HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 3 2010
NOVEMBER 3, 2010
HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS
ROGER POITRAS ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
Shane Dewitt made an announcement that St. Lucie County Television is starting to do
close capturing in order to be in compliance with the Department of Justice and the ADA.
He noted that it is very important to speak into the microphone. They have someone live
on the phone in Texas listening to us and she is capturing verbatim every word.
PRESENT
Chairman……………………………………………………………………..Dr. Dale Ingersoll
Board Members……………………………………………………………...Ray Hofmann
…………………………………………………………………………………Mitchell Williford
…………………………………………………………………………………Phillip Stickles
…………………………………………………………………………………Margaret Monahan
…………………………………………………………………………………Ralph Fogg
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
Code Enforcement Officer…………………………………………………Michelle Prestridge
Contractor License………………………………………………….…..….Monica Vargas-Barrios
Board Secretary…………………………………………………………….Debbie Isenhour
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:02 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 Mr. Taylor who has been
excused.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 6, 2010
Mr. Stickles noted that the agenda does not have Mr. Krieger listed and he was present.
Mr. Fogg made a motion to accept the minutes of October 6, 2010.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
1
V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Danielle Williams, Michelle
Prestridge, and Monica Vargas Barrios were sworn in.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien Case No.
Alexander Pitts #42316
Alexander Pitts #20251
Alexander Pitts #97110029
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding #64797
Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing Case No.
William R. Rieseman & William Tipton #61509
Mr. Stickles made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation as presented.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
For the Record: Consent Agenda
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – William R. Rieseman & William Tipton - #61509
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to deny the Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing.
VIII. VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name
#64422 5671 Sandfly Ct., #C-25, Ft. Pierce, FL E. Clyde & Dorothy I. Miller
#66335 5775 Clydesdale Ln., Ft. Pierce, FL Joe Dacosta
th
#66457 2014 S. 35 St., Ft. Pierce, FL Jose A. & Maria M. Cristales
VIOLATION CASES HEARD:
Case #4 was heard first on the agenda:
rd
Case #65737, Location of violation, 2501 N. 43 St., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owners, James
rd
and Sandra Yearby. James and Sandra Yearby, 2501 N. 43 St., Ft. Pierce, FL, were sworn in
by the Board Secretary.
Officer Swartzel submitted three photos dated May 6, 2010. She noted that during her first
inspection on May 6, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 11.05.01 to obtain a
permit for the windows. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of June 20, 2010. She
and Joe Cicio met with Mrs. Yearby on June 2, 2010 and explained to her what was needed to
2
come into compliance. On October 7, 2010, she issued a Notice to Appear letter. As of
November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
The Chairman asked Mr. and Mrs. Yearby if they are or are not in violation.
They answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked how much time is needed to resolve this.
Mrs. Yearby answered that the engineer still has the paperwork. She stated that she would like
more time.
The Chairman asked if she could have it done in thirty days.
Mrs. Yearby answered in the affirmative.
Mrs. Monahan asked how long was the engineer contacted.
Mrs. Yearby answered that he did the sketches last Wednesday.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65737 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
December 31, 2010, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has
st
been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. 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. Stickles stated that he notice on the agenda it stated that Staff’s recommendation for the
default date is November 5, 2010.
The Chairman noted that it was a scribner’s error and it should be December 6, 2010.
Case #66857, Location of violation, Waterstone Development, Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner,
Waterstone Community Dev., Richard Hans, 5701 N. Pine Island Rd., Tamarac, FL was sworn in
by the Board’s Secretary.
Officer Swartzel submitted three photos dated November 1, 2010. She noted that during her first
inspection on October 11, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 7.07.08, Failure to
Maintain Stormwater Management System to replace the missing stormwater grates throughout
the development and Section 13.00.01, Section 103.5.1, Unsafe Building or System for the
missing stormwater grates throughout the development which are considered unsafe and a life
safety. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of October 29, 2010. She had contact
with the property owner. She noted that a representative is here today. On October 22, 2010,
she issued a Notice to Appear. As of November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
The Chairman asked Mr. Hans if he is or is not in violation.
Mr. Hans answered that he is in violation and they are going to correct the violation. He noted
that there have been thefts throughout the county with the removal of the stormwater grates.
3
There were about 44 or 45 grates stolen. He noted that they have order them but it will take more
than thirty days for them to come in. He requested 60 days or longer.
The Chairman noted that they are special ordered and there was not much Mr. Han could do.
Mrs. Monahan asked how he is going to keep them from stealing the new batch.
Mr. Hans answered that he was told he could epoxy them down. He was told that they cannot be
permanently mounted because access is needed for maintenance. He is going to try to install a
gate to keep people from accessing the property.
Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to Case #66857 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 January
5, 2011, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been
st
imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1
Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon
thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the
given compliance date.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #66856, Location of violation, Property Next to 8850 Indrio Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property
Owner, Waterstone Community Dev. Richard Hans, 5701 N. Pine Island Rd., Tamarac, FL was
previously sworn in by the Board’s Secretary.
Officer Swartzel submitted one photo dated November 1, 2010. She noted that during her first
inspection October 11, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 13.09.00, Exterior
Property Maintenance, Article 302.7, for the fence around the property that needs to be repaired
and Section 1-9-32 for having overgrowth, which has been abated. She issued a letter and gave
a compliance date of October 29, 2010. She had contact with the property owner and a
representative is here today. On October 22, 2010, she issued a Notice to Appear. As of
November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
Mr. Hans noted that they are still in violation for the fence. The grass has been cut. He needed a
little more time to repair the fence.
Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to Case #66856 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 January
5, 2011, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been
st
imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1
Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon
thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the
given compliance date.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #66219, Location of violation, 5501 Peterson Rd., Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Celebration
Point CDD. Richard Hans, 5701 N. Pine Island Rd., Tamarac, FL was previously sworn in by the
Board’s Secretary.
4
Officer Williams submitted two photos dated November 1, 2010. She noted that during her first
inspection on July 13, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 7.07.08, Failure to
Maintain Stormwater Management System for having missing stormwater drainage grates and
Section 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance Code, Article 302.3, Sidewalks and driveway,
for having missing stormwater drainage grates which may cause a hazard. She issued a letter
on July 15, 2010 and gave a compliance date of August 5, 2010. After getting no compliance,
she issued a Notice to Appear letter on October 22, 2010. On November 1, 2010, she received a
call from Mr. Hans, the Community Development District Manager, and he informed her that he
is going to take care of the violation. As of Monday, November 1, 2010, the property still remains
in violation.
Mr. Hans noted that the property is still in violation and the grates have been ordered.
Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to Case #66219 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 January
5, 2011, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been
st
imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. Please take notice that on the 1
Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am or soon
thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the
given compliance date.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #64011, Location of violation, 3335 S.Brocksmith Rd., Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owner,
Helen Shaber. Dean O’Neill, 181 S. Hampton Rd., Jupiter, FL was sworn in by the Board’s
Secretary.
The Chairman asked Mr. O’Neill if he is an owner.
Mr. O’Neill answered that he is a representative and a business associate of Ms. Shaber and Mr.
Jones.
Officer Williams submitted two photos dated September 18, 2009, one photo dated October 29,
2009 which were taken by Officer Brome and one photo dated October 22, 2010 taken by her.
On September 18, 2009, Officer Brome inspected the property and found it in violation of Section
11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits for not having a permit for the house, the dome house, and
the dome screen enclosure. On September 30, 2009, he issued a letter and gave a compliance
date of November 29, 2009. On December 2, 2009, she, Officer Brome, Joe Cicio, the Plans
Examiner, Paula Bushby, the Permitting Supervisor, met with Craig Jones who was representing
the property owner. They discussed the violation and ways to correct it. After getting no
compliance, she issued a Notice to Appear on September 22, 2010. The last contact Staff had
with Mr. Jones was on January 8, 2010 via an email to Joe Cicio. As of today, November 3,
2010, no permits have been issued. She stated that Dean O’Neill is here today to ask for more
time.
The Chairman asked if the property was cited in September of last year.
Officer Williams answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked if there are no permits for the dorm, the house, the sewer system, nothing.
Officer Williams answered that there are no permits.
5
The Chairman asked why it took a year to bring the case to the Board.
Officer Williams answered that this case belonged to Carl and he had contact with them. Staff
has been waiting on a survey which was never received until yesterday.
The Chairman noted that the last two cases were cited in October of last month and brought
before the Board in days.
Mrs. Monahan asked how long the house has been there.
Officer Williams answered that Staff does not know. She noted that the Property Appraisal office
notified Staff that they were there and there was no record of the structures.
Mrs. Monahan noted that she believed that they have been there since 2004. She did not know
there were no permits.
The Chairman noted that the only problem he had is that the county waited two and a half years
to bring the case before the Board.
Mr. Bunt explained that the case was cited from a different division. Due to the changes, Code
Enforcement inherited all their cases. Staff now has to go through two thousand plus cases and
try to get them before the Board. He noted that normally a case would be brought before the
Board within ninety days.
The Chairman asked how they got power to their house. He noted that they are not talking about
an addition to the house, but a whole house.
Mr. Arnold answered that he believed there was a permit for a temporary electric pole for an
existing permit for agricultural property.
The Chairman asked if they built the whole system around a temporary electric pole for
agricultural.
Mr. Arnold stated that there was also a meter permit for a barn, which was inspected and signed
off.
The Chairman noted that a brand new house could not get power unless it is inspected. He
stated that the justice part of him is saying that since they got away with this for a year and two
months, the instant answer would be to turn the power off.
Mr. O’Neill stated that he was not on the property when it was built, but he believed Mrs.
Monahan was right when she said it was built around 2004 after Jeanne and Francis. He noted
that they have plans and engineering for the dome house which were signed off by structural
engineers. He stated that the owners informed him that they were told to get an engineer and
draw up plans. He noted that the dome is a state approved building. They had cows and horses
out there. After the hurricane, they had a problem with the dome so they had to enclose the barn
in order to live in there. He noted that they are saying that they are in violation but they do not
know what they have to do. He stated that getting a permit for the dorm would not be a problem
but the house which has already been built might be the problem. An architect needs to come in
and draw it out. He noted that all this cannot be done in thirty days.
The Chairman stated that the dorm could abate just like that because according to Mr. O’Neill,
they have engineering.
Mr. O’Neill noted that he believed some of that paperwork was already submitted. He stated that
he knows that this has been going on for awhile.
6
The Chairman asked why when they received the citation in September 2009, they not did
proceed. He asked why they are now talking about engineering in 2010 and almost 2011.
Mr. O’Neill answered that according to the owners a site plan and survey were needed.
The Chairman noted that it should have been done in October 2009.
Mr. O’Neill stated that he gave the site plan to Staff yesterday. He noted that he is just here to try
to expedite this.
The Chairman asked why the owners are not here today.
Mr. O’Neill answered that they are both scientists and they are out of town.
The Chairman asked if Craig Jones represented them the last time.
Officer Williams answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman stated that Staff has not had any personal hands on with the property owner.
Mrs. Monahan asked who Craig Jones was.
The Chairman answered that according to Mrs. Williams, Craig Jones was the first representative
to talk on behalf of the owners.
Mrs. Monahan asked if the round house is occupied.
Mr. O’Neill answered that Mrs. Shaber lives in the dorm.
Mr. Stickles asked how they received power for it.
Mr. Arnold stated that they must have tapped off of the electric that was there.
Mrs. Monahan asked if one is living in the dorm and the other is living in the remodeled home.
Mr. O’Neill answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64011 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
November 30, 2010, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has
st
been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this case. 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.
Mrs. Monahan asked if the Board should not give him the compliance date of December 6, the
same date given to those who did not show up.
Mr. Fogg noted that he amended his dated to December 6, 2010.
7
Mr. Hofmann seconded.
Mr. Stickles stated that he agreed with the motion and the time frame. His only concern is that
the case is going to be back in front of the Board for a fine hearing because they are not going to
get this done in thirty days.
Mr. Hofmann noted that he agreed but he does not see this moving any faster.
Mr. Stickles asked if they could make a motion to continue this and contact the property owner.
He noted that by assessing a fine, nothing is going to get done.
Mr. Fogg stated that he agreed and disagreed with this. He noted that they have been living
there since 2004 and they needed to get on the ball. They were notified since 2009, and they
have not done anything.
Mr. O’Neill noted that they met with the county and they showed them what they had. He noted
that there were discrepancies with the paperwork.
The Chairman noted that since 2004 there is a property out there which has been under taxed
because it is being taxed as a pole barn. There are not one but two houses out there. Ten or
twenty thousand dollars should have been collected up front for the impact fees that were not
paid. Between lost income on taxes and impact fees, he does not have any sympathy for them.
They have been living out there tax free for six to seven years.
Mr. Stickles stated that he agreed, but he wanted to do more than just send the case to a fine
hearing.
Mr. Bunt explained that it would help the county by going through this process. By them not
complying with the Board’s order could help the Building Official pull the electric. He noted that
this will be the first stage then Staff would proceed with other avenue to rectify this situation.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The Hall was sounded and Mrs. Monahan read the names and numbers of the cases of
those not present into the record:
Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor/Violator
#64558 905 E. Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL St. Lucie Realty Group LLC
#64075 479 SE Sandia Dr., Port St. Lucie, FL Lisa Roth and Steven Buttel
#66301 105 Naranja Ave., Port St. Lucie, FL Winston H. Irias
#66223 305 SE Camino St., Port St. Lucie, FL Mareya Schneider
rd
#66785 1107 S. 33 St., Ft. Pierce, FL Yosef A. Musleh
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
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 with the amendment
default date of December 6, 2010.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
8
VIII FINE HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Owner/Violator/Name
#66121 5211 Sunset Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL Jeffrey R. Young
#65794 3107 Kingsley Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Thelma Pettigrew & Thelma M. Grimes
th
#65682 Lot next to 1815 N. 50 St., Ft. Pierce, FL Johnny J. Johnson
#65641 3008 Ave R, Ft. Pierce, FL Jerome Rhyant & Chris Fogal
Case #59073, Location of violation, 3405 Menendez Ave., Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owners, John
M. and Mary B. Deck. John Deck 3405 Menendez Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the
Board’s Secretary.
Officer Williams submitted two photos dated November 2, 2010. She noted that the case was
brought before the Board on June 2, 2010 and the Board found the property owners in violation of
Section 11.05.01, A(2)a, Time Limitations of Building Permits for having an expired permit for the
windows and hurricane panels on the home. The Board gave until October 4, 2010 to renew the
building permit and obtain a final inspection. The permit was renewed on September 7, 2010 but
has not been finaled. At the fine hearing on October 6, 2010, the case was continued. On
October 6, 2010, she called the property owner’s house and spoke with Mrs. Deck. She informed
her that the Board continued the case to November 3, 2010 because the Board wanted to know
why the permit was not finaled. Mrs. Deck told her that her husband was ill. As of today,
November 6, 2010, the property remains in violation because the permit has not been finalized.
Mr. Deck stated that when he got the permit extended he was told he had six months to complete
this. He has a contractor who, according to the Building Department, is one of the best in the
County. Half of the windows have been removed and the bucks are rebuilt and installed. The
inspection for the bucks was done on October 21.
The Chairman asked if the permit was pulled in his name.
Mr. Deck answered that the permit was reissued in his name. He noted that he has a contract
with TNT Builders. He has photographs of each window that have been done.
Mr. Stickles asked if the permit was renewed.
Mr. Deck answered that it was reissued on September 7 in his name with a six months
completion date.
Mr. Bunt explained that when a permit is obtained an inspection has to be done within six months.
However, Mr. Deck came before the Board and the Board set a date for him to have the work
completed and finaled. Pulling a permit does not supersede the Board decision. He stated that
even though the permit does not expired until six months, Mr. Deck had to work within the time
frame given by the Board.
Mr. Deck noted that the windows are too small for the opening which is why they have to put in a
two by four on each side. The original contractor used a molding that he has not been able to
find.
Mr. Stickles noted that he would like to make a motion to continue this to April 2011 meeting
because according to the permit, he has until March 8, 2011 to have the permit finalized.
9
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #59073 that the Code Enforcement
Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of April 6, 2011.
Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #65636, Location of violation, 366 Smallwood Dr., Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owner,
Deutsche Bank Nat Tr Co (Tr.). There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Brubaker noted that this case was found in default at the September 2010 meeting and
given until October 8, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She submitted four photos.
One photo dated April 22, 2010, one photo dated July 22, 2010, one photo dated August 30,
2010, and one photo dated November 1, 2010. During her first inspection on April 22, 2010, she
found the property in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) for having overgrowth. She issued a letter
and gave a compliance date of May 6, 2010. She had no contact with the property owner and as
November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65636 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 October 9, 2010 with a maximum fine not
to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #65878, Location of violation, 204 SE Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property
Owners, Ramon E. and Teresa Conde. Ramon Conde, 680 SE Walters Ter., Port St. Lucie, FL
was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary.
Officer Brubaker noted that this case was found in default at the September 2010 meeting and
given until October 8, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She submitted two photos
dated April 12, 2010. She noted that during her first inspection on June 15, 2010, she found the
property in violation of Section 11.05.01 for enclosing a patio without a permit. She issued a letter
and gave a compliance date of July 15, 2010. She had contact with the owner and they
discussed ways to correct this matter. As of today, November 3, 2010, there is no permit and the
property remains in violation.
The Chairman asked Mr. Conde if he is or is not in violation.
Mr. Conde answered in the affirmative. He noted that the problem is that he asked an engineer
to obtain a permit and he does not want to do it. No contractor wants the job because there will
not be making any money. He asked if he could obtain the permit himself.
The Chairman answered that there is no way to get around this because he will still need certified
engineer drawings if he pulled a permit as owner builder or a contractor pulled the permit.
Mr. Bunt noted that Mr. Conde does not live on the property.
The Chairman explained to Mr. Conde that he could not pull the permit and that he needed a
contractor.
Mr. Conde asked for thirty days.
The Chairman noted that he has been cited since June 15, 2010 and he knew he needed an
engineer since then.
10
Mrs. Monahan noted that he has the engineering drawing but he has no one to pull the permit.
Mr. Bunt noted that he would have to find a contractor who would look at the engineer drawings
and be willing to pull the permit.
Mrs. Monahan asked if the county has a list of licensed contractors in St. Lucie County.
Mr. Bunt answered that he could go to Contractor’s Licensing website for a list of residential
contractors.
Mrs. Monahan told Mr. Conde to obtain the list and give them a call.
Mr. Conde stated that he has already tried that and no one wanted to do it because they are not
going to make any money.
The Chairman noted that the engineering drawing he has is going to require a lot of work to get
the structure back to what it should be. They do not know if the porch has hurricane clips and if
the trusses are not right then they have to figure out where to put the hurricane clips at the end of
the trusses. It is going to be a dirty, nasty job. He noted that the contractor is going to look at all
this and decide that he cannot make money off of this job.
Mr. Conde stated that according to the engineer, the structure is good.
Mr. Fogg asked Mr. Conde why he thinks thirty days would make a difference. He noted that this
has been going on since June.
Mr. Conde explained that he was on vacation for twenty one days in August.
The Chairman asked for the date that is stamped by the engineer on the plans.
Mr. Bunt answered that it was stamped on September 22.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65878 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 December 6, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed
$5,000.00.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bunt informed Mr. Conde that he could pass by Contractor’s Licensing and Officer Vargas
Barrios would give him a list of contractors.
Case #64681, Location of violation, 3803 Ave I, Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owners, Willie E. and
Petrinnia Keith. Willie E. Keith, 3803 Ave I, Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary.
Officer Swartzel resubmitted two photos dated December 3, 2009 and July 30, 2010 and
submitted four photos dated November 1, 2010. She noted that the case was brought before the
Board on August 4, 2010 and found in violation of Section 1-9-32(D), Overgrowth, Section
13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance Code, Article 302.2, Protective Treatment to clean the
mold and mildew and to repair the roof and Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage. The Board
gave until October 9, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She had contact with the
property owner. As of November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
11
Mr. Keith noted that the roof is finished and the house has been painted.
Mr. Fogg asked if he just painted the front of the house and when.
Mr. Keith answered that he painted the front and the side of the house yesterday.
The Chairman asked if there is still outside storage.
Mr. Keith answered that all he has is his lawnmower which is covered with a tarp.
Mr. Fogg asked about the other items that are in the pictures.
Mr. Keith answered that he will move them.
Mr. Fogg asked how soon he can have them moved.
Mr. Keith answered that he will move them today.
Mr. Fogg noted that this has been going on since 2009.
Mr. Keith explained that he had a lot of work that he had to do.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64681 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 December 6, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed
$5,000.00.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #65969, Location of violation, 2708 Walker Dr., Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owner, Alice C.
Owens (Est.). There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Swartzel submitted two photos dated August 30, 2010 and one photo dated November 2,
2010. She noted that the case was brought before the September 1, 2010 Board meeting and
found in violation of Section 1-9-19, Unserviceable Vehicles, Section 7.05.09(B), House
Numbers, and Section 1-9-32(D), Overgrowth, which has been abated. She noted that the Board
gave until October 9, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She had no contact with the
property owner and as of November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65969 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 October 9, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed
$5,000.00.
Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
12
Case #64643, Location of violation, 441 Sunrise Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Sandra S.
Henry. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Swartzel noted that the property is not in foreclosure. She submitted two photos. One
photo dated August 30, 2010 and one photo dated November 2, 2010. She noted that the case
was brought before the September 1, 2010 Board meeting and found in violation of Section 1-9-
32(D), Overgrowth and Section 13.09.00, Article 303.2 to obtain the proper permit to repair or
replace the garage door. She noted that the Board gave until October 9, 2010 to bring the
property into compliance. She had no contact with the property owner and as of November 2,
2010, the property remains in violation.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64643 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 October 9, 2010 with a maximum fine not
to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
IX REPEAT VIOLATION:
Case #67024, Location of violation, 5007 Regina Dr., Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owner, Irene
Sitaras (LF Est.). There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Brubaker noted that the property was brought before the June 3, 2009 Code Board and
found in violation of Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage. She submitted eight photos. Two
photos dated October 18, 2010, three photos dated October 27, 2010, and two photos dated
November 2, 2010. On October 18, 2010, she again found the property to be a repeat violator of
Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage of items and materials. She have had contact with the
property owner and their representative and they discussed ways to correct the violation. She
received a letter from the property owner dated October 26, 2010 explaining that they did not
know the property was in violation. The owner wrote that they have tenants in there for years and
they wanted to comply. She noted that progress has been made on the property but as of
November 2, 2010, the property remains in violation.
Mrs. Monahan asked why Regina Dr. is.
Officer Brubaker answered that it is off of Midway Rd in White City and east of US 1.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #67024 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
$500.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting October 19,
2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00 and a cost of $200 shall be imposed as
the cost of prosecuting the case.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
X. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: NONE
13
XI OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Hofmann asked when the political signs are going to be removed.
Mr. Bunt answered that they are to be removed in six days.
Mr. Bunt stated that Staff would like to postpone the December meeting because Danielle
Williams will be gone temporary on Medical leave. He noted that the meeting will reconvene on
January 2011.
The Chairman noted that there were no objections.
Mr. Stickles noted that Staff should let Mr. Taylor know.
The Chairman stated that Staff should not tell him.
XII STAFF BUSINESS:
XII PUBLIC COMMENTS:
ADJOURN:
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:14 a.m.
_________________________ ______________________
Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date
__________________________ _______________________
Danielle Williams Date
14