HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-02-2010
MINUTES OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING
June 2, 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
.............................................................................................................................Ralph Fogg
.............................................................................................................................Wes Taylor
.............................................................................................................................Mitchell Williford
Board Attorney .....................................................................................................Jack Krieger
ABSENT -Excused
Vice Chairman…………………………………………………………………………… Phillip Stickles
…………………………………………………………………………………………….. Margaret Monahan
STAFF PRESENT
Assistant County Attorney .....................................................................................Katherine Mackenzie-Smith
Building & Code Regulation Manager ...................................................................Robin Meyer
Building Supervisor ...............................................................................................Ken Arnold
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
Zone Compliance Officer ......................................................................................Danielle Williams
County Engineer ...................................................................................................Michael Powley
Sr. Environmental Planner ....................................................................................Jennifer Evans
Construction Inspector ..........................................................................................Connie Lawson
Board Secretary ...................................................................................................Debbie Isenhour
Board Recorder ....................................................................................................Mary Holleran
* Indicates a motion ** Indicates a vote
*** For the record comment
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 excused Board Members Ms. Monahan and
Mr. Stickles.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 5, 2010
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion to accept the minutes of May 5, 2010 as presented
.
** Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Monica Barrios, Melissa Brubaker, Chris Counsellor, Jennifer Evans, Connie Lawson,
Michael Powley, Lynn Swartzel, and Danielle Williams were sworn in.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
Satisfaction of Lien Case No.
Deana Harris and Tina Poggione Lopez #93-1172
Request for Fine Reduction Case No.
Johnnie Bennett 56427
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion to approve and accept the cases on the Consent Agenda as presented by
staff.
** Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
VII. VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name____________
65192 1211 W. Joy Ln., Fort Pierce Maria A. Campos, J. Jesus Campos Rubio
58667 8945 S. Indian River Dr., Fort Pierce Oris Nelson
63590 12788 NW Mariner Cr., Palm City Driftwood Homes, LLC, Alan B. Morris
64546 10999 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach Hutchinson Shoppes LLC
64547 10999 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach Caps Restaurant Services, LLC
64211 7102 Santa Clear Blvd., Fort Pierce David P. King
64621 5800 Shannon Dr., Fort Pierce Eliot J. Safer (TR)
VIOLATION CASES HEARD:
Case #22 was heard first on the agenda:
Case #65121, Location of violation, 11101 S. Indian River Dr., Fort, Pierce, Fl., Property Owner(S) Marc B. and
Cathy B. Stiner, S/A. Marc Stiner was sworn in by the Board Secretary.
Ms. Williams submitted 10 photos dated 1/8/10 through 6/2/10. On 1./8/10 Inspector Dawson noticed that the
Right-of-way (ROW) was disturbed and the road had been altered. On 2/9/10 a Notice of Violation was issued for
violation of Section 1-17-1-Erection of signs or structures within ROW prohibited –please remove any structures
or obstructions from the public ROW, obtain permit for the work performed on the road in front of the property and
Section 11.05.01-Building and Sign permits, please obtain a permit for construction activity near/on the road in
front of your property. To date the violations have not been corrected.
Mr. Stiner, the property owner was unsure if he was in violation. He said he pulled wire through an existing
conduit under Indian River Drive to connect to his dock. When told he couldn’t do that, he pulled the wire back
out. He pulled a permit for FP& L Service to the east side of the road for the dock that was completed and was
cited in 2009.
The photos displayed were reviewed. Ms. Dawson described what she saw. Mr. Bunt advised what was required
for the ROW, that a permit was required from Engineering for the ROW for traffic regulations and a separate
permit was required for the electrical work. Discussion ensued on what work was done on the property before he
purchased it. Mr. Stiner called the County and asked what kind of permit he needed to pull, and said it wasn’t
clarified. Dr. Ingersoll advised that the permit spells out what is to be done and is site specific. Mr. Bunt explained
he spoke with Mr. Stiner and informed him about the required permits. Ms. Dawson explained the disturbance of
the ROW and that Mr. Stiner couldn’t work on it without a permit. Mr. Powley advised that Engineering required a
ROW permit and a license for a conduit to use the ROW for private purposes. Dr. Ingersoll reiterated what was
required.
Page 2 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65121 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 2, 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.
Mr. Stiner was advised the violation had to be abated by the August 2, 2010 date and to get the required permits.
Case #65236, Location of violation 140 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie, Property owner, Cameron B. Massey, S/A,
was sworn in.
Ms. Brubaker provided four photos dated 2/18/10 through 6/1/10. During her first inspection she found the
property in violation of Section 1-9-19 Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicle, please repair or remove
unserviceable vehicle. A compliance date of 3/5/10 was issued. She has not had contact with the property owner
and as of 6/1/10 the property remains in violation.
Mr. Massey said he sold a vehicle and the violation would be taken care of in 30 days.
Mr. Fogg noticed the grass needed to be cut. Mr. Bunt advised Mr. Massey to call Ms. Brubaker to have her
confirm the red vehicle could start.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #65236 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 July 9, 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.
Companion Cases:
Case #64601, Location of Violation, 14520 Orange Ave., Fort Pierce, Property owner, Alfred D. Colazzi,
S/A.Mary Colazzi was sworn n.
Case #65205, Location of Violation, 14520 Orange Ave., Fort Pierce, Contractor/Violator, South Florida Mobile
nd
Home Movers, Gene L. Warensford, 1022 22 Circle, Okeechobee, Fl. Mr. Warensford was sworn in.
Ms. Swartzel provided three photos dated 10/17/09 through 6/1/10. During an inspection on 11/24/09 the
property was found in violation of Section 11.05/01 A (2)a, time limitations of building permits (Permit #0710-0091
for a mobile home tie down replacement expired.) Please renew the permit and obtain a final inspection. A
compliance date of 12/23/09 was issued. As of 6/1/10 the property remains in violation.
Mr. Warensford, a licensed contractor, knew the tie down was required. Mr. Arnold stated the permit expired with
no inspection done. Mr. Warensford said the permit has been renewed twice, but there is an issue with getting an
inspection from the previous subcontractors work. Mrs. Colazzi explained the subcontractors who did the work
ran off with the money before an inspection was done. She had to pay attorneys and pay for work that needs to
be corrected. Discussion ensued on how to correct the violation. Dr. Ingersoll advised the tie down was required
and they had to get a contractor and get it inspected. Mr. Colazzi’s financial issues were a civil matter.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64601 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 2, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
Page 3 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
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.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65205 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 2, 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.
rd
Case #65141, Location of violation, 2200 N. 43 St., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property owner, Michael Cunningham,
rd
Albert A. Garvin, 3841 NW 173 Terrace, Miami Gardens, Fl. Mr. Garvin was sworn in.
Ms. Swartzel provided two photos dated 5/21/10. During an inspection the property was found in violation of
Section 11.05.01 A (2)a, time limitations of building permits (Permit #0901-0097 for flat roof and carport
extension has expired.) Please renew the permit and obtain a final inspection. A compliance date of 3/9/10 was
issued. As of 6/1/10 the property remains in violation. She has not had contact with the property owner.
Mr. Garvin agreed he was in violation. He asked for more time to correct the violation, Mr. Cunningham is living
with him, and has no job and the responsibilities are being borne by Mr. Garvin. No one is living in the house, and
the power is off. He will need a contractor to correct the violation and he asked for 60 days.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #65141 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 6, 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. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #57357, Location of violation, 2023 St. Lucie Blvd.,Lot #190, Fort Pierce, Fl., Property owner, Whispering
Creek Co-Op Inc., John Guthrie, (S/A) Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the Co-Op was sworn in.
Ms. Swartzel provided one photo dated 5/21/10. During an inspection the property was found in violation of
Section 11.05.01 Building and sign permits. Please obtain a permit for the mobile home. A compliance date of
3/30/10 was issued. Staff had contact with the property owner and discussed ways to correct the violation. Two
permits have been issued on the property. As of 6/1/10 the property remains in violation.
Mr. Guthrie agreed he was in violation. He said the previous administration was incompetent and they are now
trying to get a permit, get it inspected and sell the mobile home. He asked for more time to correct the violation.
He is trying to get a contractor to pull the permit.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #57357 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 2, 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. Fogg explained the reason for his motion was to get the violation correct.
Page 4 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
** Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #60786, Location of violation, 5090 Southwind Trail, Fort Pierce, Fl., Property owner, Inc., Fred G. Snow, Jr.
(S/A) was sworn in.
Ms. Barrios provided seventeen photos including aerials from 2006 and 2009. On 10/9/08 St. Lucie County
Environmental Resources responded to a call regarding unauthorized pruning of Native vegetation at the
property, without first obtaining a vegetation removal permit. This was in violation of Section 11.05.06 Vegetation
Permit Required. A compliance date of 11/14/08 was issued. An After-the-fact permit for the removal of
vegetation was issued on 11/04/08. There are still mitigation requirements that need to be met. As of 6/1/10 the
property remains in violation. Jennifer Evans was present to explain further.
Jennifer Evans, Senior Environmental Planner, Environmental Resources Dept. said that only partial mitigation
was met and she explained the measurement factor and clearing requirement for the number of trees that had to
be planted to correct the violation. If Mr. Snow had obtained a permit prior to clearing the ratio would have been 3
to 1, and it is currently 4 to 1. Photos were displayed.
Mr. Snow indicated that dead trees were up against the house and he cleared 100 trees from 276+ acres. His job
with FP&L transferred him out of State, he had a disabling fracture of his leg, and was in the hospital. He is
rescheduled for surgery. He can’t work and has donated 100 trees.
Discussion ensued on following the County’s Code, which was explained by Ms. Mackenzie-Smith and advised by
Mr. Kreiger. Mr. Bunt explained that staff can’t provide selective enforcement, and can’t set a precedent. Dr.
Ingersoll discussed options for the Board in this specific case.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #60786 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 there is no violation of the Ordinance
and we specifically reference I don’t have the Section’s number but I do have the verbal tree size which I
would put in there as one of the reasons that I (inaudible) this violation.
Dr. Ingersoll said, “what you are saying is that you do not have substantive evidence present to
determine that the penalty meets the crime. We don’t have the substantive evidence to look at to say that
this is the number (inaudible) that it is based on heresay and the Board is unclear on this fact in order to
make a decision” Mr. Fogg agreed.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #59073, Location of violation 3405 Menendez Ave., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property owner, John M. Deck and
Mary B. Deck, S/A. John Deck was sworn in.
Ms. Williams provided a copy of Inspection Card for permit #0504-1316.On 6/16/08 a Notice of Violation was
issued for being in violation of Section 11.05.01 A(2)a, Time Limitation of Building Permits (Please obtain a permit
for windows and hurricane panels or renew expired permit and obtain a final inspection.) The contractor involved
lost his state license. An extension was granted. As of 6/2/10 the property remains in violation.
Mr. Arnold explained the representative from the window company did a report on this. Mr. Deck said they had an
Architect from the County in to discuss the bad work performed by the contractor who lost his state license. The
issues with the contractor and the fines were discussed.
Dr. Ingersoll said the work can’t pass inspection, and they need time to correct the violation. They need to go
back and get it done, and if they need an attorney for the financial issue they should do it. The County is looking
at many permits that have not been finaled and inspected.
Mr. Bunt said they have two avenues, one is to recoup the finances which is a civil matter and the second is to fix
the windows, to get a contractor and fix it. Mr. Deck further explained that he wanted to improve the efficiency of
the house and spoke with staff and is trying to get money back from the State.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #59073 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
Page 5 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by October 4, 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.
**
Mr. Fogg explained the reason for granting the 4-month time frame in order to be fixed. Mr. Bunt suggested Mr.
Deck call on him if there are any questions or information he needs regarding contacts.
Companion Cases:
Case #57620, Location of violation, 3221 S. US Highway #1, Lot, 38, Fort Pierce, Fl. Property owner, Claudie Z.
Sargent (TR), 465 SE Naranja Ave., Port St. Lucie. Charles E. Ray, Esq., represented the property owner.
Case #57727, Location of violation, 3221 S. US Highway #1, Lot, 38, Fort Pierce, Fl. Property owner. Violator,
Richard A. Hammond, 38 Tangerine Ave., Fort Pierce, Fl., was sworn in.
Ms. Williams submitted photos dated 3/14/08 through 5/21/08. On 4/10/08 the property was inspected and found
in violation of Section 11.05.01 – Building and sign permits – Please obtain a permit for the carport and porch. A
compliance date of 5/7/08 was issued. Staff met with the owner and discussed ways to correct the violation. On
3/30/09 an extension was provided. As of 6/2/10 the property remains in violation.
Mr. Ray said this is the Dixie Mobile Home Park and agreed they were in violation. That Mr. Hammond built the
porch and carport after the storm without a permit. They would like to request more time to correct the violation
Mr. Hammond explained they believed that after the hurricanes Governor Jeb Bush asked homeowners to get
repairs done as quickly as possible and that no permits were necessary.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #57620 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 4, 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. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
**
Mr. Bunt asked Mr. Fogg to consider an extra 30 days for case #57620. Mr. Ray added that they might consider
November for the land owner, and October for Mr. Hammond.
?
Mr. Fogg amended his motion in reference to Case #57620 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 3, 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. Taylor seconded and the amended motion carried unanimously
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #57727 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 4, 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
Page 6 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given
compliance date.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
**
The Hall was sounded and Dr. Ingersoll read the names and numbers of the cases of those not present into
the record:
Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor Violator
65028 7108 S. US #1, Port St. Lucie Adobe Corp. 1740 SW St. Lucie West Blvd.
64796 128 Prima Vista Blvd. PSL Sally A. Hosein-Mikati
63468 1207 W. Joy Lane, Ft. Pierce James S. Wauters
64199 4000 Ave. L, Ft. Pierce Guilfort Dieuvil & Magdedene Dieuvil
64835 4073 N. US #1, Fort Pierce Military 6 LC W W R Assoc. LLC
64579 4603 Magnolia Dr. Ft. Pierce John Honea, Connie Jo Strawn
61471 4517 S. Indian River Dr. Ft. Pierce Jimmy F. Ritchie
64554 7703 Pensacola Ave. Ft. Pierce Paul L. & Wanda Benson
65167 7704 Salerno Rd., Ft. Pierce Kurt Runge, Kristen McConnell
?
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 the violators finding the violators in default and if the violators do
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:
Case #64960, Location of Violation, 4707 San Diego Ave., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Lafae N.Bacon, 711
Quincy Ave., Fort Pierce, Fl. No one was present to represent the property owner.
Ms. Swartzel submitted four photos. This case was heard at the April, 2010 CEB meeting and found in violation of
Sections 1-9-19 Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles, (outside storage of items and materials most be
removed and unserviceable vehicles must be repaired) and 13.09.00, Art. 302. – Exterior property maintenance,
clean mildew and mold off and paint the home. A compliance date of 5/7/10 was issued. She has not had
contact with the property owner and as of 6/1/10 the property remains in violation.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #64960 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, the testimony and report of staff that the
violation still exists and after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the
violator to correct the violation and any previous violation, we make the following determination: A fine
of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting May 8, 2010 with the
maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the
case.
** Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #64356, Location of Violation, 5575 Altman Rd., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Raul Macias –S/A. No
one was present to represent the property owner.
Ms. Williams provided three photos. This case came before the February, 2010 CEB and found in violation of
Section 3.01.03(1) RS-3 Residential S/F –cease storing heavy equipment on the property which is not permitted
in this residential zoning district; Section 7.10.14(A) Commercial vehicles and semi-trailers, cease storing on
property not permitted in residential zone; and Section 8.01.00 Home Occupations-A zoning compliance is
required for home occupations-residential districts are only permitted phone and office use. A compliance date of
5/5/10 was issued. Ms. Williams has not had contact with the property owner and as of 6/1/2010 the violations
still exist.
?
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #64356 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the
Page 7 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
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 May 6, 2010 with a maximum
fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $150.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case.
** Mr. Williford seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #64393, Location of Violation, 5606 Altman Rd., Fort Pierce, Fl., Property Owner, Roy A. Robertson, 7302
Citrus Park Blvd., Fort Pierce, Fl. was sworn in.
Ms. Williams provided six photos. This case came before the February, 2010 CEB meeting and was found in
violation of Section 1-9-19 – Abandoned property, unserviceable vehicles. Sections 13.00.01 (article 103.5) and
Section 13.09.00 Exterior property maintenance were abated. The case was found in default and given until
5/5/10, to come into compliance. The only violation left and the Board agreed to grant additional time.
Mr. Robertson said he was working in Georgia and had to have someone to help and asked for 60 days. The
Board agreed to another extension.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64394 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: violation. A
fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting October 4, 2010 with a
maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $150.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the
case.
** Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
IX. REPEAT VIOLATION HEARING:
Case #65482, Location of Violation, 110 Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property Owner, James Duncan, S/A.
James Duncan was sworn in.
Ms. Swartzel reviewed the case which was brought before the December, 2008 CEB and found in violation of
Section 1-9-19 Abandoned property, unservice3able vehicles. (Please remove all outside storage of items and
materials such as plastic, boxes, etc.) On 4/9/10 the property was again found in violation. Five photos were
submitted. The property was abated on 5/3/10 and was in violation for 24 days.
Mr. Duncan agreed he was in violation. Dr. Ingersoll explained the specifics of the Repeat Violation Hearing
increases the fine from $250 a day to $500 a day. Mr. Duncan explained he had a water line break, and
described what items remained. He said it would not happen again.
?
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65482 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the
violation previously committed has been repeated and 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 $20.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists
starting 4/9/10, with a maximum fine not to exceed $480 for 24 days and a cost of $125 shall be imposed
as the cost of prosecuting the case.
Mr. Fogg explained he reduced the fine to $20.00 a day even though it is a repeat violation because Mr.
Duncan said he would not do it again. Dr. Ingersoll added that the fine could have been $5,000, so this is
a bargain.
** Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
K. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None.
L. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING:
Page 8 of 9
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
M. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Taylor addressed the cost of prosecuting a case and the burden to the County.
Even though cases are abated, removed, or dismissed without a fine, shouldn’t there be costs associated
for the investigation of the cases.
Mr. Kreiger advised when a case (violation) is abated by the time frame given in the citation, there are no fines or
prosecution costs. Mr. Taylor is asking if we should help the taxpayer and recoup the cost of the prosecution. Dr.
Ingersoll thought they would still have to hear the case again because there would be a charge for the argument.
Mr. Kreiger said the Board has the authority to levy the costs of prosecution at the time the parties are found in
violation.
Dr. Ingersoll clarified and said we need to articulate that in the motion, that it is no longer a variable cost but a
fixed cost as of that time, because the reference is that another fine hearing will be held. That could be argued
that we are fining them but said they had another date to appear and come back and argue. The County has to
very clearly articulate that the only thing to be heard at the Fine Hearing will be the actual fine, unless at the Fine
Hearing the fine is reduced, the actual fee stays.
Mr. Kreiger thought staff should look at it. One option would be at the time of violation and stipulate that in the
motion, or find in violation and at the Fine Hearing level, staff could bring you back those cases which have been
abated, and do you want to levy costs.
Mr. Bunt said they could do that on the Consent Agenda or revise the initial motion to say that the violator had
until October (date) to abate the violation and at the end of that say that a cost of $125 has been assigned for the
prosecution fee on this case. Then there is no timeframe to abate the costs of prosecution.
Further discussion ensued on the language. Ms. Mackenzie Smith asked that staff bring back suggested
language for review since this is the first time it has come before the Board. As an example, Mr. Bunt used the
previous case out on !-95 with the dumpsters and port-a-potties which was abated. They did not pay anything,
and staff had to use the Sheriff’s helicopters and other resources without being reimbursed.
Dr. Ingersoll confirmed the backlog of fines. Mr. Bunt said it was about $1.5 million. Dr. Ingersoll suggested the
County Commissioners give a 60-day period that if 25% of the total fine is paid, the County could bring in
additional thousands of dollars on violators. It’s to the County’s advantage to bring in some of the fines that have
been out there for years. Against the backlog of $1.5 million, the County Commission could say we’ll take 50% of
it if it’s paid within 60-90 days, and use the example of other counties who are doing it. Ms. Mackenziie Smith
thought it could be something to be accomplished. Further discussion ensued.
N. STAFF BUSINESS:
Mr. Bunt addressed the last case where Mr. Fogg lowered the fine and encouraged the Board to do so at any
time. Staff tries to keep it level, and is never opposed to lowering the fine when the Board chooses.
O. 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 9 of 9