Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-05-2009 -MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING August 5, 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 .............................................................................................................................Ralph Fogg .............................................................................................................................Margaret Monahan .............................................................................................................................Wes Taylor .............................................................................................................................Mitchell Williford Board Attorney .....................................................................................................Tom Farley ABSENT 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 ....................................................................................Mark Fowler Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Monica Vargas Barrios Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Lynn Swartzel Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Carl Brome Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Chris Counsellor 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 9:03 a.m., by Dr. Ingersoll. B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag. C. ROLL CALL The Board Secretary called the roll, everyone was present except Ms. Monahan who arrived after the roll call at 9:05 a.m. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 1, 2009. ? Mr. Stickles made a motion to accept the minutes of July 1, 2009 as presented . ** Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 E. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS Chris LeStrange, Dennis Bunt, Swendy Ariyanayagam, Carl Brome, Melissa Brubaker, Monica Vargas Barrios, Chris Counsellor, Lynn Swartzel, Mark Fowler, and Danielle Williams were sworn in by the Board Secretary. F. CONSENT AGENDA No cases were pulled for discussion: ? Motion was made by Mr. Williford to approve and accept the cases on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff, unless there is an exception, or a case lifted for discussion. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Satisfaction of Fine/Lien: Case No. Military 6 LC WRR, Assoc. LLC 55469 Willie J. and Bobbie J. Lampkin 58823 Joe and Catherine Simmons 5932 Joe and Catherine Simmons 44997 Rescind Findings of Fact & Order Imposing Fine Case No. Pablo Bregolat 54376 Rescind Findings of Fact Case No. Pablo Bregolat 56165 Rescind Findings of Fact & Order Imposing Fine/Lien Case No. Faye W. Gosdin 59624 Request for Fine Reduction Case No. Joan M. Bertrand (TR) 50714 G. VIOLATION HEARING: H. The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name____________ 57357 2023 St. Lucie Blvd., Lot 190, Fort Pierce Whispering Creek CO-OP, Inc, S/A 60676 905 Elyse Circle, Port St. Lucie Daniel F. & Ginger R. Kopenski, 3301 Grassglen Pl. Wesley Chapel, Fl 61980 7211 Elyse Circle, Port St. Lucie Summerlin’s Marine Construction, Inc. Joy S. Yancy, 200 NACO Rd. #C, Ft. Pierce 61973 7211 Elyse Circle, Port St. Lucie Bernice M. & Robert P. Burkarth, S/A 62448 8633 Florence Dr., Port St. Lucie Arroyo Enterprises, Inc, Ruben F. Arroyo 6704 S. US #1, Port St. Lucie 62447 8630 Mary Ann Lane, Port St. Lucie Arroyo Enterprises, Inc, Ruben F. Arroyo 6704 S. US #1, Port St. Lucie 62743 7301 Indrio Rd., Fort Pierce Super Stop Enterprises, Inc., 3754 NW Pin Oak Dr., Jensen Beach 62746 3232 Vernon St., Fort Pierce John & Tessie Kokkinaris, 3228 Vernon St. 61692 7801 Banyan St., Fort Pierce Maria S. Macaul, 2914 Rockingham Dr. Atlanta, GA 61693 7806 Banyan St., Fort Pierce Lottie V. Early, S/A 61696 7905 Banyan St., Fort Pierce Harry & Sandy Whitman, S/A VIOLATION CASES HEARD: Companion Cases: Case #60566, Location of violation, 3700 Okeechobee Rd., Fort Pierce, Property owner, Indian River Oil Co. (S/A). Robert Fender was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Mr. Brome advised the next case was a Companion Case. Page 2 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 Mr. Brome provided ten photos dated 9/17/08 through 8/3/09. On 4/17/09 the property was found in violation of Section 11.05.01 A(2)a, Time limitations of Building permits, obtain a new permit or reactivate expired permit #0805-0204, and obtain a final inspection for the relocated tank containment area. A compliance date of May 18, 2009 was issued. Mr. Brome has had contact with the owner, this case has been active for four months, the permit has not been renewed and final inspection has not been made. The citation was made to Mr. Fender for the business and as the owner. Mr. Fender confirmed he was in violation. He asked for additional time of 60 days to get all the paperwork from the Environmental Agency and the contractor together. He thought the project could be completed within that time. * Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60566 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 November 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 a.m. 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. Companion Case #62405, Location of violation, 3700 Okeechobee Rd., Fort Pierce, Property owner, Indian River Oil Co. (S/A). Robert Fender, 4206 Sunrise Blvd., Fort Pierce, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Mr. Brome advised this case was a Companion Case to #60566 for the same violation * Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #62405 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 November 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 a.m. 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. Companion Cases: Case #61926, Location of violation, 262 Camino Del Rio, Port St. Lucie, Contractor/Violator, RGC Builders, Inc., th Nicholas S. Renzi, Jr., 17338 118 Terrace N., Jupiter, Fl 33478. Brad Renzi, (S/A) was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Barrios submitted two photos dated 7/24/09. A Notice of Violation was sent on 2/24/09 notifying the contractor/builder to reactive permit #0801-0429 and receive a final inspection for the carport and free-standing overhang. A compliance date of March 25, 2009 was issued. Staff has had contact with the qualifier and as of 8/3/09 the permit remains expired. This is in violation of Section 11.05.01 Time limitations of Building permits, obtain a new permit or reactivate expired permit #0801-0429 and obtain a final inspection for the carport and free- standing overhang. th Brad Renzi agreed he was in violation. He was to meet with Mr. Lestrange today to discuss the 4 wall and the plans for an additional beam and post. Mr. Renzi explained the project has had additional requirements each time he tries to complete it. Dr. Ingersoll advised Mr. Renzi the project must come to conclusion and come into compliance. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #61926, 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 Page 3 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 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 #61928, Location of violation, 127 Camino Del Rio, Port St. Lucie, Contractor/Violator, RGC Builders, Inc., th Nicholas S. Renzi, Jr., 17338 118 Terrace N., Jupiter, Fl 33478. Brad Renzi, (S/A) was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Barrios submitted two photos dated 7/24/09. A Notice of Violation was sent on 2/24/09 notifying the contractor/builder to reactive permit #0801-0430 and receive a final inspection for the carport and free-standing overhang. A compliance date of March 25, 2009 was issued. Staff has had contact with the qualifier and as of 8/3/09 the permit remains expired. This is in violation of Section 11.05.01 Time limitations of Building permits, obtain a new permit or reactivate expired permit #0801-0429 and obtain a final inspection for the carport and free- standing overhang. Mr. Renzi indicated that no fourth wall was required and changes were made after it was built. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #61928, 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. Companion Cases: Case #62276, Location of violation, 1840 Kings Highway, Fort Pierce, Contractor/Violator, Darrian Kelly, S/A. Darrian Kelly and Melissa Kelly, 2149 S.W. Drexel St., Port St. Lucie, Fl. 34953 were sworn in by Ms. Walls. Case #62216. Location of violation 1840 Kings Highway, Fort Pierce, Property owner, Field Citrus, Inc, 1950 Copenhaver Rd., Fort Pierce. Ms. Ariyanayagam provided five photos dated 4/9/09. On 3/18/09 a Stop Work Order was posted to the property for doing renovations without a permit. On 3/26/09 a Notice of Violation was issued to Field Citrus, Inc., and on 3/31/09 a Notice of Violation was issued to the violator, Darrian Kelly for violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and sign permits – please obtain a permit for the interior renovation to include the door change out, also obtain a permit for the sign. On 7/29/09 a permit was submitted but not issued due to insufficient documents supplied for completion of the permit to meet all building requirements. Staff has communicated with Mr. Kelly to set a specific date for compliance, to provide all necessary documents and for the date of a permit to be issued. Outstanding issues to be resolved concern electrical, plumbing and doors, and a sign that needs to be permitted. Dr.Ingersoll confirmed what was installed and what was needed to follow through to get the permit and come into compliance. Photos were displayed and reviewed. Mr. Kelly said the permit was not the problem, it was the fees, that the congregation and the Church is having difficulty surviving. In addition, his mother passed away, and he was dealing with a child who was seriously ill. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #61928, 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 5, 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. Page 4 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 *** Mr. Fogg amended his motion to correct the Case from #61928 to the Case #62276. ** Mr. Hofmann agreed to second the amended motion and it carried unanimously. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #62216, 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. Case #61801. Location of violation 1101 Saeger Ave., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Wayne and Beverly Larsen, 2061 SE Harlow Street, Port St. Lucie, Fl 34952. Violation: Section 13.00.01, Article 110.1. Dr. Ingersoll advised this case was found to be a “To Have Been.” Case #62303, Location of violation 12001 South Indian Dr., Jensen Beach, Fl., Property Owner, Christine C. McCarty, (S/A), and Christopher McCarty (son) (S/A) was sworn in by Ms. Walls. ***Mr. Hofmann indicated he would recuse himself since he knew the individual, unless Ms. McCarty said it was OK. Ms. McCarty said it was OK for Mr. Hofmann to continue hearing the case. Mr. Fowler submitted photographs dated 3/31/09 through 8/4/09. During his first inspection on 3/31/09 he found the property in violation of 1-9-19, Abandoned Property, Unserviceable vehicles, etc., repair or remove all unserviceable vehicles and outside storage of items and materials such as engine hoists and tools from the property. Violations to Section 8.00.03(F) and Section 3.01.03(J) have been abated. A compliance date of 5/4/09 was issued. Mr. Fowler has had contact with the owner to discuss ways to correct the violations. The property has been inspected four times and the violation still exists. The violation was from a complaint by a neighbor. The son, Chris, is looking for more time to deal with the vehicles. Mr. McCarty confirmed he was in violation, that some cars are running, others don’t run and he needed a year to continue fixing the vehicles. He explained the difficulty in traveling to Pennsylvania for family reasons, and the problems with getting the parts to repair the cars, some were valuable antiques. Dr. Ingersoll advised that the unserviceable vehicles can’t be stored on the property, and the most time would be 60 days. Mr. Fogg explained to Mr. McCarty that he was a creating hardship for his mother. Ms. McCarty said her son was taking care of her, the cars were an antique collection, and not an inconvenience to her. Discussion about the Code violation ensued. Ms. McCarty said she had not received any notification and there isn’t money for storage of the vehicles. Mr. McCarty indicated that six of the cars are not running and he needs parts. Ms. McCarty believed there was enough space on the property to keep the cars. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #62363, 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 November 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. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #62364, Location of violation, 12115 S. Indian River Dr., Jensen Beach, Property Owner, Steven B. Schliedermann, (S/A), was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Mr. Fowler provided six photos dated 4/13/09 to 8/4/09. During his first inspection on 4/13/09 he found the property in violation of Section of 1-9-19, Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles, and Section 13.09.00, Page 5 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 repair or remove unserviceable vehicles, removed outside storage of items and materials; Exterior Property Maintenance Code, Article 302.7, please repair or remove the fence, remove tarp from garage and repair garage doors. A compliance date of 5/18/09 was issued. Mr. Fowler has spoken with the owner and discussed ways to correct the violation. As of 8/4/09 the violation still exists. Mr. Fowler advised that improvements have been made but more time is need to comply. Mr. Schliedermann confirmed he was in violation; he has had surgery, he’s ill, can’t work and asked for an additional 4 to 6 months to correct the violations. He is making an effort but has health issues. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #62364, 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 November 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. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case # 62357, Location of violation 4608 Magnolia Drive, Fort Pierce, Fl., Property owner, Dorothy McFadden, 264 SW Todd Ave., Port St. Lucie, Fl. Representing Ms. McFadden was a friend, Robert Brown, 264 SW Todd Ave., Port St. Lucie, Fl., was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Mr. Fowler provided two photos dated 4/7/09 to 8/4/09. During his first inspection on 4/7/09 he found the property in violation of Section 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Article 304.7, Roofs, repair the roof. A compliance date of 5/11/09 was issued. Mr. Fowler has spoken with Mr. Brown, the property has been inspected 3 times and is still in violation. Dr. Ingersoll advised Mr. Brown that he was not the owner of the property and not able to answer for Ms. McFadden. Mr. Brown said he will be attempting to do the repair work for her. Mr. Fowler gave Mr. Brown a list of financial agencies that may be able to help with funding for the repairs, and he needs time to repair the roof, and she would like to sell the property. Dr. Ingersoll commented that Ms. McFadden could sell the house “as is” and the next buyer can subtract the costs from the value of the property. The property can not sit with the blue tarp on the roof. * Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #62357, 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. Stickles 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 61018 620 Coconut Ave., Port St. Lucie Jay P. Singh, S/A th 61201 So. Hgwy. #1, Port St. Lucie Pine Summit, LLC, 1831 SW 7 Ave., Pompano Beach 61801 1101 Sager Ave., Fort Pierce Wayne & Beverly Larsen (TO HAVE BEEN) 62333 13125 S. Indian River Dr., Jensen Beach Manuel Martinez & Barbara Labourdette, S/A 60265 16 Sovereign Way, Fort Pierce Carole Thew (TR), S/A thth 62789 1407 N. 37 St. Fort Pierce Thomas J. Mullins, 350 65 St., Brooklyn, NY 11220 61675 7707 James Rd., Fort Pierce Anthony C. & Suzanne C. Manning, S/A 62010 617 Ash St., Port St. Lucie Kathryn M. Gorman & Elizabeth Lamont 40 Chrisken Dr., Glenmount, NY 12077 62420 2606 Gray Twig Lane, Fort Pierce Patricia & Charles E. Hill, Jr., S/A Page 6 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 ? 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 are in default and if they do not appear to contest the violations against them that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as set forth on the agenda. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. I. FINE HEARING: Case #59031, Location of Violation, 2603 Rolyat Rd. Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Michael D. Sesco, (S/A). No one was present to represent Michael Sesco. Mr. Brome submitted photos dated 6/12/08 through 2/9/09. This case was continued from the June, 2009 Code Enforcement Board meeting and found in default in violation of Section 11.09.01, Building and Sign Permits – obtain a permit for the roof. Mr. Brome explained Mr. Sesco appeared before the Board for the first meeting, there is a contractor involved who was called before the Construction Licensing Board to explain the circumstances. A permit was pulled and rejected because of the pitch of the roof. As of 8/5/09 the property remains in violation. The Board discussed the case, selling the house with the violation existing and protecting future owners. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to case #59031 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 June 2, 2009, with the maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case. ** Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Companion Cases Case #61501 and Case #61515, Location of Violation, 561 Angle Road, Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, INCOM Properties 2206, Inc., 855 Kings Highway, Fort Pierce, Fl. Peter Ingraldi, 843 University Ave., Jupiter, Fl., and Gabrielle Germony, 2204 Vision Drive, Palm Beach Gardens, Fl. were sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Williams reviewed the two companion cases found in default at the April 2009 Code Enforcement Board meeting. Case #61501 had violations to Section 11.05.00, Procedure for obtaining development permits, and Section 1-12-17 – Payment of tax prerequisite to engaging in Business; Case #61515 had violations to Section 8.00.01, Accessory uses and structures, and Section 7.09.04(c) Parking area interior landscaping. Mr. Ingraldi provided an update on the property and the progress they have made regarding the removal of trucks that Mr. Porter parked on the property and his eviction. He indicated they needed help to get the violations corrected and the problems solved. Dr. Ingersoll asked that the Board be provided with all the paperwork, legal and otherwise, in order to clear up the violations. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith advised of the legal process to date, that an eviction notice was processed and they had to file another one, and staff understood the difficulty of the cases and would like to be kept updated. The eviction process, the present leases for the property and fines were discussed. Mr. Ingraldi reiterated their total support to do everything they could to come into compliance. ? Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #61515 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination that the case be continued to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of November 4, 2009. ** Ms. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Page 7 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 ? Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #61501 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination that the case be continued to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of November 4, 2009. ** Ms. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. th Case #59439, Location of Violation, Rosarita Ave., North 13 St., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Ronald E. Wright, 1211 Ave. G, Fort Pierce, Fl. No one was present to represent Mr. Wright. Mr. Bunt advised this case was brought forward this month on the septic tank issue. The case has been abated and the septic tank removed, the County surveyor concurred, the property inspected and Ms. MacKenzie-Smith agreed the violation has been abated. ? Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #59439 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the report of staff with regard to the existence of a violation, we determine the violation has been abated and no fine is imposed. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #62100, Location of Violation, 4600 Evergreen Avenue, Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Debra McCutchen, (S/A). No one was present to represent Ms. McCutchen. Ms. Swartzel re-submitted six photos dated 3/2/09 through 7/27/09. This case was brought before the 6/3/09 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section(s) 1-9-19, abandoned property,outside storage and unserviceable vehicles; Section 13.09.00, Article 303.2 Exterior Property maintenance. As of 8/5/09 the property remains in violation. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #62100 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 July 4, 2009, with the maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $150.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Companion Cases: Case #62083, Location of Violation, 5007 Regina Dr., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Irene Sitaras, 907 Boston Ave., Fort Pierce, Fl. No one was present to represent Ms. Sitaras. Ms. Brubaker submitted photos dated 2/26/09 through 8/4/09. This case was brought before the June, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-19 Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles, repair or remove all unserviceable vehicles. The violations of Sections 8.00.03(F), permitted accessory structures and Section 1-9-32(D), excessive overgrowth have been abated. A compliance date of 3/31/09 was issued. Ms. Brubaker has not had contact with the owner, but has had contact with the tenant and discussed ways to correct the violation. As of 8/4/09 the property remains in violation. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #62083 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 July 4, 2009, with the maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #62217, Location of violation, 5007 Regina Dr., Fort Pierce, Fl., Tenant, Shirley Spells, (S/A) Ave., No one was present to represent Ms. Spells. Ms. Brubaker submitted photos dated 2/26/09 through 8/4/09. This case was brought before the June, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-19 Abandoned property, unserviceable Page 8 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 vehicles, repair or remove all unserviceable vehicles. Violations to Sections 8-00-03 (F), permitted accessory structures and Section 1-9-32(D), excessive overgrowth were abated. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #62217 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 July 4, 2009, with the maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #60633, Location of violation, 7406 Coquina, Ft. Pierce, Property owner, Holly Saunders, 5911 Spruce Dr., Fort Pierce, Fl. No one was present to Ms. Saunders. Mr. Counsellor submitted photos dated 6/1/09 through 8/3/09. This case was found in default at the June, 2009 CEB meeting and given until 7/3/09 to come into compliance. The property was found in violation of Section 1-9- 32(D), excessive overgrowth, and Section 1-9-19, abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles. Staff has not had contact with the property owner. As of 8/4/09 the property remains in violation. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #60633 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 July 4, 2009, with the maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $175.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting this case. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. J. REPEAT VIOLATION Companion Cases: Case #63328, Location of violation, 9501 Reserve Blvd., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property owner, MGA LLC, (S/A) Atul Haq, 8248 Mulligan Circle, Port St. Lucie, Fl. was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Representing Mr. Haq was attorney Robert Stone. Ms. Brubaker submitted photos taken 7-12-09 to 8-4-09. This property was brought to the Board on May 6, 2009, and the property owner was found in violation of Section 7.06.01(D), Off-Street Parking and Loading-Change in Use (cease having customers park on other properties, parking is only allowed on your property) and Section 7.09.00 – Landscaping and Screening (cease parking on grass). This case was closed on June 5, 2009 due to the Night Club closing and the parking was stopped and no fine was imposed. Ms. Brubaker and Ms. Williams visited the property on 7/12/09 and again found it in violation of the same two Sections, 7.06.01, and 7.09.00. As of 8/2/09 the property remains in violation. Case #63318, Location of violation, 9501 Reserve Blvd., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property owner, MGA LLC, (S/A) Atul Haq, 8248 Mulligan Circle, Port St. Lucie, Fl. was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Representing Mr. Haq was attorney Robert Stone. Ms. Williams reviewed the violations. On May 6, 2009 the Board found the property owner in violation of Section 3.01.03(S) –CG Commercial General Zoning– a nightclub/bar is not a permitted use in commercial, general zoning – cease operation until a conditional use permit is obtained. On June 6, 2009 the Night Club was closed and no longer in operation and no fine was imposed. On June 11, 2009 Mr. Haq and a new tenant, Mr. Parfait, came in to apply for a new zoning compliance permit for a restaurant and bar under Mr. Parfait’s name. At that time Mr. Parfait was informed that the license was for a restaurant with a bar as an accessory and if he wanted to operate a night club he would have to obtain a Conditional Use permit. On June 26, 2009, Ms. Williams issued the Zoning Compliance Permit. On July 6, 2009 staff received an e-mail from the Sheriff’s Dept., stating there were over 250 people at the Azure Restaurant and Bar on Saturday, July 4, 2009. Page 9 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 Officer Brubaker and Ms. Williams went to the property on July 12, 2009 at 12:30 a.m. and again found the property in violation of Section 3.01.03(S) Commercial, General, operating a night club without first obtaining a conditional use permit. Citations were issued to the new tenants at that time. On July 24, 2009 a Notice of Repeat Violation was issued to the property owner to appear before August 5, 2009 Code Enforcement Board. Officer Brubaker and Ms. Williams again inspected the property on August 2, 2009 and the night club was still in operation. It is staff’s recommendation, based on the overflow of parking, cover charge (a fee is required to enter the establishment), bouncers at the doors, tables and chairs inside are removed to create a dance floor, that the Board finds the property owner as a repeat violator for allowing a night club to be in operation again. Dr. Ingersoll asked how to distinguish between a license for food and bar and a night club bar? Mr. Bunt explained the difference between a restaurant and bar is the food is the main attraction in a restaurant and in a night club food is not the main attraction, it’s either dancing and alcohol as the main attraction. Dr. Ingersoll noted the definition on the citation, “nightclub/bar”, and how is it interpreted. Mr. Bunt said staff’s interpretation is the moment they charge a cover charge and remove the tables for a dance floor, it is no longer a restaurant bar, it is a nightclub bar for dancing and alcohol. Mr. Bunt further explained. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith read the definition for a restaurant in the Land Development Code, “…. any establishment that serves prepared food and beverages for consumption on premises…such establishments may include entertainment which is incidental to the food service character of the use…..” Staff’s position is based on the evidence provided to the Board that what is happening is that the entertainment is no longer incidental, it’s the draw and the reason for this establishment and the reason for the 250 cars in the parking lot and that is why there are bouncers there, that is why there is a cover charge, that is why there are disco lights. We based argument on the entertainment that is no longer incidental, it is now the reason for the establishment. Dr. Ingersoll confirmed they did have an Occupational License for Restaurant; the capacity was questioned. Mr. Bunt said the Fire Marshall sets the capacity. Dr. Ingersoll questioned the square footage of the building and the parking spaces legitimately allowed. Mr. Stone said they were not in violation. He said they are not his customers parking there. Mr. Haq entered into a lease for the building with another party as of June 12, 2009. (A copy of the lease was displayed). That other party has an attorney and will be meeting to discuss the violations. Mr. Haq and MGA no longer has anything to do with operating that business. Dr. Ingersoll confirmed Mr. Haq owned the property. Mr. Haq operated the business prior to June 12, 2009. The citation was dated 7/14/09 and the lease language was very important. Mr. Stone said the property was in foreclosure; the business is still in operation; Mr. Haq tried to operate the business as a restaurant, and it was difficult for him to deal with the other agencies to comply, and he had to quit the business. He was making $200,000 to $300,000 a month and he is making nothing now. He had a food and beverage license to operate, and after a certain time they quit providing food, and then it became a dance floor. Dr. Ingersoll was confused about the divesting of the business and that Mr. Haq had no control. Mr. Stone addressed the prior citations when he operated the bar and restaurant. Mr. Bunt said the tenant is not a repeat violation, that Mr.Haq has been found in repeat violation of the parking and night club issues as a property owner, MGA LLC. Mr. Stickles said it was Mr. Haq’s responsibility for the tenant having a night club with DJs, bouncers, metal detectors, etc., at 3:00 am. Mr. Haq said he discussed it with them and can’t enforce it. Mr. Stickles said he had to get a Conditional Use permit. Mr. Haq said their argument is it is not a night club, it sells food and is a restaurant. Dr. Ingersoll reviewed the citation dates: The 7-14-09 violation was heard on 5-6-09; he leased the operation on 6-12-09. Mr. Stone said he was absolved with the transfer as of 6-12-09 and the prior violations were abated. Mr. Haq is in compliance and the violations are now with the tenant. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith said the tenant has been cited and is going to court, they have a license for the restaurant and bar only. The Occupational License was discussed. Page 10 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 Mr. Bunt discussed the abatement and said the ABT with the State removed Mr. Haq’s alcohol license and he was closed down in June. He subleased to the tenant who opened up 7/4/09, the abatement occurred when the Club was shut down. Parking is being used on other properties, on the right of way including the Mobil Station and the roadways. Dr. Ingersoll went back to the Land Development Code, and a requirement for a barrier between contiguous property for commercial zoning, and asked how it was possible to go on to another piece of property. Discussion ensued on parking on property that isn’t available and how to control it, and the Code (read into record) coming in and applying for a revised site plan to add to parking, security, a landscaping/barrier requirement, square footage for parking spaces, and towing of vehicles. There were no complaints when the property was formerly Johnnie Dee’s Restaurant. Mr. Stone argued the different requirement issues of a Club and restaurant were not defined, he thought they should wait on the decision and outcome of the law suit. Ms. Mackenzie Smith confirmed that Mr. Haq stopped operating the business on 6/5/09 because he lost his liquor license and other issues. He confirmed that he was not legally allowed to sell alcohol; the tenants now occupying the business are (Cooper) a DJ and (Parfait) a Chef /Cook, both known to Mr. Haq and they were there when he ran the night club. Concerning the security force Mr. Haq said the problems began when the crowd came in from Fort Pierce. The same group providing security for the tenants was discussed. He said the security was not his business, when he goes to the Club he goes to the bar and patio. Concerning the commercial lease, Ms. Mackenzie Smith confirmed with Mr. Haq that he drafted it, that there were no restrictions in the lease advising about not operating as a night club, or advising them on parking issues. Mr. Haq said those restrictions were wrong so he did not put them in if they were not legal. She asked what he did put in the lease to terminate it if the tenants did not comply with the laws and the Code. Mr. Stone said if they violate the law, State law, that will terminate the lease, they were advised orally about parking and they were not operating a night club. Dr. Ingersoll reiterated that the citation language was not clear for the off street parking, and under the landscape barrier. Also a night club bar is not permitted in commercial general zoning, he wanted to ask what is the zoning they are in, and what are the conditions, specifications allowed in that zoning and he wasn’t clear on that at all. Mr. Haq said he was not making the customers park illegally. Mr. Bunt reiterated this is a repeat violation, and staff is bringing to the Board the same violation with the same evidence which the Board found in violation when they brought it before them, and that hasn’t changed; because this is a business in a commercial, general zoning; if they promote their business and there is not enough parking for their customers it is the property owner’s responsibility to prevent them from parking on required landscaping. Mr. Haq may not be personally running the business but he is still the property owner, and he is still responsible under State Law for what is going on, on the property. Discussing the lease, he knows it is wrong, and he knows they are operating this, he should stop it. Discussion continued. We are taking care of the other issues with the new tenant, but by previous ruling by this Board, Mr. Haq is the repeat violator and the reason he is here today. Mr. Stone reiterated Mr. Haq had leased the place and he advised the two lessees to admonish the people that they were violating the law, and they couldn’t do it. Dr. Ingersoll heard what staff had to say and his decision may change when he hears the facts. He went back to the last case this Board lost and wanted to see more on actual law and facts. Mr. Stickles reviewed the lease and referenced #23 to immediately terminate the lease. He heard lots of testimony and there were many benchmarks for operating a night club when they heard it and it was still a night club. Ms. Mackenzie Smith said they were meeting with the tenants but did not have a court date yet. Staff was not opposed if the Board wanted to continue these cases and decide what to do after the meeting on Friday. Discussion ensued on continuing both cases. Ms. Monahan questioned when the bouncers came on. Mr. Haq said they arrived a 9:30 p.m. and left at 2:00 a.m., when asked, he couldn’t recall any other restaurants hiring security and bouncers, but mentioned another night club. Page 11 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 Mr. Fogg believed this wouldn’t have taken place if the County had some teeth in the law that without an Occupational License you don’t open the door. Licenses can’t be transferred from one business to another and this would be closed by the Sheriff’s Office. It was his opinion the parking situation was a repeat violation, Ms. Monahan said he owns the property and the buck stops with him. With a repeat violation of Codes, he should be supervising his tenants and letting them know over and over again that they should not be putting him in a repeat violation situation. As an owner he needs to make certain they are not running a night club and he has not done that, and these are repeat violations. Nothing has changed. Mr. Stickles went back to the original citation to MGA as the Property Owner, not as the tenant. This repeat is for the property owner, nothing has changed. Mr. Haq explained they took his license away and he subleased the operation to the tenants. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #63328 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing the facts in the case and testimony and report of staff regarding the violation previously committed has been repeated, and considering the gravity of the violations and the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violations and any previous violations we make the following determination: a fine of $500.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 12, 2009 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00 and a cost of $175.00 shall be imposed for the cost of prosecuting the case. ** Ms. Monahan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Ms. Monahan-yes; Mr. Fogg-yes; Mr. Hofmann-no; Mr. Taylor-yes; Mr. Stickles-yes; Mr. Williford-yes; Dr. Ingersoll-no. The motion carried 5-2. Mr. Hofmann and Dr. Ingersoll opposed. Case #63318 (Companion Case – previously read into the record). Mr. Stickles discussed the lease in place with language of running a night club and there was no reference to law or Code. Dr. Ingersoll commented on the lease (displayed) and he referenced terms and conditions. Further discussion and argument ensued. ? Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #63318 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing the facts in the case and testimony and report of staff regarding the violation previously committed has been repeated, and considering the gravity of the violations and the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violations and any previous violations we make the following determination: a fine of $500.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 12, 2009 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00 and a cost of $175.00 shall be imposed for the cost of prosecuting the case. ** Ms. Monahan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Ms. Monahan-yes; Mr. Fogg-yes; Mr. Hofmann-yes; Mr. Taylor-yes; Mr. Stickles-yes; Mr. Williford-yes; Dr. Ingersoll-no. The motion carried 6-1. Dr. Ingersoll opposed. K. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None. K. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: None. L. OTHER BUSINESS: None. . M. STAFF BUSINESS: None. N. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. Page 12 of 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD August 5, 2009 ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. _____________________________ ______________________ Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date _____________________________ _______________________ Mary F. Holleran, Specialist Consultant Date Page 13 of 13