Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-03-2010 MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING February 3, 2010 - 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............................................................................................... ........Ralph Fogg .............................................................................................................................Ray Hofmann .............................................................................................................................Margaret Monahan .............................................................................................................................Wes Taylor .............................................................................................................................Mitchell Williford Board Attorney .....................................................................................................Jack Krieger ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Assistant County Attorney .....................................................................................Katherine Mackenzie-Smith Code Compliance Manager ..................................................................................Chris Lestrange Code Enforcement Supervisor ..............................................................................Dennis Bunt Contractor Licensing Investigator ..........................................................................Monica Barrios Code Enforcement Officer ...................................................................................Melissa Brubaker Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Lynn Swartzel 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 9:01 a.m., by Dr. Ingersoll. B. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag. C. ROLL CALL The Board Secretary called the roll and everyone was present except Ms. Monahan who arrived after roll call. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 6, 2010 ? Mr. Stickles made a motion to accept the minutes of January 6, 2010 as presented . ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. E. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 Chris Lestrange, Dennis Bunt, Monica Barrios, Melissa Brubaker, Chris Counsellor, Mark Fowler, Lynn Swartzel, and Danielle Williams were sworn in. F. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Hofmann pulled Case #46629 and asked for background and discussion. Mr. Bunt explained the case was noticed on 8/31/06 and given a correction date of 10/31/09. It was cited for construction of a dock without a permit. The case was brought to the Board 11/07. Mrs. Fender abated the violation on 11/09/09 and was represented by her sons. A request for a fine reduction to zero was denied. ? Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #46629 that the Code Enforcement Board determine that the fine of $10,125.00 be reduced to $5,000.00 plus $125 for the cost of prosecuting the case shall not be reduced. Mrs. Fender must pay the fine within 30 days or the fine will revert back to the original fine of $10,125.00. Dr. Ingersoll advised that the actual papers for reducing the fine might not be signed within 30 days. Mr. Hofmann agreed to extend the time to 90 days. ? Amending his original motion Mr. Hofmann extended the time for payment of the fine to 90 days. Mr. Stickles said he heard from staff and wanted to hear from Mrs. Fender before reducing the fine, since the violation has been abated. Dr. Ingersoll remembered the case and he agreed with the reduction. Ms. Monahan seconded the motion and it carried 7-2. Mr. Williford and Mr. Stickles opposed. ** * Mr. Hofmann made a motion to approve and accept the cases on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. ** Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Rescind Findings of Fact and Order Imposing Fine/Lien Case No. Holly Saunders 60633 Request For Fine Reduction Case No. Sarah Fender 46629 G. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name____________ 64658 Lot Next to 3512 Ave. F, Fort Pierce Larry Masters 64659 Lot Next to 3516 Ave. F, For Pierce Larry Masters VIOLATION CASES HEARD: Case #57061, Location of violation, 10725 S. Ocean Dr., Lot 22, Jensen Beach, Fl., Property Owner(s), Hubert Alvarez & Helen R. Matos-Alvarez, 4511 SW 131 Terrace, Miramar, Fl. 33027. Hubert Alvarez was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Barrios submitted 2 photos dated 2/11/08 and 1/22/10. She reviewed the history of the case, which was cited for a violation to Section 11.05.01- Building and Sign Permits (Please obtain a permit for the deck with rails). A Page 2 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 compliance date of 3/22/08 was issued. Because the letter sent on 2/19/08 was returned undeliverable, a new compliance date of 6/11/08 was issued. The property was posted on 1/23/09 due to undeliverable mail. Mr. Alvarez requested an extension to allow for a correction. He does not live in Jensen Beach, and he communicated with staff and said he needed to find an architect and a contractor. As of 7/14/09 no permit was applied for and he was scheduled to appear at the CEB meeting of 9/2/09. On 8/28/09 staff received a fax from the contractor RV Construction & Remodeling, with a copy of a contract. The case was removed from the agenda to allow the contractor to pull the permit, which was applied for on 9/28/09. On 10/09/09 the Zoning Dept. voided the permit due to set back and encroachment issues. A letter was mailed to the contractor. On 1/22/10 the property was posted. On 2/2/10 a call was received from the owner stating he would remove the structure but would need more time as he is renting the property until April. As of 2/2/10 the structure remains without a permit and staff has been working on the case for over a year. Three extensions were given due to the problems with the mail. Mr. Alvarez agreed he was in violation and said he would remove it in May since he has tenants renting until the end of April. There were delays due to the problems with his address and he did not receive the certified mail, no mail was received until April, 2009. This is only his vacation home. He has corrected his permanent address to Miramar. Mr. Bunt advised that the mailing address on the tax records was the Jensen Beach address. Mr. Alvarez said when they closed on the property that was his mailing address. He plans on removing the structure but didn’t want to inconvenience the renters. He spent money for a contractor and plans to build it, and only just became aware two months ago that it has to come down because of the set back zoning violation. Discussion ensued. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #57061 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 March 5, 2010 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 #61954, Location of violation, 1100 N. Rock Rd., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Prime Realty Capital LLC, 790 Hillbrath Dr., Lantana, FL 33462. Representing Prime Realty, Dennis Murphy of Culpepper & Terpening, th Inc. 2980 S. 25 St., Fort Pierce, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Case #61957, Location of violation, Lot next to 1100 N. Rock Rd., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Prime Realty Capital LLC, 790 Hillbrath Dr., Lantana, FL 33462. Representing Prime Realty, Dennis Murphy of Culpepper th &Terpening, Inc., 2980 S. 25 St., Fort Pierce, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Williams submitted four photos. During an inspection on 2/23/09 she found the above properties in violation of Section 3-01-03(A) – AG-1 Agriculture, (Please cease storing dumpsters, trailers and portable toilets on the vacant piece of property as it is not permitted in Agricultural, 1 (AG-1) zoning). A compliance date of 3/18/09 was issued. A letter was received asking for more time to apply for a zoning change and the application was not accepted. As of 2/2/10 the property remains in violation. Mr. Murphy withheld his comments on being in violation. He explained the issues concerning the purchase of the two pieces of property, one piece had Industrial zoning with a mining permit since 1977, and the other parcel was zoned AG-1. In 2008 a contractor was hired to close out the mine on the Industrial property. On 2/13/09 they submitted an application for a change of zoning for all the property to bring it into the Industrial –IS zoning district. On 2/25/09 they received notice of violation from the County. They prepared an application for change of zoning on 3/16/09 and on 3/19/09 asked the County to put the zoning application on hold pending changes. On 7/18/09 they submitted a Land Use amendment application and change of zoning for 9.9 acres to have rezoned to industrial to accommodate storage material, containers and portable toilets and other business activities proposed on the property. Dr. Ingersoll heard that 5.5 acres was AG-1, and the balance was Industrial, and that the County’s efforts were correct with the zoning violations. He also heard the efforts of Prime Realty to establish a business, some day. That they put the business out there and are filing enough paperwork until they can get what they want, but it was Page 3 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 started very clearly in violation, they know that it is in violation by the fact they are applying for paperwork to come into compliance. Mr. Murphy said they didn’t know the rules changed for filing applications for zoning and land use – in the past they did not have to follow recorded or registered property lines. He provided an example. He discussed uses allowed and a zoning line not following a property line. They now have to follow a property line. They filed application #3 for the industrial designation on only 5+ acres. They will come back in the future on the other piece. They received notice on 12/14/09 from the County that the pending application would not be processed because of the Code violations. Dr. Ingersoll asked how many applications they would have had to file if the owners followed the zoning designations of the property. Mr. Murphy said the first set should have done it, but their future use for the property is not contained storage which requires reclassification. Dr. Ingersoll commented on rezoning after the property is purchased, knowing the zoning designation at the onset, and what use is allowed on the property. Mr. Murphy said the applicant is trying to resolve the violation, he is making an effort to correct it and they can’t get to the review body. Mr. Murphy agreed they were in violation, he requested they withhold a final determination until they find out if they can go through the process. It was Dr. Ingersoll’s opinion this was an abortion of the process, they first go through a rezoning of the land, it’s not to set up business first and find out how they can make it fit. That Prime Realty is collecting storage fees on the AG-1 property. Mr. Stickles asked the timeframe to get it resolved. Mr. Murphy did not know. Dr. Ingersoll said $250 a day is nothing to this company running industrial trucks taking off dumpsters and port-a-lets, making a profit off an AG-1 piece of property. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #61954 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 March 5, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. Please take notice that on st 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 recommended the date be changed to March 5, 2010. Mr. Fogg agreed. ** Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #61957 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 March 5, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. Please take notice that on st 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 recommended the date be changed to March 5, 2010. Mr. Fogg agreed. ** Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fogg explained his motion - he believed there are many things happening in the County, when people open up a business and are operating in violation, that’s wrong, he lives here, and they should care as he does. Case #63025, Location of violation, 1000 Kings Highway, Fort Pierce, Property owner, Shirley Bemenderfer(TR), 1402 Delaware Ave. Fort Pierce, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Dr. Ingersoll noted the property was in violation previously; Ms. Bemenderfer indicated it was for a different violation. Ms. Williams submitted six photos dated 6/6/09 to 2/2/10. During an inspection on 4/9/09 she found the property to be in violation of Section 11.05.00 – Procedure for Obtaining Development Permits – (please bring the property up to code in order to apply for a zoning compliance permit which is required for a storage facility and for parking the commercial vehicles and equipment). Staff received a letter dated 5/5/09 from Mrs. Bemenderfer stating she was using the property for storage of agricultural products. Staff informed her she was in business and was in violation. As of 2/2/10 the property remains in violation. Conditional use of the property was discussed. Page 4 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 Ms. Bemenderfer did not believe she was in violation, and explained the soil she was storing on her property was a lime product taken from the City water treatment plant. It is used to balance the ph factor for soil for agricultural uses. The elevated product that’s stored will be removed when the growing season is prepared for fertilization for the summer, March through June. Ms. Monahan clarified that you can’t sell an agricultural product in AG-1. Dr. Ingersoll said you need a special permit to process lime from water treatment. Ms. Williams explained you can’t run a business in AG-1, she’s trucking in a product and using the facility for storage and it’s not a permitted use. Ms. Bemenderfer said the soil is not stored there, it’s just there temporarily. Dr. Ingersoll advised that if it’s there temporarily it is being stored. Ms. Bemenderfer referred to the Code -07, under soil preparation. Mr. Bunt clarified, if you own property in AG-1 and grow products and have it there, it is allowed. The fact that this is not a personal use in AG-1 and the business is being run off this property, then Ms. Bemenderfer has to meet the requirements of an Occupational License. In that category the soil end of it is considered Conditional Use, meaning she has to have a primary use and there are conditional ones that goes along with it. That’s the distinction. A property owner in AG can use and produce vegetables, and sell them. She is not producing the product, she is bringing it into her property, selling it and that’s where the violation comes in. Ms. Bemenderfer explained she has met with Growth Management many times trying to resolve issues on the property. In order to obtain a Conditional Use permit she would have to pay over $100,00 to put in a parking lot, put in a side walk, do a landscape design, upgrade the building, and she doesn’t have that kind of money. She explained to Growth Management what she wanted to do with the property and was told as long as her equipment was used in the delivery of an agricultural product she can park along the AG-1 zoned property. Dr. Ingersoll confirmed that Ms. Bemenderfer met with Growth Management, was aware that she had to get the property into compliance and aware she was in violation about using the property. Ms. Bemenderfer said she has met with them many times. Linda Pendarvis, Growth Management advised the Board she met twice with Ms. Bemenderfer to discuss her situation and again during her development review committee meeting when they went into detail as to what she needed to submit for a Conditional Use permit to allow for the retail sales of agricultural supplies. Ms. Bemenderfer said the material is not sold, they charge for the service. Ms. Pendarvis said they gave Ms. Bemenderfer an application when she came to the meeting and there was no further follow-up, she understood what was required. Ms. Bemenderfer said she understood but it was over $100,000 to open the door for business. She doesn’t want to do business, she is parking her vehicles and storing the material temporarily and has no funds for Conditional Use. Mr. Stickles confirmed Ms. Bemenderfer had information on the AG-1 zoning district, and referred to the Code for permitted uses, and the requirements to comply. She said she did not have the money to comply for Conditional Use. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #63025 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 April 1, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. Please take notice that on st 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. Dr. Ingersoll recommended Ms. Bemenderfer make an appointment with the staff to discuss compliance. th Case #64356, Location of violation, 5575 Altman Road, Fort Pierce, Property owner Raul I. Macias, 2613 S. 29 St., Fort Pierce, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. He explained that 5575 Altman was not his home address. Mr. Fowler submitted three photos dated 10/20/09 to 2/2/10. During his first inspection on 10/20/09 the property was found in violation of Section 3.01.03(I) – RS-3 Residential, S/F (cease storing heavy equipment/trucks on the property as it is not permitted in this residential zoning district), Section 7.10.14(A)-Commercial Vehicles and Semi- Page 5 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 Trailers – (cease storing heavy equipment/trucks and trailers on your property as they are not permitted in a residential zone) and Section 8.01.00 –Home Occupations (cease storing heavy equipment/trucks and trailers on your property – a zoning compliance is required for home occupations, residential districts are permitted phone and office use only). A compliance date of 12/13/09 was issued. He spoke with Mr. Macias and discussed ways to correct the violation. The property has been inspected three times and the violation still exists. Mr. Macias agreed he was in violation. He didn’t know about the zoning, he was storing his truck on a 2 ½ acre lot, and using the property for commercial storage. The vehicles are used in disaster relief and clean up, the commercial trailer/vehicle is 48 ft. long. Dr. Ingersoll explained the use on the property and what was allowed. Commercial vehicles are determined by weight. The Board discussed the violations and finding property to store commercial vehicles. Mr. Macias asked for more time to get the vehicles stored. * Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to Case #64356 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 May 5, 2010 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 #64394, Location of violation, 5606 Altman Road, Fort Pierce, Property owner Roy A. Robertson, P.O. Box 6, th Fort Pierce. David Selph, 103 S. 35 St., Fort Pierce, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. He explained that he worked for Roy and appeared on his behalf. Mr. Fowler submitted six photos dated 10/21/09 to 2/2/10. During his first inspection on 10/21/09 the property was found in violation of Section 1-9-32(D), Public Nuisance (excessive overgrowth), Section 1-9-19-Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles, etc., (repair or remove all unserviceable vehicles and remove outside storage of items, materials, junk and debris) Section 13.00.01,(Article 103.5) Adopting Standard Building Code-Unsafe Structure: obtain the necessary permit and remove dilapidated wooden structure from the property, and Section 13.09.00 – Exterior property maintenance- paint the bare wood and trim on wooden addition. A compliance date of 11/27/09 was issued. Until yesterday he had no contact with anyone regarding the property. The property has been inspected four times and the violation still exists. Mr. Selph said they first became aware last week of the violations and agree they are in violation. He will try to take care of the smaller violations and Roy will take care of the bigger ones. They are trying to run a business and asked for more time to comply. ? Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to Case #64394 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 April 7, 2010 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 the motion. The Board discussed giving the same date to comply as the previous case. A voice vote was taken. Ms. Monahan-no; Mr. Fogg-no; Mr. Hofmann-yes; Mr. Taylor-no; Mr. Stickles-no; Mr. Williford-yes; Dr. Ingersoll-no. The motion failed 5-2. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64394 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 May 5, 2010 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. Page 6 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 ** Mr. Fogg seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken: Ms. Monahan-yes; Mr. Fogg-yes; Mr. Hofmann- yes; Mr. Taylor-yes; Mr. Williford-yes; Mr. Stickles–yes; Dr. Ingersoll-yes. The motion carried unanimously. Case #64402, Location of violation 220 Boyd Road, Fort Pierce, Property Owner, MCV Properties, Inc., Attn. Frank thnd Vega, 3523 NW 116 St., Miami, Fl., 33167. Rupert Koblegard, III, Esq., representing Mr. Vega, 200 S. 2 St., Suite #201 Fort Pierce, Fl. 34950 Mr. Fowler submitted three photos dated 10/23/09 to 2/2/10. During Officer Williams first inspection on 10/2/09 the property was found in violation of Section 8.00.01- Accessory Uses and Structures, please remove the RV and any other accessory structures/vehicles from the property as they are not permitted unless there is a primary structure on the property. A compliance date of 11/16/09 was issued. There has been no contact with the owner. The property has been inspected three times and the violation still exists. Mr. Koblegard agreed his client was in violation, the Site Plan is approved and going ahead with construction at the site, and the conceptual design for landscaping has been approved. Dr. Ingersoll explained while that was good, unless there is a permit for the building he can’t have an accessory on the property. The timeframe for the permit is expected within 30 to 60 days. Ms. Mackenzie Smith said staff would agree to continue this case for 30 days and to monitor the progress regarding the permit. Discussion ensued. There is no Occupational License on the property. ? Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #64402 that the Code Enforcement Board continue this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of March 3, 2010. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #64742, Location of violation, 2602 Juanita Ave., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Bessie M. and Joseph D. Flemming, S/A, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Swartzel submitted three photos dated 12/11/09 to 2/2/10. During her first inspection on 12/11/09 the property was found in violation of Section 1-9-19, Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles, etc – (repair or remove any unserviceable vehicles). A compliance date of 12/28/09 was issued. She has had contact with the owner to discuss ways to correct the violation. As of 2/2/10 the property remains in violation. Mr. Flemming moved the car, which is his sons, to the back yard yesterday and he’s trying to get someone to fix it. He asked for an extension to come into compliance. ? Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #64742 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 May 7, 2010 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. 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 64230 180 SE Serenata Ct., Port St. Lucie Keith Decker & Kevin Mullen, 422 SE Lamon Ln.,PSL 64290 4906 Palm Dr., Fort Pierce Marie C. Turbe 64416 3005 Cortez Blvd., Fort Pierce Cecil Jean-Baptiste 64219 4901 San Diego Ave., Fort Pierce Alphonso E. Rowe 64693 1008 Shore Winds Dr., Fort Pierce Shore Winds 1008 LLC, c/o Sheppard Faber, Esq. P.O. Box 331972, Miami, Fl 33233 64739 3101 Kingsley Dr. Fort Pierce Frank Rossi, 199 Jeffrey Ln., Fort Pierce 64765 2608 Bennett Dr., Fort Pierce Patsy P. Collins 63546 5606 Fort Pierce Blvd., Fort Pierce Nicholas J. Antonas, 411 N. US #1, Fort Pierce Page 7 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 ? 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 #54616, Location of Violation, 21306 Glades Cut-off Road, Port St. Lucie, Property Owner, Basmati Niranjan, S/A, was sworn in by Ms. Walls. This case was continued from January 6, 2010 CEB meeting. Ms. Barrios provided two photos dated 11/23/09. This case was brought before the October 7, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in violation of Section 11.05.01- Building and Sign Permits. Please obtain a permit for the structure behind the house to cover the blocks and windows and obtain a permit for the guest house with screen enclosure. At the Board meeting in October an extension was given to 12/31/09 to obtain a permit before construction. A permit for the pole barn was applied for on 10/27/09 and the permit for the guest house was applied for on 11/6/09. At the January 6, 2010 meeting both permits were on pending status waiting for review comments to be addressed. On 2/1/10 the permit for the pole barn was issued, the permit for the guest house is still pending. Ms. Niranjan called on the status of the permit for the guest house, and was told it was not ready because of engineering paper work, that it needs to get corrected, and she needs more time. Mr. Bunt confirmed that Ms. Niranjan was working with staff and explained the additional work that was needed. Staff had no objection to giving her more time as the permit was in. Ms. Niranjan requested 60 days as she was leaving to visit sick family members on 2/8/10 and would not be available. Staff had no objection. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #54616 that the Code Enforcement Board continue this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of April 7, 2010. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #61539, Location of Violation, 6201 Oleander Ave., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Karen and Edward A. June, Jr., S/A. Edward June was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Barrios provided two photos dated 1/15/09. This case was brought before the December 2, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in violation of Section 11.05.01- Building and Sign Permits. Please obtain a permit for the concrete columns and he driveway entry walls to include electric). The construction was started without a permit. A compliance date of 2/16/09 was issued. A called was received from Mr. June granting an extension for 30 days. On 3/16/09 another extension was requested by Mr. June as he was working on getting the permit, and the request was granted. A permit was applied for on 11/20/09. On 11/25/09 the zoning department mailed review comments to Mr. June indicating there were issues to address in order to continue with the permitting process. As of 2/2/10 the permit remains pending and the owner is requesting more time to address the comments. The comments involved the height of the wall. Mr. June said he started the electric work without a permit. He is in the process of cutting it down now, he hired someone to do the wall and get a permit, he’s been trying to get the permit and applied 8 times and when it went through the planning review he found that he had to get through zoning. In April, 2009 he came in for the permit, and the zoning issues took all that time. Staff recommended a 60 days extension. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #61539 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 April 15, 2010 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. Page 8 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 Case #60286, Location of Violation, 3409 Sloan Rd., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Maurice Shazier, 2513 S. th 17 St., Bldg. 2, #101, Fort Pierce, Fl. Mr. Shazier was sworn in by Ms. Walls. Ms. Barrios submitted three photos. This case was brought before the November, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 11.05.01- Building and Sign Permits, please obtain a permit for converting the carport into habitable space. A compliance date of 1/05/10 was issued. Mr. Shazier was informed by the Health Dept. that he needed a new septic and pump system. Mr. Shazier said the cost of the new septic and pump system was around $6,000, and he had no cash at that time to put in the new system. He asked the Board to grant him an additional 90 days to come into compliance. The Board agreed that Mr. Shazier had done a commendable job on renovating the property. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #60286 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 1, 2010 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 #60577, Location of violation, 141 N. Naranja Ave., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property Owner, John and Jean Mazako, S/A. No one was present to represent the homeowners. This case came before the December, 2009 CEB meeting and found in default of Section 11.05.01-Time limitations on building permits – (please reactivate and obtain a final inspection for permit #0611-0052, for the addition of bedrooms, bathrooms, porches and garage extensions). Ms. Barrios submitted four photos dated 11/16/09. On 10/14/08 a notice was sent to John and Jean Mazako to reactivate the permit and obtain a final inspection with a compliance date of 11/16/08. On 11/18/08 Mrs. Mazako called to request an extension as her husband was ill, and the extension was granted. On 12/12/08 another extension was granted. On 3/16/09 the permit was reactivated, but the permit expired again on 10/26/09. There has been no communication from the owner. The property was posted on 11/17/09 after a Certified letter was returned undeliverable. On 1/21/10 the permit was reactivated. As of 2/2/10 no final inspection has been received. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60577 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 5, 2010 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. Mr. Fogg said the reason for his motion was to give the homeowners the opportunity to receive a final inspection before the fine starts. Case #61080, Location of Violation, 3515 Sloan Road, Fort Pierce, Property Owner, James V. Lloyd, Jr., 5715 Spruce Drive, Fort Pierce, Fl. No one was present to represent Mr. Lloyd. Ms. Barrios submitted eight photos dated 7/11/08 to 11/4/08. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 11.05.01 – Building and Sign Permits (please have a licensed electrician obtain a permit to bring the wiring up to code – this includes all conduit & loose exterior wiring on both structures in addition to the underground wiring to the structure/water pump in the middle of the property. A compliance date of 1/8/09 was issued. Staff has had contact with the homeowner to discuss corrective measures. A permit was issued as of 1/22/10. The property was in violation for 14 days. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #61080 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff with regard to the existence of a violation, we determine the violations have been abated, and no fine is imposed. ** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Page 9 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 Dr. Ingersoll asked if he pulls a permit, and we just abated the fine, and two months from now the electrician doesn’t do the job,that we can go back and get $500 per day. Mr. Bunt said that was correct. Case #61509, Location of violation, 308 Bridlewood Way, Fort Pierce Fl., Property Owners, William R. Riesman and William Tipton, S/A. No one was present to represent the property owners. Ms. Williams submitted four photos dated 11/30/09 to 2/1/10. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 3.01.03(E)-AR-1 Agricultural-Residential District (please cease running a business from the property as it is not allowed in AR-1 zoning). A compliance date of 1/8/10 was given. She has had no contact with the property owners and as of 2/3/10 the property is still in violation. ? Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #61509 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 January 9, 2010 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 #63784, Location of violation, 2110 Jacobs Road, Fort Pierce Fl., Property Owner, Jerry and Kevin Sauers, 32 East Broad St., Hazelton, Pa., 18202. No one was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Fowler submitted four photos dated 12/1/09 through 2/2/10. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-19 – Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles – (please remove old wooden fence panels, building materials, debris, etc., from the property) and Section 13.09.00 Article 302.7 – Exterior Property Maintenance – (Accessory Structure: please repair the damaged sections of the fence). A compliance date of 1/8/10 was given. The property has out of state ownership, significant progress has been made. As of 2/2/10 the property is still in violation. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #63784 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 January 9, 2010, 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 6-1. Ms. Monahan opposed. rd Case #64029, Location of violation, 1107 S. 33 St., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Yosef A. Musleh, 5841 NW Drill Court, Port St. Lucie, Fl. No one was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Fowler submitted four photos dated 9/23/09 through 2/2/10. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) – Public Nuisance (excessive overgrowth), Section 13.00.01 (Article 103.5) Adopting Standard Building Code – (Unsafe structure: secure building, be sure all doors and windows are closed and not accessible), Section 13.08.00 – Standard Housing Code, Article 302.7, (Accessory Structure: repair, replace, remove damaged chain link fence), Section 1- 9-19 Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles- remove boxes, litter, furniture, items, etc.,) and Section 7.05.09 – House and Building Numbers – house numbers required and need to be at least 4” in height and visible from the street. A compliance date of 1/8/10 was issued. As of 2/2/10 the property is still in violation. Mr. Fowler has not had contact with the property owner, the structure is a business, grocery store and house which is unoccupied. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64029 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 January 9, 2010, 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. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Page 10 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 th Case #64072, Location of violation, 3433 S. 7 St., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, John Manos, 1129 Mariposa Ave., Coral Gables, Fl. No one was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Fowler submitted five photos dated 9/21/09 through 2/2/10. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) – Public Nuisance (excessive overgrowth), Section 13.00.01 (Article 103.5) Adopting Standard Building Code – (Unsafe structure: secure building, be sure all doors and windows are closed and not accessible). A compliance date of 1/8/10 was issued. As of 2/2/10 the property is still in violation. The unsafe structure and electrical problems were discussed. Mr. Bunt said it is a duplex and staff will check on it. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64072 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 January 9, 2010, 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 #63421, Location of violation, 248 Airoso Blvd., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property Owner, Candace A. Coombs, S/A. No one was present to represent the property owner. Ms. Brubaker submitted three photos dated 8/7/09 through 2/2/10. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) – Public Nuisance (excessive overgrowth). A compliance date of 1/8/10 was issued. Ms. Brubaker has not had contact with the owner and as of 2/2/10 the property is still in violation. The house is in foreclosure, the bank gave it back to the previous owner, and it is vacant. ? Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #63421 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 January 9, 2010, 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 #63639, Location of violation, 210 Banyan Dr., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property Owner, James J. and Phyllis R. Vera, S/A. No one was present to represent the property owner. Ms. Brubaker submitted four photos dated 8/12/09 through 2/1/10. This case was brought before the December, 2009 Code Enforcement Board and found in default in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) – Public Nuisance (excessive overgrowth). A compliance date of 1/8/10 was issued. Ms. Brubaker has not had contact with the owner and as of 2/2/10 the property is still in violation. This case was similar to the one just heard. Mr. Krieger discussed foreclosures, reaching settlements through mediation, and the properties in legal limbo. ? Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #63639 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 January 9, 2010, 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. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. I. REPEAT VIOLATION HEARING: None. J. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None. Page 11 of 12 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD February 4, 2010 K. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: - None L. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Hofmann commented on Mr. Harrington’s appearance last month during public comment stating his concerns about commercial traffic in that area. Dr. Ingersoll advised the Board had to be clear and could not institute or ask for action. Mr. Krieger concurred and advised that as a Quasi Judicial Board they have to be objective and impartial. They can ask questions about the on-going status, and get an update from staff. They can’t push for enforcement. Mr. Hofmann said he was asking if anything had been done. Mr. Bunt said the case is on-going, and has been for some time. The property is very difficult to see into from the road, and staff has had stakeouts and they drive by. Commercial vehicles have to weigh over 10,000 lbs., pick-up trucks are not defined as commercial vehicles. Mr. Bunt said staff has been in contact with Mr. Harrington and the case is on-going. STAFF BUSINESS: None M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. _____________________________ ______________________ Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date _____________________________ _______________________ Mary F. Holleran, Specialist Consultant Date Page 12 of 12