Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 05 2014 Code Enforcement MinutesMARCH 5, 2014 HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS ROGER POITRAS ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA I. CALL TO ORDER The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by Mr. Fogg, II. PI EDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag. III. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman...........................................................................Mr. Ralph Fogg ViceChair.........................................................................Mr. Ray Hofmann Board Members....................................................................Mr. Wes Taylor ....................................................................................... Mr Randy Murdock ....................................................................................... Mr. Brad Curare ....................................................................................... Mr. Patrick Campion Board Attorney....................................................................Mr. Jack Krieger ABSENT Mrs. Monahan was excused. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 5, 2014 Mr. Currie made a motion to accept the minutes of FEBRUARY 5, 2014 Mr. Campion 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 Building Official...................................................................Carl Peterson Code Enforcement Supervisor ...................................................Danielle Williams Code Enforcement Officer .......................................................Melissa Brubaker ....................................................................................... Lynn Swartzel .............................................................. ....................... .. Momca Vargas Barr' ios ........................................................................................ Edward Roseberry ....................................................................................... Christopher Counsellor Environmental Resources Manager..............................................Amy Griffin Public Works Civil Engineer .....................................................Michael Halter Solid Waste Operations Manager ..................................................Justin Gattuso Board Secretary.....................................................................Deborah Isenhour Carl Peterson, Danielle Williams, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Monica Vargas Barrios, Edward Roseberry, Christopher Counsellor, Amy Griffin, Michael Halter, and Justin Gattuso were sworn in. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. VIL CONSENT AGENDA Motion for Reconsideration — Phyllis Jo Crown — Case No. 78065 Motion for Stay Pending Review — Phyllis Jo Crown — Case No. 78065 Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated staffs recommendation as presented on the Consent Agenda is to deny the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Stay Pending Review. She stated staff has changed their recommendation, at this point staff is going to request that the Board grant the Motion for Reconsideration, there have been some issues that have been raised and we need additional time to look into them and this will just cause there to be a hearing next month and the Board would still have all the same information you had before but there would be additional information that could be added. She stated if the Motion is granted the Motion to Stay is moot in other words no longer relevant. She stated staff is requesting that you grant the Motion for Reconsideration and set it for hearing next month on April 2, 2014. Mr. Campion made a motion to approve and accept staffs recommendation as presented. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. VIH. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name 79128 114 Castana Ct., Port St. Lucie Chase Home Finance LLC 79338 611 Ash St., Port St. Lucie Dorothy D. Roberts (EST) 78449 340 SE Sandia Dr., Port St. Lucie Bob Y Lee and Tina Lee 79151 324 Airoso Blvd., Port St. Lucie Evelyn M. Mendez 79149 272 Airoso Blvd., Port St. Lucie Gabino Infante Jr. 78165 120 Castana Ct., Port St. Lucie Gail A. Daker (TR) 78796 120 Castana Ct., Port St. Lucie Jason Daker 78401 5312 Palmetto Dr., Ft. Pierce Dawn M. Casper 75736 6109 Palm Dr., Ft. Pierce Lawrence C. Chrietzberg 78822 111 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie Darryl L. and Ruby L. Bright 78544 102 NW Airoso Blvd., Port St. Lucie Julio C. Maya 78486 7104 Santa Rosa Pkwy., Port St. Lucie Marius Kirla 79323 6708 Pensacola Rd., Ft. Pierce Lak Kalra 78987 8403 Deland Ave., Ft. Pierce SFRA III LLC 78386 2685 Ridgehaven Rd., Ft. Pierce Nantone Development and Mgmt. 77499 2701 Cortez Blvd., Ft. Pierce Clara R. Strickland (LF EST) 77500 2703 Cortez Blvd., Ft. Pierce Pamela Wright and Kimberly Riviezzo 79325 117 Acadamy Dr., Ft. Pierce Carita McNeair 79074 4114 Avenue R, Ft. Pierce John Cobb Jr. 78713 1720 Valencia Ave., Ft. Pierce Christopher T. and Felicia P. Nixon 79221 2211 N. 44" St., Ft. Pierce Benjamin and Elizabeth Yeary 78552 Prop W of 1649 S Brocksmith Rd., Ft. Pierce Karen E. Smith 77409 3318 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce Seminole Mobile Home Park LLC 77406 3318 Orange Ave., Ft. Pierce Seminole Mobile Home Park LLC 77994 7159 S US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce Port St. Lucie Plaza I LLC 78160 7159 S US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce Jose Lerebouris 77838 12737 S. Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce Stacie and Michael Persin Case 91, Case No. 74339 was heard first on the agenda: Case #74339, Location of violation, 7211 Elyse Cir., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Bernice M. and Robert P. Burkarth. Mr. Burkarth was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Brubaker stated this case was continued from the December 6, 2013 Code Board. She stated for the record I am resubmitting three (3) photos, one (1) dated October 24, 2012, one (1) dated May 28, 2013, and one (1) dated November 26, 2013. She also submitted one (1) photo dated February 25, 2014. She stated during 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 or removed. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of December 7, 2012. She noted on February 27, 2014 the property owner applied for a seawall permit. She stated she has had contact with the owner and discussed ways to correct the violation. She stated as of March 4, 2014 the property remains in violation and the permit is pending. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Burkarth if he felt he is in violation or not. Mr. Burkarth stated he is in violation. Mr. Fogg asked him to explain. Mr. Burkarth stated as he said the last time he was here it has been quite the process, but he believes not that we are at the point where he has a contractor and permitting said they are working at three weeks out on permit approval, so he has to get plans, a boundary survey, he has a contractor who is three weeks out fi•om permit approval. He stated he believes he has DEP approval. Chairman Fogg stated so what you are saying is you need some time to do this and asked Mr. Burkarth what his time fi-ame on this is. Mr. Burkarth stated they put the permit in and were told no more than two months from that date. He stated that is what the contractor told him. Chairman Fogg stated so if we gave you until June you should be done. Mr. Burkarth stated hopefully before June and by April. Chairman Fogg stated if we can give you an extra month you might want to take it. Mr. Burkarth said it has been a terrible process. Mr. Currie asked Mr. Burkarth if he had submitted a permit to St. Lucie County and do you have a DEP permit. Mr. Burkarth stated I believe I have a DEP permit, he has the application. Mr. Currie asked staff if they know if Mr. Burkarth has a DEP permit. Mrs. Graziani stated that the County cannot issue the permit without the DEP permit. She stated since staff does not know if the DEP pen -nit is with the permit package she would recommend the Board give him the 120 days at this point we will continue and hopefully when we come back it will all be taken care of by then. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Graziani if she was asking for a continuation. Mrs. Graziani asked Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney if we could continue and stated to Chairman Fogg that yes staff is asking for a continuation. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney stated to the Board that she was just consulting with the Building Official and the DEP approval is usually required to accept an application we just do not know anyone here with personal knowledge that has looked at it, so hopefully it is in the application. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case #74339 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on June 4, 2014. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #75077 Location of violation, 4708 Palmetto Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Fritzma and Lanaise Valsaint. Fritzma Valsaint was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Brubaker stated for the record I am submitting three (3) photos dated February 26, 2014, taken by Officer Barrios. She stated during her first inspection on January 25, 2013, she found 4708 Palmetto Dr. in violation of 11.05.01, as the shed in the back was built without a permit. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of February 27, 2013. She stated she has had contact with the owner and they discussed the violation and ways to correct it and as of March 4, 2014 the property remains in violation. She noted the owners are here to ask for more time. Chairman Fogg as Mr. Valsaint if he is in violation and if he is what his plans are. Mr. Valsaint answered that they are in violation. He stated that he has been on the road and could not help the family much, but he is back in town for a little bit and has been looking up surveyors. He stated he has one that is supposed to come out and do a survey, so he is asking for 120 days extension to obtain a permit and if not they will remove it and pay the demolition fee. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #75077 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 June 6, 2014, 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 1St 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. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78340, Location of violation, 221 Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL, Property Owner, Curtiss B. Woodruff III. Curtiss B. Woodruff III was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Brubaker submitted four (4) photos dated October 10, 2013. She stated during her first inspection on October 10, 2013 she found 221 Prima Vista Blvd. in violation of 11.05.01, for adding a bedroom, enclosing a window, and adding a shower. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of November 15, 2013. She stated she has had contact with the owner and they discussed the violation and ways to correct it and as of March 4, 2014 the property remains in violation. Chairman Fogg as Mr. Valsaint if he is in violation. Mr. Woodruff answered he is in violation. Chairman Fogg stated can you explain where we go from here. Mr. Woodruff stated he is here to ask for a little more time and ask that the $200.00 fine that was imposed be waived. He stated that he would like more time that it is difficult to save the money, get a contractor, and an engineer, he stated he has called a couple of them and they are not returning his phone calls. Chairman Fogg asked if he had made any attempt besides engineers to talk to staff about permitting and such as that. 4 Mr. Woodruff answered that he has spoken to Officer Brubaker a few times. Chairman Fogg stated but you have not done anything about permit and moved forward. Mr. Woodruff stated I have saved up the money and it is moving forward. He stated he had a contractor over there a few days ago, but he is not returning my phone calls. He stated for some reason they want to stay away from something with walls already up on the inside of the house, so he needs a little more time so he can take care of it. Chairman Fogg informed Mr. Woodruff that he needs to move quickly on this and if he gets with staff they might be able to help him out and guide him. There was discussion among the Board members on the situation and how much time Mr. Woodruff would need to get a contractor and permit issued. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #78340 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 June 6, 2014, 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 Vt 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. Currie asked when the prosecution cost is supposed to be paid, now or when everything is finished. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney answered that it is accessed now and we do request it now. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78476, Location of violation, 7603 Deer Park Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Anastasios and George Provatas. Anastasios Provatas was sworn in by the Board's Secretary, Officer Swartzel for the record I am submitting two (2) photos, one (1) dated February 24, 2014, and one (1) dated March 3, 2014. She stated during her first inspection on October 16, 2013, she found 7603 Deer Part-, Ave. to be in violation of 11.05.06, Vegetation Permit Required, to obtaiii an after the fact Vegetation Removal Permit for removing native and exotic vegetation without a permit. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of November 16, 2013. She stated my Supervisor Danielle Williams and I have spoken to the property owner and discussed ways to correct the violation. She stated after receiving no compliance she issued a Notice to Appear for the March Code Board. She stated as of March 4, 2014, this property still remains in violation. Chairman Fogg as Mr. Provatas if he is in violation. Mr. Provatas addressed the Board and stated he agrees the property is in violation. Mr. Provatas stated the neighbor abutting the property removed the shrubbery without his permission and said the Board was made aware of that. He stated Code Enforcement was made aware of this by another neighbor that reported it to them. He stated that the neighbor at 5204 Ft. Pierce removed the vegetation without his permission. He stated he lives in Connecticut and this guy went in and cut my lot. Mr. Hoffman asked Mr. Provatas if he filed a police report on this. Mr. Provatas stated he did not as he did not know about it until the Board called him. Chairman Fogg asked how long ago this was done. 5 Officer Swartzel answered in October 2013. Mr. Currie stated he had a couple of questions and said he sees there are some representatives from ERD present today and he assumes it is for this project. Mrs. Griffin from ERD answered that is correct. Mr. Currie asked Mrs. Griffin if it was the saw palmetto that was cut down, as it looks like the native trees are still standing. Mrs. Griffin stated she does not know exactly what was cut down as there was no debris left. She stated what her staff person that did go out reported to her was that it appeared to be some native and some exotic removed. She stated they did not have confirmation on what was cut down as there were no branches left and from what Mr. Balcer could tell from the stumps and what was left there was some were native plants. She stated we have sympathy in this situation, but we have to cite the property owner, although his neighbor did go in and remove the vegetation allegedly. Mr. Currie asked Mrs. Griffin what the cost of an after the fact permit would be. Mrs. Griffin answered one hundred and five dollars ($105.00). Mr. Currie asked Mrs. Griffin if Mr. Provatas obtained the permit and staff went out what would be the process. Mrs. Griffin stated what staff had found out was that the all the vegetation that was removed the exotic and vegetative would have qualified for an exemption from mitigation. She stated that all that would be required at this point would be the after the fact permit to close the case out. Mr. Currie stated so one hundred and five dollars ($105.00). Mrs. Griffin answered in the affirmative with no additional planting or mitigation required. Mr. Currie stated he is assuming the property owner does not want to pay the one hundred and five dollars ($105.00). Mr. Provatas answered I paid one thousand dollars ($1000.00) to get here. He stated it is kind of the principle of the thing, he committed criminal mischief to my property, so how is he held liable for the criminal mischief that a third party committed. He stated he is a police officer and he does not understand that. Chairman Fogg stated but you are the property owner. Mr. Provatas stated I understand that. He stated he pays taxes and the County has a responsibility to protect my property. Chairman Fogg stated you are saying the County has a responsibility. Mr. Provatas stated absolutely, if I see criminal mischief. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Provatas, did you report it. Mr. Provatas answered no I did not. Chairman Fogg told Mr. Provatas then report it. Mr. Provatas stated I will report it, but do I arrest that neighbor. Chairman Fogg stated we do not get into that, we are here as a Board to tell whether it is in violation or not. He stated we are hying to make it as easy as we can, so what we can do here give you thirty to sixty days to decide what you are going to do, as we just found out here for one hundred and five dollars ($105.00) you can mitigate the whole thing and it will done and over with. He informed Mr. Provatas that he can choose to go that way or choose to go the other way, but the Board is going to give him the opportunity to choose. He further stated he is looking for a motion. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #78476 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 May 7, 2014, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A prosecution cost was not imposed. Please take notice that on the 15` 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. Chairman Fogg informed Mr. Provatas we have waived the two hundred dollar ($200.00) prosecution fee, there is a one hundred and five dollars ($105.00) permit fee if you choose to pay that. Mr. Provatas stated I will pay that, but could you make a correction in your notes that he is not in violation. Chairman Fogg answered we cannot do that. Mr. Currie informed Mr. Provatas that it will be reflected in the minutes as he has stated, but he is the property owner and the burden of the violation falls on you. Mr. Campion informed Mr. Provatas that the motion just states the existence of a violation. Chairman Fogg said to Mr. Provatas thank you for coming and the Board is sorry he had to go through this. Case No. 76800, Location of violation, 101 El Mar Dr., Jensen Beach, FL, Property Owner, Bruce Platzek. Mr. Roy T. Mildner, Attorney for Mr. Platzek was present to represent him. Officer Vargas Barrios stated for the record, I am submitting eight (8) photos, two (2) dated June 11, 2013, two (2) dated September 9, 2013, two (2) dated February 21, 2014 and two (2) dated March 4, 2014. She stated on August 27, 2013, a Notice of Violation was sent to Mr. Platzek the property owner of 101 El Mar Dr. to please cut the tree branches that are overgrowing onto the road. She stated this is in violation of the St. Lucie Land Development Code, 1-9-32 (D), Prohibited Acts. She further stated this section was abated on September 9, 2013. She noted the Notice also included Section 3.01.03(AA), HIRD - Hutchinson Island Residential District, to please contact the Permitting Department, as the single family dwelling was converted into a multi -family dwelling without proper permits with a correction date of September 30, 2013. She stated staff has met with the attorney representing the homeowner regarding the violations and explained what is needed to bring the property into compliance. She stated on February 21, 2014, a Notice to Appear for the Code Board was sent and the property was posted. She stated that on March 3, 2014, the permit was applied for and is now pending. She stated staff has been working on this case for five (5) months and after getting no compliance staff has brought this case before the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Mildner addressed the Board and stated the property is in violation. He stated unfortunately when Mr. Platzek bought it in 2005 as you can see from the tax assessor's map it is as constructed, it just was not permitted as a duplex. He stated this is a duplex neighborhood, and this structure is a four (4) bedroom three (3) bath, two (2) bedrooms down and two (2) up with two (2) baths upstairs. He stated if you look at the square footage and living area on the ls` floor, even he thought when he saw it that it had been done without a permit, but it is actually what was permitted in 2001. He stated this is basically his fault, when he 7 this started back in August, he has been representing Dr. Platzek for twenty-eight (28) years and he is a good client and personal friend, he contacted Mike Menard, got plans and spent a lot of money. He stated unfortunately during the fall he had some issues, he was suspended for ninety (90) days and came back in December 23, so that put him out of the loop, he thought things were happening but he discovered they had not. He stated he then jumped back on board, after they got the plans, the contractor, helped the contractor get registered and get his insurance, so there has been a lot of running around. Chairman Fogg stated so what you really need is some time. Mr. Mildner answered in the affirmative, that this is basically an after the fact permit, he believes the zoning is for a duplex, as there are so many duplexes in the area. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case #76800 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 2, 2014, 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 1st 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. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Default Cases: The Hall was sounded and Mr. Hofmann read the name and number of the case of those not present into the record: Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/ContractorNiolator 78041 5490 Melville Rd, Ft. Pierce Jason F. and Stephanie M. Denney 78342 189 SE Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie Michael T. Foster Jr. 78819 161 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie Michael Montanaro 79380 5701 Citrus Ave., Ft. Pierce Deutsche Bank National TR CO (TR) 78694 2685 — 2691 Niagara Ave., Ft. Pierce C and S Realty Grp LLLP (TR) 79050 7703 Pensacola Rd., Ft. Pierce Paul L. and Wanda V. Benson 78784 173 Imperial Way, Ft. Pierce Robert D. Osteen Jr. 78921 6708 Pensacola Rd., Ft. Pierce Lak Kalra 78298 5807 Killarney Ave., Ft. Pierce Suzanne J. Lewis and Stephen W. Thiel 79146 2358 Brocksmith Rd., Ft. Pierce Primitivo Martinez 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. Campion seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX. FINE HEARING: Case No. 75127, Location of violation, 21220 Glades Cut -Off Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Sandra L Brown. Sandra L. Brown was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Brubaker stated this case was found in violation at the November 2013 Code Board and was given until February 10, 2014 to come into compliance. She stated for the record I am resubmitting three (3) photos, two (2) dated February 8, 2013, one (1) dated October 9, 2013 and submitting two (2) photos dated March 4, 2014. She stated during her fast inspection on 21220 Glades Cut Off, she found it to be in violation of 11.05.01 (A) 2, as the permit # 0707-0163 for the home being built has expired and needs to be reactivated, and 1-9-19, for the concrete piles. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of March 11, 2013. She has had contact with the owner and we discussed the violations and ways to correct them. She noted as of March 4, the property still remains in violation. Chairman Fogg stated it looks like the concrete piles have been removed, but permit is still expired. Officer Brubaker stated the concrete piles have gone down significantly, but there is still a small pile out there. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Brown to tell the Board what is going on here. Mrs. Brown stated that big lump out in the back is a fifteen (15) pound roll of hay covered with a tarp, that is not concrete. She stated the concrete that is in fiont of it is because she is bringing in another roll of hay and she is moving it forward to set the hay on. She stated the permit she cannot activate because she does not have the eight hundred and thirty one ($831.00) bucks required to activate it. She stated she is hoping to get a part-time job soon and then she may have it. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Brown if she normally works. Mrs. Brown answered she has not worked since 2011 and if she gets a job now it will cut into her social security which she lives on and it is not much. She stated she spent her thirty -on ($31.00) dollars this month on groceries already. Chairman Fogg informed Mrs. Brown that she has a situation here that has to be rectified. Mrs. Brown answered that as soon as she can she will get that, because she would like to get the damn thing going to. Chairman Fogg stated you are leaving it up to the Board's digression to make a date in time when this has to be done so you do not get fined. He stated the Board is not here to fine you, we are here to help you, but you have to try. He stated you look at us like we are not hying to help you and we are trying to do the best we can. He asked staff if this has been going on since October 2013. Officer Brubaker answered a year ago, since February 2013. Mrs. Brown stated you are right, I do not think you are trying to help me. She stated that the permit has been going on since 2009. She stated the only reason it is a subject right now is somebody called about the concrete. Chairman Fogg stated if it has been going on since 2009, it obviously is not a priority on your list, because you were working back then. Mrs. Brown stated her work was coming to an end, three family members died, and she did not have time to be at work. Mr. Currie stated this has got to be happen all over the county, where people stop building and the permits expire. He asked staff what if they board up the structure and get some sort of close-out and state they will come back to it later when we have money. He asked staff if this is the only case where this has happened, Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered we have had several cases in the county and they have come before the Board. He stated if they are open, we do ask them to board them up. 9 Mr. Currie stated there must be a process for this where they state they are going to board it up and put this on pause for a couple of years, are you telling me there is not. Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered we can renew the permit at any time. Chairman Fogg asked what it cost to renew the permit. Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered he believes this one was around eight hundred dollars. Mrs. Brown stated eight hundred and thirty one ($831.00). Chairman Fogg stated so she does not have the eight hundred and thirty one ($831.00) to do this, so where do we go from here in your eyes. Mrs. Brown stated a part-time job. Chairman Fogg stated ma'am please, staff is speaking and we are trying to help you, if you would just listen. Mrs. Brown stated well. Mr. Currie stated he thinks there should be a less expensive way to make the structure safe and let her go about her business. He stated the way the process is going, she is going to start getting fined, which does not make sense when she cannot get the permit issued. He stated he is asking if there is another process even if it is something we have not done before. Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered we would have to look into it. He stated the Building Code states it expires after one hundred and eighty (180) days then it is turned into a code case. Chairman Fogg asked why the permit fee is so high on this. He asked staff if that is standard. Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered there is a formula for figuring that and stated he could refigure it. Mr. Currie asked how long it is good for when it is renewed. Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered it is only good for one hundred and eighty (180) days, unless she has an approved inspection, if she gets an approved inspection, it is good for another one hundred and eighty (180) days from that date. Mr. Currie stated just so he is clear the only other option is to tear it down. Mrs. Brown stated no. Mr. Peterson, Building Official, answered in the negative. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, stated that the county is not going to make people tear down these houses, we recognize through the hardships and the economy of several years has been very poor, we do have a lot of these type of permits out there that have expired, and we basically went through and cleaned house up to 2006. She stated I will not even begin to tell you how many permits there were that had never been closed out or are expired she should say. She stated that in this case, when they are brought to our attention we do bring them forward and try to work with the homeowner. She stated if they are still unable financially to obtain a permit this Board has the ability to grant them additional time. She stated as the Building Official stated once a permit is issued, it is valid for one hundred and eighty (180) days, one inspection will keep that permit valid for another one hundred and eighty (180) days, the clock keeps going, it just takes an inspection to keep it going. She stated the reason and the purpose that permits expire as she is sure you are all aware is the codes do change, so staff is willing to work with the homeowner, in these 10 cases we can go in and have them board them up, and they do not reside in them, so there is no public safety issue that the county has to be worried about. Chairman Fogg stated so if we were to table this particular issue for a period of time and revisit it at the end of that time, when it comes back before us and see if there had been any movement one way or the other on it, then that would be something that the Board could do. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, answered yes you could. Mr. Currie said it states here the begin date is February 11, 2013 and asked staff if it is his understanding that she has been being fined since February 11. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board it would be whatever date they choose, but it could be that date if they choose. Mr. Currie asked what the cost is for an inspection. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, answered it is part of your permit charge, however if the inspection fails there is a re -inspection fee and that is seventy-five ($75.00) dollars. Mr. Campion stated he would like to see something change and asked if this should go to the Board of County Commissioners. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, answered let staff evaluate and survey other jurisdictions to see what they do. She stated she has worked in several municipalities and basically when a permit expires this is the process. Chairman Fogg stated we understand that it is an ongoing thing, and when they are building like they were several years ago, and he is not singling this lady out, he stated this parcel of property has been here a long time obviously, but it still needs to go through the process and how do we do that and said is this the normal process is what he is asking. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, answered this is the normal process. Chairman Fogg stated is there another process we can look at. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, stated it does not seem reasonable to fine her for not obtaining her permit and continuing the work, but her option would be to tear it down or board it up. She stated she always has the option to board up the home. Mr. Currie stated but boarding up does not resolve the issue, just to make that clear. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Manager, answered no it does not. Mr. Currie stated he thinks the Board should continue this and have staff come back to the Board with some sort of recommendation on how to handle cases like this in the future and unfortunately have Mrs. Brown come back and hopefully we will have some kind of better resolution when she comes back. He stated he would recommend continuation. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated staff is obviously not opposed to what Mr. Currie is saying, we do just want to also point out that Mrs. Brown stated the permit was pulled in 2009 and it is five (5) years old and the county does at some point need to have buildings finished, permits finished out for safety or something to happen with structures so we do not have these half -done structures, so I am just pointing out this is five (5) years old. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Barbieri if she agrees and thinks this is something staff should look at. 11 Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered in the affirmative and stated Mrs. Graziani has already stated that staff will be looking into to this. Mr. Currie stated not that he likes to argue, but that fining her today is not going to get the building finaled out, so he would like to find a resolution to the problem and he thinks we have two (2) extremes here and we need to be in the middle somehow. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered yes sir and we understand that, but we did not want the impression left that this was just a year ago or something like that. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Brown if she understands what we are trying to do. Mrs. Brown answered she thinks she understands and she thinks it might have been 2010, which is when her brother died. She stated the reason it expired in the fast place was that the roofer who was a jerk took eight (8) months to put the roof on and when she called for inspection she was told it would cost eight hundred and thirty one ($831.00) to get it inspected. She stated she does not know if she can take that jerk to court but if she can she will. Chairman Fogg stated to Mrs. Brown we are working on your side with you at this time and staff is going to work on it not to necessarily to abate it but to look into it. Mrs. Brown stated the house is not a danger to anyone, it is not corning down I can tell you that right now, it is not going anywhere. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Brown if she lives there. Mrs. Brown answered I live in the camper that is there since 1998. Chairman Fogg stated so you do not live in the facility. Mrs. Brown answered no, but I have my horse feed and stuff in there. Mr. Campion made a motion in reference to Case #75127 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on July 2, 2014. Ms. Currie seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 75892 Location of violation, 4203 Metzger Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, SP Recycling Southeast LLC. Michael Findlay, representative for SP Recycling Southeast LLC was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney addressed the Board and stated staff is requesting a continuance on this case as they have been cooperating with us, all the junk, trash and debris in the county right-of-way has been abated. She stated the other item they are not able to abate at this time because they are working with the county and we are going to what is called single stream recycling and there have been delays in that unfortunately and we are not anticipating that it will be up and running until September, so they are not going to be able to abate the rest of it until after the county's single stream recycling is up. She stated we do have a County representative from Solid Waste and a representative from SP Recycling if you want more information on this. She stated that Code staff has spoken to the neighbors and they are happy so we are requesting a continuance until October at this time. Chairman Fogg stated that they took the time to come and sit here this morning, so let us give them the opportunity to come forward and be sworn in and speak if they so wish. 12 Mr. Findlay, addressed the Board and stated he is the Area Operations Manager for SP Recycling. He said as I stated before when I was here we have cleaned up everything you requested, the only thing that still remains is that we are still having to store material outside in what is the parking area and code wanted us to return that to a parking area. He stated when I talked to the County Solid Waste Manager, Justin, in January and I told him we had to stop taking materials because we needed to turn the parking lot back into parking, he stated he had nowhere to take this material and asked if I could continue processing it, which I have done. He stated he was under the impression, when I told you last time that the County would have their facility ready by December or January, but they have run into what all of run into he guessed, which is bureaucracy, so I have continued and I am asking that the fine be waived and he will continue working with the County in any way he can until they have their facility operational. Chairman Fogg stated he thinks the Board would be good with a continuation. Mr. Campion made a motion in reference to Case #75892 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on October 1, 2014. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. X. REPEAT VIOLATION None. XI. REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS None. XII. FINE REDUCTION HEARING Case No. 76142, Location of violation, 7701 Belmont Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Bonnie Mock. Fine Reduction requested by Mark Lashley. Mark Lashley and Joe Henroin were sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Mr. Lashley stated we bought this house and it has been an eyesore for a good many years, literally falling down in many places. He stated they spent a lot of time and effort to clean this place up as you can see by the pictures it looks like a brand new house. Chairman Fogg stated we see you have taken care of the overgrown grass and weeds. Mr. Lashley stated we have painted the house, put a new roof on it, and cleaned the pool which has clear water now. He stated they have just finished painting the house and the deck, and rescreened. Chairman Fogg asked staff if we have pictures of that. Officer Williams answered not of the pool, just pictures of the front of the home, but it is taken care of. Officer Swartzel informed the Board that she was out there yesterday and it is beautiful. She said they were working in the back so she did not want to take pictures of that, but the pool is gorgeous. Mr. Currie asked Mr. Lashley and Mr. Henroin if they are planning on living here or are they going to sell it. Mr. Lashley stated they originally bought it for investment, but Mr. Henroin is going to live there, the house turned out real nice so he decided to live there. 13 Chairman Fogg stated we have a staff recommendation here, but it is up to the Board. He stated the fine was originally five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), with a prosecution cost of two hundred dollars ($200.00). Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #76142 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 imposed by the Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. This reduction fine must be paid within zero days of the hearing or the fine will revert back to original fine of $5000.00. The prosecution cost of $200.00 was not reduced. Mr. Campion seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 66879, Location of violation, 395 Midway Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Karen F. Wilson. Fine Reduction requested by Karen F. Wilson. Karen F. Wilson was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Ms. Wilson addressed the Board and stated she had renters in the house and they just brought in everything, every time she turned around they would have something in front of the house and she would tell them to get it out. She stated she finally got the people evicted, fixed the fence, and straightened everything up. She stated her husband died and she got life estate for the property. Officer Williams addressed the Board and stated if you have your package with the before pictures, you can see how it looked before compliance. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case #66879 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 imposed by the Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. This reduced fine must be paid within zero days of this hearing date or it will revert back to the original fine of $5.000.00. The prosecution cost of $200.00 is reduced to zero. Mr. Murdock seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 74429 Location of violation, 6103 Spring Garden Pl., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Anne M. Hill. Fine Reduction requested by Douglas Hill. Douglas Hill was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Mr. Hill stated he is here to speak on behalf of his mother who is legally deaf. He stated he did not hear about the condition of the property until December and as soon as he heard about it he contacted Lynn Swartzel and Danielle Williams and told them he would take care of the property immediately, which he did. He stated if you have pictures you will see it is now cleaned up. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Hill if his mother lives here. Mr. Hill answered she has several houses in the area. He stated she currently resides with her sister now, who is impaired and she tries to help her out. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Hill if this is a rental property. Mr. Hill answered no it is just a home that she owns. He stated his mom has investment properties. Chairman Fogg stated there is a home here, does anyone live in it. Mr. Hill answered she stays there sometimes because it is adjacent to his brother's house and her sister's house, so they all live right around each other. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Hill if all the pictures the Board is looking at are cleared up. Mr. Hill answered yes sir, he was told it was in compliance. Officer Swartzel addressed the Board and informed them that she has visited the property and everything is in compliance. 14 Chairman Fogg asked Officer Swartzel if it had been done quickly. Officer Swartzel answered in the affirmative that right after we spoke to Mr. Hill he took care of it. Mr. Hill stated within a matter of eight days he had it done. He sometimes you have to listen to what God is telling and stated his mother suffered her first heart attack in December because she was out there trying to take care of this herself with garden shears and he did not actually hear about until after her second heart attack when she came home in the beginning of January. He stated she is very stubborn and thought she was going to be able to take care of it herself, which he thought was totally ridiculous when he saw the property. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Hill if he sees her often. Mr. Hill answered yes as much as possible. He stated he lives in West Palm Beach and works in North Palm Beach. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Hill if you live in West Palm Beach and see her often you must have seen the condition of the property before it was cleaned up. Mr. Hill answered no sir I did not and that is the truth. He stated he does not go to that house much because she is not there much and when he goes to see her he goes to her sister's house because she is there the majority of the time. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions and if not we are looking for a motion. Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case #74429 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 imposed by the Board is hereby reduced to the amount of zero. This reduced fine must be paid within thirty days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of 5,000.00. The prosecution cost of $200.00 is reduced to zero. Mr. Campion seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS None. XIV. STAFF BUSINESS None. ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m. 15