Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 02 2014 Code Enforcement MinutesAPRIL 2, 2014 HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS ROGER POITRAS ANNEX 2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA I. CALL TO ORDER The Code Enforcement Board meetin~ was called to order at 9:02 a.m., bv Mr. Fog~ IL PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag, IIL ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . . .. . .. ... . .. ... ... ... ... ... . .. .. . ... ... . ...... ... .. ...Mr. Ralph Fog g Vice Chair ......... ..................... ........................... ................Mr. Ray Hofmann Board Membeis .............. ... ............... ...... ... ...... .....................IVI~•. Wes Taylor ....................................................................................... . clc Mr Ran y Mur o Mr Bra Currie ....................................................................................... . Mis Mona an ....................................................................................... . Board Attoiney ............... ... ..................... ............... ..............Mr. Jack I~•ieger ABSENT Mr. Campion was excused. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 5, 2014 Mr. Currie made a motion to accept the minutes of MARCH 5, 2014 Mr. Taylor 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 Swartze ................................................................... .................... Momca Vargas Barrios ................................................................... .................... llor Christopher Counse Board Secretary ................................................ ....................Deborah Isenhour Monica Graziani, Carl Peterson, Danielle Williams, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Monica Vargas Barrios, Christopher Counsellor were sworn in. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 1 VII. CONSENT AGENDA Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien Bonnie Mock Case No. 76142 Karen F. Wilson Case No. 66879 Anne M. Hill Case No. 74429 Wells Fargo Bank Case No. 73540 Reauest for Fine Reduction Hearin David O. and Melody D. Greenlaw Case No. 69759 Joseph L, and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 96040005 Joseph L, and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 20010165 Joseph L, and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 31026 Joseph L, and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 47501 Mr. Hofmann made a motion to approve and accept staff's recommendation as presented. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. For the Record: Consent Agenda Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing - David O. and Melody D. Greenlaw Case No. 69759 Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing - Joseph L. and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 96040005 Rec~uest for a Fine Reduction Hearing - Joseph L, and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 20010165 Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing - Joseph L, and Beinice L. Carter Case No. 31026 Request for a Fine Reduction Hearin~ - Joseph L, and Bernice L. Carter Case No. 47501 The Board agreed with staff's recommendation to accept the Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing. VIIL VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were abated, removed, or withdrawn from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name 79159 241 Silversh•eam Cu~., Ft. Pierce Ridgecrest Mobile Home Park 79338 452 Silverstream Cir., Ft. Pierce Ridgecrest Mobile Home Park 79063 2602 Walker Dr., Ft. Pierce Jovana Lewis 76174 6069 N US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce Oculina Bank 77704 6099 N US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce Oculina Bank 77703 6099 N US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce Once Again Antique Store 78384 425 Verada Ave., Port St. Lucie Michael and Homilda Cline 79194 288 Mainsail St., Port St. Lucie Nationstar Mortgage LLC 78815 185 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie Michael and Selena Costello 77401 204 Entrada Ave., Port St. Lucie 5262 Ventures LLC 78507 125 SE Prima Vista Blvd., Poi~t St. Lucie 4BZ Holdings LLC 78669 224 SE Camino St., Port St. Lucie Franlc D. Aquaro 79003 2110 Cortez Blvd., Ft. Pierce Federal National Moi~tgage Association 79301 3200 S, 7`I' St., Lot 85, Ft. Pierce Windsong Mobile Vill. LTD Ptnsp. 79331 3800 Edwards Rd., Ft. Pierce Tonya M. Edenfield '79332 4000 Edwards Rd., Ft. Pierce Jennilyn Herndon (TR) 79485 2705 S. 28th St., Ft. Pierce James J. Peiry 79485 2211 S. 39`h St., Ft. Pierce Diane M. Ricca-Chitwood 79189 4208 Rose Ln., Ft. Pierce Philip W. Dunaway 79644 4250 N AlA, Unit 1007, Jensen Beach Custom Ventures LLC 79335 5061 N AlA, Bldg. A Project, Ft. Pierce Biyn Mawr Ocean Towers Condo Assoc. 79644 5061 N AlA, Bldg. A Project, Ft. Pierce Daniello & Associates Inc. Case #5, Case No. 78329 was heard first on the agenda: Case #78329, Location of violation, 6804 Pensacola Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Demirel Mohammed and Shahida N. Ali. Demirel Mohammed was sworn in by the Board's Secretaiy. Officer Swartzel stated for the record I am submitting five (5) photos, one (1) dated October 4, 2013, three (3) dated March 25, 2014 and one (1) from google maps. She stated during her ~rst inspection she found 6804 Pensacola Rd. to be in violation of 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits, to obtain a permit for the shed/structure and for enclosing the screen porch into living space. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of November 7, 2013. She stated she has spoken to the property owner several times and discussed ways to coi7ect the violation. She noted that Mr. Mohanuned came in and obtained a demolition permit for the screen room enclosure but is still working on obtaining the permit for the structure in the rear of the property. She stated Mr. Mohammed is here today to ask for more time. Mr. Mohammed addressed the Board and stated he bought the property and then found out the building in the back did not have a permit. He stated he is working on getting a permit. Chairman Fogg stated it has been sia inonths since you have been cited and asked N1r. Mohammed what is his time fi~aine and where is he at in the procedure. Mr. Mohaimned answered he has obtained an engineer to loolc at the building and get the plans ready and so forth and he has obtained a demolition permit to return the patio to the original condition it was supposed to be. Chauman Fogg asked him what his time frame is. Mr. Mohammed answered as much time as he can get. Chauinan Fogg stated it does not work that way, we will work with you, but we need to get somewhat of a definite time. Ivu. Mohammed asked if he could have six months, the same time he would have his demolition done. Chairman Fogg stated I do not know if we can give you six months, it should not take that long to get it done. He asked the Board if anyone else had questions and if not he is looking for a motion. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #78329 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 4, 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 ls~ 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 #79060 Location of violation, 8007 Roberts Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Tom Rinaldo. William Wolfe, tenant/representative for the owner was swoin in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Swartzel stated for the recard I am submitting two (2) photos, one (1) dated November 26, 2013, and one (1) dated March 25, 2014. She stated during her first inspection she found 8007 Roberts Rd. in violation of 11.05.01 Building and Sign Permits, to obtain a permit for the wood structure in the rear of the property. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of January 17, 2014. She stated she has had contact with the property owner and discussed ways to correction the violation. She noted as of April 1, 2014, there has been no permit issued and this property still remains in violation. 3 Chairman Fogg asked staff if a stop work order had been placed on the property. Officer Swartzel answered in the negative, that a Notice of Violation was sent and when the owner called he was told not to continue because we never caught anyone working on it. Chairman Fogg asked IvI~•. Wolfe if they are in violation. 1VU•. Wolfe answered in the affirmative and stated that they do have an engineer. He stated he was working on the shed along with a carpenter and an engineer came out to look at it two weeks ago. He stated the carpenter he is worlcing with has submitted some sketches to the engineer, who found the shed in compliance with code, as far as the strapping, the right two by fours and on centers and eveiything. He stated it is about two thu ds done, it is enclosed, but it is not shingled. Chairman Fogg stated so you are in a holding pattein at the moinent. IVI~~. Wolfe answered Mr. Rinaldo had to go back north because of the death in the family and I am living there and helping him out on all this. Chairman Fogg stated so you are nice enough to be here today to help out on this and are loolcing for some time. N1r. Wolfe answered 'u~ the af~rmative and stated he does not know how much time will be needed. He stated he is going to school for a Building Technology degree and they are building and strapping the sh~ucture to code and the engineer verified that when he made his visit. He stated the engineer is doing some drawings to submit and said he knew someone here and was going to call them and get more information. He stated they got the drawings to the engineer about a week ago. Chairman Fogg aslced the Board if they had any questions and if not we are loolcing for some time, probably ninety days. Mr. Wolfe said that should be sufficient. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #79060 that the Code Enforcement Board malces 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 occu-• and the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by July 4, 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 1S~ Wednesday of the month after the date giveu 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. Murdoclc seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79165, Location of violation, 144 Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie, FL, Property Owner, Sheldon Dodson and Katherine L. Agler. ICatherine L. Agler-Dodson was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Brubaker submitted two (2) photos, one (1) dated January 23, 2014 and one (1) dated March 31, 2014. She stated during her first inspection she found 144 Prima Vista in violation of Section 11.05.01, as the shed in the backyard does not have a permit. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of Februaiy 24, 2014. She stated staff has had contact with the owner and the tenant and they will be removing the shed this weekend. She stated as of April 1, 2014, the property remains in violation and staff would like the prosecution cost waived. Mrs. Agler-Dodson addressed the Board and stated they are in violation and evidently the neighbor behind them passed and her daughter gave my tenant a shed. She stated she does not go in the back yard when she 4 collects rent so evidently they had taken the shed and put it in her back yard. She stated she has been in contact with the tenant and they will be removing the shed. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions and if not he is looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #79165 that the Code ~nforcement Board malces 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 determin,e the violation in fact did occur and the alieged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of Enforcement is not complied with by May 9, 2014, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A prosecution cost was not imposed. Please talce notice that on the lst 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. Mi~rdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79302, Location of violation, 2406 S. 19`~' St., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Celeste J. Deflorio (TR). David Deflorio, son and representative for the owner was sworn in by the Board's Secretaiy. Officer Counsellor stated for the record I am submitting six (6) photos, two (2) dated Januaiy 17, 2014, and foiu~ (4) dated March 21, 2014. He stated during his fnst inspection on Januaiy 17, 2014 he found 2406 S 19t~' St. to be in violatiou of Section 13.08.00, Standard Housing Code, Article 301.3, for the Vacant Structure, and Section 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Article 303.2, Protective Treatment, he issued a letter and gave a compliance date of Februaiy 14, 2014: He stated he has had some contact with Dave Deflorio, he called me yesterday and spoke to me about the condition of the property. He stated on March 19, 2014 he issued a Notice to Appear and as of April 1, 2014 the property still remains in violation. .. He stated he did hear from Dave who represents the property yesterday, the propei-ty is in his mother's name, but he is the caretaker for the properly and he is here to testify. IvI~•. Deflorio addressed the Board and stated that the windows and such that you are looking at right now the kids in the baclc are the ones responsible for that and he has already talked to the parents about that. He stated as fai~ the rest of it he has been keeping up with that grass, but he is just overwhelmed with how many things he has to do. He stated as far as this goes he did not know about it or he would not be here today, he just found out about this yesterday when his Mom who is eighty one years old handed his wife the yellow slip. Chavman Fogg asked Mr. Deflorio if he agreed with the violations regarding pressure washing or painting the structure. Mr. Deflorio answered in the affu•mative that he discussed with Officer Counsellor and believe or not he had already bought some trim paint and stated again we would not be here if he lcnew about this and he needs a little time. Chairman Fogg stated would sixty days be enough. Mr. Deflorio answered in the affirmative that would be enough time and asked if there are any fees imposed on this case. Chairman Fogg answered there is a$200.00 prosecution fee. Mr. Deflorio asked the Board if they could waive the prosecution fee as he did not have any knowledge of this until yesterday. Chairman Fogg stated that will be up to the Board, normally the prosecution cost stands. 5 Mr. Deflario stated she is eighty one and where she put the first letter if she even got it he does not know and he knew nothing of coming here until yesterday, otherwise this would have been taken care of. Chan•man Fogg stated he would ask staff about this and addressed Ivl~s. Barbieri aslced her if she had any question on the prosecution cost, and said he knows it is the Board's discussion, but asked for her input. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney answered and stated it is the Board's digression if they feel they want to waive it or if with staff's efforts they want to impose it. Mr. Murdoclc made a motion in reference to Case #79302 that the Code Enforcement Board malies 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 4, 2014, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A prosecution cost was not imposed. Please talce notice that on the lsr 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. Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79644, Location of violation, 880 Casalino Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, I~•aaz and Kraaz Finance LLC. Mike Menard, representative for I~•aaz and Kraaz Finance LLC was present and was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Of~cer Williams stated for the record I am submitting sixteen (16) photos, dated September 24, 2013. She stated on Apri12, 2008, a peimit for a pole bain was issued and finaled on September 23, 2008. She stated on September 24, 2013, staff, along with the Health Department inspected the property and found that the pole barn has been converted into a dwelling unit, with a bathroom on the first floor, two (2) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms, a living room, and kitchen without permits on the second floor. She issued a letter on October 4, 2013 and gave a compliance date of November 4, 2013. She stated on November 6, 2013, she received an email froin Mike Menard who stated he is working on the plans to submit for the permit. She stated on March 10, 2014, she had to recite the property owner because of a name change. She gave a new coi7~ection date of March 20, 2014, and as of today, the property is still in violation as not permit has been obtained. Chairman Fogg aslced staff if any permit has been applied for. Officer Williams answered in the negative; no peimit has been applied for. N1r. Menard addressed the Board and stated that they have just recently received the septic tank permit and final inspection from the Health Department. He stated was just contracted last week to do working drawings to apply for a permit. Chairman Fogg asked staff if this has been going on since 2008. Officer Williams answered in 2008 they obtained a permit for a pole barn, but she actually cited them for September 24, 2013. She stated between 2008 and 2013 the pole barn was converted without a pexrriit. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if anyone had any questions. He asked Mr. Menard what the plan was moving forward. N1r. Menard answered if he can get some time he is going to go out and field measure everything; reverse engineer the building, determine what deficiencies are there if any to meet cui~~ent code, wind loading, elech•ical, plumbing, and air conditioning, and then figure out the best way to coi~ect the problems, have them brought up to code. He further stated he believes for the Building Department he has to provide inspection letters for each and everything, as well as complete construction documents in as-built format. Chan•man Fogg asked Mr. Menard how long is it going to take you to do all that. Mi~. Menard answered it is going to a little while, if I could have two to three months that would be ideal. He stated he envisions he will be out there for a weelc and a half crawling tlu•ough the attic checlcing sn•apping. Chairman Fogg stated so we are tallcing ninety days is that what you are saying. Mr. Menard asked Mr. Peterson, Building Official what he thinlcs the turn-around would be once he submits the permit and drawings. Mr. Peterson, Building Of~cial answered if an engineer is signing it off we can fast n~ack it for you. Mr. Menard stated to the Board that ninety days should be sufficient then. Chaiiman Fogg stated that something lilce this should be have been talcen care befare now. Mr. Menard stated he agrees, but he was not authorized to do anything until they had the septic tanlc approved, because the Health Depai~tment comes fust in St. Lucie County. Chairman Fogg aslced the Board if they had any other questions and if not he is looking for a motion. Mr. Currie asked if they are living in this facility. Mr. Menard stated no one is living there, occasionally they will go out and take care of the dogs and maybe use the bathroom, but that is about it. IvI~~. Currie asked if their intent was to live there peimanently. Mr. Menard answered in the negative, that it was to be more of a weekend thing and eventually they were going to build a big ranch house there. Chairman Fogg asked if this is a large parcel. N1r. Menard answered in the affirmative, that it is about fifty three acres he believes, it is a large parcel. Mr. Currie asked how county staff got into the building, did they let you in to take pictures. Officer Williams answered staff went there with the Health Department and they let us through the building and take pictures. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if there were any other questions and if not he is looking for a motion. Mr. Murdoclc made a motion in reference to Case #79644 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the follo~ving 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 4, 2014, a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed. A prosecution cost was not imposed. Please talce notice that on the lst 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. Chairman Fogg called a question on the prosecuting cost and aslced the Board if anyone had a comment on that. Mrs. Monahan stated she was just wondering why we would do that. Mr. Murdoclc stated he is malcing good effort to get lier done and he thinlcs the Board should reward people that are trying to get it done. Mr. Currie seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79100, Location of violation, 4721 N US 1, Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Rockinghain Carriage Service Inc. Officer Williams informed the Board on theu• desks they will find an email fi•om IvI~•. O'Brian, who could not be here today and is asking for a continuation. Chairman Fogg asked staff if this is the gentleman that lives in New Hampshu•e. Officer Williams answered in the affirmative. Mis. Monahan stated have we not ah~eady continued this. Officer Williams stated that was a few years ago, this is a whole new case. Chauman Fogg asked if the Board continued that case. Officer Williams answered that the case was not continued it went all the way through to fine. Ivl~s. Monahan asked Officer Williams if she knows how long they want it continued. Officer Williams answered thirty days is fine. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #79100 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on May ~, 2014. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Default Cases: The Hall was somided and Mr. Hofmann read the name and uumber of the case of those not present into tlie record: Case No. Location of Violation Propertv Owner/Contractor/Violator 78687 7707 James Rd., Ft. Pierce Anthony C. and Suzanne C. Manning 78919 8206 Santa Clara Blvd., Ft. Pierce Michael W. Thomas 79136 5701 Citrus Ave., Ft. Pierce Deutsche Bank National TR Co (TR) 78675 175 SE Bonita Ct., Port St. Lucie Brian F. and Helen S. Herrick 79486 S. 40t~1 St., Ft. Pierce Cesar Cumera 79487 2213 S. 39~h St., Ft. Pierce Maricel D. Cumera 79303 416 Willows Ave., Ft. Pierce Alex Rivera 72052 10725 S. Ocean Dr. Lot 127, Jensen Beach Maryse Major and Pierre Rompre 79199 1206 W. Joy Ln., Ft. Pierce Alejandro and Maria Campos 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. 8 Mr. Murdoclc seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX. FINE HEARING: Case No. 76219, Location of violation, 6703 Oneco Way, Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Virginia McNamara. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel for the record I am submitting one (1) photo dated March 25, 2014, and one (1) picture fi~om the St. Lucie County Property Appraisers website. She stated 6703 Oneco Way was brought to the Februaiy 3, 2014, Code Board and found in default of ll.05.01 Building and Sign Permits, to obtain a permit for enclosing the garage and adding a front porch. She noted the Board gave a compliance date of March 7, 2014. She stated she has had contact with the property owner and discussed ways to bring the property into compliance. She stated as of April 1, 2014, no pennits have been pulled and the property still remains in violation. IvI~•. Hofmann aslced Officer Swartzel what they said when she had contact with them. Officer Swartzel answered she spoke to Ms. McNamara who said she was working on getting a permit and was talking to an engineer, and said she was going to be here today, but she is not. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case No. 76219 that the Code Enforcement Board malces the follo~ving 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 March 8, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78283, Location of violation, 7603 Sebastian Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, US Bank National Association. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel stated for the record I am submitting one (1) photo dated March 25, 2014. She stated 7603 Sebastian Rd, was brought to the Februaiy 5, 2014, Code Board and found in default of 1-9-19.5, Regishation of Abandoned Real Properties, that all properties located in St. Lucie County that are in foreclosure must register. She noted the Board gave a compliance date of March 7, 2014. She stated she has had no contact with the banlc and as of April 1, 2014, this property has not been registered with St. Lucie County and remains in violation. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case No. 78283 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 talzen by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we malce the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting March 8, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Murdoclc seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78096, Location of violation, 1715 Linwood Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Homesales Inc, of Delaware. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Counsellor stated for the record I am submitting six (6) photos, two (2) dated February 3, 2014, and four (4) dated March 31, 2014. He stated during his first inspection on October 7, 2013, he found 1715 Linwood Ave., to be in violation of 1-9-32, Unsanitary Nuisance, for the overgrowth, 13.09.00, Exterior Property Maintenance, Ai~ticle 303.2, far Protective Treatment, and Article 301.3, Vacant Unsecured 9 Structure, and 302.7, for Accessoiy Structure, for the shed in the back yard. He stated he issued a letter and gave a compliance date of October 25, 2013. He stated he has no contact from anyone representing the property. He stated on Januaiy 22, 2014, he issued a Notice to Appear. He noted on February 5, 2014, the property was found in Default by the Code Enforcement Board and given until March 7, 2014 to come into Compliance. He stated as of April 1, 2014, the property still remains in violation. Chan•man Fogg stated this is interesting because I see here the notice was issued on October 2013 and we have gone this fa~• which is quite a while and nobody has even been in contact with staf£ Officer Counsellor stated the only reason you see the grass cut is because the neighbor across the street has talcen it upon himself to cut the fi~ont yard. Chairman Fogg stated if there are no questions fi~om the Board he is looking for a motion. Mi•. Tayloi• made a motion in refe-•ence to Case No. 78096 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff tl~at the violation still exists, after~considering the gravity of tl~e violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we malce the follo~ving determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation etists starting March 8, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 77534, Location of violation, 3208 Linda Vista Ln., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Marsha Lockwood and Mehmet V. Golccen. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Vargas Barrios stated for the record, I am submitting eight (8) photos, three (3) dated July 29, 2013, tYu~ee (3) dated January 24, 2014, and two (2) dated March 31, 2014. She stated this case was brought to the February 5, 2014 Code Enforcement Board meeting and was found in violation by default of St. Lucie County Code of Ordinance, 1-9-32 .(D), Public Nuisance, for the Overgrowth, and St. Lucie Code Land Development Code, Standard Housing Code, Section 304.2, Protective Treatment, to remove the mold from the exteriar walls. She stated on August 14, 2013, a Notice of Violation was sent to Marsha Loclcwood and Mehmet V. ~ Golccen, the owneis of 3208 Linda Vista Ln, with the correction date of September 13, 2013. She stated on December 5, 2013, a Notice to Appear was sent and on January 24, 2014 the property was posted. She stated on March 31, 2014, she went to the property and the grass had been cut, but the exterior walls remain in violation. She noted staff has not received any communication fr•om the owners. Chan•man Fogg stated if there are no questions from the Board he is loolcing for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 77534 that the Code Enforcement Board malces 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 talcen by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we malce the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting March 8, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78810, Location of violation, 250 Rouse Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, River Holdings of Central Florida LLC. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Williams stated for the record, I am submitting two (2) photos dated November 14, 2013 and three (3) photos dated April 1, 2014. She stated on February 5, 2014, this case was brought to the Board and found in default 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 snucture. She stated the Board gave a compliance date of 10 March 7, 2014. She stated staff has not had any contact with the property owner and as of April 1, 2014, the property is still in violation. She stated staff is also asking that the Board refer this property to the Board of County Commissioners for abatement. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 78810 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 malce the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting March 8, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2ND MOTION Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 78810 that the Code Enforcement Board malces the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff `vith regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the condition caused the violation presents a se-•ious 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. Currie seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78913, Location of violation, 1941 Old Dixie Hwy., Ft. Pierce, FL, Propei~ty Owner, Scott Flanagan. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Williams stated for the record I am resubmitting seventeen (17 photos dated December 4, 2013. She stated this case was brought to the February 5, 2014 Code Enforcement Board and was found in violation of Section 13.09.00, Article 304, for having a structure with cracks in the foundation, holes in the roof, and plumbing, and electrical problems. Mr. Flanagan was present at the Board meeting. The Board gave 1Vfi~. Flanagan a compliance date of March 7, 2014. She stated since then staff has been in contact with IVfi•. Flanagan. She stated on March 27, 2014, a permit to demolish the structure was issued, as of April 1, 2014 the structure has not been demolished. She stated staff is asking the Board to extend Mr. Flanagan's correction date. Chairman Fogg stated you are asking the Board to extend the date. Officer Williams answered in the affumative, if that is possible. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Williams if there is a timeframe. Officer Williams answered two weeks; he should have it done in two weelcs. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Williams thirty days or two weelcs. Officer Williams answered that is up to the Board. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Currie stated he has a couple of questions and stated it appears Mr. Flanagan also owns the property at 1937 Old Dixie Hwy. and that one is abated and this one at 1941 Old Dixie Hwy. is not abated and asked staff to tell him a little bit about that. Officer Williams stated that on 1937 Mr. Flanagan corrected all the violations, on 1941 because of the extent of all the violations he decided to demolish the property as he could not afford to fix it. 11 IVU•. Currie asked staff could we go back to that aerial showing all the properties and asked where 1937 is on the map. Officer Williams stated there are three buildings on the property and showed him which one was 1937 and 1941 and stated the other building is another property, there are tluee buildings on the property. Mr. Cun•ie asked Officer Williams which one is he tearing down. Officer Williams indicated 1941 on the map and stated it is the big one. Chairman Fogg aslced Officer Williams if Mr. Flanagan is in the process of doing that. Officer Williams answered he obtained a permit on March 27, 2014 and he had a contractor and just needs more time to demolish it. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 78913 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimouy, 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 malce the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 25, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hoffman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. X. REPEAT VIOLATION Case No. 79532, Location of violation, 5302 Bowling Green Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Vincent D. Keane II. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel stated for the record I ain submitting four (4) photos, one (1) dated February 19, 2014, two (2) dated March 25, 2014, and one (1) dated April 1, 2014. She stated at the October 5, 2011, Code Board meeting 5302 Bowling Green Dr, was found in violation of 1-9-32 Overgrowth. She stated on February 19, 2014, she went out and found the property in violation again of 1-9-32 Overgrowth. She issued a Notice to Appear to the Apri12, 2014 Code Board. She stated she has had no contact with the property owner and as of AprIl 1, 2014, this property still remains in violation. Chairman Fogg aslced staff is there is also another fine on this property from before. Officer Swartzel answered in the negative, the sister came in and she got eveiything done, she came to Code Board for the fine hearing and they had abated in time. Chan~man Fogg aslced staff so they had it abated in time so there was no fine. Officer Swartzel answered in the affumative that there was no fine and the property has been maintained until now. Mrs. Monahan asked staff how long ago was the first violation. Officer Swartzel answered 2011. Ivfi•s. Monahan stated so in three years they have forgotten and asked staff if that is a hedge at the front door. Officer Swartzel answered in the negative that is just grass. Chairman Fogg stated he is looking far a motion from the Board. 12 Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case No. 79532 that the Code Enforcement Board malces the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation previously committed has been repeated 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 detei•mination: A fine of $500.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists stai~ting February 21, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A prosecution cost of $200.00 has been imposed. Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. XL REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS None. XII. FINE REDUCTION HEARING None. XIII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Case No. 78065, Location of violation, 5047 N AlA., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Phyllis Jo Crown. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attoiney, addressed the Board and stated you have before you a stipulated Motion for Continuance, you had granted their Motion for Rehearing. She stated in reviewing and getting ready for the hearing today staff realized Ms. Crown had made some suggestions that she has a disability and in the Land Development Code we do have a procedure to deal with anyone who is asking for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She stated at this time they are going to apply under that procedure and staff is asking for the continuance to give them time to apply so we can see in the application she will have to tell us what the disability is, what she is applying for as reasonable accommodation and we can appeal and review procedures and everything in there. She stated that it is required under the American with Disability Act that we have this procedure, so we are asking for a continuance so we can go through the procedure and see what the disability is and see if there is a reasonable accommodation that should be granted. Chairman Fogg stated he does have a question lcnowing the situation here and having heard this and having them before the Board before, and maybe with the Disability Act will talce care of that, but is there nothing in the code on a resident is just a resident whether it be in a condo or whether it be in a single family home and aslCed staff if that is correct, is there any defmition between the two. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attoiney, stated I am sorry I am not sure I understand the question, staff has not changed its position on this case, but we do have to allow them to exercise and see if there is a disability and what the reasonable accommodation would be. Mrs. Monahan asked Mrs. Barbieri what are the choices of reasonable accommodation. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attoiney, answered it depends on what she asks for, which is why we have to have the application because we do not lcnow. She stated there are not multiple choices, like you get three choices and that is it, it depends on what she says her disability is and if it is one that is protected. She stated not every disability is protected, so it would have to be one that is protected. Mrs. Monahan asked Mrs. Barbieri and it is protected under this American Disabilities Act. Ivu•s. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered if it is one that is protected, if she asks for one that is not protected it would end the inquiry right there. 13 Mrs. Monahan asked Mrs. Barbieri who decides that. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered there is case law out there on what is protected and what is not. N1rs. Monahan asked Mrs. Barbieri is it written and if it would go before a judge. Ivu~s. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered this procedure would not, this goes to our Planning and Development Department and can end up in front of the County Adminish•ator. N1r. Hofinann stated he thinlcs the disability was that she cannot drive at night at least that was what she stated. N1rs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered that was the initiation of it, she does not lcnow if there is more, that was the fiist time staff had heard of it, which is why we need to give her the chance to tell us if there is more. Mrs. Monahan stated so she comes to staff and does this. Iv1~~s. Barbieri, Assistant Connty Attorney, answered it is an application through the Planning Department. Chairman Fogg stated so we are looking for a continuation, Ivus. Monahan asked so what date do you want for the continuation. Ivu~s. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered at this time we are just aslcing that it be continued, if she does not file the application, then we will bring it back to the May Code Board, if she does because there are fluctuations in how long things can take staff will reset it for you. Mr. Krieger, Code Board Attorney stated to the Board he would recommend you have the stipulated motion before you for continuance that you make a motion approving the stipulated Motion for Continuance.. Mrs. Monahan stated as Mr. Krieger so eloquently stated that is my motion. Chairtnan Fogg aslced Mr. I~•ieger is that was acceptable. Mr. I~•ieger answered yes it is. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 78065 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The Board approved the stipulated Motion for Continuance. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS None. XIV. STAFF BUSINESS Expired Permits: Mis. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated staff has provided you with a section of the Land Development Code, she believes there was a little discussion at the end of the last meeting on what we do with expired permits and our options are outlined in the Land Development Code so we brought it to the Board so you can see what the county options are based on what the Board of County Commissioners have approved. Mr. Cunie asked Mrs. Barbieri if she could give him the five second overview of what this says. 14 IvI~•s. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered she can try. She stated basically it is preriy much how we have certain time frames and if they do not act with permits and they expire in those time frames or if they do not have inspections within that time frame then they become e~pired. She stated there is also an appeal provision in there to the Board of Adjushnents if they do not agree with us saying that a permit is expired and they have to show good cause. Ivus. Monahan asked if citizens know this when they apply for a permit, do they realize they have these limitations. Mi•. Peterson, Building Of~cial stated he is not sure if it is on our application or not. Mrs. Monahan stated I guess that is what I am asking, how would a citizen know. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Compliance Manager, stated she believes the language is clearly outlined on our permit and says if you do not have an inspection within six months your perinit can expire. Ivfi~. Cui7•ie stated but it does not e~pn•e, he said expu•e is not the right term because it still exists it does not go away. He stated you guys start fining them for it so expu~ing is not the right tei7n in his opinion, eapiring would be a great teim but it does not expire because then you start fining them for having an expired permit so the permit is still there. Mi•s. Monahan stated it says right here permit shall expu•e. N1r. Currie stated but then they get a code violation because they have not closed out their permit or have not gotten an inspection so it does not expire, it is like a relationship once you get into a building perniit you cannot get out unless you get a final on the building or you tear down the building that is what it boils down to, that is how you get out of the agreement. He stated when you enter into an agreement you either get a final to move into the house or you tear down the building there is no in between there from what he remembers from the last hearing and that is what I am hearing today. He stated termination of it is not the correct term I believe. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated the term that is used in the Land Development Code is eapire, the way staff loolcs at it is that it is expired and you have no permit on the building, so then if you do not come in and do some action to renew the permit then we would expect the structiue is an unpermitted sri•ucture, there is no permit on it and it would have to be removed. Mr. Currie stated so the reason this came up was we had an application or violation where an individual did not have the money to finish the building, but yet we were still fining her or this individual because she did not close out or get a final on her peimit. He stated this individual has invested an essential amount of money in the building and the options we give her is you are going to get fined $5000.00 or $250.00 a day, or you have to tear the building down, or you are going to have come up with the money to fmish the building. He stated he does not thinlc that is a good solution because we are not really solving the problem. Mrs. Monahan stated wait just a minute, I was not here for that one but playing devil's advocate here what would happen if we say we do not think this is so heinous a violation, that we do not agree that there is a code violation. She asked is that an option that we have, that we can make it go away like that. Mr. Currie stated he is not the attorney for the Board or the County, but he believes that what the County ar Board attorney would say is that potentially there is some liability out there, because we know there is a building out there that we know does not meet the intent of the code. IvI~•. Murdock asked if the Board has the option to postpone, delay, or make it extendable until other circumstances prevail that would enable that individual to resolve the issue. N1rs. Monahan stated does that not open us up to the same liability Mr. Currie was talking about. 15 N1r. Cun•ie stated not necessarily, we could kick that can down the road forever, but he would rather come to some sort of solution which is what I was attempting to do. He stated we could postpone this forever and she could come back eveiy six months, but she still does not have the money and I just think it seems too extreme, there needs to be some sort of middle ground. He stated if it is a safe structure, if we can deteimine that she has boarded up the windows and she in not living there, it is almost like you should be able to hit a pause button as long as the building is safe, it should not be costing her any money and that is what he was looking for, if there was some sort of inethod in between tearing it down and getting a final inspection. Chairman Fogg stated when you hit the pause button which is a figure of speech and you do it for her you do it for everyone. Mrs. Monahan stated each case is its own special thing and she does not remeinber how far along this particular structure is. She asked if it closed in and dried in. IvI~~. Peteison, Building Official stated it has a roof on it and it is dried in. 1V1i•. Currie and N1rs. Monahan aslced staff if there are windows and doors. Mr. Peterson; Building Official, answered there are no windows or doors. Ivu•. Murdoclc asked staff if it could be classified as a barn. Ivu•s. Monahan asked staff what is the difference between a pole barn and that. N1r. Peteison, Building Official stated this has already been permitted as a residential structure. Mrs. Monahan aslced if she can change that peimit to a pole barn. IVU~. Peteison, Building Of~cial stated it is a concrete block structure, there are no poles to it. Mr. Murdock stated a barn is a bain right. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that staff would have to look at that. She stated there is now no permitted sh~ucture on that propei~ty, so staff would have to look at the zoning to see if she could do that. She stated the Board did give her quite a bit of time on that, the issue is these structures are unpermitted so we do not know the safety of them and the issue with this is that it has been long enough that she may have building code problems, the code changes every couple of years and issues like that, which is why these things need to be resolved in a timely manner and not left out there for yeais and years. She stated this one is more sympathetic because she is out on some land away fi•om everyone, and when you take that precedent and set it there, and then someone that lives in a smaller residential neighborhood comes in and asks and you know these are not permitted structures and the county does not look at these as legal shuctures. Mr. Currie stated you keep saying it is not permitted, she has a building permit, and she has had inspections on it. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated no she does not it is expired. Mr. Currie she has inspections on that facility, she probably got an inspection for the walls, she got an inspection for the roof probably, I am assuming it is there and the assumption would be that what is there meets the code because she got it to that point. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated no sir I believe the roof never did pass inspection it is the issue that happened. 16 Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Compliance Manager, stated that after last month's meeting and some discussion staff did research of the surrounding municipalities and our research concluded that St. Lucie County is number one the most lenient as far as how we handle expired permits, with regards to taking them or not taking them to the Code Board, the particular person this discussion began under last month her fee is not $800.00 it is $420.00 to renew her permit. Ivl~s. Monahan asked why is that. Ivu•s. Graziani, Building and Code Compliance Manager, stated she claimed she did not have the money to renew her peimit because it was $800.00, we ran the numbers, and it is actually a$400.00 fee to renew her permit. N1r. Cw-rie stated but she does not have any intention of renewing or actually finishing this building. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Compliance Manager, stated no she does not, she even said she will probably sell it by the end of the year. She stated let me finish on that avenue, in the surrounding inunicipalities you have some that the day after that permit expires, the date that it expires they start fining them fi•om day one. She stated some jurisdictions are exh•emely aggressive in going after expired permits, we are not we want to worlc with the community, we did an inventoiy and we only have six structures out there lilce Sandra Brown's. She stated if we get a complaint lilce we did on her, she was before this Board, she is out on ten acres, we would have never lcnow about her home other than when we run our reports on exp'ved permits. She stated if we get a complaint and it is in a neighborhood we will be glad to go out and access it and if it is necessary have it boarded up, but actually we feel that the way we process it right now tends to work and you will continue to see expu~ed permits come before you and again it will be this Board's decision and your liberty to malce the decision on whether that applicant or property owner just like you did with Ms. Brown, you gave her to the end of the year. Chairman Fogg asked Mis. Graziani if she has gone to any of the sulrounding areas Code Board meetings like Port St. Lucie or Vero. Mrs. Graziani, Building and Code Compliance Manager, answered many of them have special magistrates and she has not actually been to a meeting, but I can tell you as far as the process, we are very friendly, the least restrictive, and as far as the fees we have the lowest renewal fee also. She stated with that it might not answer your questions but the process works. Mr. Currie stated the reality is that an individuallike Ms. Brown would come here, she would be found in violation, she would receive her per day fine up to the maximum and nothing would get resolved. He stated it would just continue to be a lien filed on her property and the next guy or girl, whoever it may be will have to deal with it and if there was a pause button she could push and avoid the fine levied against the property it is still the neat guy's or girl's problem. He stated having said all of this she is not going to solve the problem it is going to be the next person, whether the next person solves the problem by paying a $5,000.00 fine or by bringing the code, he said his point of bringing this whole thing up is it just seems like we are not really addressing the problem and he it seems lilce we can come up with something. He stated he thinks staff has done an excellent job explaining the iinportance of staying on top of this and making sure that we handle it. Ivus. Monahan stated the way she looks at it, she to gets veiy frushated, it looks like sometimes nothing happens or it takes months for something to happen, but she loolcs at as it all goes back to the bottom line of it is a privilege to own property and it is a job to own property, you have to maintain it, you have to work at it, you have certain rules that you have to live by and if you do not want to do that, do not own property. She stated go rent a house or live in an apartment or something and then you do not have these issues to woiry with and that is the only way I can think about this stuff. Mrs. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated one more thing, sometimes that property if you go out it may be obvious to the naked eye that there is an issue with this building, but on some of them there is not, so by putting a lien out there and recording it in the public records you have put the next person on notice 17 that fliere is an issue, I need to go talk to the Building Department and find out what is going on so they do not unsuspectingly buy something that they were not thinking they were buying. Chairman Fogg stated and in some cases they do not actually see, and in some of these foreclosures and different things and they buy them fi•om the bank they do not see that, we have had them come before us all the time and it is up to us, we are the final say so in a lot of that by either reducing which is why he feels veiy strongly in many cases when somebody comes before you and they are trying to, especially realty people with no disrespect to any company, they come in and cannot sell the facility unless you reduce the fine they say and said he does not always think that is the case. He further stated but we do not want to be too sh~ong with them, but still staff and county spends money when folks go out there and somebody has to pay the bill. He stated not like the Board we sit here because we like to be here and asked if there were any other questions. ADJOURN: There was no fui~ther business and the meeting was adjouined at 10:18 a.m. 18