Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Minutes 0322161 FINAL DRAFT MARCH 2, 2016 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 9:04 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 Co-Chair…………………………………………………….……….......Mr. Randy Murdock Board Members..…………………………………………………….…..Mr. Wes Taylor …………………………………………………………………………...Mr. Ray Hofmann ………………………………………………………………………….. Mrs. Margaret Monahan …………………………………………………………………………...Mr. Brad Currie Board Attorney…………………………………………………….…….Mr. Jack Krieger ABSENT Mr. Patrick Campion was excused. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 3, 2016 Mr. Taylor made a motion to accept the minutes of FEBRUARY 3, 2016 as amended. Mr. Currie seconded and the motion carried unanimously. V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS STAFF PRESENT Assistant County Attorney……………………………………………....Katherine Barbieri Building and Code Regulation Manager……….…………………….….Monica Graziani Building Official……….…………………………………….…………..Carl Peterson Code Enforcement Supervisor…………………………………………...Danielle Williams Code Enforcement Officer ……………………………………………....Melissa Brubaker ……………………………………………………………………………Lynn Swartzel …………………………………………………………………………....Monica Vargas Barrios …………………………………………………………………………....Jose Matos ……………………………………………………………………………Bea Goycochea Board Secretary.………………………………………………………….Debbie Isenhour Monica Graziani, Carl Peterson, Danielle Williams, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, Monica Vargas Barrios, Jose Matos, and Bea Goycochea were sworn in. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 2 VII. CONSENT AGENDA Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – River Holdings of Central Florida LLC– Case No. 77682 Satisfaction of Fine and Release of Lien – River Holdings of Central Florida LLC– Case No. 78810 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing ________________ Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Hogar Community Reinvestment LLC – Case No. 83894 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Hogar Community Reinvestment LLC – Case No. 84840 Request for Fine Reduction Hearing – Rick L. and Karen L. Neal – Case No. 59839. Mr. Hofmann made a motion to approve and accept staff’s recommendation as presented. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried. Chairman Fogg stated we are moving the Fine Reduction Hearings on the agenda to be heard first. XII. FINE REDUCTION HEARING Case No. 78919 was heard first on the agenda: Case No. 78919, Location of violation, 8206 Santa Clara Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Michael W. Thomas. Fine Reduction requested by Gary Farless. Ted Toupouzis, Attorney, representing the property owner was present. He stated they took the property over through foreclosure. Officer Williams informed the Chairman and the Board that Mr. Toupouzis is representing Case 1 and 2. There was discussion among the Board, Mr. Toupouzis, and staff regarding the fine reduction request for the property. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #78919 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 and $200.00 prosecution cost imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced to the amount of $1500.00 if paid within thirty (30) days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to original fine of $5,000.00 and a prosecution cost of $200.00. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion and the motion carried. Case No. 82317, Location of violation, 8206 Santa Clara Blvd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Bank of America NA. Fine Reduction requested by Gary Farless. Ted Toupouzis, Attorney, representing the property owner was present. There was discussion among the Board, Mr. Toupouzis, and staff regarding the fine reduction request for the property. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #82317 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 and $200.00 prosecution cost imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced to the amount of $1500.00 if paid within thirty (30) days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to original fine of $5,000.00 and a prosecution cost of $200.00. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion and the motion carried. 3 Case No. 75646, Location of violation, 207 N. 39th St., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Linda G. Talley. Fine Reduction requested by Deanne Samuels. Deanne Samuels, was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. There was discussion among the Board, Deanne Samuels, and staff regarding the fine reduction request for the property. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #75646 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 and $200.00 prosecution cost imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced to the amount of $1200.00 if paid within thirty (30) days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to original fine of $5,000.00 and a prosecution cost of $200.00. Mr. Hofmann seconded the motion and the motion carried. Case No. 63450, Location of violation, 2800 Tall Pines St., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Gerard L. and Kimberly J. Kraaz. Fine Reduction requested by Linda Villipart, Bradley & Associates. Linda Villipart, was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. There was discussion among the Board, Linda Villipart, and staff regarding the fine reduction request for the property. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case #63450 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: The fine of $5,000.00 and $150.00 prosecution cost imposed by the Code Enforcement Board is hereby reduced to the amount of $1250.00 if paid within thirty (30) days of this hearing or the fine will revert back to original fine of $5,000.00 and a prosecution cost of $150.00. Mr. Currie seconded the motion and the motion carried. VIII. VIOLATION HEARING: The following cases were abated, removed, or withdrawn from the agenda: Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name None Case #84989, Location of violation, 208 Rouse Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, John and Louise Cross. Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney for the property owner was present and John Cross was present but did not speak. Officer Matos submitted twelve (12) photos, four (4) dated September 11, 2015 taken by Danielle Williams, four (4) dated December 1, 2015 and four (4) dated March 1, 2016 taken by Officer Matos. He stated on August 8, 2015, he found 208 Rouse Rd. to be in violation of Section 38-26, for outside storage of pallets and other miscellaneous items, Ordinance 11.05.00, to obtain a zoning compliance for using the property as a storage facility, and Ordinance 1-12-17, to obtain a business tax receipt. He stated this case was continued from the December 2, 2015 Code Board Hearing to be brought to the March 2, 2016 Code Board Hearing to give the owner of the property a chance to evict the tenant. He stated the owner of the property is here today to talk about the current situation. He noted as of March 1, 2016 the property still remains in violation. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Krauza if they are still in violation. Mr. Krauza addressed the Board and stated they are still in violation. He stated just to explain what we have done to correct the violation. He stated we have obtained this property through a foreclosure action that was total dispute that went on for several years, we just recently obtained title and after we obtained title was when code enforcement violations were cited. He stated when we got the property through the foreclosure there was a squatter on the property, who is illegally running a business and has caused all these violations 4 that you see before you. He stated we have been working with him to get him off the property, try and enter into a lease or do something and that has all failed. He stated it is our understanding from talking to Code Enforcement that this gentleman has applied for a permit s to move his business to another property just up the road on Michigan Ave. or Michigan St., he has begun the process of doing that, he has removed several of the cars, he has removed the pallets. He stated we were hoping that was the way it was going to go. He stated in going through this process and visiting the property it appears he is still conducting business there contrary to what he has told us so we are forced to file two legal actions against him. He stated the first is a County Court action, which is an action to evict on a non -residential property, that was filed and we were supposed to have a hearing yesterday where we hoped to have an eviction order and a writ of possession in hand today because we were proceeding on an expedited basis, the defendant had defaulted. He stated unfortunately for us he filed a late answer and the judge set the default aside. He stated when the judge set the default aside, frankly his answer does not provide a defense it is just a plea for more time, he is asking for six (6) months to move to a another location, that is not before this court, it is another court, but it is just a plea for more time and then he does not have the money to do it. He stated now we have to proceed on a summary judgement and he is confident they will get the eviction on the summary judgement, but under the rules of civil procedure he has twenty day notice requirement and has to refile affidavits, so that hearing is set towards the end of March. He stated eviction will remove several violations, but it is not going to clean up the property. He stated since it is not their possessions on the property they have to proceed in circuit court, we are asking the court to make him remove his possessions from the property. He further explained the legal requirements to get the tenant and his possessions off the property. He state d they might still have to remove the possessions themselves, that is where we stand and at this point we are asking for another continuance until at least after the hearing with Judge Robey. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. Mrs. Monahan asked staff if they have any objections to the Board continuing this. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered that staff has no objections to a continuance we would just ask that you make it for a shorter period of time, we were thinking May or June so we can keep track of it and keep it moving along. Chairman Fogg asked staff if they could help in any manner with letters or something like that with the court proceedings. Katherine Barbieri, Assistant County Attorney, answered that staff would cooperate with them if they need assistance, we have shown up before at hearings and we will do that and be prepared to show them the pictures and things. 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. 84989 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board hearing on June 1, 2016. Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case No. 86447, Case No. 86609 and Case No. 86622 are Companion Cases Case #86447, Location of violation, Next to 7509 S. Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Florida Power and Light Co. Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney, council representing Florida Power and Light Co. was present. Michael Tamarro, Attorney, employee of Florida Power and Light Co. was present. Officer Williams stated on November 3, 2015, Florida Power and Light appeared before the Board of County Commissioners to request a special permit for extended hours of construction under the county’s noise ordinance. She stated this permit was to allow FPL and its contractor to work at night outside the normal St. Lucie County Restriction on Hours of Construction permitted by the Code of Ordinances. She stated the purpose of this request was to allow construction of three separate directional boring operations on a 24 hour 5 basis. She stated the project involved the installation of underground power lines from the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on South Hutchinson Island to an FPL substation on the mainland. She stated the special permit required FPL to not exceed 60 decibels between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. She stated during daytime hours, permitted construction is exempt from the noise ordinance. Officer Williams stated staff began receiving complaints from the neighbors stating the noise was exceeding the decibel approved by the Board. Officer Williams stated on December 11, 2015, Staff contracted Edward Dugger and Associates, PA, consultants in Architectural Acoustics to monitor the sound levels from the property line of the neighbor located at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. Officer Williams stated after reviewing the data from Edward Dugger and Associates, PA, it was determined that FPL construction activities exceeded the noise decibel level approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Officer Williams stated for the record for all three violations, she is submitting a copy of the Corrected Special Permit dated November 3, 2015, a copy of a map and aerial showing the location of the sound machine on the property located at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. For Case No. 86447, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of December 11, 2015 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to December 22, 2015, ending at 7:00 a.m. For Case No. 86609, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of December 22, 2015 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to January 4, 2016 ending at 7:00 a.m. For Case No. 86622, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of January 4, 2016 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to January 12, 2016 ending at 7:00 a.m., a copy of the noise ordinance from the Code and Compiled Laws, and a copy of the Exceedance Summary Report from the period of December 11, 2015 to January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86447, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on December 22, 2015 stating the noise level exceeded the 60 decibel limit required in the Corrected Special permit. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated Dece mber 11 to December 22, 2015. She gave a compliance date of December 23, 2015. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86609, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on January 14, 2016 stating the noise level has exceeded the 60 decibel which was required in the Corrected Special permit that was approved by the Board. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated December 22, 2015 to January 4, 2016. She gave a compliance date of January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86622, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on January 14, 2016 stating the noise level has exceeded the 60 decibel which was required in the Corrected Special permit that was approved by the Board. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated January 4, 2016 to January 12, 2016. She gave a compliance date of January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated on January 22, 2016, she issued Notice to Appear letters for all three cases to appear before the Code Enforcement Board meeting for February 3, 2016. Officer Williams stated at the February 3, 2016 meeting, Staff agreed to remove the case and set for the March 2, 2016 Code Board meeting due to FPL’s attorney not having an opportunity to investigate the allegations, retain an expert, and prepare a defense. Officer Williams stated on February 23, 2016, Staff received an email from FPL stating that no further work will be required under the Corrected Special Permit and FPL is abandoning the Corrected Special Permit effective immediately. Officer Williams stated the overall Exceedance Summary shows a decrease in noise violations after each Notice of Violation letter was issued and according to the noise data provided by the noise consultants, January 11, 2016 was the last date FPL exceeded the decibel level of 60 during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 6 Officer Williams stated the noise consultants are here today to answer any questions the Board might have. Chairman Fogg stated seeing the summaries we have on the sound level limitations and from FPL, he asked Attorney, Daryl J. Krauza were they in violation or not. Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney for FPL addressed the Board and stated FPL has agreed to stipulate that there was a violation during the relevant period for each Notice of Violation. He stated we do not agree to that report in its entirety or in whole, but we do stipulate there was a violation during the relevant period. Chairman Fogg asked if the job is still going. Mr. Krauza answered the job is still going, there is no night work. Chairman Fogg asked this is basically for night time work correct. Officer Williams answered the special permit was to do construction during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. not to exceed the decibel of 60 during construction during those times. Chairman Fogg asked how could this go on for this long and not be noticed, it went for a whole year correct. Officer Williams answered in the negative. Chairman Fogg stated oh it went from December, so it has been a month and a half or two months. Officer Williams answered as soon as we heard about it we hired a consultant to go out to monitor the levels which is why we are here today. Chairman Fogg stated but we did not stop work, we just continued. Officer Williams answered we do not have the power to stop the job. Mr. Krauza addressed the Board and stated to read a complete statement on behalf of FPL. He stated FPL has agreed to stipulate that during the times set forth in the Notices of Violation our work did exceed the 60 decibel threshold we requested at least once during each time period. The construction work to accomplish the important task of hardening our power delivery systems required that certain work be carried out continuously once begun. He stated this was both an engineering and environmental requirement as required by DEP. He stated we worked hard to minimize our noise levels but circumstances made it very difficult to consistently stay under the very conservative noise limit we requested, night time work on the project as stated by the Code Enforcement Officer did cease January 11, 2016, so there have been no further exceedances since that point. He stated since that time FPL has advised the County that it would do no more work under the night time construction permit and has surrendered that permit. FPL does not anticipate the need for more work outside normal construction hours but if that need does arise FPL will go back before the Board of County Commissioners and request the appropriate permits. Again FPL is stipulating as he stated but is not stipulating to the sound report in their entirety, further it is the position of FPL that this stipulation with St. Lucie County is not binding in any other venue other than this one and may not be relied upon by any party other than St. Lucie County. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Krauza so they are only working during the day at this time and it is ongoin g. Mr. Krauza answered yes sir. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. Dana Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. 7 Dana Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding his complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Jack Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, addressed the Board and stated he wanted to point out that this Board has no power to revoke any permits just for general public to understand, because Mr. Wade is asking for a revocation. Secondly the Board’s job is to determine whether or not a violation did indeed occur , due to the stipulation that was announced by FPL’s council, basically is an admission of guilt for each violation, and therefore your job is to only to determine whether or not a violation occurred. He stated based on that you probably can determine that a violation occurred based on stipulation. He stated if that is the case he would believe that page 5 motion would be the appropriate motion to impose and consider by the Board. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Wade that the Board gets the gist of everything that is going on here as Mr. Krieger just said, so the information you have given us has helped us a great deal, but certain dates and that could go on and on and he does not think that is necessary. He stated he thinks the Board has the overview of it, he will ask council at this time if they have any questions they would like to ask you. Mr. Krauza had no questions. Mr. Wade stated there are two other people who would like to speak and thanked the Board for listening. Chairman Fogg stated we will acknowledge those folks. Deena Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Deena Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding her complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Sheila Edgar stated before she says her name she would especially like to give a warm gre eting to the dusk to dawn warriors, Monica, Danielle, and Melissa. Sheila Edgar, property owner at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary Sheila Edgar, property owner at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding her complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Michael Tamarro, Attorney with FPL stated he is not outside council he is an attorney with FPL (a company face). He stated just to put this in context a little bit, this transmission project was a very important project to FPL. He said he would leave staff to tell the Board if they were misled by our statement on construction schedule. He stated we are FPL, we are the leader of the transmission project, and the suggestion that Mr. Edgar has in anyway jeopardized his job by expressing his First Amendment right and complaining about the project is incorrect. He stated as noted he was offered the ability to work remotely, we did offer substantial cash for relocation which was in fact rejected. He stated yes it was hard working out there at night, if you look at the noise reports we had four hundred two minute exceedances during the month and a half we were out there. He stated the train has three hundred close to four hundred noise exceedance s the train that runs right by that are 5 decibels higher than our decibel ratings. He stated he is not saying it was not uncomfortable for the folks out there, but he wants to reiterate that we tried to modify every single step of the way the vibration level which your staff indicated improved each time. He stated we paid for the noise consultant, it is not ours it is the County’s and we agreed to pay for it. He stated he will also say there was somewhat constrained by the fact the neighbors are represe nted by council, we have a million dollar plus claim they have made for everything you have heard today. He stated we are mediating that with our outside council. He stated we looked for every way possible to not work at night, we could not avoid working at night during certain installation methods for environmental reasons. He stated he wanted to defend the reputation of FPL. He stated we believe we are good corporate citizens. He stated it is moot at this point we do not have any further night work. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. 8 There was further discussion among the Board, staff, and attorneys Daryl J. Krauza, and Michael Tamarro, regarding the violations for exceeding the allowed decibel level on the property. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #86447 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. The violator is hereby ordered to refrain from future violations. Failure to keep the property in compliance may result in enforcement action as a repeat violation, in which case a fine of up to $500.00 per day may be imposed from the date of notice to the violator of the repeat violation. Mrs. Monahan seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg asked for a roll call vote: Mrs. Mon ahan – Yes, Mr. Fogg – Yes, Mr. Hofmann – No, Mr. Taylor – Yes, Mr. Murdock – Yes, and Mr. Currie – Yes. The motion carried. Case #86609, Location of violation, Next to 7509 S. Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Florida Power and Light Co. Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney, council representing Florida Power and Light Co. was present. Michael Tamarro, Attorney, employee of Florida Power and Light Co. was present. Officer Williams stated on November 3, 2015, Florida Power and Light appeared before the Board of County Commissioners to request a special permit for extended hours of construction under the county’s noise ordinance. She stated this permit was to allow FPL and its contractor to work at night outside the normal St. Lucie County Restriction on Hours of Construction permitted by the Code of Ordinances. She stated the purpose of this request was to allow construction of three separate directional boring operations on a 24 hour basis. She stated the project involved the installation of underground power lines from the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on South Hutchinson Island to an FPL substation on the mainland. She stated the special permit required FPL to not exceed 60 decibels between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. She stated during daytime hours, permitted construction is exempt from the noise ordinance. Officer Williams stated staff began receiving complaints from the neighbors stating the noise was exceeding the decibel approved by the Board. Officer Williams stated on December 11, 2015, Staff contracted Edward Dugger and Associates, PA, consultants in Architectural Acoustics to monitor the sound levels from the property line of the neighbor located at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. Officer Williams stated after reviewing the data from Edward Dugger and Associates, PA, it was determined that FPL construction activities exceeded the noise decibel level approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Officer Williams stated for the record for all three violations, she is submitting a copy of the Corrected Special Permit dated November 3, 2015, a copy of a map and aerial showing the location of the sound machine on the property located at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. For Case No. 86447, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of December 11, 2015 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to December 22, 2015, ending at 7:00 a.m. For Case No. 86609, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of December 22, 2015 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to January 4, 2016 ending at 7:00 a.m. For Case No. 86622, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of January 4, 2016 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to January 12, 2016 ending at 7:00 a.m., a copy of the noise ordinance from the Code and Compiled Laws, and a copy of the Exceedance Summary Report from the period of December 11, 2015 to January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86447, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on December 22, 2015 stating the noise level exceeded the 60 decibel limit required in the Corrected Special permit. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated Dece mber 11 to December 22, 2015. She gave a compliance date of December 23, 2015. 9 Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86609, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on January 14, 2016 stating the noise level has exceeded the 60 decibel which was required in the Corrected Special permit that was approved by the Board. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated December 22, 2015 to January 4, 2016. She gave a compliance date of January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86622, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on January 14, 2016 stating the noise level has exceeded the 60 decibel which was required in the Corrected Special permit that was approved by the Board. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated January 4, 2016 to January 12, 2016. She gave a compliance date of January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated on January 22, 2016, she issued Notice to Appear letters for all three cases to appear before the Code Enforcement Board meeting for February 3, 2016. Officer Williams stated at the February 3, 2016 meeting, Staff agreed to remove the case and set for the March 2, 2016 Code Board meeting due to FPL’s attorney not having an opportunity to investigate the allegations, retain an expert, and prepare a defense. Officer Williams stated on February 23, 2016, Staff received an email from FPL stating that no further work will be required under the Corrected Special Permit and FPL is abandoning the Corrected Special Permit effective immediately. Officer Williams stated the overall Exceedance Summary shows a decrease in noise violations after each Notice of Violation letter was issued and according to the noise data provided by the noise consultants, January 11, 2016 was the last date FPL exceeded the decibel level of 60 during the hours of 6 :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Officer Williams stated the noise consultants are here today to answer any questions the Board might have. Chairman Fogg stated seeing the summaries we have on the sound level limitations and from FPL, he asked Attorney, Daryl J. Krauza were they in violation or not. Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney for FPL addressed the Board and stated FPL has agreed to stipulate that there was a violation during the relevant period for each Notice of Violation. He stated we do not agree to that report in its entirety or in whole, but we do stipulate there was a violation during the relevant period. Chairman Fogg asked if the job is still going. Mr. Krauza answered the job is still going, there is no night work. Chairman Fogg asked this is basically for night time work correct. Officer Williams answered the special permit was to do construction during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. not to exceed the decibel of 60 during construction during those times. Chairman Fogg asked how could this go on for this long and not be noticed, it went for a whole year correct. Officer Williams answered in the negative. Chairman Fogg stated oh it went from December, so it has been a month and a half or two months. Officer Williams answered as soon as we heard about it we hired a consultant to go out to monitor the levels which is why we are here today. Chairman Fogg stated but we did not stop work, we just continued. Officer Williams answered we do not have the power to stop the job. 10 Mr. Krauza addressed the Board and stated to read a complete statement on behalf of FPL. He stated FPL has agreed to stipulate that during the ti mes set forth in the Notices of Violation our work did exceed the 60 decibel threshold we requested at least once during each time period. The construction work to accomplish the important task of hardening our power delivery systems required that certain work be carried out continuously once begun. He stated this was both an engineering and environmental requirement as required by DEP. He stated we worked hard to minimize our noise levels but circumstances made it very difficult to consistently stay under the very conservative noise limit we requested, night time work on the project as stated by the Code Enforcement Officer did cease January 11, 2016, so there have been no further exceedances since that point. He stated since that time FPL has advised the County that it would do no more work under the night time construction permit and has surrendered that permit. FPL does not anticipate the need for more work outside normal construction hours but if that need does arise FPL will go back before the Board of County Commissioners and request the appropriate permits. Again FPL is stipulating as he stated but is not stipulating to the sound report in their entirety, further it is the position of FPL that this stipulation with St. Lucie County is not binding in any other venue other than this one and may not be relied upon by any party other than St. Lucie County. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Krauza so they are only working during the day at this time and it is ongoing. Mr. Krauza answered yes sir. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. Dana Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Dana Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding his complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Jack Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, addressed the Board and stated he wanted to point out that this Board has no power to revoke any permits just for general public to understand, because Mr. Wade is asking for a revocation. Secondly the Board’s job is to determine whether or not a violation did indeed occur, due to the stipulation that was announced by FPL’s council, basically is an admission of guilt for each violation, and therefore your job is to only to determine whether or not a violation occurred. He stated based on that you probably can determine that a violation occurred based on stipulation. He stated if that is the case he would believe that page 5 motion would be the appropriate motion to imp ose and consider by the Board. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Wade that the Board gets the gist of everything that is going on here as Mr. Krieger just said, so the information you have given us has helped us a great deal, but certain dates and that could go on and on and he does not think that is necessary. He stated he thinks the Board has the overview of it, he will ask council at this time if they have any questions they would like to ask you. Mr. Krauza had no questions. Mr. Wade stated there are two other people who would like to speak and thanked the Board for listening. Chairman Fogg stated we will acknowledge those folks. Deena Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Deena Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding her complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Sheila Edgar stated before she says her name she would especially like to give a warm greeting to the dusk to dawn warriors, Monica, Danielle, and Melissa. Sheila Edgar, property owner at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary 11 Sheila Edgar, property owner at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding her complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Michael Tamarro, Attorney with FPL stated he is not outside council he is an attorney with FPL (a company face). He stated just to put this in context a little bit, this transmission project was a very important project to FPL. He said he would leave staff to tell the Board if they were misled by our statement on construction schedule. He stated we are FPL, we are the leader of the transmission project, and the suggestion that Mr. Edgar has in anyway jeopardized his job by expressin g his First Amendment right and complaining about the project is incorrect. He stated as noted he was offered the ability to work remotely, we did offer substantial cash for relocation which was in fact rejected. He stated yes it was hard working out the re at night, if you look at the noise reports we had four hundred two minute exceedances during the month and a half we were out there. He stated the train has three hundred close to four hundred noise exceedances the train that runs right by that are 5 decibels higher than our decibel ratings. He stated he is not saying it was not uncomfortable for the folks out there, but he wants to reiterate that we tried to modify every single step of the way the vibration level which your staff indicated improved each time. He stated we paid for the noise consultant, it is not ours it is the County’s and we agreed to pay for it. He stated he will also say there was somewhat constrained by the fact the neighbors are represented by council, we have a million dollar p lus claim they have made for everything you have heard today. He stated we are mediating that with our outside council. He stated we looked for every way possible to not work at night, we could not avoid working at night during certain installation methods for environmental reasons. He stated he wanted to defend the reputation of FPL. He stated we believe we are good corporate citizens. He stated it is moot at this point we do not have any further night work. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. There was further discussion among the Board, staff, and attorneys Daryl J. Krauza, and Michael Tamarro, regarding the violations for exceeding the allowed decibel level on the property. Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #86609 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 an d the alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. The violator is hereby ordered to refrain from future violations. Failure to keep the property in compliance may result in enforcement action as a repeat violation, in which case a fine of up to $500.00 per day may be imposed from the date of notice to the violator of the repeat violation. Mrs. Monahan seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg asked for a roll call vote: Mrs. Monahan – Yes, Mr. Fogg – Yes, Mr. Hofmann – No, Mr. Taylor – Yes, Mr. Murdock – Yes, and Mr. Currie – Yes. The motion carried. Case #86622, Location of violation, Next to 7509 S. Indian River Dr., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Florida Power and Light Co. Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney, council representing Florida Power and Light Co. was present. Michael Tamarro, Attorney, employee of Florida Power and Light Co. was present. Officer Williams stated on November 3, 2015, Florida Power and Light appeared before the Board of County Commissioners to request a special permit for extended hours of construction under the county’s noise ordinance. She stated this permit was to allow FPL and its contractor to work at night outside the normal St. Lucie County Restriction on Hours of Construction permitted by the Code of Ordinances. She stated the purpose of this request was to allow construction of three separate directional boring operations on a 24 hour basis. She stated the project involved the installation of underground power lines from the St. Lucie Nuc lear Plant on South Hutchinson Island to an FPL substation on the mainland. She stated the special permit required FPL to not exceed 60 decibels between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. She stated during daytime hours, permitted construction is exempt from the noise ordinance. 12 Officer Williams stated staff began receiving complaints from the neighbors stating the noise was exceeding the decibel approved by the Board. Officer Williams stated on December 11, 2015, Staff contracted Edward Dugger and Associates, PA, consultants in Architectural Acoustics to monitor the sound levels from the property line of the neighbor located at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. Officer Williams stated after reviewing the data from Edward Dugger and Associates, PA, it was determined that FPL construction activities exceeded the noise decibel level approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Officer Williams stated for the record for all three violations, she is submitting a copy of the Corrected Special Permit dated November 3, 2015, a copy of a map and aerial showing the location of the sound machine on the property located at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. For Case No. 86447, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of December 11, 2015 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to December 22, 2015, ending at 7:00 a.m. For Case No. 86609, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of December 22, 2015 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to January 4, 2016 ending at 7:00 a.m. For Case No. 86622, the Construction Site Noise Study for the period of January 4, 2016 beginning at 6:02 p.m. to January 12, 2016 ending at 7:00 a.m., a copy of the noise ordinance from the Code and Compiled Laws, and a copy of the Exceedance Summary Report from the period of December 11, 2015 to January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86447, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on December 22, 2015 stating the noise level exceeded the 60 decibel limit required in the Corrected Special permit. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated Dece mber 11 to December 22, 2015. She gave a compliance date of December 23, 2015. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86609, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on January 14, 2016 stating the noise level has exceeded the 60 decibel which was required in the Corrected Special permit that was approved by the Board. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated December 22, 2015 to January 4, 2016. She gave a compliance date of January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated in reference to Case No. 86622, she issued a Notice of Violation letter on January 14, 2016 stating the noise level has exceeded the 60 decibel which was required in the Corrected Special permit that was approved by the Board. The notice of violation was based on the noise study dated January 4, 2016 to January 12, 2016. She gave a compliance date of January 15, 2016. Officer Williams stated on January 22, 2016, she issued Notice to Appear letters for all three cases to appear before the Code Enforcement Board meeting for February 3, 2016. Officer Williams stated at the February 3, 2016 meeting, Staff agreed to remove the case and set for the March 2, 2016 Code Board meeting due to FPL’s attorney not having an opportunity to investigate the allegations, retain an expert, and prepare a defense. Officer Williams stated on February 23, 2016, Staff received an email from FPL stating that no further work will be required under the Corrected Special Permit and FPL is abandoning the Corrected Special Permit effective immediately. Officer Williams stated the overall Exceedance Summary shows a decrease in noise violations after each Notice of Violation letter was issued and according to the noise data provided by the noise consultants, January 11, 2016 was the last date FPL exceeded the decibel level of 60 during the hours of 6 :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Officer Williams stated the noise consultants are here today to answer any questions the Board might have. Chairman Fogg stated seeing the summaries we have on the sound level limitations and from FPL, he asked Attorney, Daryl J. Krauza were they in violation or not. 13 Daryl J. Krauza, Attorney for FPL addressed the Board and stated FPL has agreed to stipulate that there was a violation during the relevant period for each Notice of Violation. He stated we do not agree to that report in its entirety or in whole, but we do stipulate there was a violation during the relevant period. Chairman Fogg asked if the job is still going. Mr. Krauza answered the job is still going, there is no night work. Chairman Fogg asked this is basically for night time work correct. Officer Williams answered the special permit was to do construction during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. not to exceed the decibel of 60 during construction during those times. Chairman Fogg asked how could this go on for this long and not be noticed, it went for a whole year correct. Officer Williams answered in the negative. Chairman Fogg stated oh it went from December, so it has been a month and a half or two months. Officer Williams answered as soon as we heard about it we hired a consultant to go out to monitor the levels which is why we are here today. Chairman Fogg stated but we did not stop work, we just continued. Officer Williams answered we do not have the power to stop the job. Mr. Krauza addressed the Board and stated to read a complete statement on behalf of FPL. He stated FPL has agreed to stipulate that during the times set forth in the Notices of Violation our work did exceed the 60 decibel threshold we requested at least once during each time period. The construction work to accomplish the important task of hardening our power delivery systems required that certain work be carried out continuously once begun. He stated this was both an engineering and environmental requirement as required by DEP. He stated we worked hard to minimize our noise levels but circumstances made it very difficult to consistently stay under the very conservative noise limit we requested, night time work on the project as stated by the Code Enforcement Officer did cease January 11, 2016, so there have been no further exceedances since that point. He stated since that time FPL has advised the County that it would do no more work under the night time construction permit and has surrendered that permit. FPL does not anticipate the need for more work outside normal construction hours but if that need does arise FPL will g o back before the Board of County Commissioners and request the appropriate permits. Again FPL is stipulating as he stated but is not stipulating to the sound report in their entirety, further it is the position of FPL that this stipulation with St. Lucie County is not binding in any other venue other than this one and may not be relied upon by any party other than St. Lucie County. Chairman Fogg asked Mr. Krauza so they are only working during the day at this time and it is ongoing. Mr. Krauza answered yes sir. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. Dana Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Dana Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding his complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Jack Krieger, Code Enforcement Board Attorney, addressed the Board and stated he wanted to point out that this Board has no power to revoke any permits just for general public to understand, becau se Mr. Wade is asking for a revocation. Secondly the Board’s job is to determine whether or not a violation did indeed occur, 14 due to the stipulation that was announced by FPL’s council, basically is an admission of guilt for each violation, and therefore your job is to only to determine whether or not a violation occurred. He stated based on that you probably can determine that a violation occurred based on stipulation. He stated if that is the case he would believe that page 5 motion would be the appropriate motion to impose and consider by the Board. Chairman Fogg stated to Mr. Wade that the Board gets the gist of everything that is going on here as Mr. Krieger just said, so the information you have given us has helped us a great deal, but certain dates and that could go on and on and he does not think that is necessary. He stated he thinks the Board has the overview of it, he will ask council at this time if they have any questions they would like to ask you. Mr. Krauza had no questions. Mr. Wade stated there are two other people who would like to speak and thanked the Board for listening. Chairman Fogg stated we will acknowledge those folks. Deena Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Deena Wade, property owner at 7505 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding her complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Sheila Edgar stated before she says her name she would especially like to give a warm greeting to the dusk to dawn warriors, Monica, Danielle, and Melissa. Sheila Edgar, property owner at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary Sheila Edgar, property owner at 7509 S. Indian River Dr. read a letter to the Board regarding her complaints on the exceedance of the decibel level by FPL. Michael Tamarro, Attorney with FPL stated he is not outside council he is an attorney with FPL (a company face). He stated just to put this in context a little bit, this transmission project was a very importan t project to FPL. He said he would leave staff to tell the Board if they were misled by our statement on construction schedule. He stated we are FPL, we are the leader of the transmission project, and the suggestion that Mr. Edgar has in anyway jeopardized his job by expressing his First Amendment right and complaining about the project is incorrect. He stated as noted he was offered the ability to work remotely, we did offer substantial cash for relocation which was in fact rejected. He stated yes it was hard working out there at night, if you look at the noise reports we had four hundred two minute exceedances during the month and a half we were out there. He stated the train has three hundred close to four hundred noise exceedances the train that runs right by that are 5 decibels higher than our decibel ratings. He stated he is not saying it was not uncomfortable for the folks out there, but he wants to reiterate that we tried to modify every single step of the way the vibration level which your staff indicated improved each time. He stated we paid for the noise consultant, it is not ours it is the County’s and we agreed to pay for it. He stated he will also say there was somewhat constrained by the fact the neighbors are represented by council, we have a million dollar plus claim they have made for everything you have heard today. He stated we are mediating that with our outside council. He stated we looked for every way possible to not work at night, we could not avoid working at night during certain installation methods for environmental reasons. He stated he wanted to defend the reputation of FPL. He stated we believe we are good corporate citizens. He stated it is moot at this point we do not have any further night work. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions. There was further discussion among the Board, staff, and attorneys Daryl J. Krauza, and Michael Tamarro, regarding the violations for exceeding the allowed decibel level on the property. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions and if not we are looking for a motion. 15 Mr. Currie made a motion in reference to Case #86622 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. The violator is hereby ordered to refrain from future violations. Failure to keep the property in compliance may result in enforcement action as a repeat violation, in which case a fine of up to $500.00 per day may be imposed from the date of notice to the violator of the repeat violation. Mrs. Monahan seconded the motion. Chairman Fogg asked for a roll call vote: Mrs. Monahan – Yes, Mr. Fogg – Yes, Mr. Hofmann – No, Mr. Taylor – Yes, and Mr. Murdock – Yes, and Mr. Currie – Yes. The motion carried. Default Cases: Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor/Violator______ None IX. FINE HEARING: Case #84197, Location of violation, 8280 Business Park Dr., Port St. Lucie, FL, Property Owner, 8280 Business Park Drive LLC. Jeff Baron, Property Manager for the landlord (Florida Holdings 1000 LLC), Vito Bitetto, tenant, and Sara O’Leary, tenant were sworn in by the Board’s Secretary. Officer Brubaker stated 8280 Business Park Dr. was found in violation at the November 2015 Code Board for Section 11.05.00, for no zoning compliance for the Good Samaritan Ministries and they were given until March 1, 2016 to come into compliance. She stated for the record she is submitting one (1) photo dated October 5, 2015. She has had contact with the new owner and discussed the ways to correct the violations. She stated Mr. Baron is here for the property owner to explain what he is planning to do. She noted as of March 1, 2016 the property is still n violation as there has been no zoning compliance issued yet. She stated Good Samaritan has been working on their permit to get finaled so they can get the zoning compliance issued. Mr. Bitetto addressed the Board and started speaking about his case. Officer Williams informed Chairman Fogg for clarity Mr. Bitetto is speaking about his ca se which is not before you today. He is the tenant and went before the Board last month and his fine for Good Samaritan started today, it has already been heard and imposed a fine. Mrs. Monahan asked if the issue is the property owner needs more time until Good Samaritan finishes their permitting issues. Officer Williams stated that is up to the Board. There was discussion among the Board, staff, and Mr. Baron, regarding the violation and the reason the violation on the property has not been corrected. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions if not we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 84197 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the violation still exists, after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations, we make the following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists starting May 31, 2016 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Mr. Murdock seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 16 Case #85252, Location of violation, 6251 N US Hwy., Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Sealtite Pavers Inc. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Swartzel resubmitted one (1) photo dated August 31, 2015 and submitted one (1) dated February 29, 2016. She stated 6251 N. US Hwy. 1 was brought to the December 2, 2015 Code Board and found in violation of 11.05.01, Building and Sign Permits, to obtain a permit for the wall sign. She stated the board gave a compliance date of February 5, 2016. She stated she has had contact with the property owner since the Code Board. She noted as of February 29, 2016, no permit has been applied for and the property still remains in violation. Chairman Fogg asked the Board if they had any questions if not we are looking for a motion. Mr. Hofmann made a motion in reference to Case No. 85252 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 February 6, 2016 with a maximum fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Mr. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Case #84808, Location of violation, 6071 S US Hwy. 1, Ft. Pierce, FL, Property Owner, Fine Investment Properties Inc. There was no one present to represent the property owner. Officer Vargas Barrios stated the property owner has submitted a letter requesting the case be continued to the next Board meeting. Chairman Fogg stated we are looking for a motion. Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case No. 84808 that the Code Enforcement Board continues this case to the Code Enforcement Board hearing on April 6, 2016. Mr. Currie seconded and the motion carried. X. REPEAT VIOLATION: None. XI. REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: None. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS: XIV. STAFF BUSINESS: ADJOURN: There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.