HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 2 2011 (2)
MARCH 2, 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
…………………………………………………………………………………Paul Hiott
…………………………………………………………………………………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
Code Enforcement Officer…………………………………………………Danielle Williams
Contractor License………………………………………………….…..….Monica Vargas-Barrios
Board Secretary…………………………………………………………….Debbie Isenhour
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:02 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. Stickles and Mrs.
Monahan who were excused.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 2, 2011
Mr. Fogg made a motion to accept the minutes of February 2, 2011 as presented
.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Michelle Prestridge, Danielle
Williams, and Monica Vargas Barrios were sworn in.
VI.CONSENT AGENDA
Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien Case No.
Antonio Ziccardi 39712
1
Antonio Ziccardi 32537
Grayson S. Gilbert and Stephen a. Meitner 39030
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Case No.
St. Lucie Realty Group LLC 64558
Hoffler Development LLC 44007
William R. Rieseiman & William Tipton 61509
Defiance Group LLC 59090
Defiance Group LLC 59100
Defiance Group LLC 59101
Defiance Group LLC 59102
Herman and Mildred Heins 43678
The Chairman noted there is a lot of Request for a Fine Reduction Hearings. Under normal
circumstances, he would have rejected the requests, but if someone wants to come in and pay
fifty percent of the fine he is in favor of it.
Mr. Hofmann stated he agreed with Dr. Ingersoll. He asked if the reduced fine would have to be
paid within thirty days.
Mr. Bunt stated the Board is the one who sets the time frame.
Mr. Fogg 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 – St. Lucie Realty Group LLC – Case No. 64558
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Hoffler Development LLC – Case No. 44007
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – William R. Rieseiman & William Tipton – Case No. 61509
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Defiance Group LLC – Case No. 59090
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Defiance Group LLC – Case No. 59100
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Defiance Group LLC – Case No. 59101
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Defiance Group LLC – Case No. 59102
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Herman and Mildred Heins – Case No. 43678
The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation to rehear this case next month.
2
VII. VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name
67176 615 Beach Ave., Port St. Lucie Jose M. Armendarez
67171 310 Shady Lane Richard L. and Veronica Collins
66163 235 Summer Rd., Port St. Lucie Paul J. McCarthy
stFt
67487 2303 N. 41 St., . Pierce Mervyn L. Sulal
66360 223 Hunt Ave., Ft. Pierce Billy E. Spangler, Jr.
66356 213 Hunt Ave., Ft. Pierce Linda Evans
rd
66745 2224 N. 53 St., Ft. Pierce Martha Adams
67297 904 Shore Winds Dr., Bldg C, Ft. Pierce Kevin J. and Ann Desimone
65693 6009 Seagrape Dr., Ft. Pierce, Paul A. and Ann L. Lechner
VIOLATION CASES HEARD:
Case #13 was heard first on the agenda:
nd
Case #66754, Location of violation, 1509 N. 42 St., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Gloria
nd
Dean Lockridge. Gloria Lockridge, 1509 N. 42 St., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board
Secretary and Attorney Jason Berger was present to represent the property owner.
Officer Williams submitted two photos dated September 15, 2010 and one photo dated March 1,
2011. During her first inspection on September 15, 2010, she found the property in violation of
Section 1-9-19, Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles, Etc for having outside storage of
items and materials. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of October 4, 2010. After
getting no compliance, she issued a Notice to Appear letter on February 4, 2011. She had no
contact with the property owner and as of yesterday, March 1, 2011, the property remains in
violation.
The Chairman noted Officer Williams stated the property was an abandoned home, but Ms.
Lockridge stated she lived there.
Officer Williams explained Abandoned Property was the section she was cited under.
Mr. Berger stated he is requesting thirty days.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66754 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 April 30,
2010, 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.
Mr. Berger asked when the prosecution cost is enforced.
Mrs. Barbieri answered the prosecution cost is enforced now. She wanted to clarify that Mr. Fogg
made the enforcement date as April 30, 2010.
3
Mr. Fogg amended his motion date to April 30, 2011.
Mr. Hofmann seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
th
Case #66751, Location of violation, 1920 N. 44 St., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owners, Anthony L.
th
Gordon and Sabrina A. Minus. Anthony L. Gordon, 1920 N. 44 St., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in
by the Board Secretary.
Officer Williams submitted one photo dated September 15, 2010 and two photos dated March 1,
2011. She noted during her first inspection on September 15, 2010, she found the property in
violation of Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage of items and materials and for having an
unserviceable vehicle and Section 8.00.03(F) for having more than two recreational vehicles and
for parking a boat on the grass in the front of the property. She issued a letter and gave a
compliance date of October 4, 2010. After getting no compliance, she issued a Notice to Appear
letter on February 4, 2011. She had contact with the property owner and they discussed ways to
correct the violations. As of yesterday, March 1, 2011, the property remains in violation.
Mr. Gordon wanted to know why he was in violation.
The Chairman explained in a residential district boats cannot be parked on the grass in the front
and no more than two recreational vehicles are allowed.
Mr. Gordon stated Officer Williams told him he could not park in the back yard.
Officer Williams explained the boat in the back will be addressed in the next case.
Mr. Gordon asked where he could park his vehicles.
Officer Williams explained he is allowed to have two boats. One could be parked in the driveway
and the other could be parked on the side or rear of the property. She noted he has three.
Mr. Gordon asked if she was counting the little john boat.
Officer Williams answered in the affirmative due to the boat being on a trailer.
Mr. Bunt stated if he took the john boat off of the trailer it is no longer considered a recreational
vehicle because there are no wheels under it, so he could store it anywhere.
The Chairman noted that statement did not make any sense to him.
Mr. Gordon asked if he kept the two boats if he would have to remove the mobile home.
Officer Williams answered if he wanted to keep them, then the answer is yes.
Mr. Bunt noted if the property is under an acre he is only allowed two recreational vehicles which
includes RVs, boats, trailers, jet skis on trailer, etc in a residential zone.
Mr. Gordon asked if it would make a difference since his back yard has a privacy fence.
Mr. Bunt answered no. He noted a fence does not correct a violation, it would only conceal it.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66751 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 April 30,
4
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.
th
Case #66752, Location of violation, Behind 1920 N. 44 St., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owners,
Anthony L. Gordon and Sabrina A. Minus.
Officer Williams submitted one photo dated September 15, 2010 and two photos dated March 1,
2011. She noted during her first inspection on September 15, 2010, she found the property in
violation of Section 8.00.03(F) for parking a recreational vehicle on a vacant lot. She issued a
letter and gave a compliance date of October 4, 2010. After getting no compliance, she issued a
Notice to Appear letter on February 4, 2011. She had contact with the property owner and they
discussed ways to correct the violation. As of yesterday, March 1, 2011, the property remains in
violation.
The Chairman asked Mr. Gordon if he is or is not in violation.
Mr. Gordon answered he does not think he is.
The Chairman asked Mr. Gordon if the boat is his and is the boat sitting on his lot.
Mr. Gordon answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked Mr. Gordon if the lot is separate from his house.
Mr. Gordon answered no. He stated it is his backyard.
Mr. Fogg asked Staff if the cases are duplications because he was cited under Section 8.00.03(F)
for both cases.
Officer Williams explained he was cited for two separate parcels.
The Chairman explained to Mr. Gordon he could go down to Property Appraisal and combine the
two lots into one. He noted he could not have a boat there as long as there are two tax
identification numbers and there is no house on it.
Mr. Gordon stated he has a shed there. He wanted to know if that was a violation also. He noted
he bought it like that.
The Chairman noted that fixtures and structures are not allowed on vacant lot.
Mr. Bunt stated by combining the two lots would make the vacant lot his back yard.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66752 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 April 30,
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.
5
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gordon asked if he could recommend he not be charged twice for something he was not
aware of.
The Chairman stated the only ones who could make recommendations were the Board.
Mr. Gordon asked if he owed four hundred dollars.
The Chairman answered in the affirmative. He noted if he does not correct the violation, he could
be charged up to two hundred and fifty dollars a day.
Mr. Gordon asked when he has to pay the four hundred dollars.
The Chairman asked when the due date was.
Mrs. Barbieri told Mr. Gordon to come down to the Code Department and speak with Mrs.
Williams
Companion Cases
Case #64233, Location of violation, 705 S. Market Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, K & K
Properties of Sarasota I.
Case #65638, Location of violation, 705 S. Market Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL. Tenant, Ebner’s Collision.
Michael Ebner, 1207 Australian Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board Secretary.
The Chairman asked Mr. Krieger if the Board should let the first case default or listen to the
evidence on both.
Mr. Krieger advised the Board they could listen to the evidence, weigh each one individually, and
then make two motions.
Officer Williams submitted one photo dated February 28, 2011. She noted during her first
inspection on April 26, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and
Sign Permits for not having a permit for the spray paint booth. After getting no compliance, she
issued a Notice to Appear letter on February 4, 2011. She had contact with the tenant and they
discussed ways to correct the violation. As of today, March 2, 2011, the property remains in
violation.
The Chairman asked Mr. Ebner if he is in violation.
Mr. Ebner answered in the affirmative. He noted he has been working on correcting the violation
but the company who made the booth is out of business. He has no way of getting plans for it.
He stated he asked the Building Department if he could have the booth inspected without having
plans.
The Chairman stated he would not need a survey or wind load because the booth is inside the
building. He noted all he needed was a certification from an engineer.
Mr. Ebner stated when he asked that was not an option. The only option he had was he needed
plans.
Mr. Bunt explained if he hired an engineer, the engineer would draw up plans showing how the
booth was installed.
6
Mr. Fogg asked who gave him the information.
Mr. Ebner answered he does not know the name of the gentleman.
Mr. Hiott stated the air that comes out of the booth will be the problematic thing that Code will be
looking at. He noted Mr. Ebner could use the scientific information such as emissions from
another similar booth.
The Chairman asked Mr. Arnold if emissions are in the Building Standard.
Mr. Arnold answered he believed it does show it.
The Chairman noted any engineer should be able to do that.
Mr. Bunt explained if he had the manufacturer’s plans or designs, the process would have been
much easier. He noted the fire department would also be coming out.
Mr. Ebner noted the fire department already came out and signed off on the fire depression.
Mr. Fogg asked if this is an updraft.
Mr. Ebner answered it is a downdraft.
The Chairman asked if there is water on the bottom and sides.
Mr. Ebner answered there is no water. He noted there are filters.
The Chairman asked Mr. Bunt how much time he would need.
Mr. Bunt answered he would need about ninety days.
The Chairman stated this could go through quickly if he had a good engineer.
Mr. Ebner asked if the ninety days is for him to work on getting the permit.
The Chairman explained he had to obtain the permit within the ninety days.
Mr. Fogg noted he had to keep in contact with Staff but the date is set.
Mr. Ebner asked if he could ask for one hundred and twenty days.
Mr. Fogg stated he could but he might not get it.
Mr. Bunt explained if the permit is not completed within the ninety days he would still have to
come back before the Board for a Fine Hearing. At the Fine Hearing he would explain to the
Board his progress and the Board might give him more time. The Board might not if there is no
progress.
Mr. Hiott noted the first case is for the property owner.
The Chairman explained they would also give the property owner the same time they give Mr.
Ebner,
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64233 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
7
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 31,
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.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65638 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 July 31,
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.
Case #66933, Location of violation, 117 Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property Owner, Douglas
S. Dickinson. Ray Dickinson, 117 Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie, FL was sworn in by the Board
Secretary.
Officer Vargas Barrios submitted four photos dated October 20, 2010 and three letters she
received from the property owner. She noted on October 25, 2010 she issued a Notice of
Violation letter to the property owner to please obtain a permit for the electrical light in the back of
the property and for enclosing in the aluminum screen porch including the roof. She gave a
correction date of November 11, 2010. Staff had contact with the owner via mail and explained
what needed to be done to correct the violation. On January 27, 2011, she issued the Notice to
Appear letter. Staff has been working on the case for four months. After getting no compliance,
Staff brought the case before the Code Enforcement Board.
The Chairman asked Mr. Dickinson if he is or is not in violation.
Mr. Dickinson answered he is not in violation. He bought the house as is. The only work he did
was replaced the siding that was damage by a storm.
The Chairman asked if he installed an electrical light in the back of the property.
Mr. Dickinson answered no. He stated he has an extension cord there. He noted this complaint
is coming from a criminal neighbor who has a personal vendetta.
The Chairman asked Officer Vargas Barrios if the electric light was hardwired.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered she does not know.
The Chairman asked Mr. Dickinson if he is saying he runs the light with an extension cord and if
he is saying he switches it on and off from inside his house.
Mr. Dickinson answered no. He noted he has an extension cord. He stated maybe he needed an
attorney because he is tired of being harassed.
The Chairman noted he wanted to only hear the facts on this case. He asked if he plugged in an
electrical cord when he wants to operate the light.
8
Mr. Dickinson answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked if Staff goes out there will be no conduit under the ground or wires but
strictly an electrical cord.
Mr. Dickinson noted they will find an electrical cord hanging on the pole.
The Chairman asked if the cord runs to the house.
Mr. Dickinson answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked if the cord is continuously plugged in.
Mr. Dickinson answered no.
The Chairman asked how he switches the power on.
Mr. Dickinson answered he runs the extension from the plug by his side door or from inside
where his washing machine is.
The Chairman asked if he manually plugged it in every time he needed it.
Mr. Dickinson answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman noted he needed clarification because this would be like a Christmas tree light.
Mr. Arnold noted there is no violation if Mr. Dickinson plugged the cord in as he needed it. If it is
plugged in constantly it would have to be hard wired.
The Chairman noted there should be a GFI outlet on the outside. He noted he would like a
Building Inspector to go out to determine if it is a hard connection.
Mr. Fogg stated there is no code for a temporary extension cord.
Mr. Arnold noted that if the cord is attached permanently, it has to be permitted per code.
The Chairman asked Mr. Dickinson if he did work on the aluminum screen porch including the
roof.
Mr. Dickinson stated he has a blue tarp on the roof because it leaks. He noted he is permanently
disabled. He only replaced the siding and he has been painting it for a couple of years.
The Chairman stated he is confused because he is saying he did nothing except put a blue tarp
over the roof.
Mr. Dickinson stated he replaced a few siding. He bought the house “as is”.
The Chairman noted that “as is” means nothing. It is in compliance or it is not. He asked Officer
Vargas Barrios if she is saying Mr. Dickinson took a back porch and enclosed it.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked if he put new installation in there.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered in the affirmative.
9
The Chairman asked if he enclosed all of it or some of it.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered according to the Property Appraisal it was an aluminum screen
porch so it should be all screened in and now it is enclosed with a window.
The Chairman asked if he put installation up on the roof.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked Mr. Dickinson if he is saying he did nothing.
Mr. Dickinson answered he bought the house as it and he replaced a few siding. He asked to
see a picture with the date on it showing the porch. He noted he kicked out renters when he
bought the house.
The Chairman explained to Mr. Dickinson when he bought the house he bought all its liability. If
he bought the house and there was no building permit, then he bought that liability. He is not
exempt but liable.
Mr. Fogg asked how long he lived there.
Mr. Dickinson answered he lived there since 1996. He had to put the house in his brother’s name
because he had a lot of surgery. He stated he wanted to be left alone and die in peace.
Mr. Fogg asked Officer Vargas Barrios if the work was done since 1996.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered she received the complaint last year from neighbors stating
work was being done.
Mr. Dickinson noted the neighbor is a criminal who has been arrested for abusing the elderly.
Mr. Fogg asked Mr. Dickinson if there was work being done last year.
Mr. Dickinson stated he wanted to see pictures showing work being done.
Mr. Fogg stated he was asking him.
Mr. Dickinson answered the only work that was done was him painting the house twenty minutes
a days until he gets ready to pass out.
Mr. Fogg asked if he did any carpentry work.
Mr. Dickinson answered no.
The Chairman asked if there are pictures from the Property Appraisal.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered she has a picture of the floor plan showing it should have been
an aluminum screen room.
The Chairman suggested the Board continue the case. He wanted an inspector to go out to look
at the light and the structure in the back.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66933 that the Code Enforcement
Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting of April 6, 2011.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
10
The Hall was sounded and Mr. Fogg read the names and numbers of the cases of those
not present into the record:
Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor/Violator
67423 155 Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie CitiMortgage
67169 300 Rio Mar Dr., Port St. Lucie Carlos A. Vilaca and Judy La Jeunesse
66376 5503 Myrtle Dr., Ft. Pierce Joshua J. Bennett
67023 354 Borraclough, Ft. Pierce Jamie DiFrancesco
67794 5960 Floyd Johnson Rd., Ft. Pierce Jenkins Road 90 LLC
64233 705 S. Market Ave., Ft. Pierce K & K Properties of Sarasota I
66190 7409 Laguna Rd., Ft. Pierce Joe L. and Emma J. Mitchell
67132 3406 Ave F, Ft. Pierce Lucille Yanok
66677 17080 Hammock Ln., Ft. Pierce Manuel Grossy
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. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
VIII. FINE HEARING:
Case #66140, Location of violation, 5201 Sunset Blvd., Ft. Pierce FL. Property Owner, Thomas
H. Vinson. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Brubaker noted the case was found in default at the January 2011 meeting and was given
until February 4, 2011 to come into compliance. She submitted five photos. One photo dated
July 8, 2010, one photo dated October 1, 2010, two photos dated January 3, 2011, and one photo
dated February 28, 2011. She noted during her first inspection on July 12, 2010, she found the
property in violation of Section 1-9-32 for having overgrowth. She issued a letter and gave a
compliance date of July 26, 2010. She has had no contact with the property owner and as of
March 1, 2011, the property remains in violation.
Mr. Hofmann asked if anyone is living there.
Officer Brubaker answered no.
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #66140 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 February 5, 2011 with a maximum fine not to exceed
$5,000.00.
Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #61508, Location of violation, 791 Woodlands Dr., Port St. Lucie, FL. Property Owner,
Annatta Lovelock. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Vargas Barrios submitted four photos. Two photos dated July 22, 2010, one photo dated
January 4, 2011, and one photo dated March 1, 2011. She noted the case appear before the
11
Board on January 5, 2011 and was found in violation by default of Section 11.05.01 A(2)a, Time
Limitation of Building Permits. On January 12, 2009, a Notice of Violation letter was sent to
reactive and to obtain a final inspection for permit #0503-2013 for a roof with the correction date
of February 12, 2009. On February 24, 2009, she posted the property with a correction date of
March 24, 2009 because the original notice came back as undeliverable. Staff previously
scheduled the case to come before the August 2010 Board but the property owner notified Staff
of a change of address because she never received the correspondences of the violation from
Staff. The property owner requested more time to bring the property into compliance. After
having no more communications with the property owner, Staff issued a Notice to Appear on
November 4, 2010. She noted as of March 2, 2011, the property remains in violation.
The Chairman noted the case is over two years.
Mr. Hofmann asked is anyone lives there.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered no.
Mr. Hofmann asked if the property is in foreclosure.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered no.
Case #65828, Location of violation, 10701 S. Ocean Dr., Lot 721, Jensen Beach, FL. Property
Owners, Alfred and Patricia Jamarowicz. Alfred Jamarowicz 10701 S. Ocean Dr., Lot 721,
Jensen Beach, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary.
Officer Vargas Barrios submitted four photos. Two photos dated May 26, 2010, one photo dated
June 13, 2010, one photo dated January 4, 2011, and one photo dated March 1, 2011. . She
noted the case appeared for the January 5, 2011 meeting and was found in violation of Section
11.05.01, Building Permit. She stated the owner was present at the meeting. On May 26, 2010,
she received a complaint of work being done without a permit. She noticed a structure was
added to the screen room in the back of the property. The property owner was there and she
explained to him a permit was required. She issued a stop work order and advised him to contact
the Building Department. On June 13, 2010, she reinspected the property and noticed the work
was complete and a permit was not applied for. She issued a Notice of Violation letter with the
correction date of July 21, 2010. On July 23, 2010, the owner contacted Staff and explained he
would not be back until November 2010. On November 22, 2010, she issued the Notice to
Appear. She had no other contact with the property owner. At the Violation Hearing, the Board
gave until March 2, 2011 to come into compliance. On March 1, 2011, Staff received a voicemail
message from the property owner who stated he has been in contact with the Plans Examiner
and an engineer.
Mr. Jamarowicz noted that since the last time he appeared before the Board, he had been in
contact with a few engineers. He noted that John Henry had the paperwork a few weeks ago and
he was going to get in contact with Joe Cicio. He noted he went through five people because
they do not want to do the work because the structure is already up. He stated he is here to ask
the Board for an extension.
The Chairman asked Mr. Jamarowicz how big the addition is.
Mr. Jamarowicz answered the screen room was already there but he moved it out four more feet
because it had hail damage. He did not have time to obtain a permit because the wind was
blowing into his house. He stated he knew he was in violation.
Mr. Fogg stated he did not stop the work when a stop work order was issued and now he is
before the Board asking for more time. He noted he nor the Board do not have any sympathy for
him.
12
The Chairman noted that it is never a selling point when an officer issues a stop work order and
the job is proceeding.
Mr. Jamarowicz noted when Officer Barrios came there he had everything up except two more
hours left.
The Chairman asked if he is acknowledging he saw the stop work order but decided to continue.
Mr. Jamarowicz answered he was with her outside when she placed it on his house.
The Chairman stated he finished the work willfully.
Mr. Jamarowicz noted he finished the siding because he knew he was already in trouble.
Mr. Hiott asked Mr. Jamarowicz when the project was started.
Mr. Jamarowicz answered he started the project last year but once he enclosed it, he went back
to Maryland for six months.
Mr. Hiott noted Mr. Jamarowicz he did not want to stick around so he went back to Maryland
instead of taking care of it before the left. He asked if he went back to Maryland to work or did he
go back for the summer.
Mr. Jamarowicz answered he went back to work. He noted he has a fence company.
Mr. Hiott asked if he pulled permits at his fence company.
Mr. Jamarowicz answered in the affirmative. He noted only in some counties.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #66140 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 February 5, 2011 with a maximum fine not to exceed
$5,000.00.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Jamarowicz asked if the Board knew of an engineer he could hire. He noted he knew he did
wrong but he was trying to rectify it and now they are trying to burn him for $250 a day.
The Chairman stated the decision has already been made.
IX REPEAT VIOLATION:
Case #67569, Location of violation, 4001 N. A1A, Ft. Pierce, FL. Property Owner, Mandela
Holdings LLC. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Vargas Barrios submitted seven photos. Two photos dated January 24, 2011 and five
photos dated February 15, 2011. She noted this case came before the Board on September 3,
2008 and was found in violation of Section 13.09.00, Article 301.3, Exterior Property Maintenance
and Section 1-9-32(d) for having overgrowth. On January 24, 2011, she again found the property
to be a repeat violator of Section 13.09.00, Article 301.3 and Section 1-9-32(D) for having
overgrowth. On February 1, 2011, she issued a Repeat Notice of Violation letter. She noted
13
Section 13.09.00, Article 301.3 has been abated but as of March 1, 2011, Section 1-9-32(D),
Overgrowth is still in violation.
The Chairman asked Mr. Bunt if this property is a candidate for condemnation.
Mr. Bunt answered no because the building is a block structure. He noted the building is in good
condition and all it needed was to be gutted and rehabilitated. The property owner rarely cut the
grass and he does not care.
Mr. Fogg asked if Staff recommendation of $500 was a daily fine.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #67569 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 January 25,
2011 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00 and a cost of $200 shall be imposed as
the cost of prosecuting the case.
Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
X. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING:
XI OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Bunt wanted to clarify that the cases that were approved under the Consent Agenda will be
coming back before the Board next month for the Fine Reduction Hearing. He noted he did not
want anyone to think it was already ruled upon.
The Chairman noted he was only stating his opinion. He stated if the fines were discounted they
could be cleared up. He noted he admired the gentleman last month whose fine was around
seven thousand dollars and he offered thirty five hundred in which he paid. He stated he saw a
lot zeros but they will have to come up with something. He noted if they could bring in one
hundred or two hundred thousand dollars then maybe Staff could hire another officer.
Mr. Bunt noted Staff has adopted the same mentality. Staff is willing to consider a reduction if
some money is offered. He noted Staff’s ultimate goal is to bring the property into compliance.
Mr. Hofmann noted he believed the money goes into the general fund.
Mr. Bunt confirmed that it does.
The Chairman asked Staff when the $200 prosecution cost is due.
Mr. Bunt answered Staff would like it to be due today because it is a prosecution cost; however,
there is no set time limit.
Mr. Fogg asked if the Board could put a thirty day time frame on it.
Mr. Bunt answered it would be up to the Board.
14
Mr. Krieger stated they could look at that but he remembered there was an issue as what is or is
not a lien which is why they did an assessment.
Mr. Fogg asked if it should be paid at any given time.
Mr. Krieger answered they should look into how to put this in the motion. He wanted to make
sure something could be done legally.
The Chairman noted he remember the Board use to be the collectors of traffic or parking fines.
He stated the Sheriff Department use to send a list to them.
Officer Williams stated the list was for the Fire Alarms.
The Chairman noted the fine was placed on the tax bill. He wondered why they did not do it
anymore.
Mr. Krieger noted there was a reason and it was addressed back then.
The Chairman noted whatever they did with the fire alarms they could probably do the same thing
for the prosecution cost.
The Chairman noted he will not be present for next month meeting.
XII. STAFF BUSINESS:
XIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
ADJOURN:
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:16 a.m.
15