Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-04-2010 August 4, 2010 - 9:00 am HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS ROGER POITRAS ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA PRESENT Chairman............................................................................................Dr. Dale Ingersoll Board Members................................................................................Ray Hofmann ……………………………………………………………….…………….…Wes Taylor …………………………………………………………………………..…...Mitchell Williford …………………………………………………………………………..…...Phillip Stickles ………………………………………………………………………….…….Margaret Monahan Board Attorney………………………………………………………….…..Jack Krieger STAFF PRESENT Assistant County Attorney…………………………………………...…….Katherine Mackenzie-Smith Building Supervisor……………………………………………………...….Ken Arnold Code Enforcement Supervisor………………………………….………...Dennis Bunt Code Enforcement Officer …………………………………………….....Melissa Brubaker Code Enforcement Officer………………………………………………...Lynn Swartzel Code Enforcement Officer…………………………………………..…….Danielle Williams Contractor License………………………………………………….…..….Monica Vargas-Barrios Board Secretary…………………………………………………………….Debbie Isenhour I. CALL TO ORDER The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by Dr. Ingersoll. II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag. III. ROLL CALL The Board Secretary called the roll and everyone was present except for Mr. Fogg, who has been excused. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 7, 2010 Mr. Hofmann made a motion to accept the minutes of July 7, 2010 as presented . Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Danielle Williams, and Monica Vargas Barrios were sworn in. 1 VI. CONSENT AGENDA Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Case No. John Manos #61016 Joseph G. Miller (Tr.) #54331 Destin Beach, Inc #56509 The Chairman asked if there were any cases the Board wanted to discuss. Mr. Stickles asked to removed Case No. 54331 and Case No. 56509 from the agenda because he wanted to rescue himself. Mr. Krieger advised the Board that if they took the agenda as a whole then Mr. Stickles would have to rescue himself from the entire Consent Agenda. He noted that Mr. Stickles had to vote on the other one. He advised the Board to split the cases up. The Chairman asked the Board if they approved the Consent Agenda for Case No. 54331 and Case No. 56509. Mrs. Monahan noted that she wanted to split the cases up. Krieger advised that Board that they needed to make a motion to approve Case No. 54331 and Case No. 56509 as presented on the Consent Agenda. He noted that Mr. Stickles has rescued himself. The Chairman stated that since no one else had asked to lift the cases for discussion, a motion was needed to approve or disapprove. Mrs. Monahan noted that she would like to lift Case No. 54331 for discussion. She asked if this was the case where the owner could not get a permit for the work that was done to his commercial rental property so he had to evict the tenant in order to abate the problem. Mr. Bunt answered in the affirmative. The Chairman asked if the property owner corrected the original problem that was there. Mr. Bunt answered in the affirmative. He stated that Mr. Miller is asking for a reduction because he corrected the violation. Mrs. Monahan stated that she would be in favor of rehearing the case. She noted that she thought the Board wanted cases abated instead of being fined. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #54331 that the Code Enforcement Board elects to rehear this case at next month’s meeting (scheduled for September 1, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.) or as soon thereafter as may be heard. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. It was noted that Mr. Stickles has rescued himself from this case. The Chairman asked if anyone wanted to discuss Case No. 56509. Mr. Hoffman made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation for the Case No. 56509. 2 Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. It was noted that Mr. Stickles has rescued himself from this case The Chairman asked if anyone wanted to discuss Case No. 61016. Mr. Stickles made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation for Case No. 61016. Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. For the Record: Consent Agenda Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – John Manos – Case #61016 The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation. Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Joseph G. Miller (Tr) – Case #54331 Motion by Mrs. Monahan, Seconded and carried unanimously to rehear this case next month. Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Destin Beach, Inc – Case #56509 The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation. VII. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name rd 63305 2215 N. 53 St., Ft. Pierce Martha Adams th 65738 Lot Next to 2312 N. 44 St., Ft. Pierce Cephus & Jerelean T. Cruickshank 65747 2801 N. A1A, #F, Ft. Pierce Jeffrey R. and Kathleen W. Ball 65749 1006 Shorewinds Dr., Ft. Pierce John H. Nickerson, Jr. 65892 309 Rio Mar Dr., Port St. Lucie Francis V. & Julie A. Martin 65731 1006 Buckeye Dr., Ft. Pierce Josephine Buchanan 65398 4951 Jorgensen Rd., Ft. Pierce Carlos Vega VIOLATION CASES HEARD: Case #5 was heard first on the agenda: Case #64681, Location of violation, 3803 Ave I, Fort, Pierce, Fl., Property Owners, Willie E. and Petrinnia Keith. Willie E. Keith was sworn in by the Board Secretary. Officer Swartzel submitted eight photos. Three photos dated December 3, 2009 and five photos dated July 30, 2010. On Officer Swartzel first inspection on December 3, 2009, she found the property in violation of Section 1-9-19, for having outside storage, Section 1-9-32(D) for having overgrowth, Section 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Article 303.2, and Section 7.05.09(B), House and Building Numbers. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of January 8, 2010. She noted that she has had contact with the property and they discussed ways to correct the violation. On July 7, 2010, she issued a Notice to Appear and as of August 3, 2010, the property still remains in violation. Mr. Keith stated that he was in violation and he has been working to correct it. 3 The Chairman asked if the house is under construction. Mr. Keith answered that he has a roof permit. Mrs. Monahan asked if anyone lived in the house. Mr. Keith answered in the affirmative. The Chairman asked if power is in the house. Mr. Keith answered in the affirmative. The Chairman explained to Mr. Keith that Staff is asking him to remove all items on the property and mow the grass. Mr. Keith noted that he is working on removing the items and he has cut the grass. The Chairman explained that the house needed to be painted and fascia repaired and house numbers needed to be installed. Mr. Keith noted that he is also working on painting the house and he has already purchased the house numbers but he was waiting to paint first. The Chairman asked Mr. Keith if the violations could be corrected in sixty days. Officer Swartzel stated that she has dealt with Mr. Keith for a year and she has given him numerous extensions, however, the property looks the same. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #64681 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by October 8, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $125.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case as of today’s date, August 4, 2010. 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 th 65477 206 N. 40 St., Ft. Pierce Richard C. Walker 65647 210 Olive Ave., Port St. Lucie Alan and Jeanne Collin 65672 142 Castana Ct., Port St. Lucie Ryan J. Mecca 65540 7991 S. US 1, Port St. Lucie EMGI LLC Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to the case read into the record that the Code Enforcement Board enter an Order of Finding against the violator finding the violator in 4 default and if the violator does not appear to contest the violation against him/her that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as set forth on the agenda. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VIII. FINE HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name 64796 128 Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie Sally A. Hosein-Mikati Case #54616, Location of violation, 21306 Glades Cut-Off Rd., Fort, Pierce, FL., Property Owner, Basmati Niranjan. Basmati Niranjan was sworn in by the Board Secretary. Officer Barrios resubmitted two photos dated November 23, 2009. She noted that the case was continued from the April 7, 2010 Code Board Fine Hearing. 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. She noted that the owner, Ms. Niranjan was present at the meeting. On August 22, 2007, a Notice of Violation letter was issued to obtain a permit for the structure behind the house to include the blocks and windows and obtain a permit for the guest house with screen enclosure. A correction dated of September 23, 2007 was given. She noted that a permit was applied for the pole barn on October 27, 2009 and issued on February 1, 2010. The permit for the guest house was applied for on November 6, 2009. The permit for the guest house is on a pending status due to review comments that needed to be addressed. At the April 7, 2010 Fine Hearing, Ms. Niranjan was not present due to having a broken ankle and having to stay in bed. The Board continued the case until today’s meeting. On June 4, 2010, Ms. Niranjan met with her and Joe Cicio, the Plans Examiner. As of today, the permit for the guest house is still pending. The Chairman noted that the permit for the structure behind the house has been abated. Mr. Bunt stated that there are elevation issues on the guest house. She has to raise the guest house to meet the current codes. The Chairman noted that she could mitigate this by tearing down the house. Mr. Arnold noted that she could also convert it back to a garage. Ms. Niranjan stated that she was not the one who enclosed it. She bought it that way. She noted that she will be converting it back to a garage once she obtains the money to do so. Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #54616 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of December 1, 2010. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #65236, Location of violation, 140 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie, FL., Property Owner, Cameron B. Massey. No one was present to represent the homeowner. Officer Brubaker noted that this case was brought before the June 2010 Code Board and found in default. She submitted five photos. One photo dated February 18, 2010, one photo dated April 26, 2010, two photos dated June 1, 2010, and one photo dated July 29, 2010. She noted that during her first inspection, she found the property in violation of Section 1-9-19 for having unserviceable vehicles. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of March 5, 2010. She had no contact with the owner and as of August 3, 2010, the property remains in violation. 5 Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65236 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 10, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #65028, Location of violation, 7180 S US 1, Port St. Lucie, FL., Property Owner, Adobe Corp. No one was present to represent the property owner. Officer Brubaker noted that this case was brought before the June 2010 Code Board and found in default. She submitted five photos. Two photos dated April 9, 2010, one photo dated June 10, 2010, and two photos dated August 2, 2010. She noted that during her first inspection, she found the property in violation of Section 8.02.00 for having a temporary storage unit without a permit, Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage, and Section 13.00.00, Article 103.5 for having an open and unsafe structure. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of February 28, 2010. She had no contact with the owner and as of August 3, 2010, the property remains in violation. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #65028 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 10, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Companion Cases: Case #64601, Location of violation, 14520 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owner, Alfred D. Colaizzi. Alfred and Mary Colaizzi were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Case #65205, Location of violation, 14520 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owner, South Florida Mobile Home Movers, Gene L. Warensford. No one was present to represent the Contractor. Officer Swartzel resubmitted three photos. One photo dated October 17, 2009 taken by Officer Brome and two photos dated May 20, 2010. She noted that this case was brought before the June 2, 2010 Board and found in violation of 11.05.01(A) to obtain a permit for the mobile home tie down or renew the permit and obtain a final inspection. The Board gave until August 2, 2010 to correct the violation. After the June 2, 2010 meeting, she has had many conversations with South Florida Mobile Home Movers and they discussed ways to resolve this issue. On July 29, 2010, South Florida Mobile Home Movers renewed the permit for the third time and rescheduled a final inspection. She stated that Mrs. Colaizzi called her on July 29, 2010 and she advised her that she needed to coordinate with the contractor to schedule the final inspection. On August 2, 2010, she and a Building Inspector went out to the property to do the final inspection. He could not pass it final inspection. She noted that at this time the property remains in violation. The Chairman asked why the final inspection could not pass. 6 Officer Swartzel answered that there were several reasons. The insulation decal submitted did not match with the permit. The Chairman asked if it was the manufacturer wind load and class grade she was referring to. Mr. Arnold answered that the paperwork from the manufacturer did not match with the mobile home. The Chairman asked if the wrong number was put down by the contractor. Mr. Arnold answered in the affirmative. He noted that the contractor has to change out the sticker to match the permit. He stated that the contractor has to do that not the property owner. Officer Swartzel noted that another problem was that the tie down straps is loose and needed to be tightened. The prefab steps needed to be anchored to the ground. The steps in the back needed some fill brought in to maintain a 7” max rise. The sewer pipe must be pitched in the direction of flow the entire way. The conductors feeding the AC must be protected in some type of conduit with proper connectors at disconnect. Mr. Arnold explained that the drain field seal type was disconnected from the connector which caused an open gap and exposed wires. The Chairman asked if that would fall under the scope of the contractor. Mr. Arnold answered in the affirmative. He noted that the electrical, mechanical, etc subs are all under one permit. The Chairman noted that he wants to know what the property owner is responsible for and what the contractor is responsible for. He noted that the property owner has zero control because the contractor pulled the permits with his subs. Officer Swartzel added that there were no address numbers on the home. The Chairman told the property owner that they could bring in gravel to make the grade right, but since they already paid him for it, he would be hardheaded too. Mrs. Colaizzi stated that she did not know the steps needed to be tied down. Mr. Stickles stated that the violation is to obtain a permit for the tie down and renew the permit. He asked if the permit was renewed. Officer Swartzel answered in the affirmative. Mr. Stickles asked how much time he has on the permit before it expires. Officer Swartzel answered that it expires six months from July 29, 2010. Mr. Stickles noted that he does not believe they are still in violation because they still have time to get the inspection done. Mr. Bunt explained that they do have a six month window, but once they are found in violation, a permit cannot be continuously pulled to avoid the violation. He noted that this was the third time they pulled the permit. He stated that the contractor appeared here last month but there were some controversies about him being able to get the work done and there were disagreements between the contractor and the property owner. He stated that the contractor has called 7 numerous times. He believes that the contractor will get the job down because he has called about twenty times in the last few days. The Chairman noted that Stickles gave the Board a nice solution. He showed them how they could split the dates because of the six months horizon. He noted that they could give the contractor thirty days then give the property owner ninety days, which will motivate the contractor to get the job done. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith asked Officer Swartzel to give a little history on the contractor’s frustration on gaining access to the property so that the Board will have that information in order to make the time decision. She answered that the contractor has called her and told her that he cannot get access onto the property. She noted that she has spoken with the property owners and told them that they needed to grant him access. Mrs. Colaizzi stated that he has not called to ask to come unto the property. She noted that there are horses on the property because they rescue horses, so he knows to call her. There is always someone on the property. She was always the one who calls him to ask if he is not going to come over to complete the work. She did her part and he was supposed to finish his. The Chairman stated that it should be easy for the contractor to go out and finish the process. He noted that he will be willing to give them both thirty days, which should give them a wonderful working relationship or an expensive one. It could cost them both five thousand dollars if this is not resolved. The Chairman explained that the fine should have started on August 3, 2010 for both of them. He noted that if the Board gave them more time, they meant it this time. Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64601 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting September 15, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64601 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting September 15, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #65167, Location of violation, 7704 Salerno Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owners, Kurt Runge and Kristen McConnell. No one was present to represent the property owners. Officer Swartzel submitted three photos. One photo dated April 13, 2010 taken by Officer Counsellor, and two photos dated July 29, 2010. She noted that this case was brought before the 8 June 2, 2010 Board and found in violation of 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Articles 304.2 and 301.3. The Board gave until July 9, 2010 to correct the violations. Neither she nor Officer Counsellor has had contact with the property owners and as of August 3, 2010, the property remains in violation. Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to Case #65167 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 10, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #64199, Location of violation, 4000 Ave L, Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owners, Guilfort and Magdadene Dieuvil Cameron B. Massey. No one was present to represent the property owners. Officer Swartzel submitted three photos dated July 30, 2010. She noted that this case was brought before the June 2, 2010 Board and found in violation of 1-9-32(D) for having overgrowth. The case was found in default and the board gave until July 9, 2010 to correct the violations. She has had contact with the property owners and as of August 3, 2010, the property remains in violation. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64199 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 10, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #64554, Location of violation, 7703 Pensacola Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owners, Paul L. & Wanda V. Benson. No one was present to represent the property owners. Officer Swartzel submitted five photos. Two photos dated November 23, 2009 taken by Officer Counsellor, and three photos dated July 29, 2010. She noted that this case was brought before the June 2, 2010 Board and found in violation of 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Articles 302.7, Section 1-9-32(D), overgrowth, and Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage. The case was found in default and the Board gave until July 9, 2010 to correct the violations. Neither she nor Officer Counsellor has had contact with the property owners and as of August 3, 2010, the property remains in violation. Ms. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64554 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 violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting July 10, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 9 Case #65121, Location of violation, 11101 S. Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL., Property Owners, Marc B. and Cathy B. Stiner. No one was present to represent the property owners. Officer Williams requested that the case be continued to the September 1, 2010. She noted that the road has been repaired but Staff is still waiting on the density testing report from the engineer. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65121 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of December 1, 2010. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX. REPEAT VIOLATION HEARING: X. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None XI. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: None XII. OTHER BUSINESS: None XIII. STAFF BUSINESS: Mr. Bunt stated that he wanted the Board to know that if the property is in foreclosure, it will not intentionally be brought before the Board. The Chairman stated that due to the length of the last two meetings, would the county consider thinking about having Board meetings every other month. Mr. Bunt stated that Staff would take that into consideration. The Chairman presented a card on behalf of the Board members to Officer Swartzel. IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m. _________________________ ______________________ Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date __________________________ _______________________ Danielle Williams Date 10