addressed the banks doing well with foreclosures.
Dr. Ingersoll commented on the banks being in trouble. Addressing what they should do, he said the time and
effort has already been expended by staff and the Board on this case, the property has been fined, we are
punishing ourselves, the County and banks by making it harder for properties to sell; he noted the 14 pages of
foreclosures being published. The fine needs to be in proportion to the violation and every case shouldn’t be fined
$5,000.00.
Mr. Kreiger advised that the Board under the State Statute and County Code has limited powers to fine only to get
compliance. The Board and the staff has had great affect in the County and has acted within its power. The
Board has to decide how it wants to impose those fines and it has the flexibility to take into consideration all of the
factors and gravity of the situation, weigh the economic conditions and likelihood of getting the fine paid, and if
there is incentive to get it cleaned up and reduce the fine. The Board has to make that decision on how to impose
the fines.
Dr. Ingersoll saw the Board as representing the community, he sees the foreclosures and those losing their
homes and is looking at getting compliance within a reasonable fine amount. Mr. Krieger commented on a $5 per
day fine to be paid in 10 days, versus a $250 per day, which they can’t do. Dr. Ingersoll’s position was to get the
violators into compliance.
Mr. Stickles questioned the mail being returned. Ms. Brubaker confirmed mailing the notices and posting of the
property. Mr. Bunt further explained notifications that staff provides and suggested the Board should look at the
full picture – that staff load wrote 6,000 to 8,000 cases a year, and only a fraction of those came before the Board
and that’s because the property owners do not want fines and to face the Board. He thought they were making a
dent, and the Board might think about the other side, they have made a difference. As to the fine amount, he
thought Board must look at each situation, and take into account the economy. The Health Department’s
intervention concerning health hazards was explained.
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #61919 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination:After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, the testimony 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 $25.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting August
1, 2009 with the maximum fine not to exceed $1,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of
prosecuting this case.
Mr. Stickles explained the reason for lowering the fine was by giving another 30 days someone would
notice and would bring the property into compliance.
** There was no second and the motion failed.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #61919 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination:After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, the testimony 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 $25.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting July
25, 2009 with the maximum fine not to exceed $1,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of
prosecuting this case.
** Mr. Stickles seconded the motion.
Page 6 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Mr. Stickles asked why the date of July 25, 2009 was imposed. Mr. Hofmann explained the rainy season was
st
coming up and by August 1 it would look like a jungle and by moving the date up, compliance might happen
sooner rather than later.
Mr. Krieger advised the Board on notifications, if the violator is not here, and notices are returned, staff has to
prepare all the paperwork and then it is reviewed by the County, Mr. Krieger, Dr. Ingersoll and back to the
secretary to get to the violator. To keep in mind, the notice may not be received for several weeks, and
compliance within a 30 to 40 day period may not reasonable.
Further discussion ensued on looking for compliance, cutting the grass and the rainy season. Ms. Monahan
wanted the fine raised to $2,500 as this had no teeth.
** A voice vote was taken on the seconded motion. Ms. Monahan-no; Mr. Hofmann-yes; Mr. Taylor-yes; Mr.
Stickles-yes; Mr. Williford-yes; Dr. Ingersoll-yes. The motion carried 5-1. Ms. Monahan opposed.
th
Case #56439, Location of violation, Rosarita Ave./North 13 St., Fort Pierce, Fl. Property owner Ronald Wright,
1211 Ave. G, Fort Pierce, Fl. Michael O’Haire, Esq., representing Mr. Wright was present.
Ms. Swartzel provided four photos dated through 6/29/09. This case was first heard at the September 3, 2009
CEB meeting for violation to Section 1-17-1- Erection of signs or structures within Right of Way (ROW) prohibited
– Remove septic tank and drain field out of the County ROW. Mr. Wright said he was not in violation. Testimony
from Ron Harris, the County Surveyor, said there was an error in Mr. Wright’s survey. The disagreement
concerned 25 ft. versus 50 ft., which had Mr. Wright’s septic in the County’s ROW. This case was continued from
the March, 2009 Code Enforcement Board to the June 3, 2009 due to a letter from Mr. O’Haire indicating he was
unavailable through mid June, and survey’s were to be compared and the case was to come before the July 1,
2009 CEB meeting. Dr. Ingersoll previously advised Mr. Wright that his survey had to agree with the County’s
survey. As of 6/29/09 the property remains in violation.
Mr. O’Haire said they were moving to resolve the problem. Dr. Ingersoll said they were looking for the specifics
where the surveyor representing Mr. Wright would take issue with Mr. Harris that the benchmarks used in Mr.
Harris’ survey were either right or wrong. Mr. O’Haire said they should have the survey this week, and it will or will
not have that certification. Mr. O’Haire commented on a past issue concerning the County’s installation of a
retention area, across from Mr. Wright’s property, and the Health Dept. said there can’t be a septic system within
75 ft. of a water retention system, which would mean Mr. Wright’s property would be a write off. He said the
County is saying this is a dry retention area and only has a 15 ft. setback requirement by the Health Dept., and
they can move the septic system.
Dr. Ingersoll commented that we were right back where we started and haven’t moved an inch. Ms. Mackenzie-
Smith said they are asking for more time. Dr. Ingersoll said at this point they should subpoena the Health
Department, bring the issues to the case forward concerning the setback, and that needs to be set to rest; we
need a survey that says we take objection based on that, and we need a surveyor that listens to both arguments.
Discussion ensued about not seeing a survey and hiring an outside surveyor.
Ron Harris, Surveyor for the County, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. He said this has been going on for a long time,
if the Board wanted to hire an outside surveyor he was for it, he provided a history of the case, he has copies of
field notes, and the County has been patient.
Dr. Ingersoll said the Board was the mediator between the County and the client and were not qualified to make a
decision based on what information has been provided.
Mr. Krieger commented on hiring an outside surveyor, that the Board is Quasi-Judicial, it is up to both parties to
present the facts and evidence, and persuade the Board. Based on that evidence, the Board makes its final
decision. Judges don’t hire independent individuals to make decisions for them or the jury. It is for the other side
to hire outside individuals to educate the Board.
Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said they were going to have a hearing today, listen to the evidence, Mr. Harris will go
through it all, and he will be under Oath. She advised this was a Fine Hearing, the Board has actually found a
violation to the ROW. Mr. Harris commented on the amount of time they have been given to get a permit and a
survey, and believed they have been fair.
Page 7 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Mr. O’Haire said they were not prepared to provide survey information. He has a survey justifying the location of
the septic system where it is, and Mr. Harris will disagree. He asked for 30 days to get the original surveyor back
up here, to see what the result will be. He would prefer 60 days if they have to go to the Health Department about
moving the septic system.
Discussion ensued on the additional time requested. Mr. Harris was unsure of the time frame required depending
on the surveyor they hire, and if they need information for the area, they will probably call him. Mr. O’Haire
confirmed they will get the original surveyor who signed the survey to look at the situation again. Ms. Monahan
confirmed the surveyor who allegedly made a 25 ft. error. Mr. O’Haire said yes.
?
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #59439 that this case be continued to the Code
Enforcement Board meeting of August 5, 2009, to be heard at 9:00 a.m. or soon thereafter.
** Ms. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #61564, Location of violation, 2707 Avenue T, Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Hearken Properties, LLC,
P.O. Box 16545, Tampa, FL 33687-6515. No one was present to represent the property owner.
Ms. Swartzel displayed four photos dated 1/20/09 through 6/29/09. This case was brought before the May, 2009
Code Enforcement Board and found in violation of Section 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, (Article
301.3) – vacant structure and land: secure home, all openings including exterior doors, windows, etc., must be
boarded up and painted to match color of exterior of house. A compliance date of 6/5/09 was issued. There has
been no contact with the homeowner. As of 6/29/09 the property remains in violation.
The Board discussed tearing down the property since it was a vacant shell. Mr. Bunt said staff could try and
make contact to gain entry to the building and determine if there is 50% damage to the home which is a
requirement for demolition.
?
Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #61564 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 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting June 6, 2009, with a maximum
fine not to exceed $5,000.00, a cost of $125.00 shall be imposed for the cost of prosecuting the case. The
large amount of the fine is imposed because an out-of-town corporation owns the property and they have
done absolutely nothing and the property is a health hazard.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded the motion. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Stickles opposed the motion, and thought the corporation didn’t have a chance to do anything.
** The seconded motion carried 5-1. Mr. Stickles opposed.
?
Ms. Monahan offered the following motion: In reference to Case #61564, 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 determine the condition that
caused the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare and staff is directed
to notify the staff of the Board of County Commissioners of the conditions.
** Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #61967, Location of violation, Parcel N. of 3120 Maravilla Blvd., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property owners James R.
th
and Pamela S. Sullivan, 6040 SW 18 Street, Plantation, Fl 33317. No one was present to represent the
homeowners.
Mr. Fowler provided four photos dated 2/20/09 through 6/3/09. The property was found in violation of Section 1-9-
32(D), public nuisance, excessive overgrowth, and Section 1-9-19, Abandoned Property, Unserviceable vehicles,
remove tires, buckets, litter, debris, etc., from the property. It was found in default at the May, 2009 CEB meeting
and given until 6/5/09 to come into compliance. As of 6/30/09 the property remains in violation. There has been
no contact with the property owners. A green card was returned on 4/20/09. Mr. Fowler explained his efforts to
communicate with the property owners.
Page 8 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
* Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #61947 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
$100.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting August 5, 2009, with a
maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $150.00 shall be imposed for the cost of prosecuting
this case.
** Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried 5-1. Mr. Stickles opposed
I. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None.
J. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: - None
K. OTHER BUSINESS: None
L. STAFF BUSINESS:
Mr. Bunt addressed changes to the Land Development Code which are available on line at
the St. Lucie County site, as well as the Growth Management site which will take you to the Land Development
Code link. There are no major changes, some deletions, clarity and general clean-up of the 13 chapters.
M. PUBLIC COMMENT:
David Finder, 4206 Sunrise said he was representing his mother. Dr. Ingersoll advised Mr.
Finder spoke to him at Church, and at this point there is no hearing, it is public comment. Mr. Finder spoke of his
meeting with staff and thought he was on the agenda about the two cases pending on his mother’s house.
Ms. Ariyanayagam explained he can come in and speak with staff to resolve getting a permit and abating the
violation and reduce the fine. The fine reduction form can not be accepted until the violation is abated and
permits are required for the roof of the barn and for the dock. In the past permits were never waived during the
storms. Mr. Finder continued explaining the violation. Dr. Ingersoll explained the procedure he had to follow in
order for the case to be heard.
ADJOURN:
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
_____________________________ ______________________
Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date
_____________________________ _______________________
Mary F. Holleran, Specialist Consultant Date
Page 9 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD July 1, 2009
Page 10 of 10