Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 07 2014 Code Enforcement MinutesMAY 7, 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 9:00 a.m., by Mr. Fogg. II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag_ III. ROLL CALL PRESENT Chairman...........................................................................Mr. Ralph Fogg Vice Chair.........................................................................Mr. Ray Hofmann Board Members....................................................................Mi. Wes Taylor .......................................................................................Mr. Randy Murdock ....................................................................................... Mr. Brad Currie ....................................................................................... Mrs Monahan ......................... :............................................................. Mr Campion Board Attorney....................................................................Mr. Jack Krieger ABSENT None, IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — APRIL 2, 2014 Mr. Campion made a motion to accept the minutes of APRIL 2, 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 ....................................................................................... Monica Vargas Barrios ...................................................................................... Christopher Counsellor ...................................................................................... Gordon DeWmd Planning Manager..................................................................Leslie Olsen Civil Engineer......................................................................Mike Halter Board Secretary.....................................................................Deborah Isenhour Monica Graziani, Carl Peterson, Danielle Williams, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Monica Vargas Barrios, Christopher Counsellor, Gordon DeWind, Leslie Olsen and Mike Halter were sworn in. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Reauest for Fine Reduction Hearin Shirley Bemenderfer Case No. 63025 Robert C. and Bonnie S. Meyers Case No. 34143 Robert C. and Bonnie S. Meyers Case No. 59828 Richard C. Walker Case No. 65477 Mr. Hofmann made a motion to approve and accept staffs recommendation as presented. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. For the Record: Consent Agenda Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing — Shirley Bemenderfer Case No. 69759 Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing — Robert C. and Bonnie S. Meyers Case No. 34143 Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing — Robert C. and Bonnie S. Meyers Case No. 59828 Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing — Richard C. Walker Case No. 65477 The Board agreed with staff s recommendation to accept the Request for a Fine Reduction Hearing. VIII. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were abated, removed, or withdrawn from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name 75787 2023 St. Lucie Blvd., Ft. Pierce Whispering Creek Co -Op Inc. 79145 5908 Ft. Pierce Blvd., Ft. Pierce Rocio Ribeiraud and Manuel Ribeiro 79245 8605 Salerno Rd., Ft. Pierce Green Tree Servicing LLC 79691 7101 Roberts Rd., Ft. Pierce Eliot J. Safer (TR) 77205 2635 Cherokee Ave., Ft. Pierce Willie G. and Nancy S. Kitt 78568 5506 Killarney Ave., Ft. Pierce Tommie L. Bradley Sr. 79635 Corner of Palomar & Kings Hwy., Ft. Pierce Oakland Lake Estates HOA 79271 617 Ash St., Port St. Lucie Kathryn M. Gorman and Elizabeth Lamont 79324 121 SE El Sito Ct., Port St. Lucie Timothy F. Donahue 79195 6405 Oleander Ave., Ft. Pierce Green Tree Servicing LLC 78794 221 Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie Curtiss B. Woodruff II 79167 164 SE Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie Wilgins Mesidor 79625 425 Prima Vista Blvd., Port St. Lucie Henry S. Chica 79400 4700 Seagrape Dr., Ft. Pierce Rodney J. and Diane G. Palmer 78709 6010 Buchanan Dr., Ft. Pierce Paul C. and Delores A. Santino 79041 2510 Tamarind Dr., Ft. Pierce German -American Trading and Tourism Co. 79181 2515 N Ocean Dr., Ft. Pierce German -American Trading and Tourism Co. 79540 2306 N 49 h St., Ft. Pierce John A. Williams, Jr. 79599 3403 Menendez Ave., Ft. Pierce Suzanne Darville 79420 Lot next to 2001 Matanzas Ave., Ft. Pierce Wallace Haynes, Jr. 79481 4056 Greenwood Dr. Ronald E. and Casandra G. Smith 79482 Lot next to 4511 Juanita Ave., Ft. Pierce Willie F. Green 79503 78 El Mar Dr., Ft. Pierce Pensco Trust Co/Raymond Cannady IRA 79522 6205 S Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce Margaret A. O'Neal (TR) Case #2, Case No. 79100 was heard first on the agenda: Case #79100, Location of violation, 4721 N US 1, Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Rockingham Carriage Service Inc. Patrick O'Brien representative for the property owner was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Williams stated for the record I am submitting four (4) photos dated January 22, 2014 and ten (10) photos dated May 6, 2014 and a copy of the approved site plan dated March 6, 2011. She stated on August 7, 2013 a Zoning Compliance permit was issued to Rockingham Carriage Services Inc. for the rental, leasing, sales, and repair of equipment rentals. She stated after the zoning compliance was issued, she received numerous complaints that the property was being used as a storage facility for industrial equipment and materials. She stated when she inspected the property, she found it in violation of Section 3,01.03 (S), Commercial General Zoning for renting, selling, and storing, and storing cargo containers which is not permitted in Commercial General Zoning, Section 1-9-19 for having outside storage of items and materials such as pallets, tires, and other miscellaneous items, and Section 7.06.00 for parking on an unapproved surface. She stated she has had numerous meetings with Mr. O'Brien and has explained to him that he needed to be in an Industrial Light Zoning in order to have this type of business and to cease parking on shell rock because according to the approved site plan the shell rock was to be removed and replaced with millings. She stated as of May 6, 2014 the property is still in violation. Mr. O'Brien stated he does not believe he is in violation. He stated the first thing that is being targeted is the cone nercial storage and selling of cargo containers, after meeting with Officer Williams the first time I took all the cargo containers off the ground and put them on registered chassis, that makes them trailers so I do not believe they are containers any longer. He stated I have bills of sale of selling these containers at a retail level so I am not trying to store or anything along those lines on the property I am actually hying to sell these containers. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. O'Brien if he had a retail sales license. Mr. O'Brien answered in the affirmative that they had one, but he is not sure if it is up to date as he does not have it with him. He stated the next issue would be the pallets and wood, he has removed the pallets, but the wood is considered crane mats for heavy equipment sales, they even the weight of a crane when it goes over a wetland area and I have receipts of selling them at a retail level also. He stated the third issue of off street parking, I did speak to Officer Williams and I do agree with her on the millings, I have a quote here from South Florida Land Clearing on bringing millings in, we are just waiting for a road job to piggy back in on because it is very expensive and I have paperwork if you want to see it. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. O'Brien so you have taken the containers and placed them on chassis so you can sell them and the mats that you have. Mr. O'Brien stated I can understand the misconfusion on the mats as to where they would be considered construction equipment, that is why I brought the paperwork to show the Board what they are used for and what we sell them for. He stated those pieces of wood are very expensive and run around $2500.00 dollars to $3000.00 dollars apiece and so they are not exactly abandoned material. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Williams if she had any questions. Officer Williams stated that she explained to Mr. O'Brien that in Commercial General zoning everything has to be in a fully enclosed structure, he has to put the pallets inside of the garage and those types of materials have to be inside the garage in order to store them on the property. Mr. O'Brien asked do I have to put a one hundred and twenty ton excavator in the garage too. Officer Williams stated not the equipment the materials. Mr. O'Brien asked so where do we draw the line between equipment and materials, that seems to be the issue that keeps coming to hand. Chairman Fogg stated the mats are certainly not a piece of equipment, and in understanding the law he asked Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney for her input. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated the stuff Mr. O'Brien says he is selling as Commercial General and that is not equipment that he is selling and would have to be stored inside an enclosure. 3 Mr. O'Brien stated but I am selling these mats. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered correct and they need to be in an enclosure. Mrs. Monahan stated she has a question regarding this first violation Section 3.01.03, it says here renting, selling, storing cargo containers is not a permitted use and she is not understanding as you say you are selling them. Mr. O'Brien answered it is zoned to rent, sell and repair equipment, he stated in the ordinance it is clearly written cargo containers, but what I am trying to put forth is the cargo containers I am selling are not there for storage, they are there for selling. Mrs. Monahan stated it says here that selling is not permitted. Officer Williams stated that is correct he has to be in Industrial Light zoning in order to have the cargo containers. Mrs. Monahan stated so he is in the wrong zoning right off the bat. Mr. Currie stated I have to object to that, I am looking at the zoning code right here and I happen to have a little bit of experience with this sort of thing not on this property but in general. He stated in looking at the Commercial General section of the code and there is a number of uses that I believe could fall under this, and the fast one is a little questionable because I do not know for sure automobile dealers and asked Chairman Fogg is a trailer considered an automobile. Chairman Fogg stated if it was on my property I would be selling it. Mr. Currie stated so I think Automobile Dealers is an allowed permitted use, and another allowed permitted use is Equipment Rental and Leasing Services in Commercial General zoning. He stated and then you have another permitted use mind you right out of the code which is Motor Vehicle Parking, Commercial Parking and Vehicle Storage, so you have three different uses and I believe this gentleman is consistent with all three of these and could fall under one of these three. He stated so I do not understand how staff is saying that renting, selling, storage, now I agree cargo containers is not mentioned in here, but Officer Williams is saying Industrial and I will check Industrial and maybe I will have to eat some crow here if Industrial calls out storage containers, but I do not think it does, it sounds me to be like a permitted use unless I have been told otherwise. Mrs. Monahan asked Mr. O'Brien if his testimony is that he has cargo containers. Mr. O'Brien answered my testimony is that I am selling them not storing them. Mrs. Monahan asked Mr. O'Brien what was he put on an axle or chassis. Mr. O'Brien stated he the issue first came about Officer Williams asked him to please get rid of the cargo containers I put them on chassis which then makes them roadworthy trailers. Mrs. Monahan asked is this a cargo container I am looking at on a trailer/chassis. Mr. O'Brien answered in the affirmative and that both of those are sold now and gone. Mrs. Monahan asked and before you were stacking these on the ground. Mr. O'Brien answered there were two on the ground. Chairman Fogg stated so it appears very possibly here there are maybe some situations in these sections that may not pertain to this, but however we do know that the sales license is very important. Mr. O'Brien stated I have on file at the office I just did not have time to swing by this morning. rd Mr. Currie stated I notice that Ms. Olsen in now sitting in front of a microphone and I would assume that she would like to speak about this. Ms. Olson, Planning Manager, was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Ms. Olson, Planning Manager addressed the Board and stated she would probably be the best person to speak to permitted uses allowed in the zoning district. She stated Mr. Currie has brought up some possibilities that might make this an allowed use and we need to address that. She asked Mr. Currie to list again the uses you felt made this a permitted use. Mr. Currie stated Automobile Dealers letter F, letter T in the code is Equipment Rental and Leasing Services, and letter MM Motor Vehicle Parking, Commercial Parking and Vehicle Storage. Ms. Olson, Planning Manager, stated we will go backwards Motor Vehicle Parking, Commercial Parking and Vehicle Storage in the SIC manual specifically relates to automobiles, which are the things you drive around on the streets to get you from your house to your business, trucks could also be that. She stated trailers are found in Industrial Light zoning category under Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing that is the appropriate zoning category and use for that. She stated that all of the things you are seeing here are not automobiles these are heavy equipment and fall under Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing which is a permitted use under Industrial Light not Commercial General. She stated then you mentioned Equipment Rental and Leasing Services and she asked Mr. O'Brien if he is renting this equipment. Mr. O'Brien answered I am renting and selling it. Ms. Olson, Planning Manager, stated so renting would work selling would not, under a strict interpretation of this code. She stated we have the availability in Planning to do a use determination to determine whether or not the use you are doing on this property does not fit neatly into one of our zoning categories and if it is consistent with the purpose and intent of that zoning category. Mr. O'Brien stated the problem I have with that is my future plans are to open a Volvo or Terex retail store there so I do not want to necessarily change the zoning there right away. Ms. Olson, Planning Manager, stated I do understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is what we can do Planning is you can apply for a use determination where we would go in and do a detailed analysis to detennine whether the kind of use you are doing here is consistent with the Commercial General zoning district even though what you are doing here does not neatly fit into any one of the permitted uses. She stated from the pictures I am seeing I do not see that being a strong argument, this very much looks like an Industrial site to me, but we would be happy to do that detailed analysis, it is free, you just have to write us a letter and ask for it. Mrs. Monahan stated it seems to me that there is still work to be done on this case without our input and I think we should continue this case and allow staff to work with Mr. O'Brien before they come back to us. She asked Mr. O'Brien if he had been in contact with Ms. Olson. Mr. O'Brien answered I have but it seems tough because there is this gray area of what is equipment and what is industrial that is what we keep coming back to, they are going to tell me that a generator is not a piece of equipment and I can get affidavit from Richie Brothers Equipment Sales that it is a piece of equipment. Mrs. Monahan stated that is why I say you still have issues to iron out with staff and I think you can do that without the Board being present there is more work that needs to be done. Mr. O'Brien stated I do not want to change the zoning to industrial and then try to open a commercial retail store. Mrs. Monahan stated we are not even involved in that in my opinion. 5 Chairman Fogg stated we as a Board decide if you are in violation or are you not in violation, and Mrs. Monahan might be correct that this might have been brought to us to soon, maybe you did have the opportunity to be with Ms. Olson or staff to really go through this and to come to us and say you have to make a decision between you and the county. He stated I think there is more work to be done here. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #79100 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on July 2, 2014. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #79638 Location of violation, 8405 North Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Michel Robert. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel addressed the Board and stated that staff would like to ask for a continuance to next month, the gentleman sent something that should be in your packet that he is coming in from Canada and hopes to have it done by the middle of May. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #79638 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on June 4, 2014. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79553, Location of violation, 12805 S. Indian River Dr., Port St. Lucie, FL, Property Owner, Donna L. Beckford. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Williams informed the Chairman that in front of you there is a packet requesting a continuation on both of these companion cases until the next meeting on both cases. Chairman Fogg stated so on Case No. 79553 and Case No. 79048 we are looking to move those to the June 4, 2014 Code Board meeting. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #79553 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on June 4, 2014. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79048, Location of violation, 12805 S. Indian River Dr., Port St. Lucie, FL, Property Owner, Donna L. Beckford. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Williams informed the Chairman that in front of you there is a packet requesting a continuation on both of these companion cases until the next meeting on both cases. Chairman Fogg stated so on Case No. 79553 and Case No. 79048 we are looking to move those to the June 4, 2014 Code Board meeting. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #79048 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on June 4, 2014. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Shawn Ninesling, neighbor to the property of the two previous continued cases #79553 and #79048 at 12805 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board's secretary. Chairman Fogg stated this is in reference to the two cases we are going to here in June correct. Mr. Ninesling answered in the affirmative and stated we have been dealing with Code Enforcement now for months and we at like forty something videos of the work going on and maybe hundreds of photos. He stated Officer Vargas Barrios and Officer Williams have both been to the premises and what they are doing is running a bait business, dumping all of their fish in the river, dumping their salt and brines into the ground. He stated they catch bait all night long and then process it there at the house. He stated staff has many pictures of blue tarps out there with four or five employees out there wearing bibs all taking care of bait. He stated they have not let your staff on the property they told them they were trespassing and had to leave, now they are wanting a continuance so they can take everything and clean it up and then when Code Enforcement comes out on Monday they will just see them filleting fish. He stated this has happened over and over again. He stated after Officer Vargas Barrios tools pictures yesterday they saw her so they took all there equipment last night so we could sit there and listen to them rev it up at our fence line and park it there out of spite for Code Enforcement being there taking pictures. He stated we have also been told if this goes through we have a storm of trouble coming and I have a wife and kids there and I do not need to be living like this. He stated it has already been months and now we are going to continue it so they can clean it up for a couple of days and come back. He stated he sent pictures to staff last night of all the equipment they moved and parked next to our fence, also the continuance is not even for the owner of the house it is one of the children. He stated this is one of those things that grandfather passes away the family comes in and takes over the house with that they brought their landscaping business, their bait business and all of their equipment. Chairman Fogg asked how large a piece of property is this. Mr. Ninesling answered it is about two and half acres. Mr. Currie asked if the Board could see staff presentation and is that appropriate. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, answered you have already continued this case, so I would have to recommend is that you have to move for reconsideration. Mr. Ninesling stated so you continued this when I was in the hall talking to Officer Vargas Barrios. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, stated so procedurally what you would have to do is to make the move to continue to a move to reconsider and open up the hearing. Mr. Currie stated what are we going to do the guy is not here, why don't we take this up next month unfortunately. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Ninesling it is unfortunate and you can continue with what you are telling us but we cannot open it back up again. Mr. Campion stated I see here they have an inspection scheduled for Monday May 12, 2014 and continuing or not has no bearing on that inspection. Mr. Ninesling stated I just do not want this to come back every two months, to where we are sitting here with smoke and mirrors, they move fiom here to there. He stated the pictures if you ever get to look at them are very clear and the videos, it is not just filleting some fish like they are saying. He stated that in the pictures you will see forty of fifty big coolers, pallets of salt for brining bait, so this is not a matter of filleting fish. Chairman Fogg asked how long this has been going on, because February is the first time we have been there correct. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, stated you really need to reopen the hearing if are going to accept evidence or hear any testimony, however the alleged violator is not here so you might create some problems legally. He stated his recommendation is that you go forward with the hearing next month and told Mr. Ninesling that he can certainly present all the evidence at that time, the photographs and 7 everything to the Board so they can accept them and put them into evidence, right now they do not have the ability to accept them and put them into evidence because we do not have a hearing. Chairman Fogg informed Mr. Ninesling the Board is going to have to ask him to come back if you will to the meeting next month, it is set up for June 4, 2014 and we will look at it intensely at that time. Case No. 80229 Location of violation, Mud Jam — Carlton Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Violator, Thomas Recreation and Music Park LLC. Larry Thomas, owner of Thomas Recreation and Music Park LLC and promoter of Mud Jam was present and was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Officer Williams stated for the record I am submitting the noise reading report from the February 2014 Mud Jam event. She stated on February 21, February 22, and February 23, 2014 staff performed a noise level reading and found that the noise at the event exceeded the decibel reading of 60 before 10:00 p.m. and 55 after 10:00 p.m. She stated staff is bringing this case to the Board as a *to have been* so if the noise exceeds the ordinance at the next meeting he could be fined $500.00 dollars per day. She stated the red on your monitors shows where the noise exceeded the noise level reading. Chairman Fogg asked staff and the noise level is standard at what amount. Officer Williams answered 60 at 10:00 p.m. and 55 after 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Monahan asked staff what traffic jam meant instead of a time, in the third column at the top under start time half way down it says traffic jam. Officer Williams stated that was due to the traffic noise, so we did not have a reading there because the noise was too loud based on the traffic, so it was not a proper reading. Mr. Currie stated I have one more question would it be $500.00 dollars per occurrence of over the rating or $500.00 dollars a day. Officer Williams answered $500.00 dollars per day. Mr. Currie stated so under this scenario of all of these violations because he had one on the 22"d and one on the 23Td so it would be $1000.00 dollars is that how you would interpret this. Officer Williams stated as a repeat violator it would be $500.00 dollars for three readings so $1500.00 dollars. Mr. Currie asked staff is the maximum. Officer Williams answered in the affirmative. Chairman Fogg asked staff if we went there on request. Officer Williams answered every mud jam event he has we have to go out and do a noise reading. Mrs. Monahan asked staff because there are complaints or what. Officer Williams answered just to make sure he is in compliance with his conditional use. Mr. Currie stated just for disclosure I worked with Mr. Thomas on the conditional use but I no longer work with him and I did speak to the Assistant County Attorney and she said it would be o.k. for me to listen to this. Chairman Fogg asked staff if the noise level could be changed or is that a standardized level the 55 and 60. H Officer Williams answered it is according to our ordinance. Chairman Fogg asked staff if the ordinance can be changed. Officer Williams answered it would be up to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Fogg asked staff but it is standardized for a period of time or did it just happen. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated it has been that way for a while, it is an ordinance they passed after reviewing it. Chairman Fogg asked staff for this event. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered in the negative and stated we have a standardized noise ordinance for certain times and certain areas. She stated it was not enacted for this event we apply towards bars and other things. Mrs. Monahan stated since this is a temporary type event can he ask for a variance on that, because it is only for a weekend right is it not. Mr. Thomas answered it is for Friday and Saturday night because it shuts down on Sunday. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated to Mrs. Monahan he has what is called a conditional use and they have given him some parameters on that and did not give him any leeway on the noise. Mrs. Monahan stated but he could probably get that. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered he would have to ask for a variance on the conditional use and it is her understanding there is going to be one more event and that is it or at least at this location. Chairman Fogg asked only one more event at this location. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated that is my understanding. Mrs. Monahan stated mud jam is not my cup of tea but I have been there one time, oh my goodness it was amazing, I have never seen so many people at one event that happens in St. Lucie County. She stated I am wondering does not St. Lucie County make a significant amount of money with all these out of town people coming here. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated these are issues that the Board of County Commissioners considers when they gave the conditional use. Mrs. Monahan stated I would think when you have probably thousands of vehicles that this gentleman had here at this event they are going to make noise and I do not know how in the world he would ever go about policing thousands of vehicles from making noise. Officer Williams informed the Board that basically the noise is from the music, the music exceeded the noise level reading the music was too loud. Mrs. Monahan asked if the music is from a band or the vehicles. Officer Williams answered both he has a live band on Saturday she believes. Mr. Thomas stated the band stops at 10:30 p.m. on Saturday night it is the only night that we have a band. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, stated he has security there and he uses them to enforce, there are several restrictions on the conditional use, there are many other items he has to and he using them to enforce them. Mrs. Monahan asked Mr. Thomas if he felt like he could enforce the noise. Mr. Thomas answered in the affirmative that he can to a point, but in my defense there were forty six readings and fourteen were above what is allowed, but three of those were done at my entrance to my event at the gate. He stated I saw them there taking a reading, so I believe there were really eleven violations, however I am looking at the fourteen violations right here only one of them goes over eight decibels and to give you an example and he went over some information he got on google on decibel ratings. He stated he would like to see a rating from the St. Lucie Fairgrounds because their band goes to about 1:00 a.m. in the morning and the people that live on Header Canal Rd. are just as close to the fairgrounds as people are to my event. He stated he wants to know if they have the same limitations as I do, not that I am excusing being over the limit. He went on some more on decibel ratings. Officer Williams informed the Chairman and Board if they look to their right they will see the ambient reading which is when everything is quiet and there is no event. She stated the fast time the quiet time reading was 42.1 and then he had 60.4, which is almost eighteen decibels higher. Mr. Currie asked Officer Williams how you determine the ambient reading. Officer Williams answered I do it when there is no event, when it is normal quiet. Mr. Currie asked so you went out there at 8:14 p.m. and it read 42. Officer Williams answered I did it at 7:30 in the morning. Mr. Currie asked how come the ambient is different at different times I do not understand. There was discussion among the Board and staff on how ambient readings are taken at different locations to determine the ambient reading. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, asked Mr. Thomas a question and stated so you are admitting that you were in violation, you are stating that you just do not feel that it was that bad. Mr. Thomas answered I admit that I was in violation because a meter is a meter and I understand that, I am just here to plead my case but if they say it is $500.00 a day then it is $500.00 a day and there is nothing I can do about it. He stated for the record I want everyone to understand that it is not as bad as a bar, a fairground or any other party that gets together in St. Lucie County. The Board asked staff how often does checking noise level come about, do we do it all the time like for trains and such or just for events like this. Officer Williams answered if someone complains we have to go out, on Mr. Thomas's event it was part of the conditional use that we had to go out to do the noise reading. Mr. Currie stated project was approved because I was a part of it when the conditional use was approved and there was significant discussion from surrounding neighbors about the impact they were going to see from this event, sound was one of those things, so the county staff there was concern that we had to meet the requirements of the sound, it was a general condition that you have to stay within the boundaries of the sound. He believes that a couple of the residents of Aero Acres complained about a couple of the events so the county heightened their awareness for this event. He stated I do not know if they have done it for all events or just this event. Officer Williams stated it has been done for all events. 10 Mr. Currie asked and this is the first time he has been over. Officer Williams answered by this much. Mr. Thomas stated the biggest complaints he had were for last night and I understand that when people are trying to sleep. He stated we had a curfew of 2:00 a.m, and stated he stood here last night with the County Commissioners and promised them we would lower that to midnight. He stated that is going to really reduce a lot of problems with surrounding neighbors and this is the last event on Carlton Rd. He stated it is a success story we have outgrown it. He stated I had some other violations and stated this last event is the first violations he has had because I work really hard with the County and when an issue pops up I take care of it. He stated this last event got a little noisier than normal There was discussion among the Board and Mr. Thomas on the security of the event. Mr. Thomas stated he hires Sheriff Department deputies at $24,000.00for the weekend, the Fire Department is $24,000.00 and his own security at $12,000.00, so I do not play any games when it comes to safety and making the rules be obeyed. He further stated all the vehicles of the Sheriff Department and his security and stations that police the event. There was discussion on other events like the fair and trains that we are not doing noise level readings on. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that railroads are exempt and controlled by federal law and as Officer Williams stated we are complaint driven and if someone wants to make a complaint about the fair we will be out there. She stated there have been numerous complaints on this event and that is why we are involved and neighbors out there have seriously complained about it affecting their quiet. She stated all we are asking today is there being a To Have Been on the noise only all the other items are not before the Board today. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Thomas so this is your last event there and do you have a new place. Mr. Thomas stated I have gotten some big sponsors this is one of the fastest growing events in the country it has gotten big. Mr. Currie asked Mr. Thomas how his event compares to other events in the country. Mr. Thomas stated we are tied for number one and we are third nationwide. He stated that his event brings a lot of revenue into St. Lucie County which was mentioned at the Board of County Commissioners meeting last night. Chairman Fogg stated unfortunately there is a violation here and staff has said it is a To Have Been so we are going to have to handle that. Chairman Fogg stated to the Board we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan stated before we do I have a comment and stated I have a major issue with us nitpicking sound readings on an event that lasts a weekend, yet we have a fair that goes on out there whether it is a carnival ride, or a concerts, or graduations, or whatever and those go on for days, weeks and we have no reading or information on all that and I think it is wrong to do this to this gentleman when there are loud things that happening all over this county. She stated I just happen to know about the fair because I listen to it all the time. She stated so I am in favor of he is not in violation and his is not a To Have Been. Chairman Fogg stated make a motion if that is your feeling. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #80229 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 we determine there is no 11 violation of the ordinance because I think it is grossly unfair to nitpick with a citizen when the county is not covering their own selves. Mr. Murdock seconded the motion. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, addressed Chairman Fogg and stated if I could advise you before you vote on the motion. He stated you could be opening up something here, the argument that somebody else may be in violation therefore I am not going to prosecute this person, if you are using that argument then everybody who is brought before this Board who has allegedly done something could make the same argument that well down the street they are doing it so you have to let me off the hook, just like you let so and so off the hook. He stated I am just bringing that up as something to consider. Mrs. Monahan stated I appreciate that and I just want to say where my thinking is if I can. She stated first and foremost for all the years I have been doing this I have heard you say repeatedly that we have to look at each and every case individually with its owns criteria and its own merits, so I try on every single case to look at each one. She stated I am looking specifically at this case, this is a gentleman that has come to this county with his business and it is a very lucrative business for this county and it is a very lucrative business for the other businesses of this county even though I think it is ridiculous, dirty and all everybody else around the state and country seem to really enjoy this. She stated I just think we are nitpicking here that is unnecessary nitpicking on this particular case. Mr. Murdock stated he would like to make a comment here, the noise violations happening here were not in direct control of this individual. He stated when you have individuals attending an event you cannot sit there and look over their shoulder to make sure they do not do this kind of act. He stated a perfect example is I was at a graduation and you were not supposed to have air horns when someone walked up to get their diploma and some idiot at the back has one that he snuck in. He stated since some things are out of our control I do not feel we should hold him responsible for other individuals. Mrs. Monahan stated I also want to add there was testimony this morning about the band being most of this noise thing and Mr. Thomas's testimony was that you are already lowering the time. Mr. Thomas stated the band stops at 10:30 p.m. that is a condition that was set on me by the county. He stated there was no curfew and I took it upon myself for two events to put my own curfew on them of 2:00 a.m. and I have agreed to make it midnight and that is going to eliminate and I will not be here again for noise ordinance violations or I hope not. He stated with a curfew of midnight I do not think we will have a problem with that. Mr. Currie stated there are a significant amount of restrictions on this event that we are not even hearing today and I am impressed with every event how well the people act out there. He stated the majority of the people follow the restrictions. Chairman Fogg stated if there is nothing further on this I would like a roll call please. Chairman Fogg called for a roll call vote: Mrs. Monahan —Yes, Mr. Fogg — Yes, Mr. Hoffman — Yes, Mr. Taylor — Yes, Mr. Murdock — Yes, Mr. Currie — Yes, Mr. Campion — Yes, The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Fogg and the Board told Mr. Thomas he really needs to keep them quiet now. Case No. 79415 Location of violation, 1053 S. 37"' St., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owners, Angel Mendez and Luisa Ponce. Luisa Ponce was present. 12 Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated it has come to our attention and we have spoken to Ms. Ponce before in English but I think we need to inquire whether she is comfortable with English we may need to continue this case to get a Spanish interpreter. Chairman Fogg asked Ms. Ponce if she was comfortable in English, can you speak in English. Ms. Ponce answered not too much, but I understand just a little bit. The Board asked staff if we have an interpreter that speaks English. Ms. Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered not here today we would have to arrange for one. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, stated his recommendation is to continue. Chairman Fogg informed Ms. Ponce that because of your English the Board is going to recommend postponing this and to the next meeting where we would get a Spanish interpreter if you do not have someone you can bring to speak for you we would have someone to interpret for you. Mr. Campion made a motion in reference to Case 979145 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board meeting on June 4, 2014. Mr. Currie seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #79492 Location of violation, 3748 White Way Dairy Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Bri-Cee Corporation. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Counsellor informed the Board that the gentleman Mr. Alfred Maige that wants to speak does not represent the property owner he is an interested party of the property. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, if the Board could have him come up and speak. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, answered that the Board could certainly not treat this as a default and can take evidence if you like and do a separate motion on this. Chairman Fogg asked so it is o.k. to open this without anyone to represent the property owner. Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, answered in the affirmative that it was advertised that there was going to be a hearing. Officer Counsellor stated for the record I am submitting seven (6) photos, three dated February 20, 2014 and three (3) dated May 6, 2014. He stated during my first inspection on February 20, 2014 1 found 3748 White Way Dairy Rd. to be in violation of Section 1-9-32 (D) for overgrowth, 1-9-32 (D), Unsanitary Nuisance for a busted septic tank lid, 1-9-32 (D), Unsanitary Nuisance for the swimming pool, and 8.00.05 for the fencing requirement for the swimming pool. He stated he issued a letter and gave a compliance date of March 4, 2014. He stated he has not had contact with anyone representing the property. He stated on April 22, 2014 he issued a Notice to Appear, and on April 25, 2014 he posted the property. He stated he has inspected the property four times and has gotten no compliance or contact from any interested party. He stated as of May 6, 2014 the property still remains in violation. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Counsellor if he knew if this Bri-Cee Corporation is a bank. Officer Counsellor the only information he has he received on the property is from the county attorney's office that apparently the Bri-Cee Corporation was done away with and the property was given to a mortgage company in a bankruptcy suit and was given up as a non -asset. He stated it is an email from a mortgage company in Utah that I have. 13 Mr. Alfred Maige wanting to speak on this property came forward and was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Maige to proceed. Mr. Maige stated I have a friend who has property two doors down from this property here and is complaining to me all the time to do something, do something, and I said well I will just go buy the place and get the yard cleaned up and the pool secured. He stated he is having a heck of a time finding anybody that is connected here, the last person was a carpenter and I tried to get into her place over on Kings Hwy. and could not get in because it is a gated community. He stated I have had luck with Officer Counsellor, I talked to him a couple of days ago and he gave me a piece of paper with an address of Portfolio Servicing in Salt Lake City, Utah so I have some searches out for some phone numbers or emails. He stated concerned about fines accruing and getting way out of shape. Chairman Fogg informed Mr. Maige there is not much you can do about this because you do not own the facility yet and are not allowed on the property, so the fines would continue to accrue until the property is cleaned up and abated. He stated the Board cannot stop anything here today just because you say you are going to buy it. Mr. Maige stated I am here today because I was hoping someone would be present representing the property. He stated I just want to be on record that I want to buy this and improve the neighborhood. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case 479492 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 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. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. There was discussion among the Board and staff as to the safety of the pool with the fence having a missing section. 2"d Motion Mr. Campion made a motion in reference to Case No. 79492 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the condition caused the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and Staff is directed to notify the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissions of the conditions. Mr. 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/Contractor/Violator 79293 3002 Juanita Ave., Ft. Pierce Jessie O. Walker Jr. 79184 7005 Santa Rosa Pkwy., Ft. Pierce Erwin Ramos 14 79196 5811 Hickory Dr., Ft. Pierce Green Tree Servicing LLC 78676 100 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie Maria Rivera (TR) 79628 100 Celestia Ct., Port St. Lucie Antonio Rico 78257 7508 Santa Barbara Dr., Ft. Pierce Sheila M. Maxwell 79492 3748 White Way Dairy Rd., Ft. Pierce Bri-Cee Corporation 79533 2935 Admiral St., Ft. Pierce Agripina Virto and Charles C. Waters Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to the cases read into the record that the Code Enforcement Board enter an Order of Finding against the violator finding the violator in default and if the violator does not appear to contest the violations against him/her that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as set forth on the agenda. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. IX. FINE HEARING: Case No. 78083, Location of violation, 5030 West Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Regal Power Investments Inc. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Brubaker stated this case was found in violation at the February 5, 2014 Code Board and was given until April 4 to come into compliance. She stated for the record I am resubmitting two (2) photos, one (1) dated September 10, 2013, and one (1) dated January 24, 2014, and I am submitting two (2) dated April 28, 2014. She stated during her first inspection on 5030 West Virginia she found them to be in violation of Section 11.05.01, for the work being done, they are ripping down walls, remodeling the bathroom and there is electrical work being done. She has had no contact with the owner since the last Code Board meeting and as of May 6, 2014, there is no permit. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions and if not we are looking for a motion. Mr. Taylor made a motion in reference to Case No. 78083 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 5, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78041, Location of violation, 5490 Melville Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Jason F. and Stephanie M. Denney. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Brubaker stated this case was found in default at the March 2014 Code Board and was given until April 4, 2014 to come into compliance. She stated for the record I am submitting five (5) photos, two (2) photos dated August 26, 2013, one (1) photo dated January 31, 2014, one (1) photo dated March 3, 2014, and one (1) dated May 6, 2014. She stated during her first inspection on August 26, 2013, she found 5490 Melville Rd. in violation of Section 7.07.00, Storm Water Management for putting a berm around the neighboring property and flooding them out. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of October 6, 2013. She noted Mr. Denney came in to the office on February 24, 2014, and spoke to Officer Williams and we explained that he needed to contact Mike Halter concerning the berm, we have not heard from him since and as of May 6, 2014 the property remains in violation. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Brubaker if he is flooding out the property to the left or the right. Officer Brubaker answered the property to the right, if you see the house in the back, that is the house that he is building and he has this access road and he bermed her whole entire property in, he bermed the back and the sides. 15 Chairman Fogg stated so the property on the right that we see by the tree and the building that is the one he is flooding out. Officer Brubaker answered in the affirmative, she stated there is a ditch on the left and the water cannot drain to the left anymore. Mrs. Monahan asked staff if her has just piled the dirt there from building his road. Officer Brubaker answered the road was already there, he took a front -loader and piled all the dirt around her property. There was discussion among staff and the Board on where the berms are, the drainage ditches and how this was done. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case No. 78041 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 5, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78694, Location of violation, 2685-2691 Niagara Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, C and S Realty Grp LLLP (TR). There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel stated for the record I am submitting three (3) photos, one (1) dated January 15, 2013 and two (2) dated May 5, 2014. She stated 2685 -2691 Niagara Ave. was brought to the March 5, 2014 Code Enforcement Board and found in default of 1-9-32 (D) Public Nuisance, to remove all the dead trees that are a hazard to the neighboring properties. She stated the board gave a compliance date of April 4, 2014. She stated she has had no contact with the property owner and as of May 6, 2014, the property still remains in violation. Mrs. Monahan asked if it was one tree. Officer Swartzel answered there are two trees on in the front and one in the rear. Chairman Fogg stated to the Board we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 78694 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 5, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78784, Location of violation, 173 Imperial Way, Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Robert D. Osteen, Jr. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel stated for the record I am submitting two (2) photos, one (1) dated November 18, 2013, and one (1) dated May 5, 2014. She stated 173 Imperial Way was brought to the March 5, 2014 Code Enforcement Board and found in default of 1-9-19, to repair or remove the unserviceable vehicle. She stated the Board gave a compliance date of April 4, 2014. She stated she has had no contact with the property owner and as of May 6, 2014 this property still remains in violation. 16 Chairman Fogg stated to the Board we are looking for a motion. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case No. 78784 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 5, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Campion seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 78268, Location of violation, 5807 Killarney Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Suzanne J Lewis and Stephen W. Thiel. Mr. Randy L. Mosby, P.E., Structural Engineer representative for the property owners was sworn in by the Board's secretary. Officer Swartzel stated for the record I am submitting five (5) photos, one (1) dated September 16, 2013, two (2) dated September 24, 2014, one (1) dated January 14, 2014, and one (1) dated February 27, 2014. She stated 5807 Killarney Ave. was brought to the March 5, 2014, Code Enforcement Board and found in default of 11.05.01, Building and Sign permits, to obtain a permit for the fence and renovation of the garage to living space. She stated the Board gave a compliance date of April 4, 2014. She stated she has had contact with the property owner and discussed ways to correct the violation. She stated as of May 6, 2014 this property still remains in violation and no permits have been applied for or issued. She noted a representative for the owners is here today to speak to the Board. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Mosby this is in violation as we can see here is that correct. Mr. Mosby addressed the Board and stated it is in violation, I was retained about three weeks ago to go in and do a complete as built on the structure as it was originally constructed. He stated the process of putting the construction drawings for the unpermitted improvements that were done to the structure and to bring it into code I hope to have those done and submitted to St. Lucie County Building Department by next week. He stated he does not know how backed up the St. Lucie County Building Department is right now, but hope to have the building permit within three to four weeks after that, so what I am here to do is ask to have an extension and not have a fine imposed for at least two months until the building permit is in hand. Chairman Fogg stated I do not know if you can do that sir, you can ask for it and see, it appears to be about six of seven months out on this from the time he was asked to do something about it and then to obtain you three weeks ago to try and get out of trouble does not seem to fit to well. He stated I do not know how the Board is going to feel about it. Mr. Mosby stated I can say one thing the owner is in Ohio and the son I believe lives there now. He stated I think it was a matter of miscommunication between the son and the parents who own the house, I have been retained and as I said I will have the plans ready for submittal next week. Mrs. Monahan asked Officer Swartzel if she knows the address where the fast citation was sent to. Officer Swartzel answered in the affirmative and stated she has spoken to the son, his wife and the owners; I have spoken to all of them. Mrs. Monahan asked did they indicate why they defaulted on the violation hearing and ignored us. Officer Swartzel answered when I spoke to the son and daughter-in-law the first time, they indicated that everything was fine and they did not do any repairs or renovations, so I explained that I had the pictures. She stated at that point the parents contacted me and said that they would have it corrected. She stated she has spoken to the parents several different times. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Swartzel if she knows when she spoke to them the first time. 17 Officer Swartzel answered within two weeks of them getting the letter. Chairman Fogg stated was that in 2013. Officer Swartzel answered in the affirmative. Mr. Mosby stated I can comment on that I am the second structural engineer that has been on this site. He stated the first engineer came and visited the site about two months ago and they dropped the ball and then they contacted me to wrap it up. He stated it is not something they have been trying to hide from it is something they have been working with, but there was another professional involved who did not follow through on the work he was going to do so we have come in to complete get it done for them. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Mosby if he could have it started within thirty days. Mr. Mosby answered I will have drawings ready for the Building Department, but I do not know how long the Building Department has been taking. He stated the work is basically done and the work that has been completed is to code, I have gone through and done my own structural inspection of it. He stated now it is a matter of doing the after the fact building permit application so we are putting the drawings together and they will be turned over to the Building Department and then it will be in the Building Department's hands. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 78268 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting June 10, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 79146, Location of violation, 2358 Brocksmith Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Primitivo Martinez. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Williams stated for the record I am submitting three (3) photos dated December 17, 2013 taken by Officer Roseberry and four (4) photos dated May 6, 2014. She stated this case was brought to the March 5, 2014 Code Enforcement Board meeting. She noted no one was present to represent the property owner and the Board the case in default of Section 1-9-19, for having outside storage and unserviceable vehicles on the property, and Section 13.09.00, Article 301.3, for having a damaged roof and structure. She stated the Board gave a compliance date of April 4, 2014. She stated she has had no contact with the property owner and as of May 6, 2014 the property is still in violation. There was discussion among the Board and staff as to the location of this property off Brocksmith Rd. Mrs. Monahan asked staff if this is the house that caught fire by lightning strike. Officer Williams answered in the affirmative. Mr. Campion made a motion in reference to Case No. 79146 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 5, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2" MOTION 18 Mr. Murdock made a motion in reference to Case No. 79146 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the condition caused the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and Staff is directed to notify the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissions of the conditions. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. X. REPEAT VIOLATION Case No. 80206, Location of violation, 5301 S US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Joseph J. Koch (TR). There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Counsellor stated for the record I am submitting seven (7) photos, four (4) dated April 17, 2014, one (1) dated April 28, 2014, one (1) dated April 29, 2014 and one (1) dated May 6, 2014. He stated this case is a repeat violation and the owner of the property appeared before the Board on May 6, 2009 for being in violation of Section 7.09.00, Landscaped and Screening, for parking on the landscaping. He stated on April 17, 2014 he found the owner again to be in violation of Section 7.09.00, for parking on the landscaping. He stated on April 17, 2014 the owner was given his Notice to Appear for the May 7, 2014 Code Board. He stated the violation was corrected on April 29, 2014; the property was in violation for twelve (12) days. He stated I have had no contact with the property owner, but did have contact with the owners of the business on the property and as of May 6, 2014 the property remains in compliance. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 80206 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 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 determination: A fine of $500.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting April 17, 2014 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. A prosecution cost of $200.00 has been imposed. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. XI. REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS None. XII. FINE REDUCTION HEARING Case No.69759, Location of violation, 3531 Eleven Mile Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, David O. and Melody D. Greenlaw. Fine Reduction requested by Paige Blind, of Sharon J. Kelly Realty Inc. Paige Blind representing the owners of the property Freddie Mac was sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Chairman Fogg asked Ms. Blind if she had something to tell the Board on this property. Ms. Blind addressed the Board and stated she is not exactly sure what occurred before Freddie Mac obtained the property but the county went in and secured the property and cleaned it up which they paid money for which Freddie Mac is prepared to pay, they are asking for a mitigation of the fine. She stated we do have a contract on the property, we will have new owners there, the closing is scheduled for the 16`h of this month and they plan on cleaning it up and building a home there. Mrs. Monahan asked why the fine should be mitigated; it sat there in violation for over two years so why should that fine be mitigated. Ms. Blind answered Freddie Mac obtained the property she believes in December. Mrs. Monahan asked December of what year. 19 Ms. Blind answered 2013 and they put the process in place to keep it up, secured the plywood on the door on the side to make sure it was secure. Mrs. Monahan stated so Freddie Mac took it over after the county cleaned it up. Ms. Blind answered correct. Mrs. Monahan stated is not that a coincidence. Ms. Blind stated she does not know when the foreclosure took place and they typically take several years to go through the foreclosure process. Chairman Fogg stated so what you are saying is that Freddie Mac is willing to pay the $3591.94 to the county for that part of it. Ms. Blind answered in the affirmative and they are asking for a fine mitigation to go ahead and get this property closed and get an owner in there. Chairman Fogg stated we understand what they are doing and the reason for it we just want to make sure what is being requested. Officer Williams stated the 3591.94 is the cost for us cleaning up the property, she is here to request a fine reduction on the fine imposed by the Board of $5200.00. There was discussion among the board on how long this was in violation and the fine. Ms. Blind stated that since Freddie Mac has had the title to the property it has been clean and maintained by a preservation company since December 2013. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion from somebody on the Board at this time. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #69759 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,200.00 imposed by this Board is hereby reduced to the amount of $1,250.00. 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, plus the prosecution cost of $200.00. Mr. Murdock seconded the motion. Mrs. Monahan stated can we talk about it. Chairman Fogg stated a question has been called. Mrs. Monahan stated I am against that I have not heard any testimony as to why that $5,200.00 fine should be reduced. She stated I do not see where we missed anything or there are any extenuating circumstances. Chairman Fogg requested a roll vote: Mrs. Monahan -No, Chairman Fogg -No, Mr. Hofmann -Yes, Mr. Taylor -No, Mr. Murdock -Yes, Mr. Currie -Absent, Mr. Campion -Yes. Vote was a tie, Mr. Krieger, Code Board Attorney stated a tied motion is denied. Motion passed. Chairman Fogg informed Ms. Blind that the motion has been denied. Ms. Blind asked where is Mr. Currie does not he get to vote. Chairman Fogg informed Ms. Blind that Mr. Currie has left. Officer Williams informed Chairman Fogg that 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all companion cases. 20 Mr. Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, stated you can open them all up, read them all into the record Mr. Chairman and then we can consider separate motions. Chairman Fogg read companion cases Case No. 96040005, Case No. 20010165, Case No. 31026 and Case No. 47501 into the record. Case No. 96040005, Location of violation, 3406 S. Jenkins Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Joseph L. and Bernice L. Carter. Fine Reduction requested by Bernice L. Carter. Bernice L. Carter and Sylvia Stamm, Coldwell Banker Realtor representing Bernice L. Carter were sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Chairman Fogg asked Mrs. Carter and Ms. Stamm to please inform the Board why they are requesting the fine reductions. Ms. Stamm answered Mrs. Carter husband passed away last July and they have lived on that property for forty years and he had it pretty much a junk pile, Mrs. Carter has tried and gotten basically all of it cleaned up by herself. She stated we have it listed and are selling it but because of the code violations of $25, 000.00, the property is on the tax rolls for $23,000,00. She stated we did have a buyer on the table and they did walk from it, we do have a buyer who will come back to the table. Chairman Fogg asked Ms. Stamm if another buyer is coming back for $25,000.00. Ms. Stamm answered in the negative that the three code violations are $25,000.00 and the property is on the tax rolls for $23,000.00. She stated that Mrs. Carter was in no control of her husband and his habit of sort of a hoarder. She stated when she went out there the place was terrible and this lady has worked so hard to get it all cleaned up, she is a widow, she needs to sell the property and get the money and cannot afford to pay that kind of violation so we asked for a price reduction. She stated Mrs. Carter has gotten it in compliance and cleaned it up real good, it amazing what she has cleaned up out there, it is unbelievable. She stated I mean dumpster loads she has worked on it for months and she would ask that the Board grant the price reduction we asked for and give her time to get the money as her only income is social security which is not very much. Chairman Fogg asked what is the reduction you asking for. Ms. Stamm answered ten percent for each violation and the total violations are I believe $25,000.00 or maybe a few dollars more. Chairman Fogg stated so you are asking for a ten percent reduction. Ms. Stamm answered in then negative they are asking for a ten percent payout on the total. She stated this this is all the money she is going to have, she does not work, she only has her social security which is not much, if she does not get this money, this is all her husband left her, no bank account, no nothing. Chairman Fogg asked Ms. Stamm if she has a contract on the property now. Ms. Stamm answered I had a contract on the property which expired because of this, but I have someone who will come to the table with a contract, also the property will not mortgage the bank will not mortgage the property so it has to be a cash buyer which reduces the amount of the contract considerably. Mrs. Monahan stated let me get this right there are four violations starting in 1996 and it goes through 2000, 2005 and 2006 and stated to Mrs. Carter you and your husband completely ignored these violations for a ten year period. Mrs. Carter answered in the negative and stated that she wanted the Board to know that she did not ignore it she stayed after her husband, tried to get him to come home early and told him I did not do this but I will help you clear it. She stated she would clear a spot out and his was happy because he had something else he could put in it, she would beg him but he would not do anything. She stated that is not how I chose to live. She stated her church came out and helped her clear it up one weekend and he just started putting 21 things all over the place. She stated that she has taken a lot of vehicles off the property, cleared a lot of junk and I am still in the process of cleaning what I can, I cannot lift a lot, but do have some people helping me. Mrs. Monahan asked how much is left. Ms. Stamm answered not much, she believes the Code Enforcement lady went out and checked. Officer Williams stated she went out and checked and this is the picture I took yesterday before you. Chairman Fogg asked Officer Williams if it is abated. Officer Williams answered in the affirmative. Ms. Stamm asked the Board for some time to pay the fine if they grant the reduction. Mrs. Monahan asked Ms. Stamm how much time. Ms. Stamm answered probably sixty days so they can get something to the table, because she does have a legal matter to take care of so she will have some kind of money. There was discussion among the board members on the fine amounts and the reductions. Mrs. Monahan stated there are extenuating circumstances on this one. Ms. Stamm stated yes there are, if she does sell the property, pays her sales tax, and she has a legal matter to clear up, she is not going to end up with that much money at the end at all and she does really need it. There was more discussion among the Board on how they might reduce the fines. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #96040005 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 $300.00. This reduced fine must be paid within seventy-five days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of 5,000.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg requested a roll vote: Mrs. Monahan -Yes, Chairman Fogg- Yes, Mr. Hofmann -Yes, Mr. Taylor- Yes, Mr. Murdock -Yes, Mr. Currie -Absent, Mr. Campion -Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Case No. 20010165, Location of violation, 3406 S. Jenkins Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Joseph L. and Bernice L. Carter. Fine Reduction requested by Bernice L. Carter. Bernice L. Carter and Sylvia Stamm were sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #20010165 .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 $300.00. This reduced fine must be paid within seventy-five days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of 5,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg requested a roll voter Mrs. Monahan -Yes, Chairman Fogg- Yes, Mr. Hofmann -Yes, Mr. Taylor- Yes, Mr. Murdock -Yes, Mr. Currie -Absent, Mr. Campion -Yes. The motion carried unanimously. 22 Case No. 31026, Location of violation, 3406 S. Jenkins Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Joseph L. and Bernice L. Carter. Fine Reduction requested by Bernice L. Carter. Bernice L. Carter and Sylvia Stamm were sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #31026 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 $300.00. This reduced fine must be paid within seventy-five days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of 5,000.00. The prosecution cost of $125.00 is reduced to zero. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg requested a roll vote: Mrs. Monahan -Yes, Chairman Fogg- Yes, Mr. Hofmann -Yes, Mr. Taylor- Yes, Mr. Murdock -Yes, Mr. Currie -Absent, Mr. Campion -Yes. The motion carried unanimously. Case No. 47501, Location of violation, 3406 S. Jenkins Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Joseph L. and Bernice L. Carter. Fine Reduction requested by Bernice L. Carter. Bernice L. Carter and Sylvia Stamm were sworn in by the Board's Secretary. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #47501 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $10,000.00 including the $125.00 prosecution cost imposed by the Board is hereby reduced to the amount of $300.00. This reduced fine must be paid within seventy-five days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to the original fine of 5,125.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg requested a roll vote: Mrs. Monahan -Yes, Chairman Fogg -No, Mr. Hofmann -Yes, Mr. Taylor -Yes, Mr. Murdock -Yes, Mr. Currie -Absent, Mr. Campion -Yes. The motion carried. Mrs. Carter stated to the Board I cannot even express how much I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Ms. Stamm stated to the Board thank you for understanding us and God Bless you. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS None. XIV. STAFF BUSINESS Officer Williams addressed the Board and stated I would like to introduce you to our new Code Officer Gordon DeWind, he tools over Ed Roseberry's old area from Virginia Ave. to Airport Rd. Chairman Fogg and the Board welcomed Mr. DeWind a board. ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 11:16 a.m. 23