Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 5 2011 JANUARY 5, 2011 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 …………………………………………………………………………………Margaret Monahan …………………………………………………………………………………Ralph Fogg Board Attorney……………………………………………………………….Jack Krieger STAFF PRESENT Assistant County Attorney………………………………………………..Katherine Barbieri Building Supervisor………………………………………………………..Ken Arnold Code Enforcement Supervisor………………………………….…….….Dennis Bunt Code Enforcement Officer ………………………………………………..Melissa Brubaker Code Enforcement Officer………………………………………………...Lynn Swartzel 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 9:00 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 Mr. Stickles, who was excused and Mr. Williford resigned. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Michelle Prestridge, and Monica Vargas Barrios were sworn in. VI.CONSENT AGENDA Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Case No. Grayson Gilbert and Stephen Meitner 39030 Mr. Fogg made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation as presented. Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 1 For the Record: Consent Agenda Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Grayson Gilbert and Stephen Meitner - 39030 The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month. VII. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name 66812 6003 Cassia Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Pier N. Giaccone (Est.) 66428 906 Shore Winds Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL Richard B. Johnson VIOLATION CASES HEARD: Case #8 was heard first on the agenda: Case #65828, Location of violation, 10701 S. Ocean Dr., Lot 721, Jensen Beach, FL. Property Owner, Alfred and Patricia Jamarowicz. Alfred Jamarowicz, 721 Westmoreland, Port St. Lucie FL, was sworn in by the Board Secretary. Officer Vargas Barrios submitted four photos. Two photos dated May 26, 2010, one photo dated June 13, 2010, and one photo dated January 4, 2011. On May 26, 2010, she received a complaint of work being done on the property. She noticed a structure that was added to the screen room in the back of the property. She explained to the homeowner that a permit was required. She issued a stop work order and advised him to get with the building department. On June 13, 2010, she reinspected the property and found that the work was completed without the permit. She stated that this was in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits. She issued a Notice of Violation letter with the correction date of July 21, 2010. On July 23, 2010, the owner contacted Staff and stated that he will not be back in town until November 2010. On November 22, 2010, the Notice to Appear letter issued. She has had no other contact with the property owner and as of January 4, 2011, the property remains in violation. She explained that Staff has been working on the case for eight months. After getting no compliance, Staff brought the case before the Board. The Chairman asked Mr. Jamarowicz if he lived at 721 Westmoreland in Port St. Lucie. Mr. Jamarowicz answered in the affirmative. The Chairman asked what his interest was in the property. Mr. Jamarowicz answered that he owned it and it is not a rental. He explained that he lived there six months out of the year and the other six months in Maryland. The Chairman asked when he comes down here, does he go to 10701 S. Ocean or 721 Westmoreland Mr. Jamarowicz answered that he comes to 721 Westmoreland. The Chairman asked if his main residence in St. Lucie County is 721 Westmoreland or 10701 S. Ocean. 2 Mr. Bunt noted that this is not the same Westmoreland that is in Port St. Lucie, He stated that he believed Westmoreland might be a street name at 10701 S. Ocean, which is a mobile home park. The Chairman asked if he is or is not in violation. Mr. Jamarowicz answered that he was in violation. He noted that he told the officer he had all the paperwork in Maryland and he will bring it back when he came back to Florida. The work was done because there was a big hail storm last year which damaged his house. He noted that he did the work himself. The Chairman asked Mr. Jamarowicz what was his qualification. Mr. Jamarowicz answered that he is a builder in Ocean City, Maryland. The Chairman asked if no paperwork is needed to build an extension in Ocean City, Maryland. Mr. Jamarowicz answered no. He explained that he did the work under the Storm Act, which states that if there is a storm, whatever is damaged could be repaired without a permit. The Chairman asked for a copy of the Storm Act. He noted he never heard of it before. Mr. Jamarowicz answered that he does not have a copy. The Chairman stated that he needs a permit. He asked how much longer he needed. Mr. Jamarowicz answered that he is only here six months out of the year. The Chairman noted that he does not have any sympathy for him because he continued the work even though a stop work order was issued. He asked Mr. Jamarowicz what he has done so far. Mr. Jamarowicz stated that he has not done anything because he just got back in town. Mrs. Monahan noted that she does not have a 2011 calendar. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65828 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 March 1, 2011, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed st 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. 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 66140 5201 Sunset Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL Thomas H. Vinson 66533 747 Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL Ali Kordbacheh 67198 1963 Hugo Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL Alan & Blanca Greenstein 67019 8004 Penny Lane, Ft. Pierce, FL Patricia C. Zimmerman (Est.) 3 61508 791 Woodlands Dr., Port St, Lucie, FL Annatta Lovelock Mr. Hofmann 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. Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VIII FINE HEARING: Case #64558, Location of violation, 905 E. Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property Owner, St. Lucie Realty Group LLC. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Vargas Barrios submitted eleven photos. Eight photos dated November 16, 2009 and three photos dated October 31, 2010. She noted that this case was found in default at the November 3, 2010 Code Board meeting for being in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits. A Notice of Violation letter was issued on November 17, 2009 to obtain a permit for the office space renovation on the second floor which included the electric. The correction date of December 17, 2009 was given. Staff had contact with an architect and a representative of the property owner, and two extensions were given to obtain the paperwork for the permit. On March 5, 2010, the permit was applied for. A Notice to Appear was sent out on September 29, 2010 because the permit has been pending for over six months. On December 17, 2010, the Permitting Department left two messages for the contractor to advise him that the permit was completed and ready to be picked up. As of January 4, 2011, the permit has not been picked up. Mr. Krieger advised the Board that if they are going along with Staff’s recommendation for additional prosecution cost, they should use #11 in the motion book. Mrs. Monahan asked Staff why they want more. Mr. Bunt answered that the additional cost is for the extra follow up inspections and paperwork that was done after the initial meeting. Mrs. Monahan noted that this has been going on since October 2009. She asked if the only thing they needed to do was to pick up the permit. Officer Vargas Barrios answered in the affirmative. The Chairman asked if the space is being used daily. Officer Vargas Barrios answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #64558 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 7, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. An additional cost of $125.00 has been imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 4 The Chairman stated that if someone is operating a business and a building is built or change, it becomes a non-conforming structure. He asked if that would nullify the insurance. He asked if an occupancy license is given, does it state that there is a remedy to the public if someone gets hurt on the property. Mr. Krieger answered that it would depend on the terms on the policy. Case #64075, Location of violation, 479 SE Sandia Dr., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property Owners, Lisa Roth and Steven Buttel. There was no one present to represent the property owners. Officer Vargas Barrios submitted five photos. Two photos dated September 21, 2010 and three photos dated May 17, 2010. She noted that this case was found in default at the November 3, 2010 Code Board meeting for being in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits. On October 7, 2009, she issued a Notice of Violation letter to obtain a permit for the new roof, for removing the window, and for enclosing the opening in the front of the property. The letter gave a correction date of November 9, 2009. On September 27, 2010, she issued a Notice to Appear letter. On October 21, 2010, she posted the property. She noted that Staff has had no communication with the property owners and as of January 7, 2010, the property remains in violation. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64075 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 7, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. An additional cost of $125.00 has been imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #66223, Location of violation, 305 SE Camino St., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property Owner, Mareya Schneider. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Brubaker stated that the case was found in default at the November 3, 2010 meeting and was given until December 6, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She submitted four photos. One photo dated August 17, 2010, one photo dated September 30, 2010, one photo dated November 1, 2010, and one photo dated January 3, 2011. She noted that during her first inspection on August 17, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 13.09.00, Article 304.2 for the repairing of the roof and soffits. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of September 3, 2010. She has had no contact with the property owner and as of January 3, 2011 and the property remains in violation. Mrs. Monahan asked if the property is vacant. Officer Brubaker answered in the affirmative. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66223 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 7, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 5 Case #66124, Location of violation, 604 Brack Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Roy A. Hodges (Est.). There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Brubaker stated that the case was found in default at the October 2010 meeting and was given until November 5, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She submitted four photos. One photo dated July 1, 2010, one photo dated August 24, 2010, one photo dated October 4, 2010, and one photo dated January 3, 2011. She noted that during her first inspection on July 1, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 1-9-32(D), for having excessive overgrowth of grass and weeds. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of July 20, 2010. She has had no contact with the property owner and as of January 4, 2011 and the property remains in violation. The Chairman asked how was the estate discovered for Roy A. Hodges. Officer Brubaker answered that the information was on the Property Appraisal Record. The Chairman asked if it meant the Mr. Hodges was deceased. The Chairman asked if Staff could cite the guardian of the estate who should be the responsible party instead of Mr. Hodges. Mr. Krieger answered that the representative of the estate is responsible for the estate and his or her duty is to maintain the estate and preserve the property. The Chairman asked if Staff should cite the guardian of the estate instead of the estate. Mr. Krieger answered that it would automatically go to the representative of the estate or his or her attorney. The Chairman noted that it has been a long time since the grass has been mowed. Mr. Krieger stated that sometime there might not be an appointed representative. He noted that there might be heirs to the property. Mrs. Barbieri stated that Staff cites whatever name is on the Property Appraisal Record. Mrs. Monahan asked if someone is paying the property taxes. Mrs. Barbieri answered that she does not know. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66124 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 November 6, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #65714, Location of violation, 102 Bonita Ct., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property Owner, Mounir Farahi. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Brubaker stated that the case was found in default at the October 2010 meeting and was given until November 5, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She submitted three photos. One photo dated May 6, 2010, one photo dated August 31, 2010, one photo dated October 4, 2010, and one photo dated January 3, 2011. She noted that during her first inspection on May 6, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 1-9-32(D), for having excessive overgrowth of 6 grass and weeds. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of May 22, 2010. She has had no contact with the property owner and as of January 4, 2011 and the property remains in violation. Mrs. Monahan noted that this property is also vacant. Officer Brubaker stated that there were tenants in there. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65714 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 November 6, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The Chairman asked if the maximum fine of $50,000 on the agenda for the next case was a scribner’s error. Mr. Bunt answered that he raised the maximum fine based on the severity of the violation. Ten thousand dollars is a lot less than the cost to correct the violation. Having a fine of $50,000, would be an incentive for the property owner to abate the violation. Case #64011, Location of violation, 3335 S. Brocksmith Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Helen Shaber. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Prestridge noted that the case was brought before the November 3, 2010 Code Board and found in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits and given until December 7, 2010 to correct the violation. She resubmitted photos taken by Officer Williams and she took six photos dated November 15, 2010. She noted that a house and barn was converted into living spaces without the proper permits. On November 12, 2010, Mr. Duncan from the Health Department went out to do an inspection and he was told to leave. She noted that Mr. Cicio, the Plans Examiner, has spoken with Dean O’Neill, the property manager, and he explained to him what needed to be done to obtain the proper permits. As of today, no permits have been applied for. The Chairman noted that the maximum fine of $50,000 is not a typically fine. They have not paid the impact fees and the permits fees. For six years, they have been paying the wrong property taxes. He noted when all this is added up, the fine of $50,000 would be all the cost accumulated over the years. Mrs. Monahan asked the Board if she should recuse herself because she and her husband own property that abuts this property. She noted that she does not know Mrs. Shaber and she has no idea this has been going on. Mr. Krieger stated that she has no personal interest in this so there is no conflict. Mr. Bunt noted that this was not the first time a maximum fine has been increase. Staff did this once before with Jetsons. The case involved them hooking up to the city water line. The fee was based on the cost of hooking up to the city. This was done so that the violation would be corrected properly. The Chairman noted that he remembered the case and it was about ten years ago. 7 Mrs. Barbieri asked Officer Prestridge if it is true that no permits were pulled for this. Officer Prestridge answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Barbieri asked Officer Prestridge if she knows if it meets any health safety codes. Officer Prestridge answered no. Mrs. Barbieri asked if it is true that they did not allow the Health Department on the property. Officer Prestridge answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Barbieri asked if it is true that she does not know if the electric or the structural engineering is correct. Officer Prestridge answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Barbieri asked if there are health safety issues. Officer Prestridge answered in the affirmative. The Chairman noted that it is not normal to put a septic system in for a barn but somewhere they are emptying sewer that has not been approved. Mrs. Monahan asked if Staff knew how long the house has been there. The Chairman noted that based on last month testimony, it was brought in after the hurricane. The barn was converted so that they had somewhere to live. He asked if they are living there. Mr. Bunt answered that the gentleman who was here last month stated that the male partner lives in the pole barn and the female lived in the dorm house. Mrs. Monahan asked how this can be resolved. The Chairman answered that last month he suggested for Staff to go out and find this as a non- conforming structure then shut the power off. He noted that they are using the same power that was installed for the barn. Mr. Arnold noted that an electrical permit was pulled for the barn. He stated that the amps for the house is probably correct for that size house but he does not know if it is for the other structures. The Chairman stated that the Health Department should go out there to see if the septic tank is non-conforming. Mr. Arnold noted that the Health Department did go out there but they were not allowed on the property. Mr. Bunt noted that by setting code enforcement actions and by them not coming into compliance, they would probably have to go to court in order to get access. He stated that Mr. Duncan was met with a lot of resistance when he went to the property. The Chairman asked if they are paying about seven hundred dollars a year in taxes. Mrs. Monahan stated that the Commissioners should be aware of this. 8 Officer Prestridge stated that the taxes on the property $3556. She noted that the property is zoned agricultural and it is 8.37 acres. There is an organic produce business being run from the property, and they are making liquid nitrogen for their crop. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64011 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 7, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $50,000.00. An additional cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost of prosecuting the case. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case #64011 that the Code Enforcement Board make the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendation of Staff with regard to the existence of a violation, we make the following determination: The condition caused the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and Staff is directed to notify the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners of the conditions. Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #57620, Location of violation, 3221 S US Hwy., 1, Lot 38, Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Claudia Sargent (Tr.). Trent Ebner, 465 SE Naranja Ave., Port St. Lucie, FL was sworn in by the Board’s secretary. The Chairman stated that he is going to recuse himself from this case. Officer Prestridge stated that this case was brought before the June 2010 meeting and given until December 7, 2010 to come into compliance. She resubmitted one photo dated March 14, 2008 and one photo dated July 25, 2008 taken by Officer Brome and one photo dated May 21, 2010 taken by Officer Williams. On April 10, 2008, Officer Brome inspected the property and found it in violation of Section 11.05.01 for an unpermitted carport and porch. He gave a compliance date of May 10, 2008. On September 18, 2008, Staff had a meeting with the owner and the park manager to discuss way to correct the violation. On March 30, 2009, an extension was given until December 31, 2009. As of today, the permit has been applied for and ready to be issued. She noted that a Notice of Commencement needed to be filed. Mr. Fogg asked Mr. Ebner if he is or is not in violation. Mr. Ebner answered that he was in violation. He noted that the property belongs to his mother. He stated that Mr. Hammond owns the mobile home and the county has been very gracious with helping him to get through this. He thought the permit was taken care of. He noted that Mr. Hammond is in a financial situation so he was not able to pick up the permit. He agreed to loan Mr. Hammond the money to get the permit but he found out there is a double fee. He was told he needed to speak with Mr. Bunt in order to remove the double fee. Mr. Bunt stated that if he is ready to pick up the permit, he does not have a problem removing the double fee. Mr. Fogg asked if the Board is going with Staff’s recommendation of December 7, 2010 or are they leaving it up to the Board. 9 Mr. Bunt stated that Staff is always looking for compliance and not to impose a fine. Staff is aware that it took Mr. Hammond some time to get the permit and that he has hearing issues. He stated that it is up to the Board, and he would like to see him pick the permit up and abate the violation. Mrs. Monahan asked if the violation would be abated by January 10, 2011. Mr. Ebner answered in the affirmative. He noted that the work has been done and all that was needed was a final inspection. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #57620 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 January 10, 2011 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #66177, Location of violation, 120 Del Monte St., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Rockingham Carriage Service Inc. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Prestridge stated that the case was brought before the October 2010 meeting and given until January 1, 2011 to come into compliance. She resubmitted two photos dated July 8, 2010 and four photos dated October 4, 2010 taken by Officer Williams. She submitted seven photos dated January 3, 2011 taken by her. During Danielle’s first inspection on July 8, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 1-12-17, Payment of Tax Prerequisite to Engaging in Business, Etc. and Section 11.05.00, Procedure for Obtaining Development Permits for storing pipes and equipments on the property without a business tax receipt or a zoning compliance permit. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of July 26, 2010. She had contact with the property owner and Staff has met with Mr. O’Brien numerous times and explained to him that the zoning compliance permit or the business tax receipt license is not going to be issued until he resolves the issues on the property. She informed him that he needed to remove the pipes and the equipment off of the property until the issues are resolved. As of January 3, 2011, the pipes and equipments still remain on the property. The Chairman stated that Mr. O’Brien was cited for not having a business tax receipt or a zoning compliance permit for his business. He noted that he read the letter from Mr. O’Brien and he mention pipes on the property that are unsightly and does not need to be there and he is going to send three people from New Hampshire to the Ft Pierce property on January 3 to load and remove the pipes and equipment. He asked if Mr. O’Brien is asking for a reprieve so that he could tidy up and move on and is he implying that he is coming to remove the items from the property so that it goes back to its original state and that he is no longer using it as a business. Officer Prestridge answered in the affirmative. She stated that he needed to take care of the problems with the Planning Department. Last month, the Board told him that he needed to stop doing business from the property which meant that he had to remove the pipe, the equipment, and everything, then he needed to move forward properly through Planning and Zoning. The Chairman asked when the last picture was taken. Officer Prestridge answered that it was taken on Monday, January 3. The Chairman asked if on January 3, she saw laborers with funny accents out there. 10 Officer Prestridge answered no. Mr. Bunt noted that a gentleman called him about a month ago to tell him that he was going to stop cleaning up the property because the gentleman out there had a fatal accident so he was going to get some people to come down. He stated that there has not been any activity on the property for the last month or so. Mr. Fogg asked if the pipes are still there. Mr. Bunt answered that he has removed some but there are still pipes and some equipments there. Mr. Fogg asked what type of pipes they are. Officer Prestridge answered that there were corrugated pipes that are used in ditches. Mrs. Monahan asked where Del Monte St is. Mr. Bunt answered that it is on Indrio and US #1. This was the site for Al’s Motor home. The main building is on Del Monte. Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66177 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 January 1, 2011 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #66346, Location of violation, 7808 Lakeside Way, Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Washington Mutual Bank. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel submitted two photos. One photo dated August 5, 2010 and one photo dated January 3, 2011. The property was brought before the October 6, 2010 Board and found in violation of Section 1-9-32(D) for having overgrowth. The case was found in default. The Board gave until November 5, 2010 to come into compliance. She had no contact with the property owner and as of January 4, 2011, the property is still in violation. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #66346 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 November 6, 2010 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fogg asked if the grass grew so quickly. He noted that it was cited in August 2010. Officer Swartzel answered in the affirmative. She noted that this is a foreclosure property that the bank took over. 11 Mr. Bunt stated that the grass was tall for almost a year when it was in foreclosure, but Staff could not proceed. When the bank took over, Staff cited the property. The Chairman stated that he saw the county has enacted a policy where the bank has to pay a fee for foreclosed properties. He asked if the banks are paying. Mr. Bank answered that some banks are paying and some banks are not. rd Case #65737, Location of violation, 2501 N 43 St., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owners, James and rd Sandra Yearby. Sandra Yearby, 2501 N. 43 St., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Swartzel submitted three photos dated January 1, 2011. The property was brought before the November 3, 2010 Board and found in violation of Section 11.05.01 to obtain a permit for the windows. The Board gave until December 31, 2010 to bring the property into compliance. She had contact with the property owner. The property owner has submitted a letter to the Board to explain the situation, and she is here today. As of January 4, 2011, the property still remains in violation. The Chairman asked Mrs. Yearby if she is or is not in violation. Mrs. Yearby answered that she is in violation. The Chairman asked what has happened since May 20, 2010. Mrs. Yearby answered that she had to change the original engineer that she had because after the last board meeting, she was not able to get in touch with him. She had to hire another one. She noted that she is trying to comply even though she was not the one who changed the windows. She is now waiting on the engineer to give her the paperwork. Mrs. Monahan asked if she heard her say that she was not the one who changed the windows. Mrs. Yearby answered that they did not change the windows, but changed the wood around the windows. Mrs. Monahan asked if they took the old windows out Mrs. Yearby answered no. She noted that when she moved into the house, those were the windows that were there. After the hurricanes, the wood started to rot. She noted that whoever changed the windows did not get a permit, and since she is now the new property owner, she is responsible. She noted that she is trying to comply. Mr. Bunt explained that the previous owners put in new windows without a permit. When Mrs. Yearby bought the house, the framing around the windows were bad. He noted that there are new windows around the house, and they were never permitted. Mrs. Yearby needs a permit because she changed the structural frame that surrounds the window. The Chairman explained that based on the pictures, the two windows on the right are the original windows. The eight inch blocks are recessed back. The windows to the left are different and it shows that the window sizes are different. He noted that when the openings are that big, it would have to be framed out so that it supports the windload. The engineer will tell how the window is going to be attached, and calculate the pressure rating to see if the window can withstand that load. If is not attached properly, it would just disintegrate. Mrs. Monahan asked how much time she needed. 12 Mrs. Yearby answered that she needed as much time as she could get. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65737 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 May 6, 2011 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: NONE X. OTHER BUSINESS: XI. STAFF BUSINESS: Mr. Bunt noted that January is election time again to vote on a new Chairman and Vice- Chairman. Since Mr. Stickles is not present today, Staff recommends that the election be placed on the agenda for next month. Mrs. Monahan asked what happened to Mr. Williford. Mr. Bunt answered that Mr. Williford resigned because the Commissioner who appointed him is no longer in office. He decided to resign unless the new Commissioner appoints him. He mentioned that the agenda is light because Danielle is still out on medical leave, which leave Staff shorthanded. She should be back on Monday. He also mentioned that Staff just got Debbie back on the 31st. Mr. Fogg asked if they are going to have a new Board member. Mr. Bunt answered that he does not know who Commissioner Mowery is going to appoint. XII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 a.m. _________________________ ______________________ Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date __________________________ _______________________ Danielle Williams Date 13