HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes June 5, 2013JUNE 5, 2013
HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS
ROGER POITRAS ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Code Enforcement Board meetine was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by Mr Hofmann
II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT
Chairman ...........................................................................Mr. Ray Hofmann
Board Members ....................................................................Mi•. Wes Taylor
.......................................................................................Mi'. Ruidy Murdock
.......................................................................................Mrs. Margaret Monahan
.......................................................................................Mr. Brad Cw~ie
Board Attorney ....................................................................Mr. Jack Krieger
ABSENT
Mr. Fogg was excused and in his absence Mr. Hofmann was acting Chah'man.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MAY 1, 2012
Mr. Taylor made a motion to accept the minutes of MAY 1, 2013
Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
STAFF PRESENT
Assistant County Attorney ................................... .....................Katherine Barbieri
Building and Code Regulation Manager ................... ....................Monica Graziani
Interim Building Official ..................................... ....................Carl Peterson
Code Enforcement Supervisor ............................... ....................Danielle Williams
Code Enforcement Officer .....:............................ .....................Melissa Brubaker
................................................................... ....................Lynn Swartzel
................................................................... ....................Monica Vargas Barrios
Board Secretary ................................................ ....................Deborah Isenhour
Monica Graziani, Carl Peterson, Danielle Williams, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, and Monica Vargas
Barrios were sworn in.
1
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien
Nicolas J. Antonas Case No. 63546
Mr. Currie made a motion to approve and accept staff's recommendation as presented.
Mr. Taylor seconded and the motimr carried unanimously.
VIL VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name
75390 8602 Paso Robles Blvd., Ft. Pierce Ralph Vaughn
75715 6608 Fort Walton Rd., Ft Pierce NIC Management LLC (TR)
75715 2251 N US Hwy 1, Ft. Pierce Ridgecrest Mobile Home Pazk
75820 7606 Kenwood Dr., Ft. Pierce Cenlar FSB
75875 5007 Turnpike Feeder Rd, Ft. Pierce Wrightland Inc.
75876 5007 Turnpike Feeder Rd., Ft. Pierce Dixie Cream Donuts
75295 120 SE Celestia Ct., Pm4 St. Lucie Jessica and Travis Mounts
75173 620 N Coconut Ave., Port St. Lucie Jay P. Singh
75244 395 E Easy St., Ft. Pierce Alexander W. Giles IIT and Christine M. Giles
75250 5707 Tangelo Dr., Ft. Pierce Bobbie J. Rule
745]4 475 SE Abeto Ln, Port St. Lucie Milton Moreno
75507 2004 N 5] a` St., Ft. Pierce Ronald and Elease I. Green
75508 Lot Next To 2004 N Sle` St, Ft. Pierce Marquell Carswell
73878 2771 Coolidge Rd., Ft. Pierce Anne and Brandy M. House
73938 1915 S 34"' St., Ft. Pierce Interamerican Bank FSB
73815 2505 Avenue R, Ft. Pierce Ladrus Goodman
Case #6, Case No. 75015 was heard first on the agenda:
Case #75015, Location of violation, 7902 Miramar Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Steven J.
McGary. William D. Wise, 7902 Miramar Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, tenant and representative for the owner was
sworn in by the Board's Secretary.
Officer Swartzel submitted two (2) photos. One (1) dated January 22, 2013, and one (I) dated June 3,
2013. She stated during her first inspection on January 22, 2013 she found 7902 Miramaz• Ave. to be in
violation of Section 11.05.01 Building and Sign Permits, to obtain a building permit for enclosing the
garage. She issued a Notice of Violation letter and gave a compliance date of February 23, 2013. She
stated she has had conversations with the homeowner and discussed ways to correct the violation. She
noted as of June 4, 2013 the property still remains in violation.
Mr. Wise stated that the home had been broken into twice and they had a carport and Officer Swar4zel
spoke to his roommate he believes. He stated they put a temporary wall up in the carport that is not
permanently attached and thought it would be O.I{, they have since found out that it is not allowed, he
stated he will be moving from this address in ninety (90) days and the wall will be removed at that time
returning it back to the way it was.
Chahman Hofmann asked Mr. Wise if he was stating that he is going to remove the wall when he moves
Mr. Wise answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Hofmann asked staff if Mr. Wise would need a permit to remove the wall.
Mr. Peterson stated that he would need a demolition permit.
Chairman Hofmann asked Officer Swartzel if a permit to remove the wall would suffice.
Officer Swa~rtzel answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Hofmann informed Mr. Wise that he would need a permit designated for removal of the wall.
Mr. Currie stated he did not understand how you would need a permit to remove something that was put up
without a permit. How do we know what was put up if we do not have a permit for it.
Mr. Wise stated let me explain further, he stated this was a carport and his roommate is a rethed conhactor
and he built a frame that fits in the opening and is attached, but not attached, with nails, it was designed to
be easily removable.. He stated the wall was put in to protect theh• property, it looks like a wall with a door
in it and can be removed by taking out some nails and maybe a couple of boards, pull it out and it is done.
Chairman Hofmann asked staff for clarity on the permit requhement.
Mr. Peterson stated that just because they did not have a permit to build it does not mean it does not need a
permit to demolish it
Mr. Currie asked staff if they know what the cost of a demolition permit is.
Mr. Peterson answered he believes it is around eighty four dollars ($84.00).
Chairman Hofmann stated a motion is needed.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #75015 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 September 30, 2013, a fine of up to
$250.00 per day may be imposed. A cost of $200.00 has been imposed as the cost for prosecuting this
case. Please take notice that on the lsf 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. She stated that she wanted to further add to the motimt that
- due to the simplicity of tGis wall that he does not need a demolition permit, that he can just remove it.
Mr. Currie seconded the motion.
Mr. Krieger informed the Board that the motion goes outside of the purview of the Code
Enforcement Board. He stated the bottom line is that the Board can find the violator in violation or
not in violation and basically set the date for compliance and cannot go beyond that.
Mrs. Monahan amended her motion to take out the last paragraph on no demolition permit required.
Mr. Currie seconded the amended motion and the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Hofmann informed Mr. Wise that he has to obtain a demolition permit to remove the wall
and has until September 30, 2013 to take care of it.
Case No.75249, Location of violation, 5609 Tangelo Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Stephen D.
Mack. Steven D. Mack was sworn in by the Board's Secretary.
Officer Brubaker submitted two (2) photos, one (1) dated February 1, 2013 and one (1) dated May 30,
2013. She stated on her fast inspection she found 5609 Tangelo Dr. in violation of Section ] 1.05.01 A (2)a
for Permit #0603-0275 for the carport/shed permit being expired and issued a Notice of Violation letter
with a compliance date of March 1, 2013. She stated that she has had no contact with the owner and as of
June 4, 2013 the property remains in violation and the permit is still expired.
Mr. Mack stated he purchased the home last year, he believes he has the original permit for the shed that he
received when he bought the home, but this is the first be has heard of it and the shed was installed in 2006.
He stated he received the letter in February and he called the office and was sent to an answering machine
and was told that everyone would be in at 4:00 p.m. and he never heard anything. He stated he then
received a certified letter and here I am. He stated if he needs to call and have someone come out and
inspect it he has no problem with that.
Chairman Hofmann informed him he would have to renew the permit first and once he renews the permit
he can call for an inspection.
Mr. Mack asked where he would renew the permit.
Mrs. Monahan asked Mr. Mack if he had been in contact with Officer Brubaker at all through any of this.
Mr•. Mack answered is that who I should contact.
Mrs. Monahan answered yes she is the officer for your case
Mr•. Mack stated again that he called in February around 2:00 p.m. and was told that no one would be in
until 4:00 p.m.; he then was tt•ansfen•ed to a voicemail where he left his name, the case number and address,
but never heard fiom anyone until he received the certified letter.
Mrs. Monahan asked Officer Brubaker if she could give Mr. Mack her card or information and get with
him on how to work this out.
Officer Brubaker answered in the affirmative
Mrs. Monahan asked Mr•. Mack if he could have this done in thirty (30) days
Mr. Mack answered in the affirmative
Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #75249 that the Code Enforcement Board continues
t}ris case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on August 7, 2013.
Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously
Case No.74339, Locarion of violaton, 7217 Blyse Cir, Port St. Lucie, FL, Property Owner, Bernice M. and
Robert P. Burkarth. Robert P. Burkarth was sworn in by the Board's Secretary.
Officer Brubaker submitted two (2) photos, one (1) dated October 24, 2012 and one (1) dated May 28,
2013. She stated dm'ing her first inspection she found 7211 Elyse Cir, in violation of Section 13.00.01,
Article 103.5, Unsafe Structures, as the seawall and dock needed to be repaired. She issued a Notice of
Violation letter and gave a compliance date of December 7, 2012. She stated she has had contact with the
owner and discussed the ways to correct the violation. She noted as of June 4, 2013 the property still
remains in violation.
Chairman Hofmann asked Mr. Burkarth what his plans were to correct the violation.
Mr. Burkarth answered that the dock is only four years old now and the last storm that came through
pushed the seawall out creating a cliff and the damage to the dock and seawall show in the pictures shown
4
by Officer Brubaker. He stated that he contacted the company that had done the work and they
recommended that he contact an engineer. He stated that the original plan he worked out with the company
was he was going to provide the material and they were to repair their bad work. But when he talked to an
engineer the engineer informed him the reason the seawall fell in was the giver had scoured underneath the
seawall below the water down to its depth of fourteen feet. He stated that the seawall boards are twelve
feet with four feet above the water and now there is nothing to support the pIlings. He stated right now it is
a money issue as it is will be an $80,000.00 to repair the damage, where originally it was going to be
$20,000. He stated that this was an unexpected expense and he has about $48, 000, but does not have all
the funds for the repair at present. He stated he had not submitted a permit yet as he is not sure how to
proceed and the engineer recommended a steel seawall which is $800.00 a foot and he has 100 feet to
replace and another 75 feet that should be replaced as well. He also noted that the damage has not gotten
worse.
Chairman Hofmann asked staff if Mr. Burkarth could get a permit and remove it entirely.
Mr. Burkarth stated if he does not replace the seawall it will just eat away at his property very quickly as he
is on an outside bend of the river and it really flows.
Mrs. Monahan asked staff if it would be possible for Mr. Burkarth to remove the dock entirely and leave
the seawall until he had saved enough money to replace it.
Ms. Barbieri informed the Board that he could do that but that would not abate the violation as the seawall
is a safety hazard and he was cited for both.
The Board asked Mr. Burkarth if he had a DEP permit.
Mr. Burkarth answered that he did not have a DEP permit and that he anticipates that he will have the
$60,000.00 he needs in approximately three months and could start the permitting process, but feels he will
need at least a couple of months to get a contractor and required items to submit for permit submittal.
Mr. Murdock asked Chahman Hofmann how long the Bou'd could give Mr. Burkarth to comply with all
the requn•ements, like DEP approval, plans, contractor etc.
Mr. Krieger informed the Board that he did not believe there is a time limit that the Board has discretion.
Mr. Murdock asked the Board if they would agree to give Mr. Burkarth six months to complete the process
as long as he keeps staff and the Board up to date on his progress.
There was discussion among the Board and Mr. Krieger on setting a time limit or continuing the case.
Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #7A339 that the Code Enforcement Board continues
this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on December 4, 2013.
Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Default Cases:
The Hall was sounded and Mrs. Monahan read the name and number of the case of those not present
into the record:
Case No. Locatimi of Violation Property Owner/Contractor/Violator
75926 5001 Sparkling Pines Cir., Ft. Pierce Heatherway Ft. Pierce LTD
75718 2303 N US HWY 1 Ste. # 8, Ft. Pierce Tiegs and Huff Investments LTD
75727 2303 N US HWY 1 Ste. # 8, Ft. Pierce Meg's Cars
75186 1006 Echo St., Ft. Pierce Jeff A. and Debra E. Burling
76256 195 SE Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie Melissa Chalifoux
75262 2403 River Hammock Ln., Ft. Pierce Carol A. Costas
75450 3406 Avenue F, Ft. Pierce Lucille Yanok
Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to the cases 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 violations against him/her that the Board adopt the recommendation
of staff as set forth on the agenda.
Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
VIII. FINE HEARING:
Case No. Locatimr of Violation A-ooerty Owner/Contractor/Violator
68270 10701 S. Ocean Dr., Lot 686, Jensen Beach Denis Pen'on and Linda Dottore
73686 218 Everglades Blvd., Smart Charles and Rosemary Viera Tedder
74230 2724 Navajo Ave., Ft. Pierce Daniel Cozine
74736 Next to 6995 Turnpike Feeder Rd., Ft Pierce Eliser Ctuz Jr.
74054 7402 Citrus Park Blvd., Ft Pierce Robert E. Mitchell (EST)
75095 5415 Fort Pierce Blvd., Pt Pierce Elgin and Leigh A. Hipps
Case No. 68270, Location of violation, 10701 S Ocean Dr., Lot 686, Jensen Beach, Property Owner, Denis
Pen'on and Linda Dottore. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Vargas Barrios resubmitted six (6) photos, three (3) dated March 30, 2011 and three (3) dated
November 21, 2012. She stated that this case was brought to the Violation }fearing on December 5, 2012
and was found in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building and Sign permits for not having a permit for the
raised addition, deck and the stucco on the addition, the Board gave until February 6, 2013 to bring the
property into compliance She stated the permit was applied for on January 15, 2013. She noted from the
review notes from Zoning, the addition does not meet the required 10' finnt set back and the rear deck does
not meet the Land Development Code requirements. A variance fi'om the Board of Adjustments was
required. She stated on February 19, 2013 staff received an email from I{ristin Tetsworth, Senior Planner
with Planning and Development Services stating a variance application was accepted and it is scheduled to
go before the Board of Adjushnents on March 27, 2013. She stated at the March 6, 2013 Fine Hearing Mr.
Perron came before the Board and explained the situation and the owner and staff requested more time for
the Boazd of AdjusGnents meeting to take place, at that meeting the Board continued the case until June 5,
2013. She noted on Apri124, 2013 the variance was approved by the Board of Adjusmtents and on May
29, 2013 the permit was issued, the property was in violation for 112 days. She stated the property owner
and the contractor were not able to attend the meeting as they at•e out of the country. She stated since the
property is in compliance staff is recommending for no fines to be imposed.
Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 68270 that the Code Enforcement Board makes
the following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, testimony, and the report of staff
with regard to the existence of a violation, that we determine the violation has been abated and no
fine is imposed.
Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 73686, Location of violation, 218 Everglades Blvd., Stuart, Property Owner, Charles and
Rosemazry Tedder. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Vargas Barrios resubmitted one (1) photo dated, February 1, 2013, a copy of the Aerial and also
one (1) photo dated May 7, 2013. She stated this case was brought before the Code Enforcement Board on
February 6, 2013 and was found in violation of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Section
8.00.03 (F) Particular Permitted Accessory Structures, for having more than two (2) pieces of recreational
equipment on the property. She noted that the board gave until May 1, 2013 to bring the property into
compliance. She stated staff spoke to Mr. Tedder on June 4, 2013 and he said he had one more boat to
remove. She noted as of June A, 2013 the property remains in violation.
Mrs. Monahan asked staff if they knew which one of the boats is still there.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered that she believes it is the one in the photo next to the driveway. She
stated that when she spoke to Ivlr'. Tedder yesterday he informed her there was still one boat to be removed
and he said he would be in attendance today.
Mrs. Monahan asked were this property is with a S[uarf address.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered it is in Beau Rivage.
Mr. Cmiie asked staff if they lrnew when this was going to become Martin County.
Officer Vargas Barios answered July 1, 2013.
Mrs. Monahan asked what happens if it has a violation St. Lucie County when it becomes Martin County.
Mi•. Krieget• informed the Board if it is recorded prior to the turnover to Martin County and it is public
record when that property is sold or conveyed to another party the lien will be there and title companies and
title examiners will want the lien taken care of.
Mr. Cunie asked for clarification on if the Board fmds it in violation how soon staff could file a lien and
what would the maximum fine would be.
Offtcer Williams answered that staff could start filing the lien after the meeting today and the amount
recorded is whatever is in the order and when the amount of the lien is requested we inform them of the
amount.
Mi•. Murdock asked Officer Vargas Ban ios if she had stated she spoke to Mi•. Tedder and he informed her
he had one more boat to remove and asked if he had given her a timeline of when the boat would be
removed.
Officer Vu-gas Barrios answered that Mr. Tedder had info~~ned her that he had one boat to remove and said
something about fixing the tires and that he had removed it at one time and then brought it back so it is
technically stll in violation.
There was discussion among the board members on how to handle this case and whether to give him more
time or impose a fine. They discussed whether he was still in violation if he had removed the boat at one
three and then returned it. The board asked staff it there was proof that there are tlnee boats on the property.
Officer Vargas Barrios answered that Mr. Tedder had told her there are tluee boats on the property.
Chairman Hofmann stated that he felt even if the property is being annexed Mr. Tedder should be handled
like any other case as he is in violation and it appeared to be an easy thing to correct as you can park boats
in many places besides your property. He stated if could make a motion he would find it in violation and
let the chips fall where they may, but as acting Chairman he cannot a motion.
Mrs. Monahan stated that if she remembers right Mr. Tedder agreed that the three month they gave him
would be enough time for him to correct the violation
Mt•. Krieger advised Chairman Hofmann if wanted to make a motion he could pass the gavel to the acting
Vice Chair and then make a motion.
Chairman Hofmann passed the gavel to Mrs. Monahan the acting Vice Chair so he could make a
motimt.
Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #73686 that the Code Enforcement Board makes
the followhng determination: After hearing testimmty, 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 amy previous violations, we make the following
determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting
June 5, 2013 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 74230, Location of violation, 2724 Navajo Ave., Ft. Pierce, Property Owner, Daniel Cozine.
There was no one present to represent the propert owner.
Officer Swartzel submitted three (3) photos, one (1) dated March 19, 2013 and two (2) dated June 3, 2013.
She stated Otat 2724 Navajo Ave, was brought to the April 3, 2013 Code Board and fotmd in default of
Section 1-9-32 Overgrowth. She noted that the Board gave a compliance date of May 3, 2013. She stated
she has had no contact with the property owner, the property is not in foreclosure and the neighbor was
mowing the property but has stopped at this thne. She stated as of June 4, 2013 this property still remains
in violation.
Chairman Hofmann asked the board if they had any questions.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 74230 that the Code Enforcement Board
makes 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 slmll be imposed for each day the violation exists starting
May 4, 2013 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Murdock secmtded and the motion carried mtanimously.
Case No. 74736, Location of violation, Next to 6995 Turnpike Feeder Rd, Ft. Pierce, Property Owner,
Eliser Cruz, Jr. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Swartzel submitted six (6) photos. One dated February 28, 2013, three (3) dated April 1, 2013 and
two (2) dated June 3, 2013. She stated that the property next to 6995 Turnpike Feeder Rd. was brought to
the April 3, 2013 Code Board and found in default of Sectionl-9-19, Outside Storage, for construction
material on the pxoperry, Section 7.10.14, Commercial Vehicles and Semi-TYailers, as the heavy equipment
cannot be parked or stored on the property and Section 6.00.03, Notice of Vegetation Removal required, to
obtain a Vegetation Removal Permit. She noted the Board gave a compliance date of May 3, 2013. She
stated she has had no contact with the property owner and as of June 4, 2013 the property still remains in
violation.
Chairman Hofmann asked staff if the property is in foreclosure.
Officer Swartzel answered that the property is not in foreclosmre.
Mrs. Monahan asked Officer Swartzel if he had removed the Nees shown in the picture
Officer Swartzel answered in the affirmative and that ERD is after the property owner also and no one can
fmd him, he has just disappeared.
Chairman Hofmann asked staff if the vehicles are properly licensed.
Officer Swartzel answered she does not know as you cannot get back in the property to check as it is all
wetlands.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion iu reference to Case No. 74736 that the Code Enforcement Board
makes 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 4, 2013 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Murdoch seconded and the motion can•ied unanimously.
Case No. 74054, Location of violation, 7402 Citrus Park Blvd, Ft. Pierce, PropeiTy Owner, Robert E.
Mitchell (EST). There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Swutzel subtnitted four (4) photos, one (1) dated October 4, 2012 and three (3) dated June 3, 2013.
She stated that 7402 Cih'us Park Blvd. was brought to the April 3, 2013 Code Board and found in default of
Sectionl-9-32, Overgrowth. She noted that the Board gave a compliance date of May 3, 2013 to bring the
property into compliance. She stated she has had no contact with the property owner and that this property
is not in foreclosure. She stated as of June 4, 2013 the property still remains in violation.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 74054 that the Code Enforcement Board
makes 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 fo0owing
determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting
May 4, 2013 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Murdoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case No. 75095, Location of violation, 5415 Fort Pierce Blvd., Ft. Pierce, Property Owner, Elgin and Leigh
A. Hipps. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Swartzel submitted two (2) photos, one (1) dated January 23, 2013 and one (1) dated June 3, 2013.
She stated that 5415 Fort Pierce Blvd. was brought to the Apri13, 2013 Code Board and found in default of
Section 8.00.05, Swimming Pools, that the pool must be completely sun'ounded and secured by a fence or
screen enclosure. She noted that the Board gave a compliance date of May 3, 2013. She stated that she has
had no contact with the property owner and as of June 4, 2013 the property still remains in violation.
Chaitlnan Hofinann asked staff if there is anyone living there.
Officer Swartzel answered yes the home is occupied. She stated the problem is they have a fence around
the property but not around the pool and they will have to apply for a variance to leave the pool unfenced.
Mr. Currie asked Officer Swartzel if she had tried to contact the property owners.
Officer Swartzel answered yes she has hied to contact them, she has left her card several times and they
contact Permitting but will not speak to her or leave their phone number so she can explain how to correct
the violation.
Mrs. Monahan asked Officer Swartzel if the pool had been properly permitted.
Officer Swartzel answered yes it Itad, but could have been before the barrier was requh'ed.
Mrs. Monahan asked when the barrier requirement went into effect.
Offcer Swartzel answered that Mr. Carl Peterson acting Building Official would have to answer that.
Nh. Peterson answered that the building code will let you use the water as a barrier and stated that this is a
Land Development Code requirement.
Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 75095 that the Code Enforcement Board makes
the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the ease, 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 violatimts, we make the following
determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed fm• each day the violation exists starting
May 4, 2013 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00.
Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
IX. REPEAT VIOLATION:
Case No. 76087, Location of violation, 11 ]9 Nettles Blvd, Jensen Beach, Property Owner, Stephen J.
Dupee, Sr. Stephen J. Dupee, Sr. was sworn in by the Board's Secretary.
Officer Vugas Barrios resubmitted two (2) photos, one (1) dated April 11, 2013, and one (1) dated May 22,
2013. She stated at the Apri17, 2010 Code Enforcement Board this property was found in violation of St.
Lucie County Land Development Code, Section 11.05.01 Building and Sign Permits, for not having a
permit for the deck She stated that the property came into compliance on March 18, 2011. She stated that
on April 11, 2013 this property was again found to be in violation of Section 11.05.01, for not having a
permit for the extension to the deck. She noted that the owner met with staff on May 21, 2013 and on that
afternoon she received an email with pictures showing the extension was removed. She stated that she went
the next day and took a picture and closed the case. The property was in violation for 40 days.
Mr. Dupee addressed the board and stated that he was out of the country when he was cited for this new
violation and as soon as he returned he called Officer Vargas Ban'ios and set up a meeting. He stated that
he removed the eleven inch extension that he had installed to meet with the bridge on the dock and he had
installed it because he had three gandchildren under the age of five coming Yo the house and leaving an
eleven inch space were they could fall tlu'ough did not seem right. Mi'. Dupee stated that he has removed
the eleven inch piece and will not put it back. He stated that he has a neighbor that he is not fiiendly with
who is constantly pushing this issue.
Mi•. Currie asked him why he had the extension there.
Mr. Dupee answered that it was to close the gap between the drop down bridge and the deck.
Mr. Cun'ie asked Mr. Dupee he did not add the extension to the bridge.
Mr. Dupee answered at this point he has a piece of bond that he is going to drop into place when he uses
the bridge and leave it at that.
Mrs. Monahan asked Mr. Dupee what all the studs are sticking out of the wall shown in the picture.
Mr. Dupee stated when he built the house the people in charge at Nettles Island approved everything and
there was a deck there that stuck out five feet and he was told that as long as the deck was not on the
10
ground it would be acceptable as long as it was removable. He stated then new management came in and
said the deck was no longer acceptable and had to be removed and that is what the last code case was
about. He stated there were aluminum braces that came out and supported the deck.
Mrs. Monahan asked staff if this is a repeat because in the case in 2010 was for no permit and this case is
also for a deck without a permit.
Officer Vargas Ba~•rios answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Dupee stated that the fast case was for a tluee hundred square foot deck and the removable eleven inch
extension is only about two square feet. He stated that if he had removed it before he lest the country and
someone had not seen it he would probably not be here today. He stated he returned to the counhy on May
14 and immediately contacted Officer Vargas Barrios, he also stated that the certified letter went to his
summer address in South Carolhia and it was forwarded to him in an envelope of mail.
Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case No. 76087 that the Code Enforcement Board maltes
the following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, testimony, and the recommendation
of staff with regard to the existence of a violation, that vve determine the violation has been abated
and no fine is imposed.
Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
X. I2EFERREL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Case No. 76664, Location of violation, 2110 Jacobs Rd., Ft. Pierce, Property Owner, Jeny Sauers and
I{evin Sauers. There was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Williams submitted two (2) photos dated June 4, 2013. She stated this property was brought to the
April 3, 2013 Fhre Hearing and a fine of $5,000.00 has been imposed. She noted that the property is sflll in
violation of Section 1-9-32 (D) for having overgrowth of grass and weeds and Section 13.09.00, Article
301.3 for having an open and unsecured structure. After getting no compliance, staff is asking the Board to
refer this case to the Board of County Commissioners to have the county abate the violations. She stated
that this property is not in foreclosure.
Mrs. Monahan asked if the property is occupied.
Officer Williams answered that the property is not occupied.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #!76664 that the Code Enforcement Board maltes
the following determinatim~: 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 condition
caused the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and Staff is
directed to notify the St. Lucie Cow~ty Board of County Commissions of the conditions.
Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried uuanimously.
Case No. 76663, Location of violation, 3407 Avenue O, Ft. Pierce, PropeiTy Owner, Dean Bryan. There
was no one present to represent the property owner.
Officer Williams submitted two (2) photos dated June 4, 2013. She stated that this property was brought to
the April 3, 2013 Fine Hearing and a fine of $5,000.00 was imposed. She noted that the property is still in
violation of Section 1-9-32 (D) for having overgrowth of grass and weeds and Section 13.09.00, Article
301.3 for having an open and unsecured structure. After getting no compliance, staff is asking the Board to
refer this case to the Board of County Commissioners to have the county abate the violations. She stated
that this property is not in foreclosure.
11
Mrs. Monahan asked staff if the windows in the photos are wide open
Offtcer Williams answered in the affirmative.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #76663 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 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 Commissions of the conditions.
Mr. Taylor secatded and the motimr can•ied unanimously.
XL FINE REDUCTION HEARING
None.
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
Mrs. Monahan stated she had a question of staff, she stated that she heard a man today state that he had
called the county and left a message and no one rehuned his call. She stated that she has heard this
complaint at every meeting if not at every other meeting. She asked staff what was going on, are the
messages being delivered to staff or are these guys stt•etching the truth.
Mrs. Graziani answered that it is h•ue that staff will inform customers when they answer the phone, which
the majority of the time is Ms. Isenhow', that staff is in the field and that they have core hours in the field
and core hours in the office and typically they return there calls after 3:00 p.m. She stated that it is office
policy to return calls the same day or by the next day and she hopes that her staff is rehuning their calls.
She stated that people sometimes just say that.
Mrs. Monahan asked if when staff calls someone back and if they do not answer, does the officer leave a
message.
Mrs. Graziani answered that she has just changed the policy so when a customer calls they have can choose
to leave a voicemail or we will take a handwritten message on a message pad and give that to the officer as
a lot of people do not want to leave a voicemail.
Chairman Hofmann asked if do email messages as a follow-up.
Mrs. Graziani stated if we have an email address we do, but all that we typically have on customers are
addresses, not phone numbers or email addresses as everythhrg is done through the mail, which can be an
issue.
Mrs. Monahan stated that unless the customer contacts staff and leave a number or email address they do
not have the information.
Mrs. Graziani answered that is correct.
Mrs. Monahan asked staff if the investigating officer's name and contact number is on the letter sent out.
Mrs. Graziani answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Hofmann asked staff what the policy is as to boarding up or putting up shutters at this time of
yeu•.
Mrs. Graziani answered she believes you are not allowed to keep your home completely shuttered if you
are living in it as it is a safety and a fire issue.
12
Chairman Hofmann stated he wanted to take the opportunity to thank staff for all the abated and removed
cases they have. He stated he knows it takes a lot of hard work and effort to make it happen and trips and
phone calls back and forth to make it happen. He stated that he has been here a long time and he is seeing
more and more of this so the message is getting out and the officers are the ones making it happen. He
stated he also wants to thank the property owners who are cooperating; unfortunately you have those that
do not con'ect the violation which is why the Board is here. He stated that he is seeing more and more
abated cases and he would like to see the day when the Board is no longer needed.
Mrs. Graziani thanked Nh'. Hofmann for his kind words. She stated that staff does work hard and it is not
an easy process. She stated that it is an education process with homeowners.
Ivhs. Graziani informed the Board that the Board of County Conunissioners had approved a new Code
Board member and that we should be able to welcome him onboard at the August meeting
Mrs. Graziani informed the Board that staff has sent out a flyer to over twelve hundred
Business owners along US Highway 1 requesting compliance with the code. She stated a lot of car dealers
are parking cars in the right-of--way and have a lot of banners; she stated there are four or five things staff
will be looking at and they were given a thirty day notice which was supported by the Board of County
Commissioners. She stated that starting this week the officers will be out in teams and that the thhty days
is up and she has not seen a whole lot of compliance.
XIII. STAFF BUSINESS
Officer Williams asked Chairmau Hofmann if the Board would like to discuss the July 3, 2013 meeting as
the next day is the July 4, 2013 holiday.
The Board discussed cancelling the July 3, 2013 Code Enforcement Board Meeting.
Mr. Currie made a motion to cancel the July 3, 2013 Code Enfm•cement Board Meeting.
Mr. Murdock seconded the motim~ and the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Hofmann stated that the new Code Board member had been nominated and approved by the
Board of County Commissioners at last night's (June 4, 2013) meeting.
XIV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Arlene Goodman, 3405 Delaware Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, was sworn in by the Board's Secretary.
Mrs. Arlene Goodman addressed the Board and stated that she wanted to commend the Code Board and
staff for what they had just done with the business owners along US 1. She stated that she lives in White
City and she has called a complained many times about the cars that are parked iu the right-of--way. She
stated that the smaller car dealers are getting rather brave and are parking their cars so the front bumpers
match the edge of US 1. She stated that anyone making a wide turn onto US 1 from Weatherbee Road
going south that have to pull over to the right will hit one of those cars. She also stated that anyone having
a flat th'e has no place to pull over and people riding a bicycle have no room to ride on the side of the road.
She stated that these business owners are making it unsafe for her and the general public by taking up all
the space in the right-of--way. Mrs. Goodman stated they are supposed to pu'k their vehicles behind the
telephone poles which are the beginning of the right-of--way and it almost like they are thumbing their
noses at the Board and general public by doing whatever they please. She stated she wanted to commend
the officers as some of the complaints they have received are from her, as she has children and
grandchildren that drive and ride their bicycles along that section of US 1. She stated that she would be
back and that she has even gone to Coggin O' Steen and asked them to move the cars back. She stated that
she was ri'eated like an old ]ady that should stay at home, mind her own business, do the dishes and that she
did not know what she is talking about.
13
Mrs. Goodman stated that White City settlement is 120 years old this year and she will be the President of
the White City Improvement Club and they are having a function this year and she would like to invite
everyone. She stated she will let us all know when it is. Whatever can be done to bring up the looks of
White City she would appreciate and she is here to help.
Ivhs. Goodman stated she had a question for the Board that she had seen come up many times in the Code
Board meetings in that someone bought a home say ten years ago and there was a violation on the home
that the title company did not catch, then the new homeowner is in violation for something they did not
know about, but by the rules and regulations has to be found in violation. She asked the Board if there is
any way they could put a time limit on citing someone for something that old.
Chairman Hofmam~ stated you are looking at a statute of limitations and asked staff if there was anything
like that in the limitations.
Mrs. Barbieri answered Yhat there is no statute on time ]hnitations and it would depend on when you were
required to do it for example if the shed was thirty years old and at that time a permit was not requhed. She
stated there would also be a health safety issue on things like electric, sheds, buildings and even if it was
six years old you would not want it to statute of fime limitation out and then find that it is not in compliance
with the code and there is problem.
Mrs. Monahan stated like something that could bw-n the neighborhood down or something like that
Mrs. Barbieri answered in the affirmative.
Mrs. Goodman stated she did not agree with people getting fined for say a shed addition that she had seen
done at a code board hearing before, electrical she could understand but thought some of it was asinine.
Mr. Currie stated that typically when a lien has been placed on property and the new property owner was
unaware of the lien when they come before the Board he thinks this Board has been more than fair as they
have reduced the lien or made it zero numerous times and you will not find a more fair Board.
Mrs. Monahan stated that they also give them more time and the Board sees each case as an individual case
and feels the Board hies to diligently view each case individually.
Chairman Hofmann thanked Mrs. Goodman for her comments
ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:32 a.m
14